Ex-Aide Says Gonzales Was Involved in Firings

[jfuh]

The former chief of staff to Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales testified today that contrary to Mr. Gonzales’s earlier assertions, the attorney general was involved in discussions to fire United States attorneys.
“I don’t think the attorney general’s statement that he was not involved in any discussions about U.S. attorney removals is accurate,” the former Gonzales aide, D. Kyle Sampson, said under questioning at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing.
“I don’t think it’s accurate,” Mr. Sampson repeated under questioning by Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, the panel’s ranking Republican. “I think he’s recently clarified it. But I remember discussing with him this process of asking certain U.S. attorneys to resign, and I believe that he was present at the meeting on Nov. 27.”

Source



If this is true, then that would mean that Gonzales would be guilty of of perjury in his statement in Jan.

 

[Navy Pride]

Who cares, no law was broken..........Why can't we talk about important things like SS and medicare?

 

[aps]

Who cares, no law was broken..........Why can't we talk about important things like SS and medicare?

Yeah important things like anonymous postings on a message board wishing ill will towards Tony Snow!

 

[Navy Pride]

Yeah important things like anonymous postings on a message board wishing ill will towards Tony Snow!

No law was broken there either my friend it was just rather tacky by people on the left.......

Did you see my comment on James Webb on the other thread?

 

[aps]

No law was broken there either my friend it was just rather tacky by people on the left.......

Did you see my comment on James Webb on the other thread?

First, I was just yanking your chain with my commentary, but it was done endearingly (not maliciously).

Second, yes, I saw your Webb comment.

 

[CurrentAffairs]

If this is true, then that would mean that Gonzales would be guilty of of perjury in his statement in Jan.

I almost hope, for your sanity, that someone goes to jail. You would sure sleep better. But alas, it's not going to happen.

:lol:

 

[jfuh]

Who cares, no law was broken..........Why can't we talk about important things like SS and medicare?

Perjury is a felony. Or have you forgotten?

 

[jfuh]

I almost hope, for your sanity, that someone goes to jail. You would sure sleep better. But alas, it's not going to happen.

How kind of you to be so considerate. Yes indeed I would sleep better if all these two face corrupt politicians were locked up in jail.
Perjury is a felony, have you forgotten?

 

[CurrentAffairs]

How kind of you to be so considerate. Yes indeed I would sleep better if all these two face corrupt politicians were locked up in jail.
Perjury is a felony, have you forgotten?

Keep wishing.

 

[Stinger]

Source



If this is true, then that would mean that Gonzales would be guilty of of perjury in his statement in Jan.

Was it a statement under oath?

“I don’t think it’s entirely accurate, what he said,” Mr. Sampson replied. He went on to say that he did not know if the attorney general had seen dismissal-related documents, but that he was sure Mr. Gonzales was involved in discussions about the firings early on."

I heard Gonzales say he wasn't involved in the direct deliberation's as to who and why. Which is reasonable.

What is the beef here?

"In his opening remarks, Mr. Sampson, who appeared before the committee voluntarily, insisted that while the firings of eight United States attorneys had brought “confusion, misunderstanding and embarrassment” to the Justice Department, none of the eight had been dismissed for any improper reason.
Mr. Sampson portrayed the firings as a good-faith but badly handled initiative, properly conceived but “poorly explained.”"

Huh? What is the issue?

 

[Stinger]

How kind of you to be so considerate. Yes indeed I would sleep better if all these two face corrupt politicians were locked up in jail.
Perjury is a felony, have you forgotten?

What is the obstruction of justice which perjury requires?

 

[CurrentAffairs]

Perjury is a felony, have you forgotten?

I haven't forgotten. When you find some, let us know.

 

[tryreading]

Who cares, no law was broken...

Yeah, you're right. When its someone you back doing the lying, let it go. Who cares?

 

[tryreading]

Was it a statement under oath?

“I don’t think it’s entirely accurate, what he said,” Mr. Sampson replied. He went on to say that he did not know if the attorney general had seen dismissal-related documents, but that he was sure Mr. Gonzales was involved in discussions about the firings early on."

I heard Gonzales say he wasn't involved in the direct deliberation's as to who and why. Which is reasonable.

What is the beef here?

"In his opening remarks, Mr. Sampson, who appeared before the committee voluntarily, insisted that while the firings of eight United States attorneys had brought “confusion, misunderstanding and embarrassment” to the Justice Department, none of the eight had been dismissed for any improper reason.
Mr. Sampson portrayed the firings as a good-faith but badly handled initiative, properly conceived but “poorly explained.”"

Huh? What is the issue?

Right, there's no issue. Lying is only perjury in certain venues, correct? During a press conference, a lie is only an inconsistency... And that type of lie is okay with you, right?

But they will press Sampson on inconsistencies between Gonzales's assertions of ignorance and documents produced by the Justice Department that show the Attorney General approved the firings and was involved in at least some of the deliberations.

Firings furor puts Gonzales on hot seat | csmonitor.com


Also, the firings were only over 'performance,' and though 'mistakes were made' the firings were done in 'good faith,' supposedly. But, if that's the case, why are there so many 'inconsistencies' in the process, like the misinformation by Gonzales regarding his part in the firings and the claim that there was no White House involvement?

When the scandal broke, Gonzales and other Justice Department officials assured lawmakers that the firings were over performance, not politics, and that the White had not been directly involved. But e-mails released this week show several White House officials to have been deeply engaged in the firing decisions.

Firings furor puts Gonzales on hot seat | csmonitor.com

 

[Stinger]

Right, there's no issue. Lying is only perjury in certain venues, correct?

Perjury is a very specific crime.

During a press conference, a lie is only an inconsistency... And that type of lie is okay with you, right?

A press conference is not a place one can commit perjury.

But they will press Sampson on inconsistencies between Gonzales's assertions of ignorance and documents produced by the Justice Department that show the Attorney General approved the firings and was involved in at least some of the deliberations.

I'm sorrry did Gonzales say he didn't approve them?

Also, the firings were only over 'performance,' and though 'mistakes were made' the firings were done in 'good faith,' supposedly.

OK I have no reason to disagree with that statement.

But, if that's the case, why are there so many 'inconsistencies' in the process,

One would have nothing to do with the other.

like the misinformation by Gonzales regarding his part in the firings and the claim that there was no White House involvement?

Don't know that it is anymore than not very eventful things not being remember with 100% accuracy or peoples differing views of things. But certainly nothing nefarious seems to be going on. You'll have to post in context what he said about WH involvement. There is no evidence the WH was involved as far a trying to obstruct anything. Gonzales IS WH, he is a Cabinet Official. So I think people are getting terms and positions confused and convoluted trying to create a scandal here.

When the scandal broke, Gonzales and other Justice Department officials assured lawmakers that the firings were over performance, not politics, and that the White had not been directly involved. But e-mails released this week show several White House officials to have been deeply engaged in the firing decisions.

DUH, so what? They can fire them for whatever reason they choose, it's none of Congresses business and they have no business trying to interfer with Bush running policy matters of the WH as he was elected to do.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0315/p01s02-uspo.html?page=2

 

[danarhea]

Was it a statement under oath?

“I don’t think it’s entirely accurate, what he said,” Mr. Sampson replied. He went on to say that he did not know if the attorney general had seen dismissal-related documents, but that he was sure Mr. Gonzales was involved in discussions about the firings early on."

I heard Gonzales say he wasn't involved in the direct deliberation's as to who and why. Which is reasonable.

What is the beef here?

"In his opening remarks, Mr. Sampson, who appeared before the committee voluntarily, insisted that while the firings of eight United States attorneys had brought “confusion, misunderstanding and embarrassment” to the Justice Department, none of the eight had been dismissed for any improper reason.
Mr. Sampson portrayed the firings as a good-faith but badly handled initiative, properly conceived but “poorly explained.”"

Huh? What is the issue?

Actually, lying before Congress is a crime, whether under oath or not.

 

[tryreading]

DUH, so what? They can fire them for whatever reason they choose, it's none of Congresses business and they have no business trying to interfer with Bush running policy matters of the WH as he was elected to do.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0315/p01s02-uspo.html?page=2

You've hit on the important point. Since the White House can fire those attorneys for whatever reason they choose, what's with all the inconsistencies and mistakes and denial?

If a carpenter hangs a door like he's supposed to and does a good job, and then says he didn't hang the door, I'd think he was pathological. I just don't get why somebody would lie for no reason.

Like, why deny Karl Rove was involved?

Acting Assistant Attorney General Richard A. Hertling said in a letter to the Senate Democratic leadership and top Judiciary committee Senators today that parts of a Feb. 23 response had been "contradicted" by documents later released by the Department. The Feb. 23 letter asserts that Rove had no knowledge of efforts to place his former deputy Tim Griffin as U.S. attorney in Arkansas, among other assertions. The documents, including an e-mail from Sampson, show Rove supported putting Griffin in place.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1604401,00.html


Sampson testified today that Gonzales's statements regarding his involvement were not true. Why was Gonzales denying his part?

[B]“I don’t think the attorney general’s statement that he was not involved in any discussions about U.S. attorney removals is accurate,” the former Gonzales aide, D. Kyle Sampson, said under questioning at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing.

“I don’t think it’s accurate,” Mr. Sampson repeated under questioning by Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, the panel’s ranking Republican. “I think he’s recently clarified it. But I remember discussing with him this process of asking certain U.S. attorneys to resign, and I believe that he was present at the meeting on Nov. 27.” [/B]

(From Jfuh's post)

 

[Navy Pride]

First, I was just yanking your chain with my commentary, but it was done endearingly (not maliciously).

Second, yes, I saw your Webb comment.

second amendment guy and hates Kerry...My kind of people....

 

[Navy Pride]

After watching Schumer and the dems today that lady is doing the right thing taking the 5th...Let them eat cake.....

 

[aps]

After watching Schumer and the Democrats today that lady is doing the right thing taking the 5th...Let them eat cake.....

I know, as she would definitely incriminate herself. I believe Alberto Gonzales may be stepping down.

 

[Stinger]

You've hit on the important point. Since the White House can fire those attorneys for whatever reason they choose, what's with all the inconsistencies and mistakes and denial?

Never said they were the most competent when it came to fending off the Democrat attacks.

Like, why deny Karl Rove was involved?

I don't consider that he was "involved" in the process nor could have shed any light on it and I have no reason to believe who ever wrote the first letter knew that Rove had mentioned he knew someone to fill the position there. Bottom line is WHO CARES?

Sampson testified today that Gonzales's statements regarding his involvement were not true. Why was Gonzales denying his part?

Not necessarily accurate and seems to me just two different views of what involvement means to one and not the other. Gonzales says he meant the actually diliberations, of course he knew that some US Attorney's were going to be replaced.

WHO CARES?

[

 

[tryreading]

Never said they were the most competent when it came to fending off the Democrat attacks.]

They just couldn't get their story straight. But they planned for the reaction they would get, and were 100% prepared for it, so why all the incompetence?

Facing criticism on Capitol Hill over the firings of eight US attorneys, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales acknowledged this week that "mistakes were made." But one of them was not a failure to anticipate controversy.

"Prepare to Withstand Political Upheaval" was Step 3 of a five-part plan to carry out the firings, outlined by Mr. Gonzales's chief of staff in a December e-mail three days before the dismissals. "US Attorneys desiring to save their jobs ... likely will make efforts to preserve themselves in office," wrote D. Kyle Sampson to the White House on Dec. 4. "We should expect these efforts to be strenuous."

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0315/p01s02-uspo.html?page=1]



You know what? Alberto Gonzales is history. He's gone. He could have avoided that by being open and straightforward at his press conference, but he chose to be cocky and arrogant. That was another mistake he made. He's the President's man, but all of them answer to us and our representatives.

 

[aps]

You know what? Alberto Gonzales is history. He's gone. He could have avoided that by being open and straightforward at his press conference, but he chose to be cocky and arrogant. That was another mistake he made. He's the President's man, but all of them answer to us and our representatives.

I agree. This Administration thinks it does not have to answer to anyone. It's absolutely appalling. I love it when what goes around, comes around.

 

[Navy Pride]

I know, as she would definitely incriminate herself. I believe Alberto Gonzales may be stepping down.

I agree I think Gonzales is a goner...No big deal he is not a conservative anyway.....To this point there has been no crime committed though.I watched the hearings on CSPAN3 yesterday and Schumer is like a mad dog........He would be all over the place questioning the lady....The only thing she could do is perjur herself like Scooter did.....Pleading the 5th takes care of that.....This whole deal is about trying to get Rove............So far in 6years they have not laid a glove on him.......

I truly wish we could put this gotcha politics aside and work on real problems like Medicare and SS...........Sadly I guess that will neve happen with this congress......

 

[Navy Pride]

I agree. This Administration thinks it does not have to answer to anyone. It's absolutely appalling. I love it when what goes around, comes around.

Did you feel the same outrage when Clinton fired all 93 lawyers in 1993 or when Sandy Berger stole all the classified documents....He still has not answered for that..........