Another Document Dump, Another Misleading Statement

The Department of Justice executed another Friday-afternoon document dump — that time-honored method for politicians to avoid press coverage of their peccadilloes — and uncovered yet another refutation of earlier statements by its senior officials. This time, the documents disprove the testimony given repeatedly that the replacements for the fired attorneys had not been selected before the termination of the prosecutors:

The attorney general’s former top aide identified five Bush administration insiders as potential replacements for sitting U.S. attorneys months before those prosecutors were fired, contrary to repeated suggestions from the Justice Department that no such list had been drawn up, according to documents released yesterday.
E-mails sent to the White House in January and May of 2006 by D. Kyle Sampson, then chief of staff to Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, name potential replacements for U.S. attorneys in San Diego, San Francisco, Little Rock and Grand Rapids, Mich.
The disclosures contrast with previous statements from Sampson and other Justice officials. They have said that only Tim Griffin, a former aide to presidential adviser Karl Rove who was later appointed the top federal prosecutor in Little Rock, had been identified as a replacement candidate before the dismissals of the sitting U.S. attorneys. …
Sampson’s attorney and a Justice spokesman said yesterday that the candidates listed were only tentative suggestions and were never seriously considered. Justice Department spokesman Brian Roehrkasse said the list “reflects Kyle Sampson’s initial thoughts” and “in no way contradicts the department’s prior statements” about the lack of a candidate list.
Sampson told the Senate Judiciary Committee last month that on Dec. 7, when seven U.S. attorneys were sacked, “I did not have in mind any replacements for any of the seven who were asked to resign.”

So first we have Alberto Gonzales telling us categorically that he was “not involved in any discussions” with Sampson about the presidential appointees that his aide was about to fire. After a document dump put him in the meeting where the final decisions were made about the termination, Gonzales said that he meant that he had no discussions on the selection of the prosecutors, just on the process for notification. That produced a huge round of skepticism; the names had to be part of the process in that meeting, and the notion that a “CEO” of Justice (as Gonzales described himself) would be completely disinterested in the presidential appointees his staff planned to fire either demonstrated incompetence or complete disinterest in the job.
Now we have Sampson playing similar word games. At least two of the people on that list besides Tim Griffin later received postings as US Attorneys. Both of them worked at Justice before their appointments in DC and Alabama. Very clearly, Sampson had other candidates in mind and had taken the time to draft a list of potential replacements as part of the process. By any reasonable reading, that contradicts the essence of his sworn testimony to Congress. His attorney told the press that Sampson’s state of mind was such that he had not seriously considered replacements, and therefore his testimony was accurate.
Why did Sampson hide the list that he himself had drawn up — and sent through his e-mail to the White House? Why did Gonzales try to back away from the process? It’s all to avoid what everyone knew about the terminations: they were politically motivated. So what? They’re political appointees. Had Gonzales simply stood up in January and said, “These fine attorneys simply didn’t follow our policy direction and we replaced them with people we thought would do that better,” all of this would have simply blown over in less than a week. Instead, we have people lying, changing their testimony, and playing word games where “no involvement in any discussions” includes sitting in on meetings where final decisions were made, and “I did not have any replacements in mind” covers the compiling of a list of replacements and e-mailing it to the White House.
Enough already. If President Bush doesn’t act to fire everyone involved from Gonzales on down for the sheer incompetence and deception, then he deserves every moment of televised committee hearings he gets from this molehill that Gonzales & Co built into Mount McKinley.

21 thoughts on “Another Document Dump, Another Misleading Statement”

  1. Cap’n Ed wrote:
    Enough already. If President Bush doesn’t act to fire everyone involved from Gonzales on down for the sheer incompetence and deception, then he deserves every moment of televised committee hearings he gets from this molehill that Gonzales & Co built into Mount McKinley.
    Agreed. This is getting ridiculous. I’ll go even further: the conflicting, changing stories (reminiscent of the Clinton years) make it seem like a positive crime was committed. I don’t say that one WAS committed; as far as I am aware, the president can fire US attorneys at will and replace them with the losers from “American Idol” if he so chooses.
    However, given that Gonzales and his staff couldn’t deal with this issue in anything remotely approaching a competent manner, it doesn’t give me a lot of confidence that they could cope with their actual job: catching and prosecuting crooks.
    Hey, maybe this explains why Sandy Burglar hasn’t been given his lie detector test! Gonzales and his staff are simply too stupid to remember to do it.
    (rolls eyes)

  2. This wound is strictly self-inflicted. Out of loyalty to Gonzales, the President is letting the Justice Department bleed out.
    This distraction has become the main event. Doesn’t the Justice Department have bigger fish to fry?

  3. Ed, when you have Karl Rove identified as the one who came up with the plan to fire all 93 U.S. attorneys in order to provide cover for getting rid of those attorneys districts critical to their electoral chances, that’s news.
    When it’s also revealed that U.S attorney Biskupic in Wisconsin was on the original list of those to be fired, but was then removed, in conjunction with an unjust prosecution that seems deliberately meant to hurt the chances of a Democratic governor in last fall’s elections, that’s news too.
    This isn’t about Gonzales’ own, simple ineptitude or a few recent “miscommunications” with Congress anymore, if it ever was. It’s about a conspiracy in the White House that was led by Karl Rove to get the Department of Justice to pursue cases, whether they had merit or not, with a partisan electoral agenda in mind.

  4. I have a poor memory, but was it not McCurdy, a “friend of Schumer”, who started this firestorm by ignoring White House advise and reveled the politics. Could it be that Schumer and McCurdy have plotted this knowing that politicians, being politicians, would try to cover their rear by being evasive (lying) this would give the Dem. a reason to pursue criminal charges. just my conspiracy theory of the day. I would look at all emails between the Schumer and McCurdy

  5. Dude said: Ed, when you have Karl Rove identified as the one who came up with the plan to fire all 93 U.S. attorneys in order to provide cover for getting rid of those attorneys districts critical to their electoral chances, that’s news.
    Dude, this sure looks like a “credible” statement you linked to:
    “NPR now has new information about that plan. According to someone who’s had conversations with White House officials, the plan to fire all 93 U.S. attorneys originated with political adviser Karl Rove. ”
    Does NPR now have Jamil Hussein in their services?
    Are RDS and BDS similar diseases?

  6. Rovin, I’m all for putting all those involved in this matter under oath and finding out the truth, and letting the chips fall where they may. That, and assigning a few forensic data specialists to go over certain e-mail servers. I don’t think you, Ed or anyone else can now keep on living in denial about Karl Rove’s role in all this either.

  7. Two things to remember, first the people fired were loyal Republicans. Second they have to get jobs after they are let go. When Gonzales put the “poor performer” sign around their necks they, rightfully, got pissed. They could show that their performance reviews said no such thing, that the firings were politically inspired. Republicans should be less concerned about the librul media and Democrats and more concerned about how loyal Republicans could be so publicly trashed and thrown out of office. They were betrayed and did not deserve the public denigration of their good names. I don’t know how this will pan out but the political deliberations of the players involved will be revealed and they richly deserve what they are about to get.

  8. I question the blanket statement the fired US Attorneys were loyal Republicans. How do you know this to be the fact? There are Democrats serving as USAs, Fitzgerald among them. Also, if they were loyal Republicans, why weren’t they serving the interests of POTUS and carrying out the DOJ policies? Another question, would you consider Matthew Dowd to be a loyal Republican? Chuck Hagel? None of the above is to dismiss the fact that whatever happened was poorly handled like most things in this administration. The President has been asleep for at least the last two years if not longer. It’s the way the George Bushes govern, I guess. Like father, like son.

  9. Being a resident of Wisconsin I’ll tell you that the conviction of Georgia Thompson by Biskupic was a farce. The Appeals Court in Chicago which OVERTURNED her conviction of steering a state contract to a firm that had donated money to Governor Doyle, said the evidence to convict her was ridiculously THIN! Did Biskupic who was on the chopping block to be fired by Rove/Gonzalez/Sampson try to save his job by inventing this charge against Thompson?? Who by the way wasn’t a Doyle appointee! This is going to get very interesting. In a related matter you can scour Fox News online for ANY MENTION of the “missing” e-mails in this scandal and guess what you find?? Zilch,Nada, Nothing,Zero. Not usually a conspiracy buff but this seems a wee bit odd. FAIR AND BALANCED? Give me a break. Kind of hard to destroy e-mails nowadays. This is getting good, stay tuned for further developments.

  10. Forgot to add that Biskupic was “told” to investigate voter fraud in the Milwaukee area,supposedly Democrats were trying to register fake names or some other trumped up charges. Well it turned out Biskupic found NO evidence to support these charges.I’m sure that irritated the ROVE-Gonzalez Justice Department. Why couldn’t Biskupic just trump up some evidence, like he did in the Georgia Thompson conviction/non-conviction? My theory is he just wasn’t ruthless and political enough for ROVER. This scandal isn’t going away anytime soon. Rover has been out of control way too long IMHO.

  11. Politicians have LONG memories.
    This “scandal” has nothing to do with improprieties, influence or back-stabbing. This has everything to do with the Impeachment proceedings of William Jefferson Clinton.
    Dems (and Repubs) have LONG memories. People like Leahy and Waxman and Schumer have been waiting in the wings for over a decade for this chance, the majority and committee head chance for….PAYBACK.
    They have one goal at this point. The impeachment of President Bush. If they don’t get his head on this email and firings “investigation”, they will be onto another. It’s ALL about payback. I’m not sure it was the American peoples’ intentions that this would be the main focus of the people they elected , however.
    Don’t get me wrong…the Right does the same thing – it’s been shown in the past.
    One month ago, nearly everyone viewed the U.S. Attorney “dig” as a fishing expedition and quite frankly, it was. Leahy knew that but he also knew that in D.C., if you dig deep enough, you’ll find something.
    But don’t let anyone fool you, this is not some “protection of the system” by Leahy and the bunch – this is all about payback, revenge for the Clinton Impeachment proceedings.
    Another example: you really think John Kerry and the bunch had a SERIOUS objection to Fox’s nomination to Belgian ambassador? Payback for Swift Boats.
    Also, Rove. You don’t think the Dems have forgotten Rove’s outflanking them in the last two Pres. elections? They don’t want his hide cuz he’s done anything wrong, they want his hide cuz he embarassed them.
    You might ask – why be so intent on impeaching Pres. Bush with a limited time left on his Presidency? Payback. They do NOT care of those proceedings start now or with 30 days left of his Presidency. Pres. Bush’s impeachment or resignation is all our Dem leaders want right now and believe me, it will be all that they get done in Congress in the next 1.5 years.
    :sidenote: And if they succeed…you’ll see the Repubs do the SAME thing in 4, 8 or 12 years.

  12. “It’s all to avoid what everyone knew about the terminations: they were politically motivated. So what? They’re political appointees. Had Gonzales simply stood up in January and said, “These fine attorneys simply didn’t follow our policy direction and we replaced them with people we thought would do that better,” all of this would have simply blown over in less than a week.”
    Outragous Captian! I had respect for this site because you seemed to value objectivity even though you defend ultra-conservative positions.
    No more! – you spin and parse words like Gonzoles.
    IT IS NOT “SIMPLY” about replacing folks with othes that will promote your platform – THIS IS ABOUT whether those replaced were fired because that did not prosecute enough Democrats under invastigation of corruption AND/OR prosecuted TOO MANY Republicans for the same thing!!!!!!!!!
    Firing AG’s right before a mid-term for these reasons (to force a favorable mid-term result), in order to ensure your Party wins the mid-terms might even be an act of treason.
    THAT is what this is about Captain – your subterfuge is noted.
    We don’t know if these firings were based upon such treasonous (actions that Banana Republics do every other week) acts, but that is why we now have an investigation to find this out!!
    an investigation I fully support!

  13. “There are Democrats serving as USAs, Fitzgerald among them.”
    WTF????????????????????????????
    P. Fitzgerald is a REPUBLICAN!!
    You just thik he’s not because he went after some NeoCons?????????

  14. Karl Rove holds the post of Deputy White House Chief of Staff for Strategic Planning and Senior Advisor to the President. Why would it be such a shock to anyone that Rove may have been involved?
    By law, each United States attorney is subject to removal by the President. The Attorney General may appoint interim U.S. Attorneys to fill a vacancy. Would it not be in Karl Rove’s job discription to assist the President and/or the Attorney General in these matters?
    Ed said: “Had Gonzales simply stood up in January and said, “These fine attorneys simply didn’t follow our policy direction and we replaced them with people we thought would do that better,” all of this would have simply blown over in less than a week.” (maybe Ed should have been appointed Gonzo’s adviser?)
    I would submit that this (Ed’s statement) is exactly what Rove should have consulted to Gonzales which may mean that either Rove missed the boat on this or was in fact not as involved as many may wish he was.
    Either way, there still has been NO indication that there was anything done in a illegal manner; unlawfully.
    Dude said: “Rovin, I’m all for putting all those involved in this matter under oath and finding out the truth, and letting the chips fall where they may.”
    Thanks to the crucifixion of Scooter Libby, I’m afraid you will see more people taking the 5th, than submitting to be put under oath. Throwing a “net” out just to see what might get caught just ain’t gonna happen.

  15. Rovin, if there’s one thing I’m sure of here, it’s that Scooter Libby received a far fairer trial than Georgia Thompson did in Wisconsin, and wasn’t tossed in the slammer the day he was sentenced either as Thompson was.
    Karl Rove is 100% through and through a political operative for the White House. He’s not in any way qualified to judge the actual job qualifications of those fired attorneys, he’s there to make sure their replacements are loyal Bushies who will pursue cases to the GOP’s political advantage. That’s not the job they’re supposed to be doing, period.

  16. This is the most NON story I have seen in a long time!
    Yes, Gonzales handled this poorly, BUTT, where’s Da Law that was Broken??
    Much Ado bout Nuttin!
    Give me a Break!

  17. I’m afraid Senator Pete Domenici and Represenative Heather Wilson calling up the US Attorney of Arizona weeks before the midterm, and asking him the progress of his investigation of a Democrat is totally out of bounds and quite possibly an ethics violation. Too many Republicans pushing the “no laws were broken, nothing to see here, move along” defense in my opinion. CE doesn’t push this “nothing wrong” defense, why can’t more hardline republicans be intellectually honest? The “much ado about nothing-gop talking point isn’t working anymore.

  18. This is the most NON story I have seen in a long time!
    Yes, Gonzales handled this poorly, BUTT, where’s Da Law that was Broken??
    Much Ado bout Nuttin!
    Give me a Break!

    Well geepers Opie … why don’t dey just git on down to the Congress and stick their hands on the good book and tell da truth den?

  19. Putting people under oath and getting at the truth seems reasonable to me. Or would, if anybody but the filthy dems were going to be asking the questions.
    The same libs who are wailing about “political” firings are now rubbing their hands with glee at the prospect of a political investigation of the White House. Fight4TheRight is dead right: this is all about payback. Letting Leaky, Trashcan Chuckie, and Pignose Waxman investigate the White House is a lot like letting the KKK put Smilin’ Al Sharpton on trial.
    When evidence (other than the voices in liberal heads) of a positive crime comes forward, I’ll support a prosecution. Until then, the White House should tell the Congress to get bent.

  20. Where people used to sit on the telephone and talk, or consult in the hallways, or go out for coffee, now they sit at their keyboards and Blackberries and ‘message’ each other.
    What this absurd fishing expedition is going to tell all future administrations is, “Don’t use e-mail; don’t type anything; don’t IM anyone, unless you’re sure you want it preserved for an eternity of public scrutiny.”
    Unless the FBI is investigating a crime, e-mail ought to be exempted from congressional eyes as purely private converstions.
    The President stupidly gave all this stuff to Schumer et al., maybe figuring they would just get overwhelmed with the trivia, but of course they revel in it like pigs in sh*t.
    My advice: from now on, make them subpoena everything, on grounds of Executive Privilege, and go to court to fight against turning over anything else.
    You don’t cooperate with people who want to destroy you.
    /Mr Lynn

  21. Doc!!
    don’t even try the witch hunt excuse crap.
    even if it is (which it probably is!!)……..THAT IS IRRELIVANT to the causation of the firings!!
    which may (probably) is midterm 2006 related.
    one sin does NOT rely upon the other Sir!!!!!!!
    Dems my get glee and sin in their methods and means in the approach – but the ORIGINAL SIN IS ALL REICHTHUGICON (assuming the firings were indeed due to going after Republicans and not after dems WRT investigations of election fraud).
    question is – do you negate the first Sin because of the second due to an agenda – or due to error?

Comments are closed.