politburo diktat 2.0

It’s on the web on C-SPAN 3 and broadcast on TV on MSNBC. I’ll be updating regularly. For reference: US Attorney Scandal Timeline. Key DOJ and WH players. Overview, including names of 8 fired US Attorneys.

---

5:45 - That’s it. I’m beat. I can hardly imagine how exhausted Sampson is.

5:30 - Sampson: “No documentation of complaints of Iglesias’ record on VF. … With hindsight, today, I would not have put Iglesias on the list.”

5:25 - Schumer: “But something must have happened between Oct. 17 and Nov.7″ Sampson mentions some criticisms of Iglesias before Oct. 17. Schumer: “What happened in late Oct.??” Sampson: “There were discussions with DAG, me, Goodling, maybe Mercer.” Schumer: “Any involvement then from the political side? Like NM Republicans. Maybe Monica Goodling.”

5:20 - Schumer wants to talk about Iglesias. Sampson: “In fall of 06, Rove spoke to Gonzo about failure to follow up VF in 3 jurisdictions.” Schumer: “What is this ‘lengthy record’ of Iglesias failure to pursue VF? … When was Iglesias added to the hit list?” Sampson: “Before Nov. 7.”

5:15 - Hatch: “Did you brief Gonzo?” Sampson: “I kept him informed”

5:10 - Hatch: “I commend you for resigning and being honest and forthright. re: Carol Lam, there is no evidence of obstruction in any case.” He compares Lam’s gun prosecutions to other districts; she had far fewer prosecutions.

5:00 - Sampson: “I don’t remember serious consideration to my bad idea of circumventing the Senate.” Specter: “What did she say? Wouldn’t her lack of response indicate concurrence?” Sampson: “I’m all out of ammunition.”

4:55 - Specter is concerned about circumventing the Senate. “I feel victimized, esp. when you say you did it in bad faith. … Your email to Miers of 11/15/06. ‘Plan smooth transition, but want to have interim/replacement USAs by Jan’ … but you wanted to run out the clock … Doesn’t the 11/15 email to Miers and her role infer that it was more than just a staff rec., that it was DOJ policy to circumvent the Senate.?”

4:50 - Feinstein: “She’s doing a great job on huge cases. You have a prob with immigration, and you’re going to fire her, but never even called???” Sampson: “Guess not.” Feinstein: “Foggo was #3 at CIA. This is a big deal. … Give us the docs where people expressed concerns about Carol Lam.” Sampson: “We don’t have no stinking documents. It wasn’t me; it was Gonzo. He’s the ATTY GENL. I was just the keeper of the list.”

4:45 - Feinstein: “How did Lam notice DOJ of searches of Foggo?” Sampson: “I didn’t know about that … It had nothing to do with her prosecution of Foggo, Cunningham, etc.” Feinstein: “But you never even gave her a call???” Sampson: “I suggested we do that. blah blah.”

4:43 - Feinstein offers letter by Moschella praising Lam’s immigration record. Ha! - Finally! “Did anyone ever call Lam to complain about her immigration work?” (No). Feinstein cites crimes of Mexican? drug cartel, then points to Lam’s prosecution of them. “It’s solid gold stuff. And no one spoke to her about immigration! WTF????”

4:40 - Sampson: “I’m not familiar with McNulty’s testimony and didn’t realize it was incomplete.” Schumer hammers. Most Senators have left.

4:35 - Schumer “Tell us which 3 were tentatively ID’d but rescued?” Sampson: “One from NC.” Schumer: “Others?” Sampson: “I don’t want to name them.” Schumer: “It is confounding because there is no system; the story keeps changing.”

4:30 - Schumer contradictions between claims of ‘no replacements in mind’ and claim of ‘would have to have replacements ready to go. … Did you have replacements in mind on Dec. 7?” (No) “Did anyone else have replacements in mind?” (No) “But Mercer told two USAs that he had replacements in mind.” (Beats me.)

4:25 - Whitehouse: “Independence of USAs is an asset. This process has been destructive of that.”

4:20 - Whitehouse: “Removing a US Attorney for lacking a partisan spirit would be improper?” (Dunno) “I’m surprised that Goodling is still there after taking the Fifth. … When DOJ official has real problem right now, what does that mean? Sampson: “Immigration stuff.”

4:05 - five minute bio break

3:55 - Cardin asks how Iglesias and others got on or off the list. Hammers Sampson pretty hard.

3:50 - Sessions is killing time here. “Taking the Fifth casts a cloud over the DOJ. Nothing evil, but unhealthy.”

3:48 - Feinstein - “Was the hiatus in emails between nov 15 and 27 awaiting WH approval?” (Yes). Feinstein: Who in the WH would sign off?” (Maybe Miers, but i don’t know.)

3:45 - Feinstein: “So what did you talk about for an hour on Nov. 27?” Sampson: “Well, stuff.”

3:40 - Feinstein: “Who decided who would go on the list?” Sampson: “I kept the list.” Feinstein: “What form? Who was at the meeting? You said the WH approved the list. Who? Gonzo?” Sampson: “Yes, but I dont remember when.”

3:35 - Hatch goes over timing of when the admin proposed changes to Patriot Act.

3:30 - More definitions of “political” Hatch cites WaPo editorial “nothing nefarious.”

3:25 - Hatch: “You were very forthcoming. … But Iglesias has made a lot of media interviews. etc. etc. Was the decision to replace Iglesias political?” (No. I don’t remember anyone … it was nothing of the sort.) Hatch: “Was Iglesias replaced for political reasons?” Sampson: “How do you define ‘political’?”

3:20 - Sampson: “I knew that Scott Jennings and Sara taylor were pushing Griffin.” Schumer: “But how could you later write ‘I am not aware of Rove playing any role.???” Sampson: “I persuaded myself it would be okay.” Schumer: “C’mon … there’s a contradiction.” Schumer is nailing him on this. “How can this not be contradictory?” Schumer: “Letter of March 28, DOJ (Hertling) says its contradictory, inaccurate.”

Ridiculous. This letter was released yesterday. How can Sampson claim ignorance of it.

3:15 - Schumer: “If you suggested firing Fitz, wouldn’t that disqualify you? … If you thought to fire Fitz, might not it have come up with other USAs?”

3:10 - Specter: “Did you ever discuss evading the Senate with Gonzales?” Sampson: “Okay, yes I did. He nver rejected the idea until Jan.” Specter: “You have no recollection of Gonzales rejecting this evasion of the Senate for 3 months?”

3:00 - Specter: “Why the ‘run out the clock’ email? Aren’t you trying to evade the Senate?” (Yes, not a good idea.) “How can you be working on a plan to circumvent the Senate for 3 months, but then claim it’s a rejected-staffer idea? .. Did you consider abusing the Patriot Act provision?” Sampson stammers. Specter: “If you pushed it for 3 months, didn’t you at least think the WH counsel would approve?” Sampson evades and evades and evades.

2:58 - Leahy: “Iglesias testified that Domenici and Wilson pressured him. Then Rove said ‘he’s gone. What compaints did you hear about Iglesias’ pursuing corruption in NM?” Sampson: “I recall a concern about voter fraud in 3 jurisdictions, maybe from Gonzo, maybe from Rove.” “Did anyone, ever complain about Iglesias not being aggressive enough on VF?” Sampson: “Nope, not that I recall.”

2:55 - Leahy: “Iglesias was marked for retention in 2005.” (Yes) “Here’s an early 2006 email of possible USAs to be replaced - no Iglesias.” (Correct) “Another list - no Iglesias” (Correct). “mid- October 2006 - no Iglesias” (Correct). “November 7, 2006 - now Iglesias is on the list.”

Sampson: “We consulted, looked for more. Four names added between Oct. 17 and Nov. 7, but three were redacted. But Iglesias’ name was not on any earlier list.”

2:50 - Durbin: “Now we (Senators) have to submit more than one name (USA nominees). … Why?” (That’s policy.”

2:40 - Back! Durbin: “March 2005 (06?) memo calls Fitz undistinguished.” Sampson: “I didn’t want to rate him because he was involved in controversial case.” Durbin pushes. Sampson: “It was just preliminary. … Don’t remember worrying that WH would pushback if he was highly rated.” Durbin: “He was pursuing the WH, so you at DOJ wouldn’t go out on a limb.” Sampson: “I briefly suggested Fitz be added to the list. I instantly withdrew and regretted it. Others looked askance at me.”

2:17 - Leahy says the Republicans objected to the hearings and they have been recessed or adjourned. Weird. Leahy is now talking to the press, off mike.

MSNBC: A rarely invoked procedural rule. After X hours a committee cannot meet while the Senate is in session. So, the session cannot continue until the Senate adjourns.

2:15 - Grassley (R-IA): blah blah blah.

2:10 - Sampson: “I haven’t seen Hertling’s recent climbdown from that. … Miers was involved.”

2:05 - Sen. Jabba the Ted (D-Massachusetts). “Where’s the file?” Sampson: “Beats me.” Sampson: “I’m not even sure I knew that Rove was pushing Griffin.” Ted: “What about when you wrote that getting Griffin was imp. to Rove.” Sampson: “That was only an assumption.” Ted: “But you said it was important to Karl. Later on DOJ said Rove wasn’t involved.” Sampson: “To the best of my recollection, Rove wasnt involved.” Ted: “Then why did you write that?”

2:00 - Kyl (R-AZ) : discussion of AZ USA Paul Charlton’s policy disputes with DOJ. You might call these “performance,” but wouldn’t it have been better to call it “policy?” (Yes) Kyl: The AG called me. I expressed dismay at Charlton’s removal. McNulty then came to see me. I pushed for Charlton’s reinstatement.” They discuss a document reporting that Charlton ‘worked out of channels’ to get resources.

1:55 - Sampson clarifies that he did spoke to Pres. Bush in 2005.

Lunch Break - Back at 1:45

12:30 - Whitehouse: “Who did you coordinate today’s testimony with, other than lawyer & family?” (No one.) “Where were your files?” (Didnt have any.) “This was a two-year project that ended the careers of 8 USAs, but you have no files, right?” Sampson: “Oh c’mon. Not fair.’

12:25 - Cardin: “You were aware of political pressures on Lam and Iglesias, but you fired them anyway? Didn’t that trouble you?”

12:20 - Sen. Cardin (D-MD) “What about ‘concerns of local politicians’?” Sampson dodges. Cardin: “Why 8?” Sampson generalizes. Cardin: “Where are the documents of the lists you came up with?” Sampson: “The dog ate the lists. Not documented, not well-maintained.”

12:15 - Sessions: “Why didn’t you give them more notice?” … Nov. 27 meeting. “You knew it was sensitive. Who was there?” Sampson: “Gonzo was there. It was in Gonzo’s conference room.” Sessions: “Why was McNulty mis-informed?” Sampson: “We were focused on other stuff when we prepped him. We collectively failed to inform him appropriately.” Sessions criticizes the FBI agents comments on Lam.

12:10 - Sampson: “I was not aware that any of the fired USAs were going for Reps or not going after Dems. … I was not aware that calls had been made to Iglesias.”

12:05 - Feinstein produces letter of commendation for Lam from INS official. It’s a real surprise that you would cite immigration. re: Foggo and Wilkes. Cites “real problem right now” email the day after Lam went after Foggo. Sampson: “Nope. I meant immigration.” Sampson: “I called FBI to complain about FBI agent’s Lam comments. Lam was political appointee, end of story.”

12:00 - Sampson “Prosecution of Reps and non-prosecution of Dems not part of the reasons. Lam not fired because of Cunningham case.’ Hatch cites pre-Cunningham emails about Lam’s performance. Sampson: “Lam didnt prioritize one of Pres’ initiatives.”

11:55 - Hatch. “7 of 8 were replaced for ‘performance-related’ reasons. What did that mean?” Sampson: “Not scientific. Asked leaders in the Department.” Softball. “Gee, isn’t performance really a broad term?”

11:50 - Leahy offers Sampson a chance for a bathroom break. We’ll break for a one hour lunch break around 12:30.

11:48 - Kohl notes that Rove’s involvement would, at least, look bad. “Is Gonzo incompetent or lying?” Sampson evades. Kohl: “What is it about the USAs who were retained? What did they do to keep their jobs?”

11:45 - Kohl (D-Wisc.) “Your emails say that you retained ‘loyal Bushies.’ It undermines confidence in those who were not fired.” Sampson: “I only meant loyalty to policies, like gun prosecutions. Of couse USAs are Boy Scouts too. … And I hope that my answer satisfies you.”

11:43 - Leahy and Cornyn have a food fight.

11:40 - Cornyn: “Did anyone approach you with improper reason to fire any USA?” (No.) Sampson: “I never spoke with Public Integrity (?) office.” … Sampson: “Lots of turnover in USAs.” Cornyn: “Why not take the Fifth?” Sampson: “Because I’m a friggin’ Eagle Scout!” Cornyn: “No evidence of nothing here.”

11:36 - Sampson “I dont remember when Gonzo signed off on list, be he did sign off on it. Dont recall if he added/subtracted names. I did mention the names to him.”

11:35 - Food fight between Schumer and Sessions(?)

11:30 - Chuckie ‘Biology Break’ Schumer is up. They agree on at least five discussions about it with Gonzo. The Nov. 27 meeting with Gonzo and other DOJ people. “Did Gonzo speak at the meeting?” (Yes.) Schumer hammers him on “gimme a true or false.” “If you shared info with M&M, then Gonzo’s statement is false.” Sampson evades.

11:28 - Specter: “Was Gonzo truthful?” Sampson: “Gonzo recently clarified. His stmt of March 13 was inaccurate.” The senators have brief times, at least in ‘this round.’

11:25 - Specter: “Was Lam fired because she was investigating GOP Congresscritters? … notes ‘real problem’ email” Sampson: “Real problem was prosecution of immigration cases.” Specter: “How about the late addition of Iglesias to the list?” Sampson: “Nothing bad to my knowledge. … I consulted with others. Four were added in mid-October.”

11:18 - Sampson: “I don’t know if Pres. signed off on plan.” Leahy: “I hope you’ll search your memory as we go along.” heh

11:15 - Leahy: “Do you have any new documents with you? … Did you speak to Pres. about this since 2004? (No) … Cites Kelley’s ‘we’re a go’ email.” For those keeping score - our first “I dont recall.” Leahy reviews emails, getting confirmation that various people (WH, etc.) signed off on the USA plan.

11:10 - Sessions: “I served at DOJ.” subtle jab at Gonzo. “Pres. must be able to set priorities for USAs.” Sampson looks like the honor student called into the principal’s office for some out-of-character misdeed. Sessions: “There are some inconsistencies, but …”

11:00 - Arlen Specter: “I look for veracity … why were USAs asked to resign. … The Pres. does not have the right to ask them to resign for a bad reason. Notes Lam and Iglesias. Morale at DOJ is low. Gonzales’ seems to be contradicted by emails. We ought to hear from Rove.” Specter talks about the executive privilege hassle on prospective testimony. Doesn’t seem relevant today. Ok, he’s done.

10:48 - recess. The CSPAN callers are morons, “Has the Duke Cunningham investigation been hampered?”

10:45 - Sampson “I believe in our political process. … devastating for me and my family.” hmmm . Leahy left for some obscure reason. Another moronic protestor.

10:40 - Sampson reads his statement. It’s already on the web. Key phrase: “The distinction between ‘political’ and ‘performance-related’ reasons for removing a United States attorney is, in my view, largely artificial.” Leahy looks stern … very stern. Sampson describes how the list was developed and reviewed, by consensus. 8 selected for replacement. “No one asked to resign for improper reasons.” Defines (narrowly) “improper.” Our explanation to Congress was poorly handled. “Good faith attempt to carry out management policy.” Falls on his sword here. “Mistakes I made … failed to organize effective response.”

10:35 - Leahy swears in Sampson.

10:30 - C-SPAN talking head suggests that Sampson might have been scapegoated. If so, it will be interesting to see how he balances loyalty and self-preservation today. Hearings restarting.

10:22 - Brief recess. There appeared to be a protestor briefly disrupting things.

10:20 - Leahy: “All USAs were Republicans.” Yields to Schumer. uh-oh. Good time for bathroom break. Schumer says burden of proof now on DOJ. Thanks Sampson for willingness to here as long as necessary. Purpose not to find smoking gun, but to build a factual base.

10:10 - Leahy introductory remarks. Sampson has on his game face. Leahy: “material has been removed. WH was involved in removal of USA’s.”