Attorney General Alberto Gonzales’ former chief of staff Kyle Sampson gave testimony today to the Senate Judiciary Committee concerning the firings of the eight US Attorneys.

Alberto Gonzales’ former top aide testified Thursday that the attorney general was mistaken when he said he was not involved in the firing of eight U.S. attorneys, adding that the dismissals are “a benign, rather than sinister, story.”

Under questioning by Democratic Sen. Charles Schumer of New York, Kyle Sampson said Gonzales was involved in the decision to fire the eight attorneys, attending a meeting on the decision 10 days before it was carried out. He said Gonzales was also wrong when he said other senior Justice Department aides gave Congress inaccurate information because they hadn’t been fully briefed about the firings.

“I don’t remember if the attorney general ever saw documents. I didn’t prepare memos for him on this issue. But we did discuss it as early as — before he became the attorney general, when he was the attorney general designate in January of 2005, I think; and then, from time to time, as the process was, sort of, in a thinking phase through 2005 and 2006. And then I remember discussing it with him as the process sort of came to a conclusion in the fall of 2006,” he said.

Sampson said he made recommendations about which attorneys should be fired, but “the decision makers in this case were the attorney general and the president.”

The former chief of staff argued that the imbroglio had blown up because of poor explanations, but not poor motivations. He also apologized for the confusion and misunderstanding that accompanied the explanation of the firings to senators. A longtime veteran of the Justice Department, he said he resigned because he let down the attorney general by failing to avoid this messy situation.

“As the attorney general’s chief of staff, I could have and should have helped to prevent this. In failing to do so, I let the attorney general and the department down. For that reason, I offered the attorney general my resignation. I was not asked to resign. I simply felt honor-bound to accept my share of blame for this problem and to hold myself accountable,” he said.

He added that none of the attorneys were let go because of political manipulations.

“The distinction between political- and performance-related reasons for removing a U.S. attorney is, in my view, largely artificial. A U.S. attorney who is unsuccessful from a political perspective, either because he or she has alienated the leadership of the department in Washington or cannot work constructively with law enforcement or other governmental constituencies in the district, is unsuccessful,” Sampson said.

I confess I haven’t watched any of the news about this and have only read bits and pieces in the news, but I do know any president has the right to fire any political apointee for any or no reason. They serve “at the pleasure of the president.”

Since I haven’t watched the television or read much more than I’ve given you on this page I don’t know if anyone before this has been under oath and if this testimony contradicts any of what may have been said under oath.

I’m sorry eight people lost their jobs and some are having difficulty finding new ones, though I can’t quite figure out why it would be hard for an attorney to find a job. He or she can always hang out his or her own shingle if necessary.

I have come to the conclusion that this is a fishing expedition on the part of congress to show its muscle in its oversight role, but somehow it doesn’t become either side.

Read the rest of the story at the above link.

Written by ~J~

Comments are closed.