Sampson, Ongoing

The Times covers the testimony of Kyle Sampson, the former chief of staff to embattled Attorney General Alberto Gonzales:

WASHINGTON, March 29 — The former chief of staff to Alberto R. Gonzales testified  on Thursday that he had consulted regularly with the attorney general about dismissing United States attorneys, disputing Mr. Gonzales’s public account of his role as very limited.

The former aide, D. Kyle Sampson, who resigned two weeks ago, told the Senate Judiciary Committee that Mr. Gonzales’s statements about the prosecutors’ dismissals were inaccurate and that the attorney general had been repeatedly advised of the planning for them.

The two men talked about the dismissal plans over a two-year period, Mr. Sampson said, beginning in early 2005 when Mr. Gonzales was still the White House counsel. Mr. Sampson said he had briefed his boss at least five times before December 2006, when seven of the eight prosecutors were ousted.

OK, I will take a stand here and pronounce that this was not helpful to Gonzales.  The Times editors joined in:

But if Mr. Sampson was trying to fall on his sword, he had horrible aim. In testimony that got so embarrassing for the White House that the Republicans tried to cut it off, Mr. Sampson simply ended up making it clearer than ever that the eight prosecutors were fired for political reasons.

He provided more evidence, also, that the attorney general and other top Justice Department officials were dishonest in their initial statements about the firings.     

"Fired for political reasons" is pretty vague, considering that these people were appointed for political reasons.

Dana Milbank of the WaPo has more - apparently Mr. Sampson staged an "I Don't RememberFest" - look for him to appear as a spokesman for gingko-bilboa, if he remembers to show up.  But I am not criticicizing!  Given the temper of the times, and the Dems desire for a perjury prosecution, not remembering may be the safer stratgey.

Comments

[Great Banana]

Ahhh - a new thread. Finally, some peel room!

[secarr]

Hey, Mark Steyn is liveblogging the latest installment from Fitz...namely the Chicago trial of Conrad Black. Lord Black is on trial for profiting from the sale of newspapers he owned. Check out Steyn's reports at Macleans (I think it's a a Canadian paper that carries his columns).

[Daniel DiRito]

The daunting ailment that has plagued those in the service of the White House continued to take its toll on the President's minions. Today, members of a congressional investigative committee continued their efforts to find the source of the ailment as it seems to be highly contagious. The most recent strains seem to be far more pervasive yet determining its origin continues to remain elusive. Senator Chuck Schumer closed his questioning by offering the hypothesis that the ailment was a virulent form of lying.

Many within the media stepped in to immediately offer the public a layman's interpretation of the symptoms as well as analysis of the ongoing implications if a cure for the ailment could not be administered soon. The White House continued to downplay the seriousness of the ailment as it sought to allay the growing fears within the American public that the disease might soon decimate the bulk of their elected officials. A growing number of pundits continued to suggest that the President is in denial as to the severity of the ailment and what it might do to the Republican Party.

See a tongue-in-cheek visual spoofing an upcoming episode of Saturday Night Live featuring a guest appearance by "The President's Prevaricators"...here:

www.thoughttheater.com

[Great Banana]

I've been against many, many policies of both parties, but have never actively hoped for those policy's failure once they were enacted. I just don't understand the mindset of wanting the United States to fail in order to diminish my political opponents.

Ultimately, I guess that is the difference between today's right and left. The left sees everything in terms of its own political power and success. The right still has the ability to look at what is best for the country over the political.

[That response and parts of this thread are now a bit cryptic - pete had his usual "gee, the war is going badly" post, and for some reason I am not in the mood for his mindless thread-jacking. But a general announcement - there is a war in Iraq, even though someties I post on other topics.]

[topsecretk9]

Fodder for the new thread

Former Senate leader and three others face charges of conspiracy, mail fraud and money laundering in courthouse corruption probe

Manny Aragon for decades was one of the most powerful figures in New Mexico state government.

Today the Albuquerque Democrat stands accused, along with three others, in an alleged scheme to cheat the state out of more than $4 million in the construction of the Bernalillo County Metropolitan Court House.

The U.S. Attorney’s Office announced Thursday that a federal grand jury indicted the former state Senate president pro tem and three others on counts of mail fraud, money laundering and conspiracy.

Aragon — who last year stepped down from a two-year stint as New Mexico Highlands University president — was indicted along with former metro court administrator Toby Martinez and his wife, software consultant Sandra Mata Martinez, as well as Raul Parra, a partner in an engineering firm involved in the $83 million project.

The U.S. attorney also unsealed plea agreements, secured earlier this year, from three others: lobbyist and former Albuquerque Mayor Ken Schultz, architect Marc Schiff and subcontractor Manuel Guara. Each pleaded guilty to felony counts of conspiracy and mail fraud...

...

The U.S. attorney also unsealed plea agreements, secured earlier this year, from three others: lobbyist and former Albuquerque Mayor Ken Schultz, architect Marc Schiff and subcontractor Manuel Guara. Each pleaded guilty to felony counts of conspiracy and mail fraud.

The indictments cap an investigation that lasted more than a year. Prosecutor Jonathon Gerson said he didn’t know whether others also would be charged in connection with the courthouse, completed in 2004. “The people named were the ones the grand jury thought should be indicted,” he said.

Attempts to reach Aragon for comment Thursday were unsuccessful. Parra, a partner in Albuquerque engineering firm P2RS, and the Martinezes, who have an unlisted phone number, also could not be reached for comment.

Senate Majority Leader Michael Sanchez, D-Belen, said the indictment of a former colleague “casts a shadow over the Legislature. There’s a lot of honorable people in the Legislature, and everyone is affected by it.”

The courthouse case has been the subject of intense rumors and speculation in political circles and on Web blogs. It also has figured into the controversy currently enveloping U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

David Iglesias, the former U.S. attorney for New Mexico, was one of eight U.S. attorneys fired late last year. Iglesias has said his firing came after two New Mexico Republicans, U.S. Sen. Pete Domenici and Rep. Heather Wilson of Albuquerque, contacted him to ask about the case prior to the 2006 November elections. Wilson was locked in a close re-election race in which government corruption was a major campaign theme. Domenici and Wilson have denied pressuring Iglesias.

Aragon, an attorney who was the state Senate’s top leader for 13 years, is accused of raking in $700,000 in payoffs. He faces 14 charges: one count of conspiracy, eight counts of mail fraud and five counts of money laundering.

http://www.santafenewmexican.com/news/59414.html

[Joe Gloor]

pete - read this, then comment.

Killing the Surge:
http://www.villainouscompany.com/vcblog/archives/2007/03/killing_the_sur.html

"A new USA Today/Gallup poll finds that most Americans don't believe the surge is working."

[Rick Ballard]

From the Times editorial:

"He was asked if he was aware that the fired United States attorney in Nevada was investigating a Republican governor, that the fired prosecutor in Arkansas was investigating the Republican governor of Missouri, or that the prosecutor in Arizona was investigating two Republican members of Congress.

The Times is reiterating a "misstatement" (lie) by LAT reporter Richard Serrano. Patterico covers the LAT's refusal to correct the story - even when provided with Cummins direct rebuttal:

Unfortunately, that isn’t what I said, or at least what I intended to say, and it is not the case.

The context of my conversation with LA Times reporter Richard Serrano was clearly that I do not know of ANY connection between the Missouri investigation (which actually had nothing to do with Governor Blunt) and my termination.

Oh well, it isn't as if a NYT reiteration of a LAT "error" is surprising. After all, they both work for the same party and it isn't as if they were engaged in journalism.

[Joe Gloor]

Full site shown by splitting it into two lines:
http://www.villainouscompany.com/
vcblog/archives/2007/03/killing_the_sur.html

[topsecretk9]

FYI -- has nothing to do with the USA 8, only democratic coruuption:

A federal grand jury Thursday indicted Wayne R. Bryant, the Democratic state senator who is at the heart of a criminal investigation of the Legislature, alleging that he bestowed multimillion-dollar state grants in exchange for no-work public jobs and an $81,000-a-year pension...

...U.S. Attorney Christopher J. Christie would not discuss the progress of the wider investigation of the Legislature. The office records of three Democratic legislators -- including Sen. Joseph Coniglio of Paramus -- were subpoenaed on Monday. Prosecutors are investigating whether lawmakers or family members personally profited from state grants awarded to community groups, hospitals and social programs.

[Badger]

"Given the temper of the times, and the Dems desire for a perjury prosecution, not remembering may be the safer stratgey."

Maybe avoiding actions that you wouldn't want to admit doing in public would be an even safer strategy.

[BarbaraS]

Or to be clearer, you are posting the same incidents more than once.

[TMF]

"Pre-emptive war that pre-empted nothing"

We cant possibly know that. Canard.

"100s of thousands of lives"

Lie. Highly unlikely according to all of the credible sources. Assuming that many have been killed it was primarily at the hands of Iraqi and Al Qaeda terrorists and not US forces, as your headlines unequivocally prove.

"the damage YOU do"

Lie. False premise. Canard. Damage is primarily being caused by Iraqi and Al Qaeda terrorists, not US forces. see above.

"continued occupation of Iraq has nothing to do with Iraq "

Absurd claim. Please seek professional help immediately.

[Joe Gloor]

BarbaraS - Please don't let facts get in the way of pete's screed.

[PeterUK]

"GB - apparently Pete is a Sadrist."

You mean he's a fat little geek who wears eyeshadow?

[pete]

Joe Gloor

I read the article and I understand the lame and transparent attempt to spin "the surge" but please don't insult america's intelligence. Whatsmore notice that the poll was done about a week ago. Hmm ... I wonder how the violence of the last couples days will influence america's opinion of the surge ... Hmm.

[TMF]

PS- Pete- we're the good guys in Iraq.

[TMF]

Pete:

"I wonder how the violence of the last couples days will influence america's opinion of the surge ... Hmm. "

Corrected Pete:

"I HOPE the violence of the last couples days will influence america's opinion of the surge ... "

Hmm indeed

[Joe Gloor]

So pete, apparently you had heard all of the positive news coming out of Iraq, but just neglected to mention it in your laundry list of death and destruction?

[pete]

TMF is in a 2003 timewarp. Good luck with that buddy. America left you behind long ago.

[Great Banana]

A preemptive war that preempted nothing which morphed into a war to liberate the Iraqi people which has horribly failed to the tune of 500+ billion bucks, 100s of thousands lives and millions of displaced or refugee Iraqis... and for what?

What is truley amazing is that creatures like yourself just do not seem to care about the damage you do. It's obvious that your support of the continued occupation of Iraq has nothing to do with Iraq and everything to do with the certain political death of US reich wing politics. Don't bother prertending this is not true. You are willing to bet everything in Iraq - all 25 million lives - to protect your politics from its unavoidable demise.

Ahh, almost an argument. Not really, as it is just an attack and a lot of cliche lefty talking points. Still doesn't explain his glee at U.S. deaths in Iraq or why he posts the headlines.

Pete, creatures like yourself have hated America for way too long. Your "clever" implication that conservatism is fascism demonstrates just how stupid you really are. Is that truly the best you can do?

Does it bother you that you are happiest when you hear that another U.S. servicemember has died? Does it bother you that you, from the very begining, WANTED the U.S. to fail?

Does it bother you that you always side with the people who hate america the most? Does it bother you that you can't seem to see beyond party labels to look at actual policies and ideas?

You hate america. I don't understand it, I don't know why it is, but it is true. It is demonstrated every time you post. Your glee at headlines showing american deaths is disgusting. Your belief that america is always in the wrong, or that anyone you disagree with politically can't possibly have a good motive, is ridiculous.

And no, I don't believe that all those who opposed the war hate america, or that all leftists hate america. Or even that people who think we should leave Iraq now hate america. Some of those people make reasonable arguments for their principled stances.

Not you. You simply hate america, want america to fail, want america to be weakened internationally, and want democrats to win at all costs. It is sad and it is pathetic, but it is not persausive in any way. Why do you come here? What do you hope to achieve with your hate and stupidity? You certainly have never had any intention of engaging in actual discussion or reasoned debate.

You are neither a deep thinker nor do you have a very good grasp (beyond reading headlines that support your world view) of what is actually going on in the world. You simply mimick lefty talking points that you probably read at DailyKOS or elsewhere.

You have proven yourself icapable of discussing events beyond mere leftist talking points and calling names.

And, it may make you feel good to believe that conservatism is "over", but I hardly think there is any evidence whatsoever for that view. Indeed, the democrats only won a majority by adopting conservative arguments and running a slew of conservative candidates. So, if conservatisms death is what you call it when our arguments are what are used to win elections, I guess I'll take that death.

When was the last time true liberalism won anywhere but in big cities? When was the last time a liberal candidate won a national election. Bill Clinton ran both times as a conservative democrat - not a liberal.

I'm pretty confident that the next president will be a republican, right of center. Moreover, I'm pretty confident the GOP will win at least one chamber of congress in 2008.

[pete]

"So pete, apparently you had heard all of the positive news coming out of Iraq, but just neglected to mention it in your laundry list of death and destruction?"

Oh do you mean the "election" of a Iraqi "government" that couldn't last one day - not a single day - outside of the green zone. Is that your idea of success? Dig in. You will never crawl out!

[TMF]

pete

"America left you behind long ago"

Yeah, sure they did nimrod

Thats why the "new direction" congress just (as in a few days ago) voted to keep thousands of US troops in Iraq for another year, with thousands to remain in Iraq thereafter, and appropriated billions of dollars for said troops.

And in 2006, when a vote was put up to pull US troops "immediately" out of Iraq, the "new direction" Democrats voted against it, 200 to 1.

Your so 2000

[pete]

Ingrate Banana

Man what did you do? Read the GOP's 1960s-left-hates-america talking points. Do you really think that trash is going to work at this point. Look around bud. America hates YOU!

[Joe Gloor]

The Iraqi government was elected.
But you could be correct that it wouldn't last a day with the kind of support that you would provide - that being none.
Great Banana is correct in his statement that you are hoping for a US defeat in Iraq.

[Great Banana]

Pete,

In all seriousness, what do you think will happen in and to Iraq if America leaves now?

What do you think will happen to U.S. interests in the region?

How do you think leaving now will further U.S. interests or regional stability?

[pete]

TMF dig deeper. That was just lame.

[TMF]

pete

Excellent rejoinder.

Where did you learn your debating skills, chuck-e-cheese?

If America has gone anti-war, it's purported "anti war" party voted to continue the war for another year.

Perhaps America is impatient with the situation in Iraq, perhaps it wants things to improve faster, however it most certainly is not with insane, drooling America haters and terrorist enablers like you.

See you in a few minutes, you witless buffoon

[pete]

"Great Banana is correct in his statement that you are hoping for a US defeat in Iraq."

No. I am not. Why do you pretend that anything but defeat has already ocurred?

Have fun losers. Off too work.

[Great Banana]

Pete,

Do you even read? Did you read what I wrote? obviously not, b/c your response demonstrates you did not. I did not say the "left" hates america. I said "YOU" hate america.

You have not demonstrated how I am in any way wrong.

America does not hate me. My politics (conservative) are much more popular than your politics. Why do you think your candidates (dems) try to move right always to run for President?

Why do you think dems lie about their positions and try to sound more conservative? Why do you think it is that no politician (outside of some Urban centers) ever runs and gets elected as an unabashed Liberal, yet many run and get elected as conservatives.

We've won on just about every issue. And will continue to do so. Just b/c Bush's popularity (which is still higher than the democrat majority congress's) is low, does not mean that conservatism is unpopular.

But, I guess it would be much to much for me to expect you to understand that.

Moreover, I am not poll driven anyway. I would still believe what I believe b/c it is right. Sometimes the right thing is hard and is unpopular. That is something that the left can't deal with, ever.

[Specter]

pete,

Explain these numbers for us oh intelligent one:

Iraqi Security Forces and Civilian Deaths
Period Total
Mar-07 1673
Feb-07 1531
Jan-07 1802
Dec-06 1752
Nov-06 1864
Oct-06 1539
Sep-06 3539
Aug-06 2966
Jul-06 1280
Jun-06 870
May-06 1119
Apr-06 1009
Mar-06 1092
Feb-06 846
Jan-06 779

Now note for us that just before the election there was a spike in Iraqi deaths. See August and September. How do you explain that? And now the trend is down. How do you rationalize that. See the numbers for yourself here.

[Great Banana]

No. I am not. Why do you pretend that anything but defeat has already ocurred?

Typical liberal. Because something is difficult, is should be abandoned immediately.

That is a wonderful life philosophy you have.

I'm sure when we had defeats in WWII that type of thinking prevailed.

[TMF]

Specter

Dont bother.

Its "working"

Didnt know work required lubricant.

[PeterUK]

British forces are on a UN mandated mission in the Gulf,the Navy are acting as UN forces.

Iran makes Britain leaving Iraq a condition for hostage release.

Pelosi blocks support for Britain in Congress.

Russia blocks support for Britain in the UN.

al Qaeda is fighting to get the Coalition to leave Iraq.

Moqtadr Sadr is Iran's bitch.

Where does this leave pete?

[sferris]

Can Bush continue to say that getting out of Iraq is going to be left to the next President?

[PeterUK]

British forces are on a UN mandated mission in the Gulf,the Navy are acting as UN forces.

Iran makes Britain leaving Iraq a condition for hostage release.

Pelosi blocks support for Britain in Congress.

Russia blocks support for Britain in the UN.

al Qaeda is fighting to get the Coalition to leave Iraq.

Moqtadr Sadr is Iran's bitch.

Where does this leave pete?

[TMF]

Lets see, what were the stated goals of the Iraq war, according to Bush?

1. Toppling the Saddam Hussein Regime

Achieved. We won.

2. Ending Saddams ongoing voilations of 17 UN Resolutions

Achieved. We won.

3. Ending Saddams ongoing support of terrorism in Israel and elsewhere.

Achieved. We won.

4. Ending Saddams capacity to produce and/or use WMDs

Achieved. We won.

5. Assist the Iraqis in building a stable, democratic government that is at peace with it's neighbors and does not support terrorism

Half way there.

So yeah, I guess achieving 95% of your goals in a military action could be deemed a "failure"

If you are a mental chimpanzee.

[hit and run]

TMF:
Where did you learn your debating skills, chuck-e-cheese?

Whoa whoa whoa.

I was in a Chuck-E-Cheese last weekend for our neighbor's 4 year old b-day party.

What you just did was dern near slanderous to 4 year olds everywhere.

I mean, have you ever tried to debate a 4 year old (or in my case a 3 year old and 5 year old) on the merits of LEAVING a Chuck-E-Cheese?

They would leave pete lying on the floor curled up in a ball.

[Joe Gloor]

Good Lord, hit and run, there's not enough beer in all the Chuck-e-Cheese restaurants to get me to eat that pizza. I think they use card-board for the crust.

[sferris]

Since wev'e met 95% of our goals let's declare victory and leave. Stabalizing Iraq will take another 10-20 years.

[hit and run]

Joe:
Good Lord, hit and run, there's not enough beer in all the Chuck-e-Cheese restaurants to get me to eat that pizza. I think they use card-board for the crust.

Yeah, and the weren't even selling beer - the party was at 10am

But you shoulda seen me doing the skeet ball.

En fuego!

[PeterUK]

sferris,
Don't you think it is obscene that pete has an orgasm every time someone gets killed in Iraq? That must be some "Grim Milestone" in his underwear.

[sferris]

PeterUK, at least Blair has enough sense to start pulling UK troops out of Iraq. I guess Brits support timetables.

[Joe Gloor]

Oh yeah. Skeet ball - can you still win a 50 cent trinket if you spend $30 in games?

[PeterUK]

Answer the question sferris.

[Joe Gloor]

sferris Since wev'e met 95% of our goals let's declare victory and leave. Stabalizing Iraq will take another 10-20 years.
You're good with long range thinking then, I take it.

[Joe Gloor]

*** not good with long range thinking ***

[hit and run]

Joe:
Oh yeah. Skeet ball - can you still win a 50 cent trinket if you spend $30 in games?

Yeah, pretty much. I gave all our tickets to another neighbor. She was over 1000 tix by the time we left.

So, yeah, she probably got a sponge bob eraser or something.

[Great Banana]

Since wev'e met 95% of our goals let's declare victory and leave. Stabalizing Iraq will take another 10-20 years.

Even if true, wouldn't it still be worth it? If we can produce a stable, free, democratic state in the middle of the islamic world (not counting Isreal)?

Wouldn't that be worth it for stablizing the region and pursuing peace in the region?

As opposed to leaving right now, and allowing the region to become even more unstable?

[sferris]

If the UK is pulling it's troops out, isn't it hypocitical to tell us to stay?

[Joe Gloor]

Hopefully the UK will pull their troops out of Iraq and start moving them into Iran.