Top Aide To Gonzales Agrees To Testify

(CBS/AP)  The former top aide to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales agreed Friday to testify at a Senate inquiry next week into the firings of eight U.S. attorneys last year.

Kyle Sampson, who resigned last week amid the furor over the dismissals, will appear next Thursday at a hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee, his attorney said. His appearance will mark the first congressional testimony by a Justice Department aide since the release of thousands of documents that show the firings were orchestrated, in part, by the White House.

Sampson "looks forward to answering the committee's questions," wrote his attorney, Brad Berenson, in a two-paragraph letter to Committee chairman Patrick Leahy, a Democrat, and the panel's top Republican, Arlen Specter.

"We trust that his decision to do so will satisfy the need of the Congress to obtain information from him concerning the requested resignations of the United States attorneys," Berenson wrote.

E-mails between the White House and the Justice Department, dating back to the weeks immediately after the 2004 presidential election, show Sampson was heavily engaged in deciding how many prosecutors would be replaced, and which ones. The Bush administration maintains the dismissals of the eight political appointees were proper.

While Mr. Bush has publicly expressed his support for the embattled Attorney General, Gonzales has a morale problem inside his Justice Department, CBS News correspondent Bob Orr reports. Some officials are increasingly worried that the scandal surrounding the firing of eight federal prosecutors has become a distraction for the other U.S. Attorneys who are supposed to be fighting crime.

Democrats question whether the eight fired prosecutors were selected because they were not seen as, in Sampson's words, "loyal Bushies."

"He was right at the center of things," Sen. Chuck Schumer, a Democrat who is leading the inquiry into the firings, said of Sampson. "He has said publicly that what others have said is not how it happened. ... He contradicts DOJ."

Schumer said he hoped Sampson would provide more detail about who initiated the firings and whether they were politically motivated.

Sampson's agreement to testify next week came a few hours after Sen. John Conyers summoned White House Counsel Fred Fielding to Congress to discuss the dispute over whether and under what conditions Mr. Bush's top aides will tell their stories to Congress.

The two did not delve into specific proposals for Mr. Bush's aides, but Cornyn said he urged Fielding to release as much information related to the prosecutor firings as possible, warning that he wanted "no surprises" to emerge.

"I told him, 'Everything you can release, please release. We need to know what the facts are,' " Cornyn said.

Also Friday, the Justice Department said it had found additional e-mails, calendar pages and other documents about the dismissals and was working to send them to the House and Senate panels that oversee the Justice Department. It was unclear when those documents would be delivered.

[randalds]

He needs to get in front of the Senate and repeat the famous words of John Dean "There is a cancer on the presidency"

[firststate]

White house staffers need to testify under oath a fact evidenced by the investigation into the Plame leak. All the upper echelon of staffers were quoted as denying any involvement with leaking her information. Most claimed to be surprised at the information when it was reported. Once they were sworn, all but Scooter did 180 degree turns and remembered that they had know about her and many had at least been one source of the leak to reporters. They've shown that they will lie without compunction until they are testifying under oath. Once sworn, the fog of confusion clears and these same individuals knew about Plame and were either involved in trying to leak it or knew of that on-going process. It goes all the way up to the "if anyone on the white house staff was involved in any way, they'll be fired" top.

The story of what happened and why and how it happened is already in the fourth or fifth revision. As facts have emerged, the story changed, which is further proof that sworn testimony is needed. They have proved that one can't simply depend upon the honor or integrity of the white house staff to insure truthfulness.

[firststate]

White house staffers need to testify under oath a fact evidenced by the investigation into the Plame leak. All the upper echelon of staffers were quoted as denying any involvement with leaking her information. Most claimed to be surprised at the information when it was reported. Once they were sworn, all but Scooter did 180 degree turns and remembered that they had know about her and many had at least been one source of the leak to reporters. They've shown that they will lie without compunction until they are testifying under oath. Once sworn, the fog of confusion clears and these same individuals knew about Plame and were either involved in trying to leak it or knew of that on-going process. It goes all the way up to the "if anyone on the white house staff was involved in any way, they'll be fired" top.

The story of what happened and why and how it happened is already in the fourth or fifth revision. As facts have emerged, the story changed, which is further proof that sworn testimony is needed. They have proved that one can't simply depend upon the honor or integrity of the white house staff to insure truthfulness.

[firststate]

Anyone who thinks Carol Lam's firing was a result of lax prosecution in immigration cases should read the article at:

http://www.chitraragavan.com/usnews/25MZM.pdf

It details some of the branches of the poisonous tree involving Cunningham and suggests areas to investigate. She knew there were others who should be prosecuted. Removing a US Attorney frequently ends ongoing investigations. Without the push from the top of the office, investigations often just wind down and die of their own weight, especially if the are unpopular in DC. Cunningham didn't get his millions in bribes without a lot of other people playing along who richly (no pun intended) deserve prosecution. Any continuation of the investigation will be because of all the flap.

Iglesias had the nerve not to get indictments against Dems for voter fraud AND dare tell Domenici & Heather Wilson that he didn't expect indictments before the election. Domenici is so sure that nothing was inappropriate that he hired a "top gun" defense attorney before they were all taken. Both these "Honorable" representatives from New Mexico repeatedly denied making calls to him about the cases until they knew he was going to testify under oath.

[firststate]

Anyone who thinks Carol Lam's firing was a result of lax prosecution in immigration cases should read the article at:

http://www.chitraragavan.com/usnews/25MZM.pdf

It details some of the branches of the poisonous tree involving Cunningham and suggests areas to investigate. She knew there were others who should be prosecuted. Removing a US Attorney frequently ends ongoing investigations. Without the push from the top of the office, investigations often just wind down and die of their own weight, especially if the are unpopular in DC. Cunningham didn't get his millions in bribes without a lot of other people playing along who richly (no pun intended) deserve prosecution. Any continuation of the investigation will be because of all the flap.

Iglesias had the nerve not to get indictments against Dems for voter fraud AND dare tell Domenici & Heather Wilson that he didn't expect indictments before the election. Domenici is so sure that nothing was inappropriate that he hired a "top gun" defense attorney before they were all taken. Both these "Honorable" representatives from New Mexico repeatedly denied making calls to him about the cases until they knew he was going to testify under oath.

[realpatriot1]

One_American presents a nice list of prosecutors and cases but ignores the fact that all were working on other cases involving criminality on the part of allies of Bush. If they were fired for the reasons you say, what's the problem in Bush himself coming out and saying so? Doesn't any President owe the country that much? Do you think Clinton should've had an " I don't have to tell you what I did" privilege? I don't think so!

The claim of exec privilege is supposed to protect his conversations and advice. If he can't tell us if he even made decisions how can anyone tell if a claim is even meaningful? Legally, it doesn't matter because he waived his claim to this privilege by making Rove and company available at all, so the ground rules are a separate matter and not up to him.

Why don't you ask Tony Snow,What did the President know and what did the decider decide?
He has the right to hire and fire for legitimate reasons(not to obstruct justice)but he also has the responsibility to be able to answer personnally for those decisions. Everyone else from Justice up to Rove has no right to hire and fire, and also needs to be able to explain their role.Politics is one thing, undermining prosections is quite another!

[mcvet]

I remember during Watergate when Dean testified. You could just see the criminals in the White House start to sweat and they continued to do that until the slime dog resigned. Bush had the illusion that he was some sort of dictator or King. He and Rove thought they'd keep the lap dog Congress long past the time they could get caught and the METHOD of keeping them was the U.S. Justice System. When 8 HONEST Republican's didn't go along with the plan they fired them. Then they COMPLETELY lost the Lap Dog Congress and now they are in a fight to keep from becoming Big Bubba's matress Muffin. Ain't life great? LOL I mean EVERYONE LOVES seeing a arrogant little Bully like Bush get his. LOL

[mcvet]

It's good that this will all come to light with the help of the Democrats.

The problem is, the Democrats are going to look really bad when this is all over.
Posted by One_American at 07:57 PM : Mar 23, 2007


Please tell me you aren't this simple minded? PLEASE!! IF the case was as you say why the HELL did this guy resign. No Sparky you'd better hang on to that swastika REAL tight because I KNOW Gonzo, Cheney and Sir Lies-A-Lot were using the Justice Department as their own little reward system for those who "Support" the Party and their little method of applying Heat to those who did NOT support the "Party". Now to Fascist like yourself that's probably okay but in this GREAT LIBERAL NATION call America it's VERY Illegal and has been for a VERY LONG time. LOL They are covering up and this guy will bring that all out in the open. You Sparky are in for a very long and rough ride here... very long and very rough indeed. LOL Maybe you should order a couple Iron Cross's to back up the Swastika's you have.... You are going to need them!! Sieg Heil

[one_american]

Kyle Sampson will enlighten the Democrats as to the reasons for the firings of the U.S. Attorneys; among the facts will probably be:

- fired U.S. Attorney Paul Charlton, who wouldn't prosecute pot-smuggling cases unless they were above 500 pounds.

- fired San Diego U.S. attorney Carol Lam was under fire for failing to prosecute illegal alien criminals

- fired San Francisco federal prosecutor Kevin Ryan, who was put on the termination list when a Democrat Judge threatened to make a stink about Ryan's poor performance.

- fired U.S. Attorney John MacKay, who refused to investigate the highly suspicious 2004 Governor's race in Washington State, where Democrats protested the vote & they kept recounting the votes, until they found a mysterious box of uncounted votes in a warehouse, and Liberal Democrat Christine Gregoire won by less than 200 votes.

It's good that this will all come to light with the help of the Democrats.

The problem is, the Democrats are going to look really bad when this is all over.

[frankly6]

The White House is adamant that its advisers retain the right, if they so choose, to lie ... without consequence. It's executive privilege. ... If Karl Rove knew he'd one day be forced to testify under oath about the advice he gave the president, he'd have to limit that advice to things that weren't shameful, illegal, or spectacularly bone-headed.