Live Blogging on testimony from Sampson

I am on Americablog listening to some of the testimony for the hearings with Sampson. Patriot girl shares some excerpts of the hears from FDL. Thanks, Patriot Girl:

Leahy: Have you spoken with the President about the USA firings or personnel at DoJ since 2004? Or been involved in any meetings where the President was present?

Sampson: No.Leahy: E-mail you wrote was "We'll stand by for a green light from you?" (to presidential advisors Karl & Harriet) Sampson: Yes, sir.Leahy: You asked "who will require whether this deserves the President's attention?"

Sampson: doesn't know if the President was ever consulted.-----------(Sampson says that the AG's statement that he wasn't involved in discussions was not accurate. Sampson recalls talking to him about this issue.)

Specter asks: So Gonzales was not correct in his statement during his news conference?

Sampson: Yes sir. (Gonzo's pants are on fire again)Specter: Isn't it true, as these e-mails suggest, that there was a calculation by the DoJ and others to avoid scrutiny by the Senate via this Patriot Act provision?

Sampson: This was a bad idea from staff (Sampson says he recommended it at one point, but that it was never adopted by the AG) The AG rejected this idea.(hhmmm... he rejected it and then approved it)---------------------

Specter asks: So Gonzales was not correct in his statement during his news conference? Sampson: Yes sir.(Gonzo's flaming now)-------Kohl: Attorney Gen says that he wasn't involved, in recent days, yet he signed off: either AG is absent of management of the DoJ, or he is not being candid with the American public, which is it? Sampson dodges an answer: — AG was involved in the "thinking phase of the process," then AG asked Sampson to be involved in the active phase. Ultimately he approved both the list and the actions.

Here we go - this is what I'm talking about. This is not a project that could have been undertaken without the president's approval. If they play dumb and say they did not get approval - this will undermine them saying all along that "attorneys serve at the PRESIDENT's discretion". They are trying to use the same old strategy. Rove and Gonzo better start getting fitted for thier orange jumpsuits. -----------

Hatch: Administration has said that the USAs were fired for "performance related reasons." How was that defined? You were in charge of that determination — how was that viewed?

Sampson says: not a scientific or quantitative analysis. Sampson says: included production in the office, management abilities, production on AGs advisory committee, work in developing policies of the Administration, not engaging in policy conflicts with main justice (CHS notes: In other words, do not question my authority — even if I am legally on shaky ground.).

Feinstein up! ( ;Feinstein gets into the FBI field office problem with Lam being asked to resign causing problems for ongoing cases. Sampson says that he didn't seeit that way.Were you aware that Cummins was investigating Missouri GOP governor Blunt?

Sampson "doesn't recall being aware of that."Were you aware that NV USA Bogden opened an investigation of GOP governor of NV? Sampson says he does not recall being aware of that.

Were you aware that McKay declined to prosecute a case in Seattle?

Sampson doesn't recall being aware of that.Were you aware of a case being opened against Renzi? Aware through news accounta that there was some preliminary investigation.Were you aware that Iglesias declined to prosecute case/investigation of state Democrats?

Sampson not aware that calls had been made to him, and not aware of particular concerns.(classic!)

More...

SEN. WHITEHOUSE QUESTIONS: Could you tell me who, other than family and lawyers, that you discussed your testimony with? No one. Who coordinated with? no one, to his knowledge — he hasn't spoken to anyone at the DoJ or anywhere else.

Did you keep a file on this project? Too much to say that I kept a file. In my lower right hand drawer, I kept a sort of "drop file." In reviewing my documents for testimony, there were multiple lists. Did anyone else keep your file for you? No, there was no documentation of this — an aggregation of views, as the process finalized in the fall of 2006, it became more formal.

This was a project that you were in harge of, that woudl terminate the careers of these USAs, and you didn't keep a file? My view is these people are good people…Whitehouse says "but no longer USAs."

Is it policy of DoJ if officer of corporation who refuses to testify that there is a requirement of the Department that the officer must be dismissed? Sampson not certain. Going into the Goodling takng of the 5th with respect to her conduct inoffice at the DoJ. Has there ever been an attorney working for the DoJ who asserted the 5th regarding their conduct in office who was kept on as an employee? Sampson says he doesn't know.

Whitehouse getting into "adverse inference" issues from failing to testify. (CHS notes: Whitehouse is schooling Goodling's atty that the committee is not going to put up with an improper attempt to avoid testimony without proper justification.)

Whitehouse going into Sampson's background — were decisions made by someone who hadn't had a lot of trial experience, is his point? Signed off on by AG and WHCounsel's office. Sampson doesn't know by what basis the recommendationswere accepted.

Break for lunch. Will be back at 1:45 pm ET.

In a nutshell, Sampson is playing dumb...Will put up a new thread...