SEN. LEAHY QUESTIONS: (Sorry gang, I missed the opening portion of Leahy's testimony getting the new thread going — C-Span switched channel coverage and my DVR was recording the first channel for me while I changed threads. See prior thread comments for some of the Leahy questions and AG answers.) Leahy is asking about the double duty problems with various USAs also doing two jobs at once. AG is bringing up Fitz as an example of things going right.
SEN. SPECTER QUESTIONS: In my opening statement, I referred to the fact that you appeared to not be candid and open. And in your opening statement, you appeared to carry that lack of being candid forward to today. It is not exactly a matter of precision to say that you discussed things. That is a fundamental fact. Gonzales makes a snotty aside that he prepares for every hearing, and Specter snaps back: Do you prepare for all of your press conferences? There is a back and forth about the AG misspeaking at his press conference. Specter says, "Let's move on. I don't think that you are going to win a debate about your preparation, frankly." Moving on to Sampson's sworn testimony, by Bill Mercer, and by Michael Battle by comparison to AG's record. You had a conversation with Sampson about removing certain USAs. Specter runs through a series of dates and conversations on each fired USA. According to Sampson's testimony, Oct. 11, went to WH to talk about vote fraud concerns — with Rove and President — and Sampson says that AG came back and said look into vote fraud concerns, including in New Mexico. Several other dates and conversations follow.
This is only part of the picture — you talked about removal and replacements. Do you think it is fair to characterize that as "limited involvement?" AG says "I don't want to quarrel with you." Specter says, "I don't either. Just answer the question." Were you involved in the process? Were you involved to a limited extent only? Yes, sir. How much more could you have been involved having conversations about Lam, and Cummins, and Iglesias, and that's only part of the information. AG says that it was limited — he fobs off responsibility to Sampson. (CHS notes: AG is on defensive and scrambling.) I can't simply stop doing my supervisory responsibilities while this is ongoing. Specter says "did you tell Mercer to take a look about Lam's performance specifically?" AG says he doesn't recall specifics, but he does recall getting numerous complaints about her gun prosecutions and immigration questions, and that he asked Mercer and Sampson to review. There is a considerable back and forth with regard to Lam, Cummins, Iglasias…AG says he didn't recall talking with Rove, but understands that he did; didn't recall the conversation with the President, but understands that he had one.
This is only part of the picture — you talked about removal and replacements. Do you think it is fair to characterize that as "limited involvement?" AG says "I don't want to quarrel with you." Specter says, "I don't either. Just answer the question." Were you involved in the process? Were you involved to a limited extent only? Yes, sir. How much more could you have been involved having conversations about Lam, and Cummins, and Iglesias, and that's only part of the information. AG says that it was limited — he fobs off responsibility to Sampson. (CHS notes: AG is on defensive and scrambling.) I can't simply stop doing my supervisory responsibilities while this is ongoing. Specter says "did you tell Mercer to take a look about Lam's performance specifically?" AG says he doesn't recall specifics, but he does recall getting numerous complaints about her gun prosecutions and immigration questions, and that he asked Mercer and Sampson to review. There is a considerable back and forth with regard to Lam, Cummins, Iglasias…AG says he didn't recall talking with Rove, but understands that he did; didn't recall the conversation with the President, but understands that he had one.
Specter skeptical about the "limited" involvement — the reality is that your characterization of your level of participation is at variance with the facts. The AG says that you are talking about things that went on over 700 days — putting it in context with all of his other conversations, he thinks it was limited. Specter says "are you saying that you didn't consider this as part of his job, as part of the process" referring to meetings and conversations. That having aconversation with Sampson about a complaint about Lam's performane wasn't involved in this firing process. AG says he didn't focus on this particular process impacting the decision on Lam's performance review for firing…Specter is highly skeptical. (CHS notes: The AG is absolutely scrambling. This is painful.)
More on the testimony.
No comments:
Post a Comment