Committee is back in session as of 2:35 pm ET.
SEN. GRASSLEY QUESTIONS: Grassley says that documents produced by the DoJ are not consistent with the AG's public statements, and that he is an equal opportunity oversight person in terms of getting to the truth of actions. Grassley has been unhappy with how the Bush Administration has tried to thwart his oversight attempts in various matters, and mentions that they tried to prevent a convicted felon from testifying because of his Administration connections which, he is happy to say, they eventually were able to arrange. Concerned about the environment of this matter when all of this took place. Why is it that the environment that you work in produced this mess? AG says that he accepts responsibility for the mess. He was overbroad in his statements — hadn't gone back and looked at the documents, at his calendar, etc. — certainly my statements were too broad. Felt a need to come out quickly and defend the Department with regard to allegations of improper conduct. Grassley says so you are running a department where it is dificult for everyone to be on the same page? Ag says he wouldn't characterize it that way, that he should have been more careful with his public statements. Grassley says that e-mails indicate that you were very involved in all of this, despite the public statements and other prior information given to the committee. Why are your statements changing and evolving so much? And who came up with a plan to evaluate these USAttys? AG says that he has clarified his statements based on review of documents. Who did you discuss this with at the WH? The AG says that he can't recall having specific conversations about the review process — Sampson was going to bring back a "consensus recommendation" from senior folks at the department and the WH. Thinks it was an appropriate manner in which a senior management person should have done, thinks this was appropriate. Grassley says that didn't answer his who came up with this question — AG says that it was his plan.
SEN. CARDIN QUESTIONS: Cardin is not happy. Goes through why it is wrong to use political factors for reviewing USAs as primary concerns — Sampson confirmed that partisan issues may have influenced the process. You have said a number of times that you don't think anything improper was used in making these decisions? AG says "that's a good question." AG says that he is not aware of anything in the documentation or testimony that would support the allegation that anything improper happened here — AG says he relied on subordinates to be on the up and up. There is a back and forth on this for a bit. AG says that he was relying on the consensus recommendation of the senior staff, especially the Deputy Attorney General. Now you know that there were a number of controversial political investigations going on in a number of these jurisdictions at the time that this review was ongoing. This was a unique process to remove these many attorneys for this type of reason — don't you see how this could be seen as a message to the remaining prosecutors to not pursue these types of sensitive political corruption cases and the public perception of this? That this could be seen as trying to influence a case for improper reasons? Do you still stand by your decision that this process was the right decision? AG says yes, he does. He has no information to say that this may have been improper. Do you think the perception is okay? No, I don't — but I still would have done this again, just in a different way. Cardin says that you had some very serious discussions with your senior staff on at least three of these attorneys — do you understand that these conversations may have influenced the outcome of this process? Cardin says and the conversation with the President of the United States? AG says he can't really speak to that. AG says that he would be concerned that there was a bad perception and that's why he spoke to the USAs in March. Cardin says but it isn't just the internal perceptions of the USAs, it is also the perceptions of the public.
SEN. CARDIN QUESTIONS: Cardin is not happy. Goes through why it is wrong to use political factors for reviewing USAs as primary concerns — Sampson confirmed that partisan issues may have influenced the process. You have said a number of times that you don't think anything improper was used in making these decisions? AG says "that's a good question." AG says that he is not aware of anything in the documentation or testimony that would support the allegation that anything improper happened here — AG says he relied on subordinates to be on the up and up. There is a back and forth on this for a bit. AG says that he was relying on the consensus recommendation of the senior staff, especially the Deputy Attorney General. Now you know that there were a number of controversial political investigations going on in a number of these jurisdictions at the time that this review was ongoing. This was a unique process to remove these many attorneys for this type of reason — don't you see how this could be seen as a message to the remaining prosecutors to not pursue these types of sensitive political corruption cases and the public perception of this? That this could be seen as trying to influence a case for improper reasons? Do you still stand by your decision that this process was the right decision? AG says yes, he does. He has no information to say that this may have been improper. Do you think the perception is okay? No, I don't — but I still would have done this again, just in a different way. Cardin says that you had some very serious discussions with your senior staff on at least three of these attorneys — do you understand that these conversations may have influenced the outcome of this process? Cardin says and the conversation with the President of the United States? AG says he can't really speak to that. AG says that he would be concerned that there was a bad perception and that's why he spoke to the USAs in March. Cardin says but it isn't just the internal perceptions of the USAs, it is also the perceptions of the public.
More on the testimony.
No comments:
Post a Comment