“I Don’t Remember”
Filed under: Alberto Gonzales, Senate, United States — Michael van der Galien, Editor-in-Chief on March 30, 2007 @ 10:34 am CEST
Dana Milbank wrote a good, interesting article for the Washington Post about Kyle Sampson’s testimony yesterday. Sampson seemed to be willing to take one for the team, but made matters worse for Gonzales nonetheless when he confessed that Gonzales’ testimony wasn’t accurate.
As Prairie Weather points out, “Speaking of falling on swords, what seems to be happening is mass hari kiri on the part of Republicans.”
An ‘accident’ happened as well: Schumer was informed that Republicans objected to the hearings continuing, so he interrupted Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), who was questioning Sampson. When Schumer said “we’ve just received word that the Republicans have objected, under the Senate rules, to this meeting continuing”, to which Grassley replied “does it apply to a Republican, too?”
Later, “Republicans blamed a procedural mistake in their cloakroom for the false alarm”.
Strangely, Sampson’s memory didn’t serve him well. “He used the phrase ‘I don’t remember’ a memorable 122 times.”
Damn. I cannot help but wonder how Sampson could ever have worked at the White House.
With such a memory, it is impossible to graduate from high school, let alone from University with a bachelor or master degree.
1 domajot
March 30, 2007 @ 11:29 am CEST“does it apply to a
Republican, too?”
I’m having trouble typing, because I’m still laughing so hard.
2 C Stanley
March 30, 2007 @ 1:01 pm CESTLOL, that line is hilarious. No, Sen. Grassley, carry on; the Republicans are fine with continuing the hearings as long as no Democrats are involved.
Michael,
Hillary Clinton had quite a few memory lapses during hearings on Whitewater. Does that mean that she’s not fit to serve in the White House either?
3 Interested
March 30, 2007 @ 2:39 pm CESTYup, Memory lapses are a very comon thing amongst politician. Like the line in the movie Clear and Present Danger, that went something like. “you need to learn the phrase, I do not have that recollection Senator”
4 mvdg
March 30, 2007 @ 2:41 pm CESTC.S.: if she answered 122 times “i don’t remember” in one single hearing, well, she either suffered from Alzheimers or she lied.
5 Daniel DiRito
March 30, 2007 @ 3:50 pm CESTThe 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:
http://www.thoughttheater.com
6 kritter
March 30, 2007 @ 4:48 pm CESTCS- I thought you were finished with “But Clinton did it too”? You’ve posted it often are you retracting now, when its convenient for you? Did you complain then that it was a witchhunt??? The number of I don’t remembers yesterday of 122, should indicate as mvdg just mentioned that Sampson either lied or suffers from Alzheimers.
7 Interested
March 30, 2007 @ 5:29 pm CESTKim,
Are you saying Clinton did not? Or is that not convenient now?
If you were a very upfront and honest person you’d also note that Yes, Clinton was a master at dodging and weaving when it Suited them.
CS - to me anyway - took a valid comment and applied it to other equally valid situations. Like it or not.
You could also note that Not only Clinton - but Bush 1, and Reagan also utilized the failing memory trick quite often. But you cannot do it without also mentioning Clinton.
8 kritter
March 30, 2007 @ 5:52 pm CESTNo, I actually don’t know enough to comment about Whitewater- so I’m not saying that at all. I brought it up, because of a different discussion on a different site. CS-knows what I mean.I’m not trying to say that the Clintons were honest about their dealings- I liked their politics and I liked him personally, but no I didn’t think they were honest- and he, at least, paid the price, by impeachment.
If Clinton did this, than she was probably avoiding the truth- if Sampson did this - shouldn’t we conclude the same? ( I’d probably conclude it about anyone who said that 122 times in one day-) Libby did the same thing in his GJ testimony- after a while it creates a lot of suspicion. I do remember the trick used during Iran-Contra. So, if you are coming to testify to put out a fire how does that fire get put out by testimony like that ? If I were investigating and it was used that frequently I’d probably offer Monica G immunity and hope her memory was better than Sampson’s.
Just saying that a different administration did it also doesn’t do anything to deal with it now.
9 C Stanley
March 30, 2007 @ 6:07 pm CESTKim,
The reason you keep getting upset at me for this is you are assuming that I’m excusing the current person; I’m not doing that at all. I think it’s quite ridiculous for anyone to have that much of a memory lapse. I wasn’t sure if Michael was aware of Hillary’s difficulties remembering anything to do with her time at the Rose Law firm, which I have to admit, was fodder for quite a lot of jokes among the GOP at that time. My recollection was that it might have been over a hundred times though I did a quick google just now and it looks like the most famous time was when she said some form of “I don’t recall” 50 times in a row to questions during the Whitewater hearings. I brought it up, as I mentioned, because Michael has mentioned that he has a favorable impression of Hillary and when he made that comment in this post (that someone whose memory was that faulty doesn’t belong in the White House), that is relevant.
I’m sorry Kim, but bringing up the Clinton era sometimes is relevant to current discussions (and certainly Hillary as a current candidate has to be subjected to fair criticism just as all of the candidates do- I also just read MvdG’s post about Guiliani not remembering things about Kerik and I think that’s equally ridiculous even though generally I support Rudy).
There’s a difference between using the argument “But the Clintons did it too!” as a means of excusing other people’s actions and bringing it up when someone else seems to ONLY see the faults of the conservatives (and I don’t mean that Michael does that, but in this case I wondered if he wasn’t aware of this about Hillary).
10 domajot
March 30, 2007 @ 6:17 pm CESTI have a real problem with the comparison-to-the-past approach.
Some things should be decided on a strictly right or wrong, legal or illegal basis.
If every president in US history had done somehting wrong, that would still not make a current president’s actions right.
If somehting is wrong, it should be corrected, and it’s shame on us, if we do it late.
I sometines get the feeling Clinton is still lurking somewhere in the WH, he comes up in discussions so often. It’s becoming a distraction and takes away focus from the issues of the day. While it’s certainly legitimate to bring up historic content, the way things are going, you’d think history began with the Clinton presidency. It’s just oeverdone!
11 kritter
March 30, 2007 @ 6:19 pm CESTThat’s ok, CS- just don’t deny that you do it.
I actually think its a dodge that should raise red flags no matter who does it, but we’re discussing Sampson- and whether or not his testimony credibly answered the inconsistencies that have come out about the firings. So many are pointing to the investigations as a witch hunt. If that’s true then why did he use the dodge so many times? Lack of candor is a weakness that every administration has evidenced to some degree (many thought Reagan should have answered for his role in Iran-Contra) , but if the victim is going to be the truth, then any hearing is a waste of time.
12 kritter
March 30, 2007 @ 6:34 pm CESTCS- Don’t forget how no one in the WH knew Jack Abramoff-even though he had visited more than 100 times! I get Doma’s point, though too- it is a distraction, that often keeps focus off the current situation. It would be helpful to judge some of these people by their own merits or lack of them.
What is going to happen in ‘08 are we going to compare everything the new president does to this president?
This is OT, but I heard that 150 members of the administration went to Pat Robertson’s law school.
13 C Stanley
March 30, 2007 @ 7:36 pm CESTWell, I simply disagree with both of you on the issue of making historical comparisons. I fully expect that if the next president is a Democrat and some improprieties come up, that many people will compare the situations to things that occurred during the Bush administration (do either of you care to place a wager that this won’t happen??) I also recall that during Clinton’s two terms, comparisons were sometimes made to past presidents then as well. And I don’t think there’s anything wrong with that as a rule, because that’s simply applying context. And sometimes it’s done when the partisans who support one side are overdoing their criticism of the opposing side while other times it’s sort of like saying, “I’m just checking- I assume you also thought this was wrong when the guy from your party did a very similar thing.” Sort of a way to keep your debate opponent honest.
I think some people go overboard with this and I also think that some people use it in order to excuse a guilty party, but I’ve never done that. If I say that this situation is similar to a past one, I almost NEVER say that to excuse either party (if I ever do mean it that way, I’d state that I thought it was not a big deal in either case). Often when I bring up comparisons it’s because the discussion of the current situations sometimes becomes almost hysterical as though every breach is an unprecedented act which threatens our entire system of government. An example which comes to mind is the Foley scandal and other corruptions during the last Congress; I didn’t think that the fact that previous Democratic Congresses had been just as corrupt excused the GOP AT ALL, but I felt that some people either had memory lapses or selective memories in thinking that the corruption was so unusual.
On this, Kim:
I don’t think you can logically conclude that people in political positions who are put in the hotseat are necessarily covering up some illegality if they dodge questions. It seems quite obvious to me that the whole point of witchhunts is that if you keep digging you can trip people up. I’ve already said that I think that’s basically what happened to Bill Clinton, and the same applies to people in the Bush administration. I think things have been ramped up to the point that no one wants to answer any questions because if they accidently state any inconsistency, they open themselves up to perjury charges.
So far I’ve heard nothing in the USA case that indicates that any laws were broken. It certainly wouldn’t shock me if something like that did turn up and either way, I think there were ethical problems. But mainly I think it’s because the administration acted in a secretive way when that wasn’t even necessary, that they’re now all afraid to talk because things may come out that are contradictions even if the things themselves weren’t actually in violation of any law (perhaps embarrassing because they were acting in an uberpartisan way). If that happens, then bingo, a law will then be broken if someone’s sworn testimony conflicts with someone elses and there’s some way to verify whose version is accurate, then you have a basis for a perjury charge.
That’s what I mean by witchhunt, and frankly I think that this whole thing may not be unimportant, but it’s not important enough to take everyone’s focus off of more critical issues.
14 mvdg
March 30, 2007 @ 7:55 pm CESTI kind of agree with Christine’s take on the USA controversy: its the secrecy, stupid!
It’s unbelievable.
15 kritter
March 30, 2007 @ 8:26 pm CESTI probably agree that most of this was legal, just highly improper. Since we still don’t have most of the information, its hard to say. But I don’t think that it was a mountain made out of a molehill by lying, because it does appear to me to be a concerted effort to politicize the justice system- to put Bushies in to replace those who might just not be partisan enough to suit a partisan W.H. Even accepting Sampson’s explanation, it seems that they would have looked to see if the investigators were involved in sensitive political corruption cases -in Lam’s case the removal jeopardized the Cunningham investigation, a second prosecutor was investigating a Republican governor. I’m sure its difficult to prove that these were the real reasons for removing them, but having someone from DOJ take the fifth, another suffer chronic memory loss, and their boss lie about it all is not reassuring. The burden should be on them to explain it all.
16 kritter
March 30, 2007 @ 8:37 pm CEST“I fully expect that if the next president is a Democrat and some improprieties come up, that many people will compare the situations to things that occurred during the Bush administration (do either of you care to place a wager that this won’t happen??) ”
Well, I’ll have to remind you of this statement, when that occurs CS. But you and other conservatives did make a major point at TMV about how distracting it was to never be able to discuss an issue without someone saying “bush is worse”. That’s when you made the claim that no one was still comparing Bush’s woes with Clinton. But obviously, they are and will be for ad finitem, sigh. I remain hopeful that not too many improprieties will crop up.
In any case, they will be subpoening more witnesses, someone is bound to blurt out the truth. The questions won’t be getting any easier, as they now know so much more.
17 C Stanley
March 30, 2007 @ 9:17 pm CESTWell, Kim, when I was complaining about BDS and rebutted your statement that people were often doing the same by demonizing Clinton, I guess I didn’t mean that no one should ever bring up Clinton at all, or that I was promising never to do so. I think the context of how things are discussed is important. By comparison, I wouldn’t expect people now to discuss pure philosophy and NEVER mention Bush’s policies, but at that particular time it was annoying because people were making arguments that conservatism was dead (and deserved to die) because Bush proved how terrible it was. That was the real point about not overdoing the Bush fixation, and I feel the same way about Clinton, that some conservatives are fixated on him.
I still just disagree that we shouldn’t bring up past political scandals or policies or what have you, because I think sometimes it provides important context. When people start bordering on hysteria as though the Republic is about to come crashing down, I think it helps to point out that most of this is not unprecedented (arguably some of it is, or we’re seeing new variations in some cases). I’ll try to remember to also point out if I can think of examples of past wrongs by Republican administrations too, but I think one reason I tend to react by pointing out Clinton era stuff is that it’s within recent memory and also because sometimes there is a point to be made that other people are exhibiting bias by ignoring Democratic corruption or bad policy.
18 kritter
March 30, 2007 @ 10:23 pm CESTCS- My problem with it is that is that there’s often a failure to equate the situations. For example, my issue with this is that it seems to be causing a systemic politicization of the justice system. Clinton’s scandals were more self-centered- on his sex life, past land deals, money for his library, etc. The lasting effects of it seem minimal to me. Clinton put loyalists in the WH Travel office, but that only really affects him-not the rest of the country or sensitive investigations.
19 C Stanley
March 30, 2007 @ 10:40 pm CESTKim,
But there were also allegations that he then used the FBI to dig into the personal lives of the fired travel office (ex) employees; to be honest I can’t remember if those charges were substantiated. There certainly was a lot of talk about stuff like that, or using the IRS to go after political enemies, which is not exactly just the personal stuff that you’re talking about.
20 kritter
March 31, 2007 @ 12:46 am CESTMaybe you are right- I admit that I have paid a lot more attention to what has happened in the last few years, than I did to his scandals. I did have the sense that he was definitely fallible, but also felt that Congress and Ken Starr wanted his scalp. I guess I should read a biography of him to know more. In any case, as despicable as that sounds, I’m still more concerned as a Democrat about this DOJ problem, because it looks like they were using our own Justice Dept to prosecute voter fraud in Washington state, or to hand down indictments to local Democrats right before the election in New Mexico.
In other words, Rove has been systematically trying to set up a permanent GOP majority by using DOJ to influence elections. So to me, it is even worse than what Clinton was doing or accused of doing. They know that it would be a huge political embarassment if the truth came out , so that’s the reason for the cover-up and lies. The administration has been using RNC e-mail accts to cover up a lot of what has been going on.
If you notice several of Rove’s assistants, including the political director who worked with Sampson on the atty project, are moving on.
21 C Stanley
March 31, 2007 @ 1:42 am CESTWell, I am trying to look at the situation without partisan glasses and I do see wrongdoing, but it seems like you believe everything negative that’s put out there and frankly I think a lot of it is overblown. I definitely get the sense that the Democrats are smelling blood and it’s becoming like a shark feeding frenzy (and I’m not sympathetic to the administration, so don’t get me wrong- they brought most of it on themselves through acts which were unethical at best and then a ridiculous amount of secrecy).
I get frustrated though, when people act as though voter fraud is so unheard of (uh, hello? Chicago? And BTW, it’s fairly widely accepted that Kennedy wouldn’t have become president without vote fraud). I’m so tired of David S saying that any time the GOP complains of voter fraud that it’s really an attempt to suppress the Democratic vote. There were prosecutions against ACORN recently for fraudulent voter registrations (in large numbers), so don’t tell me that it doesn’t happen. It’s pretty hard to prove, and then here we have a case where some people were pressing the USA’s to look deeper into allegations and they’re accused of political gamesmanship. Maybe, maybe not- because it’s certainly possible that there was some reason to be suspicious and that someone either willfully looked the other way or didn’t try very hard to find evidence.
That’s the kind of thing I’m talking about, when assumptions are made, as though there’s no possible way that this was legit.
22 Interested
March 31, 2007 @ 3:21 am CESTWith David S. I would say it’s a matter of not being able to forgo the victim mentality.
For many, the feeling of being - *disenfranchised* is a powerful feeling. He even quoted a judicial writing on the case - never mind that it was a dissenting view. - meaning - yes that that view was not deemed legal by the laws of the location the case was brought forth.
Some - like David S. seem feel that theres more harm than good in making sure a valid person who should vote - is the one voting, and not someone who is not legally able too. IMO - it’s a subject worth reviewing. You cannot on one hand cry that Republicans are having ballot boxes stuffed, or whatever anti-democrats motive. If on the other hand your unwilling to go the distance to make sure those who do vote should be able too.
It can be a very good debate to have amongst those we elect to serve us. And indeed it should, but the rhetoric isn’t necessary.
23 kritter
March 31, 2007 @ 3:26 am CESTWell there will definitely be more coming out about it, so maybe there will be some answers. Other damage that I see- besides being more aggressive in prosecuting your opponents in the hopes of affecting elections is turnover. I read today that 55-60% of career prosecutors in the voter fraud division of DOJ left. These are not the political appointees, but experienced civil servants.
A former Bush justice official stated that he was ordered to put in negative information into evaluations of attorneys seen as independent, and to praise those who are seen as being loyal to the cause, so that they could move up. This as you can imagine, has caused morale problems, which has resulted in the turnovers.
If you thought a Democrat was trying this, I think it would seem pretty serious to you- although at least you are open-minded about your opinions. I probably wouldn’t take it this seriously if I was a committed conservative, but I do think the possibility of this is frightening. How is the government supposed to function if you gut its agencies of their experienced workers?
24 Interested
March 31, 2007 @ 3:36 am CESTMaybe it should, but it bothers me not at all. It’s probably due to my business background. And I see little difference in the way a Republican politician would act given the chance versus a Democrat politician given the chance. But I see little difference.
Much of politics is over hyped. That type of thing happens every day in business. Someone new comes in as manager and bam out goes department managers. Certain people in positions of power want their favorites to move up the ladder. So they do.
A undeniable fact is - the next administration will most likely remove all US Attny’s and put in place their own, just like it has happened Administration after Administration. I think they’re covering it up was pure stupidity. But then again I think any covering up of politicians is stupidity. That’s something both parties could have learned from each other. The facts will eventually come out. Why cover it up. Had Gonzalez said - yeah we fired them. It’s our legal right - so shut up. Now the Senate would have gotten in a hissy fit - for no Senator likes to be told to sit down and shut up. But in the end, they would have sat down and shut up.
But then again it’s my nature to meet things head on.
25 domajot
March 31, 2007 @ 4:50 am CESTTo the point: I don’t share Interested’s complacency about ‘the way things are done’. The DOJ is too important a determinant of how justice gets served in this country. The line between policy and politics should not be arbitrary at all. Policy is general, while politics can interfere in specific cases and can too easily be used to subvert justice rather than to serve it.
This is the defining issue for me in determining the importance of this case. I will be very saddened if this issue gets dropped after the hearings are over. I want this to be a bone in every future administration’s craw.
PS
-Several (3?) people were subsequently charged with criminal offenses as a result of Cinton inspired FBI investigations in travel-gate.
-You can’t deal with vote fraud without considering vote suppression. The politics comes into play when you choose which is more important.
26 kritter
March 31, 2007 @ 12:18 pm CEST-”You can’t deal with vote fraud without considering vote suppression. The politics comes into play when you choose which is more important.”
This is a very important point- and is exactly what I am driving at. An overly-politicized DOJ has investigated the former at the expense of the latter. In addition, public corruption cases have been filed against Democrats 7 times more often than Republicans in Bush’s tenure. Call me an alarmist, but I don’t see this as business as usual. If a Democratic administration was using its Justice dept in this manner—how would prominent Republicans be responding? Another point about DOJ is the vastly reduced number of civil rights cases that have been prosecuted in the last 6 years. It is not a priority.
btw, I disagree with Interested, that driving out career bureaucrats is a normal state of affairs. There is no evidence that this has happened before. The government is not like a business- political appointees are routinely replaced by a new administration, but not career bureaucrats. And it should bother you, even though it doesn’t, that ideology and loyalty trumps experience. Has it occurred to you that the recent relevations about Patriot Act abuses by the FBI, and the bungling of the response to questions about these attys are because the agency has been gutted?? No? didn’t think so.
27 mvdg
March 31, 2007 @ 12:48 pm CESTAgreed.
28 Interested
March 31, 2007 @ 3:54 pm CESTAny office that is appointed by politicians is political.
Lets just leave it that you live with what you consider to be important, and I’ll live with what I consider to be important. I’m perfectly fine with that, in fact it’s preferred.
Before attempting to answer in a manner you think I would, and believe me you are completely incapable of that. You may consider that the two are completely separate. Yet in your typical manner you lump them together in an incoherent thought process. simply latching onto something that shows an anti-Bush stance with a disturbingly uncaring attitude or knowledge of history. Ever hear the phrase History repeats itself?
The Patriot Act offenses were going to happen, history showed that. History has also shown that we will correct the Patriot Act to balance the line between Privacy and Public Safety. These are all balancing acts we go through. And anyone who thinks that the Legislative branch can get such a comprehensive bill together that won’t have loopholes to exploit, or that doesn’t unfairly intrude upon private lives - yet still does the best it can to protect this country on the first shot, well, that person’s a fool.
One would have thought you’d have managed a shred of concern if nothing was found to be wrong with such an encompassing bill.
And of course you have taken perhaps a shred of time to go back and examine how many career bureaucrats left during each administration change? Your comment shows a complete lack of understanding of what it is like in any environment that changes command structure - whether the command structure is forced or routine. A simple exercise would be to look into any organization of any large scale and see how the various departments operate when there is a sudden or planned departure. Heck my girlfriend just moved from one department head role to another within the same hospital. Not even a firing, yet her old nurses do not trust the guy above my girlfriend so the upheaval cost that department about 1/3rd of their nurses.
Like it or not, agree with it or not doesn’t change the fact that upheaval will happen.
29 kritter
March 31, 2007 @ 4:25 pm CESTInterested- And if anything improper has occurred it will be uncovered at the Senate hearings by Sens Schumer and Leahy.
BTW, I don’t mind you disagreeing with my ideas or conclusions, but I do mind you denigrating the way I think or how you think I come to them. I don’t see that you are adding any additional information to the discussion- you have not a shred of evidence that this is the normal and ordinary way things work in Washington.
A democracy thrives on diverse ideas and talents–using one’s experience for problem-solving. As we saw with the dismal results of the CPA in Iraq after Saddam was removed from power, political ideology and loyalty are no substitute for credible experience and competence. So, can you show me where substituting those qualities for cronyism has been successful? Because this is a failing that is seen in all aspects of this administration, from their misguided decision to hang on to Rumsfeld out of loyalty to their disasterous response to Katrina, with Brownie at the helm.
If you think the justice system is an extension of the RNC, more power to you , but if that is considered normal and conventional, why is everyone lying about their part in it? The USA’s are highly upset with Gonzales because using the DOJ to influence close elections is not what they took an oath to do. Why don’t you educate yourself on the issue before posting next time?
30 mvdg
March 31, 2007 @ 4:45 pm CESTKeep it civil people
31 Interested
March 31, 2007 @ 4:51 pm CESTI don’t share your enthusiasm for their abilities, but it has to start somewhere. You are after all talking about Schumer who refused to debate on any single part of his voting history during his last election. Nothing at all, what was he hiding? Where is your concern for what he may be concealing.
Kind of like the pot calling the kettle…
In other words, you have not taken any time to go back and see how many changes occur after any administration change. Nor do you have any insight to how any sizeable organization operates. And nor do you seem to care too.
And I said this where?
This is what they call irony.
32 Interested
March 31, 2007 @ 4:56 pm CESTAhh your right Michael, sorry for that. Sometimes it’s easy to get caught up.
I shall no longer engage in this thread. Been browsing for a side project anyway, that bit uses the brainpower.
33 kritter
March 31, 2007 @ 5:31 pm CESTSorry, MvdG- I felt that I was under personal attack. It was not my purpose to Bush-bash (I do admit I am not a fan) but to point out essential problems with his personnel policies that are weakening institutions that I have traditionally respected and hurting our confidence in the dispensing of Justice. But I will let it go at that, to avoid antagonizing interested.