pudge's Journal: Kyle Sampson is Wrong Too

jamie informs that Kyle Sampson claimed Gonzales' statement about being "not involved in any discussions of U.S. attorney removals" was inaccurate.

Sampson, like most of the Congress and the press, is also wrong. The evidence he gives is that Gonzales was involved in a Nov. 27 meeting about the firings. Except, that's the same meeting we already knew about it.

Let's recap. Gonzales said "my chief of staff [Sampson] was involved in the process of determining who were the weak performers ... But that is, in essence, what I knew about the process. I was not involved in seeing any memos, was not involved in any discussions about what was going on."

This Nov. 27 meeting happened after that process he referred to had completed. He was not involved in any discussions about what was going on in that process, he was involved in discussions about what had gone on in that now-completed process.

The whole point of the discussion this statement is drawn from is whether Gonzales was involved in picking who would be fired, and he said no, he was not involved in that. And no evidence, and no statement by Sampson so far, shows otherwise.

The decision makers

[jamie]

KYLE SAMPSON [pbs.org]: The decision makers in this case were the attorney general and the counsel to the president. I and others made staff recommendations, but they were approved and signed off on by the principals.

Re:

[pudge]

KYLE SAMPSON [pbs.org]: The decision makers in this case were the attorney general and the counsel to the president. I and others made staff recommendations, but they were approved and signed off on by the principals.

And this, of course, in no way contradicts anything Gonzales said. Gonzales has already said he made the final approval, and has never said or implied that he didn't.

Re:

[jamie]

Incorrect. [washingtonpost.com]

Re:

[pudge]

Incorrect. [washingtonpost.com]

Nope. I am absolutely correct, and you are absolutely wrong. I have already said why; if you would like to argue against my points, feel free, but simply saying my arguments are wrong without backing it up is childish.

To recap: there can be no doubt that Gonzales was talking only about not being "involved in the process of determining who were the weak performers." Those are his words. The quotes we see about "that is, in essence, what I knew about the process. I was not involved in seeing any memos, w

The Iglesias Episode

[jamie]

The Iglesias Episode [washingtonpost.com] (Washington Post editorial, 4/9/2007):

Mr. Iglesias, it turns out, was a late addition to the target list. He was a "diverse up-and-comer" considered for promotion and, in a March 2005 assessment, was placed in the category of "recommend retaining; strong U.S. attorneys who have produced well, managed well and exhibited loyalty to the president and attorney general." Indeed, Mr. Iglesias's name didn't turn up on the list of those to be terminated until Nov. 7, 2006. How and why? The ans

Re:

[pudge]

When someone has actual evidence, not mere speculation, that Gonzales was involved in placing Iglesias on the list, then let me know.

Also, as a tangent, I am glad Iglesias was fired. He has proven in the aftermath to be a very poor thinker, not the type of person I think should be a US Attorney. Specifically, when asked why he asked for a job recommendation, he said [thinkprogress.org]:

If [my firing] was performance based, there is no way they would have agreed to have allowed me to list them as a reference.

Except, of course