The Political Chase

A couple of items to look for in Sampson testimony

The Senate Committee on Judiciary will certainly focus on two items today in Kyle Sampson’s testimony: lying to Senator Schumer and what the definition of “political” is.

Kyle Sampson, Alberto Gonzales former chief of staff, appears to have lied to Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) in a February 22, 2007 letter where Sampson says, “”The Department is not aware of Karl Rove playing any role in the decision to appoint Mr. Griffin.” (page 3, ¶ 2). Contradictory to Sampson’s assertion to Schumer, in a December 19, 2006 email, Sampson wrote the appointment of Tim Griffin “was important to Harriet, Karl, etc.” (page 1, ¶ 4). Senators aren’t particularly fond of being lied to in investigation proceedings.

The second item, not necessarily in priority, is a statement Kyle Sampson made (page 2, ¶ 2), in his prepared opening statement. Sampson puts a spin on the definition of political that is not remotely applicable to the investigation or firings of the U.S. attorneys. Specifically, Sampson’s statement says,

The distinction between “political” and “performance-related” reasons for removing a United States Attorney is, in my view, largely artificial. A U.S. Attorney who is unsuccessful from a political perspective, either because he or she has alienated the leadership of the Department in Washington or cannot work constructively with law enforcement or other governmental constituencies in the district important to effective leadership of the office, is unsuccessful.

If the Committee doesn’t put Sampson in the meat grinder first over his lie to Schumer, expect Sampson to focus and expound on what political is and how it relates to the firing of the attorneys.