U.S. Attorney General Albert R. Gonzales issued a statement in the form of a Washington Post column as a prelude to his testimony before Congress on Tuesday. In his column he makes a point that's worth repeating.
While I have never sought to deceive Congress or the American people, I also know that I created confusion with some of my recent statements about my role in this matter. To be clear: I directed my then-deputy chief of staff, Kyle Sampson, to initiate this process; fully knew that it was occurring; and approved the final recommendations. Sampson periodically updated me on the review. As I recall, his updates were brief, relatively few in number and focused primarily on the review process.
A source of this controversy is the testimony of Kyle Sampson, former chief of staff to Mr. Gonzales. Sampson was reported to have contradicted the attorney general's claim of a having limited role in the dismissals of eight U.S. attorneys when he testified that he, Sampson, had consulted regularly with the attorney general. What exactly does regularly mean?
The two men talked about the dismissal plans over a two-year period, Mr. Sampson said, beginning in early 2005 when Mr. Gonzales was still the White House counsel. Mr. Sampson said he had briefed his boss at least five times before December 2006, when seven of the eight prosecutors were ousted.
Five times in two years. Based on that I wouldn't conclude that Gonzales played a prominent role in the process, but for the Democrats it's enough to launch yet another witch hunt.
Comments