Associated Press Newswire and ABC News report that the former Chief of Staff for Attorney General Alberto Gonzales is prepared to testify before Congress on Thursday that eight US Attorneys were fired for not toeing the Bush Administration's political line.
Eight federal prosecutors were fired last year because they did not sufficiently support President Bush's priorities, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' former chief of staff says in remarks prepared for delivery Thursday to Congress.
"The distinction between 'political' and 'performance-related' reasons for removing a United States attorney is, in my view, largely artificial," said Kyle Sampson.
The aide, who quit because of the furor over the firings, is to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee. A copy of his prepared remarks was obtained Wednesday by The Associated Press.
"A U.S. attorney who is unsuccessful from a political perspective … is unsuccessful," Sampson said.
Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) pledges to go ahead with a full hearing and get all the facts, regardless of whether Mr. Gonzales resigns swiftly.
""In case anybody's thinking of shortchanging it that way, I have a message for them: We'll finish this investigation before we'll have any confirmation hearings for a new attorney general," said Leahy, D-Vt. "I want to know what the facts were."
And just in case Mr. Sampson decides not to appear voluntarily after all, the senator has a subpoena prepared and stowed away, under lock and key.
What's especially damning in this breaking story is not only the facts -- which were obvious from the get-go -- but the imperious attitude of Kyle Sampson, who admits in cavalier fashion that the motivation for the firings was purely political, but who apparently sees nothing wrong with the politicization of the Department of Justice, whose behavior is supposed to be above partisan punishments.
UPDATE: Read the prepared statement of Kyle Sampson to the Senate Judiciary Committee, dated March 29, 2007, right here.
Sampson attempts to blur the line between partisan reasons for smearing and purging a U.S. Attorney, and performance-related reasons, by stating, in part:
Thus, 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.
Okay, but then why did most of these US Attorneys have positive job reviews when dismissed?
If partisan political reasons are the same as reasons related to job performance, then why isn't there a checkbox on the Department of Justice job performance review form for US Attorneys that reads:
(Mark X in the Appropriate Space):
__ Very Satisfactory Bushie,
__ Satisfactory Bushie,
__ Somewhat Satisfactory Bushie,
__ Not Very Satisfactory Bushie,
__ Not At All Satisfactory Bushie?