Sampson: Distinction between 'political and performance-related' firings is 'artificial'
 D. Kyle Sampson, the former Chief of Staff to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, will tell the Senate Judiciary Committee this morning that the firing of eight US Attorneys by the White House was justified and appropriate, but handled poorly.
But, most surprisingly, Sampson is set to testify that the terminations were "political" in nature, but not in the manner that most critics have pegged them.
"The distinction between 'political' and 'performance-related' reasons for removing a United States Attorney is, in my view, largely artificial," Sampson will say in his prepared remarks, which were posted by the McClatchy-Tribune News Service and are now available at this link.
Critics have defined some of the firings as "political" since, going by many of the documents released, they appear to be based partially on objections by Republican lawmakers. But Sampson, who resigned from his post earlier this month and agreed to testify voluntarily without being subpoenaed, will argue that a U.S. Attorney who is not able to "work constructively" with governmental constituencies cannot be "successful" in his or her position.
"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," Sampson will say.
He will add, "If he or she...is resistant to the President's or the Attorney General's constitutional authority...then that U.S. Attorney is not performing at a high level."
Sampson will add details of the process he directed from the Justice Department.
"With the exception of Bud Cummins [in Arkansas - ed.], none of the US Attorneys was asked to resign in favor of a particular individual who had already been identified to take the vacant spot," he said. "As presidential appointees, U.S. Attorneys serve at the 'pleasure of the president' and may be asked to resign for almost any reason with no public or private explanation."
He will say no wrongdoing can be identified
"Based on my everything I have seen and heard, I believe that each replaced U.S. Attorney was selected for legitimate reasons falling well within the President's broad discretion," his remarks note.
At the same time, Sampson will acknowledge that the process of firing the attorneys was badly managed.
"The decisions to seek the resignations of a handful of US Attorneys were properly made but poorly explained," he said. "This is benign, rather than sinister story, and I know some may be indisposed to accept it."
Sampson will also insist he was not forced out, but resigned from his role in government willingly.
"I was not asked to resign. I simply felt honor-bound to accept my share of blame for this problem and to hold myself accountable," he will explain.
|
