Kyle Sampson, who recently resigned as chief of staff for Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez is an active member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon). CNN is reporting that Mr. Sampson is a key witness in the ongoing U.S. Attorneys firing scandal that continues to plague the Bush Administration. He testifies before Congress today.
Mr. Sampson, resigned on March 12, 2007 in an attempt to diffuse the controversy and take some of the heat off the Bush Administration. Mr. Sampson defended the firings, admitting that they were badly handled, but stressed they were not improper:
The decision to fire eight U.S. attorneys was “properly made but poorly explained,” a former top aide to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales will tell a Senate committee Thursday.
In a written statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee, Kyle Sampson says none of the prosecutors were sacked “for an improper reason,” such as to influence an ongoing investigation.
But he says the process — which has led to a firestorm on Capitol Hill and a standoff over the testimony of White House aides — was “badly mishandled.” (Read the full statement – PDF)
“The decisions to seek the resignations of a handful of U.S. attorneys were properly made, but poorly explained,” he states. “This is a benign rather than sinister story, and I know that some may be indisposed to accept it. But it is the truth as I observed and experienced it.”
Reporting on his Mormon roots, CNN noted that he is currently serving as Bishop in his northern Virgina ward, is married with three children, and is apparently a returned missionary and BYU graduate:
A married father of three young children, Sampson is a bishop at his Mormon church in northern Virginia and has served as counsel both on Capitol Hill and at the White House.
Friends and colleagues paint a portrait of Sampson as a deeply religious family man with a sense of humor who often remained cool and calm despite a Justice Department that Corallo said “devours people.” . . .
Sampson’s Mormon roots lead back to his birth in Utah. Later his parents moved to Tacoma, Washington, where he grew up.
Like many followers of his faith, Sampson served two years as a volunteer, helping Southeast Asian immigrants living in Minnesota. He returned to Utah to attend college at Brigham Young University in Provo, where he met his wife Noelle. The Sampsons have three children; a daughter, 11, and sons ages 7 and 5.
“Kyle, while he’s a man of great spirit, he’s not so rigid and dogmatic that he’s a zealot,” Nixon said. “On the other hand he’s extremely thoughtful and he’s an extremely spiritual person. He has great faith in a loving God and he is making his decisions based on that foundation.”
The question being asked is whether Sampson is taking the fall for the Attorney General. His Capitol Hill testimony should be interesting to follow. NPR has a piece here, which also touched briefly on his Mormon roots:
Sampson’s friends also describe him as devoted to his family and his faith. He holds a prominent position in the Mormon church as bishop of his ward.
Last year, Sampson tried to return to Utah where he grew up. He lobbied to be made U.S. attorney there. In the end, his former boss intervened. At Sen. Orrin Hatch’s request, President Bush nominated someone else for the job.
I wish Mr. Sampson well in his testimony, and look forward to hearing his explanation. Devyn S. over at Mormon Mentality has also posted on this.
March 29, 2007 at 7:48 am
[...] and Advocate covers the coverage on recently resigned DOJ chief of staff, Kyle Sampson, including his LDS [...]
March 29, 2007 at 8:07 am
He sounds like an honorable person and should be believed when giving his statements at the hearing. It doesn’t seem that he has any motives not to be truthful
March 29, 2007 at 8:58 am
William Grigg, a former Mormon and former editor for The New American, has a scathing blog post about this issue. It’s worth a read, if only to get some interesting perspective on the issue.
The quandary presented here is interesting. Does being a BYU grad, RM, and Bishop indicate that Sampson will actually tell the truth (a revolutionary act, these days) when testifying? Will we be able to believe everything he says regarding the matter?
I’m curious to see the commentaries that both sides of the aisle produce on his testimony.
March 29, 2007 at 2:46 pm
Well, he testified and it looks like Gonzalez won’t be happy.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/29/washington/29cnd-attorneys.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
March 29, 2007 at 4:27 pm
madmouser: I tend to agree with you. Unless and until documents show reason to doubt his credibility, I think he deserves the benefit of the doubt.
Connor: Thanks for that link. And, it does provide some interesting facts and perspective. None of those things you suggest guarantee truthful testimony; however, given how he has testified today, I think he was truthful.
Rusty: I agree, A.G. Gonzalez is probably not a happy man this evening. Thanks for the NY Times link. I think that story only enhances Sampson’s credibility. He was a very loyal chief of staff prior to his resignation. His resignation probably was the best thing for him. It sounds like the Gonzalez ship is on its way out.
March 29, 2007 at 5:08 pm
Sounds to me that “Mormons” are the MSM political grab bag. It is a “trustworthy” thing when sides with their views and a “Weird” or “Agent of SLC” when they are not.
March 29, 2007 at 5:24 pm
Jetboy: Clearly the Mormon label generates more than its fair share of press. But, that’s not always a bad thing. From what I’ve read, Kyle Sampson did pretty well today.
March 29, 2007 at 6:33 pm
Guy, I am relieved and grateful that you are giving Kyle Sampson the benefit of the doubt. Having been acquainted with him before he began his professional career, I believe he is an extremely honorable and decent person. Not because he is LDS, but because he truly lives his life according to gospel values. I have read his complete statement and believe every word, based on my acquaintance with him.
March 30, 2007 at 5:32 am
E,
Thanks for your insight. As I said, from all that I have read, and from the news reports on TV, I think Mr. Sampson was honest. He came across to me as a very credible witness. I’m not so certain he helped Mr. Gonzalez; but, that was not his job. His job was to tell the truth, and I think he did.
March 30, 2007 at 5:56 am
I chose not to post on here until today–but yeah, I think he did well yesterday too. He was honest, which was exactly what he was supposed to do. Best wishes for him and his family.
March 30, 2007 at 8:29 am
Guy,
You ought to read Joshua Marshall’s Talking Points Memo. You will find plenty of evidence that Mr. Sampson is not as honest and forthright as some are painting him. Just because he came from BYU and just because he is an RM does not make him an honest man. This is what happens when you work for this administration where lying is rewarded and telling the truth will get you fired (just ask Paul O’Neil, Richard Clarke, etc).
I really am befuddled as to why so many Mormons are tying themselves to this ship, a festering cesspool full of liars. I don’t get it.
Just how many times did Mr. Sampson say “I don’t remember?” How about 122 times. Let me ask you something, if you are a future employer, is this the kind of person you want? Someone who is so forgetful about the work he does?
He may be a “Latter Day Saint,” but he ain’t no saint.
March 30, 2007 at 8:58 am
Sherpa,
Well, I guess Dan doesn’t agree with us; but, I’m with you. If he were going to lie, and be the fall guy, he wouldn’t have testified in public, under oath, in front of a Senate Committee that A.G. Gonzalez’ statements were inaccurate. I think he did tell the truth. I have no idea whether he did or did not forget all the items he claimed that he did. Absent some evidence to the contrary, say like the myriad of emails which contradict Gonzalez’ prior statements in all this–well I’m prepared to give Mr. Sampson the benefit of the doubt.
Dan, No one in the bloggernacle dislikes the policies and the actual actions of the Bush administration more than I. They have seriously damaged the U.S. standing in the world, and have dishonored the divine principles of the Constitution. The fact I think Mr. Sampson told the truth when placed under oath doesn’t change any of that.
I like Joshua Marshall, and I will take a look at what he has to say; but, he will have to have something more than his opinion to sway mine.
March 30, 2007 at 11:59 am
Guy, thanks. I meant to tell you on the other post that I finally read all of what you said about the BYU-Cheney invitation. I agree with you on there. I disagree with the fact that Cheney was invited; but I agree with you about the rest. Kudos to BYU Administration for allowing an on-campus demonstration.
March 30, 2007 at 2:46 pm
How on earth does he find time to be a Bishop with the job he has?
I did listen to clips of some of his testimony and he seemed pretty forthright to me. Hardly the hack some have portrayed him as.
TNR article, which some pointed to, is kind of a hatchet job itself. Can you figure out under the “religion” paragraph what the author’s complaint is? Ditto with most of the other paragraphs. It’s really bad stuff.
I read the Josh Marshall blog and I’m afraid I didn’t see the issues Dan referred to. Could he perhaps link to the particular parts he sees as problematic?
March 30, 2007 at 4:51 pm
Daniel, just curious, do you believe it is possible for someone to disagree with you politically and still be a good latter-day-saint? I get the impression that to you republican or conservative = evil. Is it really that unbelievable that a person who has thousands of converstions with numerous different people regarding many different issues over the course of years might not remember every detail of every conversation?
March 31, 2007 at 5:24 am
E,
Please, of course you can be a good latter day saint and a Republican, just like you can be a good latter day saint and a Democrat. This is not the issue. You’re bringing up a distraction here. The issue is the Bush administration and its multitude of ways that it has 1.) lied to the American public, 2.) used the federal government to further the Republican party’s election results, which is unethical and illegal, and 3.) no need to bring up everything else, you know, Iraq, torture, etc.
Mr. Sampson has shown he is more interested in continuing the Bush administration’s bamboozling of Americans than in telling the truth, as such I do question his honesty, and if someone brings up his religion as collateral that he is an honest man, I will question the use of that religion as collateral.
Seriously, don’t you guys see this? What kind of man who KNOWS he has to testify in front of Congress about something this vastly important does NOT prepare himself to testify honestly? How many weeks has he had to prepare? And out of those many weeks of preparation for questions he KNEW were coming, how often did he say, “I don’t remember?” He is NOT telling you the “truth, the WHOLE truth, and nothing but the truth.” He is holding back, because he is a dutiful servant who is falling on his sword for his masters. That’s not an honest man. That’s a loyal man, no doubt, but certainly not an honest man.
March 31, 2007 at 5:33 am
Clark,
Here are the sections that show problems with Kyle Sampson’s story:
This one
This one
This one
and this one
Kyle Sampson is not telling the whole truth. If he were he would not tell you “I don’t remember” 122 times.
April 1, 2007 at 3:40 pm
I don’t remember what happened yesterday.
April 2, 2007 at 6:22 am
Susan,
If I was the Attorney General and you were my deputy, and you had as bad of a memory as you are saying, I would fire you immediately. I need people under me who remember what the heck they are doing! I need people who are not so forgetful.
See, this shows one of two things. Either Mr. Sampson is so inept, or he is deliberately holding back. In either case, what does that tell you about Mr. Sampson? Further, what does that tell you about his boss who should know better?
April 2, 2007 at 11:34 am
Mr. who?
April 4, 2007 at 3:39 pm
Mr. Sampson says that nobody was fired for a proper reason but that it was all just mishandled. Excuse me–if what is coming out in all of the testimony points to a “proper reason” then we must all be loco. He may have told the ‘truth” but his interpretation of his actions do not ring in my ears as honorable. I too think that he is just trying to play “team ball.” His honesty or lack of it will be apparent before too long, I hope. His sense of fairness and of what is morally right I fear is in need of an overhaul.
April 4, 2007 at 3:41 pm
Has anyone else noticed how much like Karl Rove he looks? Oh my, that is scary!!
April 10, 2007 at 4:06 pm
I really can’t post on this on my blog, but I just realized last week (I was off the day he plead guilty) that someone I knew at work was prosecuted for the Abramoff scandal. I looked it up and then realized he’s dating another employee there that we thought was a lesbian for a while. Needless to say, I’m now watching the case more than I was as its still unclear of how much Abramoff influenced Interior.
April 10, 2007 at 7:05 pm
Sherpa,
Yes, and please keep us posted. Sounds like an incredible time to work in D.C.
April 13, 2007 at 12:27 pm
Guy,
Well it looks like Kyle Sampson did indeed lie to the Senate:
I think we’re barely seeing the tip of the iceberg right now. It was a good attempt by Kyle Sampson to fall on his sword for his masters, but alas, the momentum is finally turning against them. I think when all is revealed, everybody except the die hard delusional loyalists are going to be revolted at what they see in this Bush administration.
May 17, 2007 at 4:52 am
Guy,
I know this is an old post, but I thought you should look at Comey’s testimony of a few days ago and compare his ability to remember well certain days and certain events and compare that testimony with Sampson’s wherein he says “I don’t remember” 123 times. Can you really tell me Sampson is not lying?