Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Violent Storms; Firings Fallout; Standoff With Iran

Aired March 29, 2007 - 10:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

HEIDI COLLINS, CNN ANCHOR: Good morning, everybody. I'm Heidi Collins.
TONY HARRIS, CNN ANCHOR: And I'm Tony Harris. Stay informed in the CNN NEWSROOM. Here's what's on the rundown.

Four deaths now confirmed from tornadoes on the Plains. Homes and lives ripped apart from Colorado to Texas. More twisters may be on the way today.

COLLINS: Kyle Sampson about to give Congress his take on the fired prosecutors. The former chief of staff to the attorney general testifying live this hour.

HARRIS: President Bush talking soon. Look for him to keep pressure on Democrats in Congress, renewing his threat to veto a troop withdrawal timetable.

It is Thursday, March 29th. You are in the NEWSROOM.

COLLINS: From Nebraska to Texas, people are waking up to a disaster scene. Dozens of tornado tore through the Plains overnight. CNN is just now learning of two fatalities in the small town of Holly, Colorado. And that is where a tornado about the size of two football fields touched down. One of the victims, a mother who had been blown into a tree with her little girl. Her three-year-old daughter is hospitalized this morning. Just about every building in Holly had some kind of damage. A husband and wife were killed in Beaver County, Oklahoma. They were look for shelter in their home when it blew apart.

We want to go back to Holly, Colorado, now, for more details on the deaths and storm damage there. Reporter Rhonda Scholting is live for us this morning.

Rhonda, what can you tell us?

RHONDA SCHOLTING, CNN CORRESPONDENT: As you indicated, Heidi, there are two dead now here according to officials. One, the young mother who was trying to protect her three-year-old little girl during the storm. From what the officials here tell us, the tornado picked up their mobile home and wrapped it around a tree. The little girl suffer a skull fracture. She did survive, but is in serious condition today.

Now that storm was huge. It was ferocious. It tore through this town basically slicing it in half. It tore down trees. Huge trees like this one here. And put trees over -- power lines are down, trees are down today. And also, as you can see back here, the roof of this house is also missing.

People are now coming out, now that it is light this morning, to kind of survey the damage and kind of take a look at what the storm did to them last night. From what we understand, there was not enough time for anyone here to actually set off the tornado sirens that this town has. In fact, on this block where we're standing right here, we can clearly see one of those sirens back over this house that is now missing its roof. But because no one had enough time to actually turn those sirens on, there was not enough warning for people to actually get out of harm's way.

In all, about 30 homes here in Holly are either damaged or totally destroyed. And one part of town, the north side of town, no one is being allowed in there at this point in time because, again, many power lines are down and that is the most heavily damaged part of town. Again, though, people, Heidi, are coming out and sort of taking a look and talking to each other about their experiences last night. We understand some people rode out the storm in their house and barely escaped injury themselves.

COLLINS: Boy, it's just heartbreaking, Rhonda. I wonder, any idea, is everybody accounted for or are there still some people that are being looked for inside some of those homes that you've been showing us that just look decimated?

SCHOLTING: As far as we know, everyone has been accounted for. They took care of that in the early morning hours. Basically, when it was pitch-black out here, rescue crews went from house to house look for people, trying to make sure that no one was trapped in debris. And from what we understand from the sheriff today, everyone has been accounted for.

COLLINS: Well, that's good news at least. All right, Rhonda Scholting, thanks so much for the story, coming to us from Holly, Colorado, this morning.

Boy, what a horrendous night there. Chad Myers joining us now from the Weather Center with more on this situation.

Chad.

(WEATHER REPORT)

HARRIS: The controversial firings of federal prosecutors and now a witness for the defense this hour on Capitol Hill. We will hear testimony from Kyle Sampson. He was a top aide to Alberto Gonzales, the embattled attorney general who is now fighting for his own job. Following the latest developments, Justice correspondent Kelli Arena and congressional correspondent Dana Bash. Let us begin with Kelli.

Kelli, good morning.

KELLI ARENA, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Good morning, Tony. HARRIS: We know what Kyle Sampson will say. Well, at least until the moment that he starts to get bumped around a little bit by the questioning.

ARENA: Exactly. We got an advanced copy of his opening statement. And basically Sampson admits that he was responsible for organizing and managing the U.S. attorney dismissals. He said that he was not working alone. That he received input from a variety of officials. He says that he does believe each prosecutor was selected for legitimate reasons. And he makes the argument basically that it was OK to let them go because they didn't sufficiently support the president's priorities.

Now here's a quote from what he's expected to say. He says, "the distinction between 'political' and 'performance-related' reasons for removing a United States attorney is, in my view, largely artificial." In another quote he says, "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."

Now, of course, as you said, Tony, this is just the opening statement. That's the easy part. And he's sure to face some tough questioning for sure.

HARRIS: Kelli, does Kyle Sampson explain, has he to this point, why he resigned if, you know, it sounds like he doesn't think he did anything wrong here?

ARENA: Well, he will in his opening statement. He basically says that the whole mess is due to, in his words, a combination of poor judgment, poor word choices, poor communication. He says that he does feel partly responsible for that. He feels like he let the attorney general down. That's why he resigned. And he also says that he wasn't asked to do it. That it was something that he did on his own.

HARRIS: Wow. Live pictures now, Kelli, take a look, from the Senate Judiciary Committee.

ARENA: Yes, there's Senator Leahy raring to go.

HARRIS: That's right. So we're getting close here. Our Justice correspondent Kelli Arena. You're going to be following that for us, Kelli.

And let's turn to our congressional correspondent now, Dana Bash, is positioned for ultimate viewing of the testimony, overlooking the committee hearing room.

Dana, all right, what kind of reception can Kyle Sampson expect this morning? Let us make a couple of -- let us make a couple of adjustments because, Dana, we can't hear you.

DANA BASH, CNN CORRESPONDENT: OK.

HARRIS: Ah, there you are. All right, Dana. BASH: So you can hear me now. That's good. OK.

Well, you are probably going to hear very shortly also from one of the most important players in this. You see there the Judiciary chairman, Patrick Leahy, is starting his openings statement and he will start the ball rolling on this hearing. And essentially what Democrats, as you know, have been strongly suggesting for several weeks now is that they think the reason these prosecutors were fired is because they were in some cases too tough on Republicans and too soft on Democrats, and in other cases in corruption probes in their various districts.

Now what Kyle Sampson, the key witness here today, the only witness here today, has said, and we expect to say in his statement is, no, that's not true. That's not why these prosecutors were fired.

So what the panel wants to know, first and foremost, is why were they fired? Why did you take a group of 93 U.S. attorneys nationwide and whittle it down to eight? What was it about those eight that made them unable to serve? Was it political? Was it performance? Was it a combination of both?

And the other very important political issue that the senators are going to be trying to get at, especially the Democrats, Tony, is, what exactly was the role of Kyle Sampson's former boss, the attorney general, Alberto Gonzales. He has been under fire for having basically a credibility problem because his explanation for these firings and his role in the firings have been inconsistent, according to many people here in Congress. And they've not been happy because they have felt that they have not gotten truthful information.

That's something that Kyle Sampson admits that is actually factual, that he was involved in Congress not getting true information. So they're going to try to use this as a road map to get more facts about just what happened and who, at the highest levels of the administration, was involved.

HARRIS: OK.

Dana, I'm just getting some information that the opening statement is going on right now from the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Pat Leahy. And we understand that Kyle Sampson is not in the room to hear this. All right, we'll explore that a little later. We know you'll be watching this, as well as Kelli Arena. We will get back to you a little later in the hour.

Dana, thank you.

BASH: Thank you. And we understand he's walking in right now, just so you know, Tony. So we should see him soon. OK.

HARRIS: Right now. Good, verification.

All right, thanks, Dana.

BASH: Thanks. COLLINS: Now for some very interesting perspective in this story. Let's go ahead and talk to one of the fired prosecutors. David Iglesias served five years as the U.S. attorney for the district of New Mexico. He testified before Congress earlier this month.

Mr. Iglesias, thanks for being with us this morning.

Do me a favor and take us back, because I don't think very many people have heard individually from some of the attorneys who were let go in all of this, about what happened to you. Tell me specifically about the phone calls that you received prior to the November election.

DAVID IGLESIAS, FORMER U.S. ATTORNEY: Sure. And thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak.

I had no notice whatsoever by anybody at the Justice Department that my job was in jeopardy. I had not received any kind of warning. There was no letters, e-mails, phone calls stating that there was a problem with my product, with my office.

And then I got two phone calls in October. One from Congresswoman Heather Wilson asking me about sealed indictments related to alleged corruption matters here in New Mexico. And shortly thereafter, I got a second phone call from Senator Pete Domenici asking me about the timing of these alleged corruption matters.

These are privileged matters. Things I could not talk about. I was non-responsive. I was evasive. And shortly after those phone calls, approximately five weeks later, my name was added to the list of five other prosecutors who would eventually be asked to resign.

COLLINS: Well, in fact, you say that Senator Domenici asked you specifically whether or not you will file charges. And then when you said, likely not, he hung up on you.

IGLESIAS: Well, that's right. In fact, what he said is, will these matter be filed before November.

COLLINS: I see.

IGLESIAS: That's what he said. I told him I didn't think so. And the line went dead after he said, I'm very sorry to hear that, the line went dead. In other words, he hung up on me.

COLLINS: Right. So Mr. Iglesias, what did you do about those calls? I mean did it alert you enough that you then told someone about it?

IGLESIAS: Well, I eventually told my first assistant. I told my executive assistant and my media person after the phone calls. I should have reported those phone calls to the Justice Department. I did not do so. And I testified earlier this month to the Senate that I felt torn, I felt conflict since both Heather Wilson and Pete Domenici had been allies and friends. And in the case of the senator, had been a mentor toward me, so I felt a conflict. COLLINS: What do you expect to hear from Kyle Sampson's testimony today? And maybe even more importantly, what would you like to hear?

IGLESIAS: Well, what Mr. Sampson is going to try to explain is his role in the firings. I don't know if he's going fall on the sword and take full responsibility for this. I doubt that's going to be the case. I don't know to what extent he's going to point the finger at other members in the Justice Department or at the White House.

But Mr. Sampson is a key player in this. As chief of staff, his job was to relay information to the attorney general, provide options and recommendations.

One things that's crystal clear, that chiefs of staff do not make policy. They make recommendations. So I think it may be a mixture of him falling on his sword, taking some responsibility, but also saying, wait a minute, I wasn't the only one in this loop. There are lots of other people. I'll be very interested to see who else he names in the matter of how the decision was made to let go of the eight of us.

COLLINS: All right. You know what, David, as we continue to watch the other portion of the screen there, we want to make sure that we get the opening statements from Kyle Sampson himself, of course. So we would like to take a quick break. We know that you are going to stick around with us and come back right after this.

IGLESIAS: All right.

COLLINS: Don't go anywhere.

HARRIS: And still to come in the NEWSROOM this morning, Iran apparently reneges on a promise to free a British sailor. The standoff escalate, the world waits. That story coming up in the NEWSROOM.

President Bush headed for a veto showdown over Iraq this morning. He is expected to talk about the battle with Democrats after huddling with House Republicans. His statement live in the NEWSROOM.

And a shocking way to protect a loved one. Parents say they use a cattle prod to keep their autistic son from hurting himself.

You are in the NEWSROOM.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COLLINS: Quickly to Capitol Hill. You see Senator Chuck Schumer there. A Senate Judiciary Committee getting ready to hear from Kyle Sampson, a top aide to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, in the firings of eight U.S. district attorneys. We are watching this, monitoring it for you. These are the opening statements right now. Of course, we will bring that testimony of Kyle Sampson to you just as soon as it happens.

Also standing by we have one of the former U.S. attorneys with us. David Iglesias there. You see him. He is watching this with us. We will go back to him for some insight into all of it in just a moment.

HARRIS: New accusations from Iran in the standoff over those 15 detained British sailors and marines. Iran said today those troops entered Iranian waters six times last week before they were arrested.

Also today, an Iranian officials said the release of the lone woman among the troop will be delayed or suspended. Another official said yesterday that Faye Turney would be released soon. The secretary of Iran's supreme national council says Britain's tough stance is causing the delay. Britain maintains its sailors and marines were in Iraqi waters.

Words or weapons? With diplomatic efforts so far failing to free the captured British service members from Iran, what's a country to do? CNN's Barbara Starr takes a look.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

BARBARA STARR, CNN CORRESPONDENT, (voice over): If ordered, could the British military rescue their sailors and marines from the secret location somewhere in Iran where they are being held?

BRIG. GEN. JAMES MARKS (RET.), CNN MILITARY ANALYST: It would be very, very difficult at this point to know exactly where they are located and then be able to launch an operation, that would clearly be within Iranian territory, without being detected.

STARR: The British want a diplomatic solution. Rescues in hostile territory are a huge challenge.

MARKS: And there would have to be very, very clear intelligence before they would do it, because you would put the Brits, the Brit military forces at great risk. You'd put the hostages at risk. And that intelligence would have to be very current and very precise.

STARR: Intelligent experts say the British would either need an Iranian snitch to reveal the location where their personnel are being held, or electronic eavesdropping to listen in on the Iranian military. It's the kind of military support the U.S. might offer, using its high-tech ships and planes already in the Gulf or satellites flying overhead.

Another problem? How the British get aircraft in and get the military personnel out of the country. Iranian radars most likely would detect foreign aircraft. Some nearby Islamic country or the military base at Diego Garcia might have to be used as a staging area unless a British or U.S. aircraft carrier in the Gulf is available.

There is grim history here. In April 1980, when President Carter tried to rescue 53 hostages being held at the U.S. embassy in Tehran, it ended in disaster. Eight U.S. servicemen were killed when their aircraft crashed at a desert staging area.

Barbara Starr, CNN, the Pentagon. (END VIDEOTAPE)

COLLINS: Back now to the business at hand today. We see Senator Chuck Schumer on the screen there getting ready to hear more on the situation with the eight fired U.S. attorneys. They're waiting to hear from Kyle Sampson. Right now these are the opening statements. But Kyle Sampson, of course, the top aide to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. It looks like he's getting ready to pass the microphone to someone else. We'll continue to monitor that.

And while we do that, let's hear from one of those U.S. attorneys. David Iglesias joining us now.

David, we've speaking a little bit earlier, learned a little bit more about your particular situation and how you learned that you would be asked to resign. Who do you think is to blame here in all of this? The man that we are going to hear from today, Kyle Sampson, is he the man at the end of the road?

IGLESIAS: No, of course not. He's just a recommender. He provides the attorney general options. Ultimately it's the call of the attorney general, Mr. Gonzales, to make the call whether or not to let any of us go. So he's responsible.

COLLINS: Let me see what you think about these comments. We had the opportunity to interview Bob Barr just last week, also a former U.S. attorney. Go ahead and listen with me to this and we'll talk on the back side of it.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BOB BARR, FORMER U.S. ATTORNEY: What's really unfortunate here, both from the White House standpoint, as well as from the more important standpoint of what's best for the country, is the integrity of the Department of Justice is being used as a political football by the administration to prove who's the toughest hombre in all this.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COLLINS: David, I wonder, in your opinion, do you think this whole situation is sort of putting a cloud over the United States attorneys?

IGLESIAS: Yes. In ,fact my good friend and colleague, John McKay, has stated that publicly, that there is a dark cloud over the Justice Department. And former Congressman Barr has it right. Integrity is key. The public has to believe that United States attorneys are independent and have integrity and that politics do not enter into our policy-making decisions.

COLLINS: But then you bring up a really good point. And as I go to that next question with you, I want to make sure everyone knows what we're looking at on the screen now. Apparently we are hearing that the Senate Judiciary Committee is taking a quick break. They are going to take a vote on that $122 billion bill regarding Iraq and the war funding. So we want to make sure that everyone knows what's going on there as we wait to hear from Kyle Sampson.

But in going back to David Iglesias, you know, you bring up the idea of being isolated from politics. What about the president in all of this and the important separation of powers? Was he not within his right -- pardon me, the attorney general, to decide who is going to be in these different roles?

IGLESIAS: Now are you talking about the president or the attorney general?

COLLINS: Well, the attorney general, of course, acting on what the president is wanting to do in his executive privilege.

IGLESIAS: Yes. Yes. In fact, the president does nominate us. The United States Senate confirms us. And that's true. Although, it's important to note that even Kyle Sampson, in his prepared statement, concedes the fact that not every reason is a proper reason to give to ask a United States attorney to resign. That he identify as couple of reasons that would be improper in his statement, which he'll be reading shortly. And that's consistent with what Arlen Specter, the senator from Pennsylvania, told us a couple of weeks ago, that there are some reasons that are improper to fire a United States attorney.

COLLINS: What do you think should happen here?

IGLESIAS: Ultimately?

COLLINS: Yes.

IGLESIAS: That's a great question. I think it's really too early at this point. There's still information coming in. There's still e-mails that are being released. But ultimately the attorney general, as is true for any leader of any organization, has to take responsibility for good things and bad things. And I think you'll see probably more of a nexus between Karl Rove and the political side of the White House and this.

The key problem here is, and all my colleagues and I were willing to leave quietly until January the 19th when Deputy Attorney General McNulty testified under oath that we had performance-related problems. We all knew we didn't. We knew our offices were hardworking and productive. The second he said productivity, we had to defend our honor and the honor of our offices.

COLLINS: Well, as we continue to watch these proceedings, which are on a break right now for that Senate vote that we've been telling you about, David Iglesias, former U.S. attorney, will be staying with us. We'll come back to you just as soon as we get back to the proceedings.

David, thank you.

IGLESIAS: You're welcome.

HARRIS: And just another reminder, the senators with the Judiciary Committee have left. The Senate is about to vote this morning, as Heidi just mentioned, to pass a $122 billion supplemental budget to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. That legislation would require President Bush to start bringing home an unspecified number of troops within four months with a non-binding goal of ceasing combat operations as of March 31, 2008. We will follow that vote for you.

Still to come in the NEWSROOM this morning, the power of a tornado, lives lost, property destroyed. More severe weather may be on the way today across the plains. Stay in the NEWSROOM for extreme weather alerts.

A deadly fire in a Houston office building, daring rescues and now a search for the cause. That story coming up straight ahead in the NEWSROOM.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HARRIS: OK. We are following actually a couple of developing . . .

COLLINS: Everything.

HARRIS: Everything is happening in the NEWSROOM right now this hour this morning.

COLLINS: Everything.

HARRIS: Of course, you know about what is going on with the Senate Judiciary Committee this morning. You've been talking to David Iglesias, one of the fired federal prosecutors. And those senators with the Judiciary Committee have left the hearing room to take part in the vote on the $122 million supplemental budget to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

COLLINS: Which we're still trying to get to the bottom of, because initially that was $124 billion. A lot of talk about "pork" in that. So I'm wondering what happened to the $2 billion.

HARRIS: Did somebody trim?

COLLINS: We're working on that.

HARRIS: Peanut farmers, maybe?

COLLINS: Maybe. I don't know.

HARRIS: Spinach growers? Who knows.

But there's also an event with the president that we're following as well this morning.

COLLINS: That's right. He was to meet with the House Republican conference. That was, obviously, behind closed doors. But he is expected to come out that open door at any moment and speak to us. This is the North Portico Room, so we're hoping to find out his thoughts on all of this. Expecting him to talk about who knows what, but likely Iraq.

HARRIS: Well, and we heard the president yesterday talking to the Cattlemen's Beef Association, in which he made extensive comments. We didn't know, weren't aware that they would be quite that extensive, but extensive comments about Iraq and the fact that he does not want legislation that ties the hands of the generals on the ground and the troops fighting the war.

Here's the president.

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I want to thank the Republican leadership and the Republican (INAUDIBLE) coming down to have a very frank and open discussion about issues facing our country.

Yesterday I gave a speech making it clear that I'll veto a bill that restricts our commanders on the ground in Iraq, a bill that doesn't fund our troops, a bill that's got too much spending on it. I made that clear to the members. We stand united.

And saying loud and clear that when we've got out troops in harm's way, we expect that troop to be fully funded. And we got commanders making tough decisions on the ground. We expect there to be no strings on our commanders. And that we expect the Congress to be wise about how they spend the people's money.

We spent time talking today about our strong belief that we've got to keep taxes low. And so we had a very productive session. A session of friends talking amongst friends. All aiming to put a strategy together of how we can work together to secure this nation and keep it prosperous. So I appreciate you all coming. You're welcome back at the White House any time you want to join us. Thank you very much.

TONY HARRIS, CNN ANCHOR, NEWSROOM: That was quick and to the point. I thought we might get a little more. But even in that, the president made it clear again that once again he doesn't want a legislation that is going to bind the hands of the generals and the troops fighting the wars on the ground in Iraq in particular and of course in Afghanistan.

HEIDI COLLINS, CNN ANCHOR, NEWSROOM: He says it doesn't offer them much flexibility. He also said yesterday in that speech to the National Cattleman's Beef Association that the money or the funding would possibly run out, I believe he said in --

HARRIS: Mid April, start to run out.

COLLINS: So we'll continue to follow all of that.

HARRIS: And let's, if we could, show everyone a picture of the hearing room. There it is. The hearing we've been waiting for and the witness we've been waiting to hear from under way again shortly, we believe, before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Senators are hearing from Kyle Sampson this morning. He was, of course, a top aide to Alberto Gonzales. More of his testimony when it begins here in the NEWSROOM.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HARRIS: Good morning again, everyone. Welcome to the CNN NEWSROOM. I'm Tony Harris.

COLLINS: And I'm Heidi Collins. We are watching all kinds of stories today. First and foremost, we're waiting the testimony in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee for Kyle Sampson, a former top aide to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. We see the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee Patrick Leahy there (INAUDIBLE). We've heard a few opening statements. I think there's a few more to go before we actually hear from Sampson, so we will continue to monitor that story for you and bring it to you just as soon as it happens. It's not happening yet. So let's move on.

HARRIS: Let's talk about a little bit of severe weather. March is going out like a lion in the plains. More bad weather could be on the way after a night of violent storms and tornadoes. An Oklahoma couple was killed. Two people died in Holly, Colorado. One was a mother who was slammed into a tree with her daughter. Reporter Greg Nieto (ph) with affiliate KWGN is there.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

GREG NIETO, KWGN: We're talking about unfortunately the 26-year- old woman in that tree. We're hearing word that she just passed away. Yes, sir. You were one of the first on scene here last night. Kind of describe what happened about 8:00.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Like I said, I stepped out there on the back porch and I could hear somebody. It was the husband hollering, help me, help me and he was in bad shape, too when I got over here. But all -- I had a flashlight and I was shining it up there and I could see the little girl. And her nose was bleeding and all. So I thought maybe I could shimmy up there and get her but I just didn't have the strength to do it. And he said his wife was up there. So I kept looking. And I finally found her and she wasn't moving too much. You know, I hoped for the best. So I had to leave them and I went on down the street and got a younger guy to come back and he got up in there and he got the little girl out of there. And at that point I went on back inside. I couldn't stay out here any longer.

NIETO: You were here alone last night by yourself. What did it sound like? You said like a train coming through.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Just like a train coming. Like I said, I was watching TV and then I heard a thing snapping and popping and then I knew something. I figured a tornado at that point. And I have a basement in the house and I just was -- went around the corner to get in the basement and it -- and then the house just literally exploded inside the house. And it just sort of blew me right on into the basement entrance.

NIETO: But you're OK and your family is OK?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yeah, it didn't knock me off my feet or anything, just a lot of dirt, glass, debris.

NIETO: We talk about this family unfortunately that had suffered this devastating loss. And apparently the family dog is still, barking here behind us.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That's the family dog. Yeah. I went over there last night, but it's a mess.

NIETO: Thanks for your time, sir. We're glad that you're OK.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

COLLINS: Very upsetting situation there in Colorado. We'll get back to that and Chad Myers in a moment. For now, though, we are hearing Kyle Sampson. He has begun his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, former top aide to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. Let's listen.

KYLE SAMPSON, FMR GONZALEZ CHIEF OF STAFF: ...on whether particular individuals should be asked to resign. But the decision to ask them to do so was the result of an internal process that aggregated a considered, collective judgment of a number of senior Justice Department officials. I would be the first to concede that this process was not scientific, nor was it extensively documented. That is the nature of presidential personnel decisions. But neither was the process random or arbitrary.

Instead, it was a consensus-based process based on input from Justice Department officials who were in the best position to develop informed opinions about U.S. attorney performance. When I speak about U.S. attorney performance, it is critical to understand the performance for a Senate confirmed presidential appointee is very different than -- it's a very different thing than performance for a civil servant or a private sector employee. Presidential appointees are judged not only on their professional skills, but also their management abilities, their relationships with law enforcement and other governmental leaders and their support for the priorities of the president and the attorney general.

A United States attorney may be a highly-skilled lawyer and a wonderful person, as I believe all of the individuals who were asked to resign are, but if he or she is judged to be lacking in any of these respects, then he or she may be considered for replacement. The distinction between political and performance-related reasons for removing a U.S. 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 is unsuccessful.

With these standards for evaluating U.S. attorneys in mind, I coordinated the process of identifying U.S. attorneys that might be considered for replacement. I received input from a number of officials at the Department of Justice who were in a position to form considered judgments about the U.S. attorneys. These included not only senior political appointees such as the deputy attorney general, but also senior career lawyers, such as David Margolis (ph), a man who served Justice for more than 40 years under presidents of both parties and who probably knows more about United States attorneys than any person alive.

I developed and maintained a list that reflected the aggregation of views of these department officials over a period of almost two years. I provided that information to the White House when requested and reviewed it with and circulated it to others at the Department of Justice for comment. By and large the process operated by consensus. When any official I consulted felt that an individual name should be removed from the list, it generally was. Although consideration of possible changes had begun in early 2005, the process of actually finalizing a list of U.S. attorneys that might be asked to resign and acting on that list did not begin until last fall.

In the end, eight total U.S. attorneys were selected for replacement, Bud Cummins in mid 2006 and the other seven in a group in early December of 2006. With the exception of Bud Cummins, none of the U.S. attorneys were asked to resign in favor of a particular individual who had already been identified to take the vacant spot, nor to my knowledge was any U.S. attorney asked to resign for an improper reason. 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.

The limited category of improper reasons includes an effort to interfere with or influence the investigation or prosecution of a particular case for political or partisan advantage. To my knowledge, nothing of the sort occurred here. Instead, based on everything I've seen and heard, I believe that each replaced U.S. attorney was selected for legitimate reasons falling well within the president's broad discretion and relating to his or her performance in office at least as performance is properly understood in the context of Senate- confirmed political appointees.

Nonetheless, when members of Congress began to raise questions about these removals, I believe the department's response was badly mishandled. It was mishandled through an unfortunate combination of poor judgments, poor word choices and poor communication in preparation for the department's testimony before Congress. For my part in allowing this to happen, I want to apologize to my former DOJ colleagues, especially the U.S. attorneys who were asked to resign.

What started as a good faith attempt to carry out the department's management responsibilities and exercise the president's appointment authority, has unfortunately resulted in confusion, misunderstanding and embarrassment. This should not have happened. The U.S. attorneys who were replaced are good people. Each served our country honorably and I was privileged to serve at the Justice Department with them. As the attorney general's chief of staff, I could have and should have helped to prevent this.

In failing to do so, I let the attorney general and the department down. For that reason I offered the attorney general my resignation. 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. Contrary to some suggestions I've seen in the press, I was not motivated to resign by any belief on my part that I withheld information from department witnesses or intentionally misled either those witnesses or the Congress. Mistakes I made here were made honestly and in good faith.

I failed to organize a more effective response to questions about the replacement process. But I never sought to conceal or withhold any material fact about this matter from anyone. I always carried out my responsibilities in an open and collaborative manner. Others in the department knew what I knew about the origins and timing of this enterprise. None of us spoke up on those subjects during the process of preparing Mr. McNulty and Mr. Mitchell (ph) to testify, not because there was some effort to hide this history, but because the focus of our preparation sessions was on other subjects, principally why each of the U.S. attorneys had been replaced, whether there had been improper case-related motivations for those replacements and whether the administration planned to use the attorney general's interim appointment authority to evade the Senate confirmation process.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Thank you.

SAMPSON: As I see it, if truth of this affair is this, the decisions to seek the resignations of a handful of U.S. attorneys were properly made but poorly explained. This is a benign rather than sinister story and I know that some may be disposed not to accept it. But it is truth as I observed it and experienced it. Mr. Chairman, if I may just add, eight years ago, I moved my wife and children here to Washington because I was interested in public service. And I came to work here for this committee first for then Chairman Hatch. And it was an honor for me to do that. And really through serendipity I've had opportunities for other public service in the government. I believe in public service and in all of my work in public service, I've made every effort to operate openly and forthrightly and with integrity.

SEN. PATRICK LEAHY (D) CHMN, JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: Mr. Sampson, I don't mean to cut you off and we have given you extra time, as you know. We have now what I believe is a final vote. Then I am going to turn the gavel over to Senator Cole. I'll go and vote and I will come back. If you wish to add to the part that was cut off, certainly, I'll give you the time.

SAMPSON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, thank you, Mr. Chairman. All I had to say, all I wanted to conclude in saying is that I've come up here to testify voluntarily today because I believe in public service and because I believe in the goodness of our political process. I appreciated Senator Schumer saying this was not a gotcha and I came here today because this episode has been personally devastating to me and my family and it's my hope that I can come up here today, share with you the information that this committee and Congress wants and frankly put this behind me and my family. And with that, I'm happy to answer any questions any senators may have.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We will hold further proceedings until the chairman returns.

COLLINS: OK, so they are holding further proceedings until the chairman returns, as we just heard him say there. Going off to get the results or actually to cast his vote, I believe, in the $122 billion bill for war funding. We see that happening on the right-hand side of your screen there. A little bit unorthodox. I bet Kyle Sampson probably didn't expect that to happen right sort of in the middle or towards the end.

HARRIS: Mr. Chairman, where are you going? Where you going Mr. Chairman?

COLLINS: But you know what? It kind of tends to happen all at the same time, I would imagine, in the middle of this. I think I'm going to go ahead and bring back in -- you know what? Are we getting the vote now?

That would be some sort of protest going on. I think at this time, do we want to go ahead and bring in David Iglesias at this point? Yes, the protestor there is saying bring the troops home as you can hear that. Let's go ahead and bring in a former U.S. attorney David Iglesias who has been very patient with us and with the Senate Judiciary Committee as well. David, thanks for watching all of this with us. We did get to see most of Kyle Sampson's testimony there. He did finish things up to say that this has been very difficult for him and his family as well. How about your experience with you and your family? When you are no longer a U.S. attorney, what happens? Where does your career stand at this point?

DAVID IGLESIAS, FORMER U.S. ATTORNEY: Oh, well, right now I'm not doing anything except doing media. I had planned on taking the month of March off. I'm a Navy reserve officer. I'll be doing some military duty next month. Then I hope to start my new job in the private sector sometime in late April. Yeah, it's -- you know, when you plan to have a job for another year or so, it is very difficult to make an adjustment. In our case, we were given seven weeks, right before the Christmas holiday season to find another job, which is why some of us asked for additional time. So I mean, the best, most trenching comment I've heard about this scandal was with Bud Cummins, my friend from Arkansas, former U.S. attorney. He said, you know, this was a bad plan, poorly executed. I think Kyle Sampson's comments confirmed that.

HARRIS: David, Tony Harris with Heidi Collins in Atlanta. Good to talk to you this morning. I'm just curious, from what you heard from Kyle Sampson, my thought is, who did you alienate? Was it Senator Domenici? Was it someone else, a combination of people, groups? Did you alienate the local FBI?

IGLESIAS: No, it wasn't the local FBI. You know, again, I had no reports, no warnings that my job was in jeopardy, that I had any performance issues until I received a call on December the 7th. And I wasn't put on any list, on any termination list until November 15th, which was shortly after I got the inappropriate phone call from Senator Pete Domenici and Congressman Wilson (ph). HARRIS: David, let me stop you there. So who -- the inference from Kyle Sampson is that you didn't because you were let go, you didn't work well politically. Did you understand your job to be as a U.S. attorney that when a senator called you with a referral that you needed to respond to that referral immediately and maybe the broader question is, as a U.S. attorney, how much discretion do you have in that position to decide which referrals you choose to investigate?

IGLESIAS: Oh, we have complete discretion. It's up to the United States attorney to decide which cases to prosecute, which cases not to prosecute and when to time the indictment. It's not a prerogative of Congress or a special interest group or political party. That's just the history of the office. So you know, this entire thing has been mishandled, as Kyle Sampson said. They should have just told us, frankly, you've lost your political support. We can't go into the reasons. How much time do you need to find a job? Had they done that decently and professionally and respectfully, I doubt this scandal would have erupted.

COLLINS: So David, let me then ask you this. In today's proceedings that we see here with the Senate Judiciary Committee and we have already heard from Kyle Sampson before the question and answer portion to come still, would it make you happy if that was corrected? Would everything be all right with you and the other seven U.S. attorneys who were let go, if, in fact, Kyle Sampson or Attorney General Gonzales, who we're not going to hear from obviously today, would say, you know what, this was a mistake. There were no performance issues whatsoever but we will leave these eight U.S. attorneys without a job at this point?

IGLESIAS: Here's what I'm after. I can't speak for my colleagues. You'll have to ask them. But I've stated publicly what I want is a written retraction from the Justice Department stating that performance had nothing to do with my termination. That's all I seek.

COLLINS: You are not seeking your job back.

IGLESIAS: No, at this point, it would be impossible for me to work with the attorney general and the deputy and his staff. I've lost trust. I've lost my faith in their ability to effectively lead the premier criminal justice agency in the country.

COLLINS: Let's listen quickly before we let you go here, David, to something that Kyle Sampson said just moments ago in his testimony.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SAMPSON: -- between political and performance-related reasons for removing a U.S. attorney is, in my view, largely artificial. The 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 is unsuccessful.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COLLINS: Your thoughts on that comment.

IGLESIAS: I couldn't disagree more. The thing to keep in mind is Kyle Sampson has never been a prosecutor much less a Federal prosecutor. He doesn't understand what we do. I couldn't disagree more with his statement that the distinction is artificial. Then Attorney General John Ashcroft told me in his office, politics stay outside the door once you become a United States attorney. He told all my colleagues that. So I could not disagree more. We are not rated on political effectiveness. We're rated on performance. And all of us had good performance evaluations by a team of 20 to 25 members of the Justice Department, by career people.

COLLINS: Former U.S. attorney David Iglesias, we appreciate your thoughts here today as we continue to follow the story.

HARRIS: And still to come in the NEWSROOM this morning, Iran apparently reneges on a promise to free a British sailor. The standoff escalates. The world waits. That story coming up in the NEWSROOM.

COLLINS: Fire in a Houston office building. Today searching for clues in the blaze that took three lives. Stay with us right here the CNN NEWSROOM.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COLLINS: Investigating a deadly fire in Texas this morning. Three people were killed, several were hurt after a blaze spread through a Houston office building. We want to quickly get back to the live shot that we had there. We understand there has been a vote in the Senate today.

HARRIS: OK. Thanks, Heidi. Our congressional correspondent Dana Bash is standing by. Dana, we're trying to make some sense of what this particular vote was about today. We know that the Senate was voting on whether to pass that $122 billion supplemental budget to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. But it was -- this vote was about the particular language to include. Why don't you bring us up to speed on the vote? We understand it was 51-47 to pass.

DANA BASH, CNN CORRESPONDENT: 51-47 and what passed is exactly what you just described, Tony. It is the big bill, the war funding bill, the emergency funding bill that the president requested, $120 billion plus to go for, as you said, wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and lots of other things that Democrats and Republicans have put into this particular measure. But what is most significant is that in this bill is something that we talked about earlier this week, because it has a Democratic plan to require U.S. combat troops to come home from Iraq by about this time this next year, a date certain for withdrawal and that is the big issue that the president is -- says he is going to veto this particular measure over because he said over and over, that this ties the hands of the commanders in chief or the commander, I should say, on the ground in Iraq and he is adamantly opposed to it.

That's why you saw this vote only 51 voted for an important measure and that is a measure to actually fund the war in Iraq. And the reason why most Republicans voted against it is because of that very reason, in this particular bill is the Democrats' plan to have a deadline for troops to come home from Iraq. And I should just tell you, this is not going to go to the president's desk yet. The House has passed this last week - they're going to have to reconcile the two measures. And then, once they do that, both chambers will vote, then it's going to go to the president.

HARRIS: OK and Dana, I may be heading down a slippery slope here. The Senate language, is it binding language in this legislation that's passed by the Senate with regard to troop withdrawals or is it non- binding language with regard to troop withdrawals?

BASH: Well, it has a goal of having troops come home that start to come home within 120 days. But then eventually make it home by this time next year, by March. But in a way, it's important to note that this is, again, just what the Senate passed. And what the House passed is binding. It's particularly binding and that is going to be interesting, Tony, and you said it's a slippery slope but it's a slippery slope for Democrats here because they are going to have to figure out because the House passed a measure which does have a deadline for withdrawal, but it's different. And they got this through the House with a squeaker of a vote. It was just 218, so they didn't have any votes to spare there. The way they come together, the Democrats and the House and the Senate and try to find some kind of common ground on this deadline is going to be interesting to watch. And that's going to be some of the next thing in the process here before it even gets to the president's desk.

HARRIS: Well, explained, wow, congressional correspondent Dana Bash for us, Dana thank you.

BASH: Thank you.

COLLINS: All right and as we continue to watch both of these situations today and waiting to hear from Kyle Sampson, former aide to attorney general - actually we have already heard from him. We're going to hear the question and answer from the Senate Judiciary Committee there. You see Arlen Specter, Patrick Leahy. We're going to take a quick break before that happens. We'll be back right here.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.voxant.com