CNN Larry King Live-Transcript

Interview

CNN Larry King Live-Transcript

KING: From Sanjaya's family members, his one time choir director and Simon's girlfriend, "Extra" correspondent Terri Seymour -- they're all next on LARRY KING LIVE.

Two outstanding United States senators join us from Washington, Charles Schumer of New York; Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania.

Senator Schumer, did the testimony of Sampson today add to this story? What did it do?

SCHUMER: Oh, it certainly added to this story.

First, he directly rebutted the attorney general in terms of the attorney general telling the truth about what happened with all these firings. He said that the attorney general did not state the whole facts in many different ways.

Second, he admitted that Mr. Iglesias, one of the U.S. attorneys who was fired, should not have been fired.

Third, he showed the utter disarray in the Justice Department. Here a major decision was made to fire seven U.S. attorneys.

And what -- do they have a system, a procedure? Do they have files? Did they know who was the -- who said they should be fired? Did they check out the allegations against them?

It seems none of this happened.

KING: Yes.

SCHUMER: It seemed like a sort of back to the envelope operation for something as serious as this.

So the testimony was extremely damaging for Attorney General Gonzales and for the Justice Department.

KING: And, by the way, David Iglesias, who you mentioned, will be with us shortly.

Senator Arlen Specter is also with us.

Before we ask Arlen, let's watch him questioning Sampson.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SAMPSON: I don't think the attorney general's statement that he was not involved in any discussions about U.S. attorney removals is accurate and...

SPECTER: Is what?

Is accurate?

SAMPSON: I don't think it's accurate. I think he's recently clarified it. But I remember discussing with him this process of asking certain U.S. attorneys to resign and I believe that he was present at the meeting on November 27th.

SPECTER: So he was involved in discussions, contrary to the statement he made at his news conference on March 13th?

SAMPSON: I believe -- yes, sir.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: Senator Specter, you said the Justice Department's reputation has been damaged.

How damaged?

SPECTER: Well, it remains to be seen, Larry. I think we have to hear from the attorney general before we come to conclusions. He's entitled to his day in court.

I think one factor interesting to note is that the most important concession made by Kyle Sampson today was in response to my question, and that is whether the attorney general was involved in discussions.

He said in his news conference on March 13th he was not. And that's a very serious contradiction with the e-mail. But let's -- let's hear from him first. Let's give him his day in court before we hang him.

KING: When does that occur?

SPECTER: It occurs in a couple of weeks. We're on recess next week and 10 days afterward, he'll be before us. He'll be under oath and let's hear what he has to say. I'm not going to run him out of town on a rail based on newspaper stories or television or radio interviews. I want to see him eyeball to eyeball. I want him under oath and hear what he has to say.

KING: Chuck Schumer, have you called for him to resign?

SCHUMER: I have, indeed.

I, you know, from the start, I was worried that Attorney General Gonzales didn't understand the role of an attorney general. He rather saw himself still as the White House counsel.

When you're White House counsel, you serve the president and that's that. When you're attorney general, rule of law comes first, politics comes second.

And, you know, in every Justice Department, of course there's politics. Politics is part of the warp and woof of our government. But when you put politics above rule of law, which I think they have done not only in U.S. attorneys -- there's a large body of evidence that shows that -- but on NSA letters, on the NSA spying issue, on the national security letters -- so many times was the civil rights division, for instance, the staff said this is a violation of civil rights and they were overruled by the political people.

At least in my experience of being here since 1980 on the Judiciary Committee in the House and now the Senate for 26 years, I've never seen such a political Justice Department. Neither Ronald Reagan's department nor George Bush the first was close to this.

KING: Senator Specter, are you suspicious of Karl Rove's involvement?

SPECTER: No, I am not. He has been mentioned. He heard reports about David Iglesias, the U.S. attorney in New Mexico, not performing and he passed them on to the Department of Justice, which is what he should have done. He's the deputy chief of staff in the White House and he was involved in the planning as to what should be done with the United States attorneys. But here again, let's hear from Karl Rove. I have been talking to Fred Fielding, the White House counsel. I think the president is wrong when he does not want to have a transcript made of what Karl Rove has to say, but I think the president has a point that he shouldn't appear before both committees.

We can have members of the House Judiciary Committee and Senate, Republicans and Democrats and question him.

I'd like to see him under oath, but it's not indispensable.

Look here, Larry, what I think we've got to do is stop the bickering and come to terms and find a way to accommodate the various concerns, the president's executive privilege with the Congressional need to know and get to the facts.

And when we know the facts, who knows?

Chuck Schumer and Arlen Specter might agree.

SCHUMER: We might. But I would say this, Larry...

KING: Senator Schumer, do you think you are senator...

SCHUMER: Just...

KING: Do you think, Senator Schumer, that you will get Mr. Rove before you?

SCHUMER: Well, Arlen said stop the bickering and he's right. But it's the White House who has caused the problems here.

We all agree, Senator Specter, myself, just about everybody who's looked at this, that at least if Karl Rove comes before us -- I understand they don't want a public trial. I even understand maybe not to do it under oath. There are other criminal laws that would cover even if he didn't swear an oath.

But it's indefensible to say there would be no transcript. And I know Arlen agrees with that. He's said it before.

And if the White House wants Karl Rove to come testify -- and I think they're going to have to have that done at some point because this problem, scandal, call it what you will, grows bigger and bigger and bigger everyday. They have to do it under some reasonable terms.

If you say no transcript, no oath, not in public, you know what the -- what any good lawyer will tell you?

That they probably have something to hide.

KING: Thank you both very much.

We'll be calling on you again.

Source