I haven’t been able to follow Sampson’s testimony today because I’m also in transit on the way to the MRC dinner. But I’m catching up on my newspaper reading. The best spin you can put on some of Gonzales’ statements–and it’s not a great one–is that he’s imprecise with his facts and language. This Times piece on Sampson supports that interpretation.

There this:

And over time, friends and former colleagues say, Mr. Sampson noticed what three people who worked with the attorney general separately called a pattern of “imprecision” in Mr. Gonzales’s public statements.

And this:

Mr. Gonzales “is not a litigator, and he is not an accomplished public speaker,” said a friend of Mr. Sampson who also worked with Mr. Gonzales, known as Judge Gonzales because he was on the Texas Supreme Court. “When the judge says, ‘I wasn’t involved,’ he means something specific. If you teased it out, you would figure out what it was he meant. But in the political world where you only get one shot, it comes across as misleading.”