Kyle Sampson under the lights.
By on Mar 29th, 2007 at 10:44 am
Kyle Sampson under the lights.
The hearing begins.
We’ll be following the hearing throughout the day. TPMMuckraker lists questions that Sampson needs to answer today.
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Business
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Glenn Beck
Global Warming
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Sports
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Tea Party
Terrorism
Veterans
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
Kyle Sampson needs to answer how he got a name much more suited for the broad-shouldered, square-jawed, macho Stan Smith in Seth McFarlane’s ‘American Dad.’
March 29th, 2007 at 10:51 amdwight schrute!
March 29th, 2007 at 10:55 amKyle Sampson under the lights.
Shouldn’t that read:
“Kyle Sampson under the klieglights.”?
March 29th, 2007 at 11:03 amLeahy is Drilling him. This is fun to watch.
http://www.c-span.org/watch/cs_cspan3_wm.asp?Cat=TV&Code=CS3
March 29th, 2007 at 11:12 amFinally — the truth shall set you free — no U.S. Attorney was dismissed for any inappropriate reason.
March 29th, 2007 at 11:16 amHow about this editorial from today’s L.A. Times:
“Firing U.S. Attorneys for political reasons is bad. Firing them over immigration politics is even worse.
The Bush Administration’s firing of eight U.S. Attorneys returns to center stage today with Senate testimony by D. Kyle Sampson, the former aide to Atty. Gen. Alberto Gonzales. Whatever one thinks of the administration’s conduct in this affair, one of its self-justifying arguments is bizzare for reasons that have nothing to do with possible obstruction of justice. Is it possible that Carol C. Lam was a casualty of the nation’s broken immigration policy?
. . .
The administration essentially counters that the “real problem” it had with Lam wasn’t her prosecution of Cunningham or the investigations that culminated in the indictments of defense-contractor Brent R. Wilkes and former CIA official Kyle Dustin “Dusty” Fargo. Rather, it was her lackluster prosecution of the smuggling of illegal immigrants and other violations of immigration law . . . Obviously it’s good news for the administration if it can show that Lam was cashired because of difference over immigration enforcement rather than because she had dogged a corrust politician. But another way to view Lam may be as a victim of immigration politics.
. . .
Was removing Lam a way to compensate politically for the president’s embrace of what his right-wing critics call “amnesty”?”
(As I’ve said all along, both Democratic and Republican Presidents have replaced U.S. Attorneys for political reasons. Needless to say, I agree with Sampson about highly artificial constructs placed by BOTH sides on such “political reasons” — he should have used this L.A. Times editorial as Exhibit “A” ; )
March 29th, 2007 at 11:29 amOne of these days i will become this forum’s only poster btw. poser.
March 29th, 2007 at 12:18 pm[from: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070329/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/fired_prosecutors ]
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales wrongly stated he was not involved in discussions about the firings of federal prosecutors, his former chief of staff told the Senate Judiciary Committee Thursday.
ADVERTISEMENT
“I don’t think the attorney general’s statement that he was not involved in any discussions of U.S. attorney removals was accurate,” testified Kyle Sampson, who quit this month as Gonzales’ top aide. “I remember discussing with him this process of asking certain U.S. attorneys to resign.”…
…In earlier testimony Sampson said the prosecutors were fired last year because they did not sufficiently support
President Bush’s priorities, defending a standard that Democrats called “highly improper.”
“The distinction between ‘political’ and ‘performance-related’ reasons for removing a United States attorney is, in my view, largely artificial,” Sampson said.
“Some were asked to resign because they were not carrying out the president’s and the attorney general’s priorities,” he said. “In some sense that may be described as political by some people.”…
So… what now, Gitmo Abu Gonzo?
March 29th, 2007 at 12:21 pmSampson sounds like a sniveling little weasel…
March 29th, 2007 at 12:26 pm“Kyle Sampson under the lights.”
yea, I saw a big slab of that at the local barbeque joint during lunch.
March 29th, 2007 at 12:35 pmI would have thought more progressives would have gloated on this thread — instead, we are stuck with fake Jake ; )
March 29th, 2007 at 1:07 pmI would have thought more progressives would have gloated on this thread — instead, we are stuck with fake Jake ; ) Comment by Jake — March 29, 2007 @ 1:07 pm
That’s the problem Jake’Off – you *never* think, you only repeat your own st*pid stereotypes and GOP talking points. This post makes you look like an idiot – son.
March 29th, 2007 at 1:34 pmIf anyone (NOT on the “Ignore List”) wants to discuss how the LOS ANGELES TIMES editorial above is part of the vast right-wing conspiracy, or anything else on the topic, please let me know.
March 29th, 2007 at 1:46 pmNo one wants to discuss anything with you, Jake. Don’t you have friends you could go hang around with?
March 29th, 2007 at 2:15 pmA PALLID SICKLY PASTY-FACED MUSHROOM LIKE Sampson OR Rove FOR THAT MATTER, SHOULD SOON WILT UNDER THE INTENSE LIGHT OF SCRUTINY THAT HE AND SOON, Rove, WILL UNDERGO!!!!!
March 29th, 2007 at 5:24 pm