Sampson Refuses To Disclose Whether He Spoke To Rove About Firing Fitzgerald
Sampson Refuses To Disclose Whether He Spoke To Rove About Firing Fitzgerald
The Washington Post reported recently that Patrick Fitzgerald — the special prosecutor in the Libby trial — was given a poor ranking by the Bush administration despite being described by his colleagues as a “legal star“:
U.S. Attorney Patrick J. Fitzgerald was ranked among prosecutors who had “not distinguished themselves” on a Justice Department chart sent to the White House in March 2005, when he was in the midst of leading the CIA leak investigation that resulted in the perjury conviction of a vice presidential aide, administration officials said yesterday.
The ranking was drawn up by Kyle Sampson, but the reference to Fitzgerald “is in a portion of the memo that Justice has refused to turn over to Congress.”
During today’s hearing, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) repeatedly asked Kyle Sampson whether he ever discussed drawing up this ranking with Karl Rove. On eight different occasions, Sampson refused to rule out that he had discussed firing Fitzgerald with Rove or his office.
UPDATE: TPMMuckraker has video of Sampson telling Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) of the day he suggested firing Fitzgerald.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
119 Responses to “Sampson Refuses To Disclose Whether He Spoke To Rove About Firing Fitzgerald”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Doesn’t matter if he did now does it?
March 29th, 2007 at 3:54 pmGuess it was too late to get rid of Fitz, or it would have been way too obvious, so they had to let that one get through.
March 29th, 2007 at 3:56 pmJust asking, but has Gonzalez finally gotten the message and quit?
March 29th, 2007 at 3:56 pm#1 Only if you don’t mind having lying sacks of crap as government officials. But you don’t, we know. You love you some GWB.
March 29th, 2007 at 3:57 pmYes, it does matter, Patrick. It matters in the court of public opinion at the very least, and it might matter in a court of law if it helps establish a motive. And guess what, jerk: your side is getting its ass WHIPPED in the court of public opinion. See you in 2008, loser.
March 29th, 2007 at 3:58 pmSure does.
March 29th, 2007 at 3:58 pmHe’s under OATH…..yes or no or Contemp of Congress is the bottom line. Maybe, kinda won’t get it.
March 29th, 2007 at 3:59 pmAnyone still wondering what the republicans said to Sampson during the break?
March 29th, 2007 at 3:59 pmDoes it matter what Patrick1 thinks?
March 29th, 2007 at 4:00 pmMaybe it is privileged information? Attorneys take those obligations seriously.
March 29th, 2007 at 4:03 pmIt is not against the law to fire U.S. Attornies.
March 29th, 2007 at 4:04 pm#10 Yup, that is it Jake. It must be because a loyal Bushite wouldn’t stonewall Congress, right?
March 29th, 2007 at 4:05 pmWORFEUS sez:
Did they have access to him during the break???
Because they sure as HELL shouldn’t have. Talk about impropriety…
March 29th, 2007 at 4:06 pmOr maybe he is just a lying sack of liquid crap like you.
March 29th, 2007 at 4:06 pmWhen under oath it is just as important what isn’t said as what is said. Avoiding lying is an art, but one that is easily spotted through a close reading of the testimony. Today’s testimony has been very damaging. It will lead to many more witnesses and resignations.
March 29th, 2007 at 4:06 pmGotta love Diane Feinstein! She’s direct, soft-spoken, and goes for the gusto!! She had Sampson squirming in his chair - double talking - and eventually admitting that “the list” was approved by the White House. Sampson indicted Bush et al finally in all of this. Unfortunately, Sampson is not as stupid or as senile as he appears (I can’t remember - early Alzheimer’s??) and is hoist on his own pitard with emails disputing what he is saying.
Ben Cardin’s another “go for the gusto” guy who nailed Sampson directly as well. Sampson is beginning to falter, to contradict himself, and despite all the (complicit) Rethugs trying to gloss over what really occurred here at DOJ and WH, Sampson will eventually be talked into a corner (he already has with Feinstein’s line of questioning and Ben Cardin’s - no wonder he had to take a “potty break” after Ben Cardin got through with him. He was literally defacating in his pants!!
Squirm, squirm…little worm, Sampson! You’ve already indicted your higher ups and thus your job for the people is done. Now we have enough of your statements, descriptions of meetings, “signing off” by higher ups, etc. to proceed with criminal subpoenas. I think Congress needs to subpoena EVERYONE involved in Sampson’s so-called “process”. Feinstein also made it clear that Sampson would not be proceeding with these firings without the knowledge and “blessing” of Gonzales, Miers, Rove and Bush.
Anyone still wondering why el presidente will not allow his “henchmen” to be put under oath? If they did, they’d lie their a$$es of and be joining Scooter in the Big House.
Time to call for their resignations based on what Sampson has already told us…
March 29th, 2007 at 4:07 pmWhat are the bets on the odds that Gonzo will decide to resign before he can testify?? I’d think they’re pretty high right now. Then on to Rove, Miers, and Bush.
March 29th, 2007 at 4:07 pm“privileged information”, Jake?
Do you actually write these posts, or does your handler just chuck some Skittles candy at the keyboard, and your resultant frantic scrabbling somehow forms words?
March 29th, 2007 at 4:08 pmWhener someone is testingfying before the senate and they’re asked if they did something bad it’s always answered the same way:
If they didn’t do it: They say, “No”
March 29th, 2007 at 4:08 pmIf they DID do it they say, “I don’t remember”
It’s interesting to hear Sampson state that he’d made so many errors in judgment that had to do with an individual’s morality and sense of right vs wrong, isn’ t it? Either these air-headed kids are selected as potential “fall guys” from the onset or they look for someone whom they can brainwash of all emotion, sensitivity, and class and then set them into positions of power and allow them to think that it’s because they are “deserving”….NOT!
March 29th, 2007 at 4:09 pmhave his testes descended?!?!?!!?
March 29th, 2007 at 4:10 pmMaybe it is privileged information? Attorneys take those obligations seriously.
Comment by Jake — March 29, 2007 @ 4:03 pm
unlike the vice president’s office.
March 29th, 2007 at 4:12 pmFor the record, internal deliberations at the Office of Legal Counsel, for instance, could be one kind of privileged information. If Sampson told the President of the United States he should fire Fitzgerald, that’s another kind of privilege. Anyone (NOT on the “Ignore List”) is free to ask me any questions on that.
March 29th, 2007 at 4:13 pmn69n:
The Vice President’s office is, indeed, part of Executive Privilege — see Walker v. Cheney.
March 29th, 2007 at 4:14 pmComment by Patrick1 — March 29, 2007 @ 4:04 pm
Your destruction of the English language should be against the law.
March 29th, 2007 at 4:15 pmIs this guy rove’s illigitimate son?, he looke’s like a younger rove..Damn all these evil people are resembling one another, must be a disease they have, oh that’s right they have neo-conism….Blessings
March 29th, 2007 at 4:15 pmYou mean the corrupt Diane Fienstein.
March 29th, 2007 at 4:16 pmAah don’t remembah….
Aah don’t remembah….
Aah don’t remembah,
Aah don’t recall,
Aah got no memories
Of anything at all.
Aah don’t remembah,
March 29th, 2007 at 4:16 pmAah don’t recall,
Aah got no memories
Of anything……
Anything at allllllll.
It’s during hearings that the people get to sort & cull the good guys from the bad guys based on what or how they “spin” their line of questioning. Case in point: Warren Hatch (GOP Hatchet Man) - wow! He would stop Kyle when it was clear that Kyle might say too much and indict the white house, wasn’t it? In fact, he actually cut him off a time or two when this occurred.
Also, Hatchet Man clearly had his questions worded to create his own “propaganda” around what he was asking which, at this point in time, only makes the people see right through his chicanery and obvious attempt to “fix the deck” and make himself look like a fool.
Hatch is getting old and pretty ineffective at this point. Perhaps he needs to take a deep breath, get some R & R and see if he can’t possible do better at standing for “truth and justice” instead of so overtly creating more distortion and clouds around this issue and this administration.
March 29th, 2007 at 4:16 pmJake,
You’ve claimed to be a lawyer, yet you demonstrate about as much knowledge about the law as Mighty Aphrodite.
If it were priviledged, Sampson would have to so state. By replying that he has no recollection Sampson is not invoking the Attorney-Client privelege.
March 29th, 2007 at 4:17 pmDo you actually write these posts, or does your handler just chuck some Skittles candy at the keyboard, and your resultant frantic scrabbling somehow forms words?
Comment by TripMaster Monkey
LMAO
March 29th, 2007 at 4:18 pmOMG that was coffee spray on the screen funny
He sounds like he has Doan’s talking points, “I don’t remember, I don’t remember, I don’t remember.”
What’s that called? plausible deniability?
March 29th, 2007 at 4:18 pmDespite the fevered reactions here at TP to every little development in the hearings, the average american is not really paying attention. All they’re going to see on the nightly news is some blowhard dem senator asking some weaselly repub if they knew something about something. Then the anchor will come on and say repubs may be in a bind over this, blah blah blah. Then the cute weather girl comes on and we’re off to get another beer from the fridge.
The real question is who is going to survive on American Idol!
So go ahead and get excited TPers, but just realize that most of America is not paying attention.
March 29th, 2007 at 4:18 pmFrom the other hearings on global warming where a young, unqualified “stoolie” was clearly placed in a position to be easily manipulated and deceived by the accolades (more pride than common sense) and now seeing this youngster with so much responsibility, it leads one to believe that these positions were intentionally filled with maleable, unintelligent, easily-manipulated, “stool pigeons” to be later used as their “fall guys”. Amazing how insidious their level of corrupt planning is being shown to be….does anyone still not believe that 911 was real?
March 29th, 2007 at 4:18 pmAnyone (NOT on the “Ignore Listâ€) is free to ask me any questions on that.
Comment by Jake — March 29, 2007 @ 4:13 pm
You know, that sounds like a 6th grade girl trying to be the leader of the clique.
What is your point? Do you think this makes you sound like a reasonable adult?
March 29th, 2007 at 4:20 pmAnyone (NOT on the “Ignore Listâ€) is free to ask me any questions on that.
Comment by Jake
As if you actually know anything about the subject at hand.
March 29th, 2007 at 4:20 pmYou are such a joke
And so full of yourself.
The Vice President’s office is, indeed, part of Executive Privilege — see Walker v. Cheney.
Comment by Jake — March 29, 2007 @ 4:14 pm
key word is “seriously”
March 29th, 2007 at 4:21 pmYer paying attention Cynny, thats good enough for me.
March 29th, 2007 at 4:22 pmThe real question is who is going to survive on American Idol!
Well, unfortunately for you, it’ll be Sanjaya Malakar.
March 29th, 2007 at 4:23 pmDoes anyone else picture Kyle going home and shooting himself?
March 29th, 2007 at 4:24 pmUnless he turns state’s evidence in a big way, his career is over.
Despite the fevered reactions here at TP to every little development in the hearings, the average american is not really paying attention. Comment by Cynicon Implant
You wish…
Do you have any data to prove your assertion?
Because I can show poll data that proves you wrong.
Lets see your proof.
March 29th, 2007 at 4:24 pmCynicon Implant:
What is Rove’s name recognition up to these days? 10%?
P.S. to anyone (NOT on the “Ignore Listâ€) who doesn’t understand my comments “For the record” above may appear to be prompted by idiotic comments from those on the “Ignore List” but in no shape or form are intended to be actual responses to said persons, real or fictional. We now return to your regularly scheduled pogrom.
March 29th, 2007 at 4:25 pm#39 Vince Foster’s name comes up from the trolls in 3-2-1.
March 29th, 2007 at 4:26 pmSo go ahead and get excited TPers, but just realize that most of America is not paying attention.
Comment by Cynicon Implant
I seem to remember someone saying that about the Libby case. And about dems chances for retaking the House and Senate . . .
March 29th, 2007 at 4:26 pmn69n:
The U.S. District Court in D.C. bought it — again, read Walker v. Cheney if you don’t believe me.
March 29th, 2007 at 4:27 pm#35 Uh-oh, you just made his list. Every time he talks about his list Steve Buscemi from Billy Madison comes to mind.
March 29th, 2007 at 4:28 pmIn the videos I’ve viewed of Sampson’s testimony— watch his eyes when he is asked the tough questions— they’re blinking wildly. He’s lying out of his ass!!!
March 29th, 2007 at 4:28 pmMy local paper, the Arizona Republic, which is the largest paper in AZ, had a story about Rove’s rapping. The rapping thing is getting his name out if too.
March 29th, 2007 at 4:28 pmYes, we know that you people count on others not being informed. That is the way you like it. You people are also willfully ignorant, but the rest of America isn’t. As soon as you fill them in on the truth, they start looking into it. Don’t worry, we will continue to bring the truth to Americans everywhere.
BTW: When you use the name of a country, you are supposed to capitalize it. Especially when it is your own country and more importantly, when you pass yourself off as being uber patriotic.
March 29th, 2007 at 4:29 pmWhy would anyone ask Jake about attorney-client privilege or executive privilege? Is Jake an attorney? I think not.
March 29th, 2007 at 4:29 pmThis guy looks like Dr. Evil Rove’s mini-me.
March 29th, 2007 at 4:30 pmWhat is your point? Do you think this makes you sound like a reasonable adult?
Comment by Briseadh na Faire — March 29
Next will come spitballs, and tripping the “special” students in the hall. I think it’s clear from his junior-high-style of debate, that’s where Jake wishes he was. Things were so much simpler then.
March 29th, 2007 at 4:30 pmBriseadh na Faire,
Please don’t bold Jake’s garbage. Thanks.
March 29th, 2007 at 4:30 pmThe WORM Kyle is starting to SQUIRM
March 29th, 2007 at 4:30 pmThe TROLLS are starting to TURN
Bushland Uber Allies is WRITHING
And KING MAGGOT Rove is GROANING
Time for THE SHOVEL OF TRUTH TO FALL
And TURN THESE WORMS INTO PUTRID MUSH!!!!!
Your right Jake
March 29th, 2007 at 4:31 pmBush and Rove should have fired Fitzgerald that way Libby’s case could have been dismissed. It was important the all those lawyers that got conviction of GOP and friends most resign. Only Democrats should be investigated even charged falsely if necessary. To get back control of the Branches of Government, Americans have to believe that the GOP are the good guys. Let’s hope there’s enough money to pay off others to side with the criminal White House. As David Gregory of NBC is now on the pay roll of the White House as well as the media and press will see that Karl Rove and Meirs were really out of the country at the time of the crimes and Sampson thought of all these crimes on his own. Even Al Gonzales will say he hadn’t seen his doctor about the eye problem as he could read what he was signing only believing what he was told. If only he knew things would have gone different. Now let’s move on with the Business of doing crime and corruption and stealing taxpayers money THAT’S WHAT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WANT US TO DO.
Sampson Refuses To Disclose Whether He Spoke To Rove About Firing Fitzgerald
- IOW Rove is up to his neck in this affair, just as he was in outting Valerie Plame. The ReichWingNutTerrorist is trying very hard to stick to the party line. No wonder the Wonder Boy Emperor does not want Rove to testify under oath!
March 29th, 2007 at 4:31 pm“Ignore List”? I don’t know what’s funnier–an (alleged) adult who would actually keep a list like this or one who would admit to keeping it!
March 29th, 2007 at 4:32 pmYou can run JakeOv, but you can’t hide!!!
P.S. to anyone (NOT on the “Ignore Listâ€) who doesn’t understand my comments
Comment by JakeOv — March 29, 2007 @ 4:25 pm
I’ll repost, in case you forgot..
March 29th, 2007 at 4:33 pmNo, Jake! YOU tell me about how a woman should enjoy her rape!
YOU tell me how you’re an independent, yet posts “Good, when does our side get to bomb the NY Times?”
YOU tell me how you claim to be a Baptist, then a Catholic?
Until you can answer these question legitamately (no “Well, that was the fake Jake†bs), your posts are irrelivent, and should be treated as such.
You’re a hack, plain and simple.
I seem to remember someone saying that about the Libby case. And about dems chances for retaking the House and Senate . . .
Comment by Barfly
“I don’t recall” — oh wait, I’m not on the stand ;-)
barfly, I think I remember saying that the glee TPers were having over the Libby case was not going to be vindicated because they weren’t going to get who they were really after — Rove.
Don’t really remember my comment re. retaking congress, but I would say in hindsight that I don’t think the dems won primarily because the public thought the repubs were corrupt — I think they won because they ran towards the center on policy in some key areas.
March 29th, 2007 at 4:35 pm#56: that’s funny! Jake is on my “Deplore List ™” or is it “Abhor List”?
March 29th, 2007 at 4:36 pmWould someone please explain the difference between a fascist and a neo-conservative Dubya bootlicker.
Thanks,
March 29th, 2007 at 4:39 pmWhen you use the name of a country, you are supposed to capitalize it.
Comment by Spudge_Boy
Exactly where is this country “american“?
March 29th, 2007 at 4:39 pmAnd this of course is your opinion, but not the opinion of the voters who voted for Democrats to investigate the corruption and end the Iraq war.
March 29th, 2007 at 4:40 pmbob’s your uncle:
It’s made my job of engaging only those interested in a reasoned debate much easier — as you can see, some above want to post “fake Jake” comments and pretend I posted them — keep up the (alleged) personal attacks and I will know which side you’re on as well.
March 29th, 2007 at 4:41 pmMost importantly has any of the senators brought up soem foor of CLinton comparison for the moonbat kooaid drinkers?
March 29th, 2007 at 4:41 pm” I think they won because they ran towards the center on policy in some key areas.”
i think they won because they didn’t stay on vacation when katrina hit new orleans.
March 29th, 2007 at 4:44 pm“I don’t recall†— oh wait, I’m not on the stand ;-)
barfly, I think I remember saying that the glee TPers were having over the Libby case was not going to be vindicated because they weren’t going to get who they were really after — Rove. Comment by Cynicon Implant — March 29, 2007 @ 4:35 pm
Actually we want *all* of your favorite crooks put in jail. We’re happy to take you down one at a time though - cynical clown.
Don’t really remember my comment re. retaking congress, but I would say in hindsight that I don’t think the dems won primarily because the public thought the repubs were corrupt — I think they won because they ran towards the center on policy in some key areas. Comment by Cynicon Implant — March 29, 2007 @ 4:35 pm
What you *think* isn’t relevant, informed or accurate. If it were, you might have done better in 2006. The Dems won because America realized what a bunch of corrupt, inept fascists d*cks you are. A point you and Jake reinforce daily on this blog.
March 29th, 2007 at 4:45 pmJake sez:
God, you’re a joke, Jake. The more you protest that your posts aren’t actually in response to me, the more patently obvious it becomes that they are.
But by all means, keep up your infantile little act of plugging your ears and frantically pretending we aren’t here. Watching you make a complete a$$ of yourself by employing grade-school tactics to try to evade your betters never gets old.
March 29th, 2007 at 4:45 pmWould someone please explain the difference between a fascist and a neo-conservative Dubya bootlicker.
Thanks,
Comment by kasinca — March 29, 2007 @ 4:39 pm
kascinka, as I understand it, a true fascist has some measure of integrity, however misguided. That’s about the only difference I can think of.
March 29th, 2007 at 4:46 pm#64 Lay off the liquid lunch, Mark.
March 29th, 2007 at 4:46 pmIt’s made my job of engaging only those interested in a reasoned debate much easier — as you can see, some above want to post “fake Jake†comments and pretend I posted them — keep up the (alleged) personal attacks and I will know which side you’re on as well. Comment by Jake — March 29, 2007 @ 4:41 pm
It’s your *job*? Was that a Freudian slip “old man”?
Alleged personal attacks? Project much, Cheetoh boy?
March 29th, 2007 at 4:46 pm#67 Jake to TP: Tell TMM that I am not talking to him.
If I had a little sister I would want one just like Jake.
March 29th, 2007 at 4:47 pmIt’s made my job of engaging only those interested in a reasoned debate much easier
Comment by Jake
Too bad it’s not your job to have a reasoned debate yourself or back up anything you post with anything even closely related to a fact.
March 29th, 2007 at 4:50 pmAnd once you were caught lying, you lost all credibility.
Idiot.
For the record, I am retired, but my “job” currently is refuting liberal propoganda — as for “personal attacks”:
Jake prefers to tax his children, instead of paying his own fair share. What a selfish old *ss.
Comment by ValiantVenusGrewFromUranus — March 27, 2007 @ 5:26 pm
Much like a foul *gas*, arising from a pile of t*rds - that’s Jake all right!
Comment by ValiantVenusGrewFromUranus — March 27, 2007 @ 5:31 pm
If he had any *sisters*, like any good trailer trash piece of sh*t, he probably has children :(
Comment by ValiantVenusGrewFromUranus — March 27, 2007 @ 5:36 pm
What I find funny, is that Right Wing Nuts like Jake don’t consider “spending†and “debt†as “taxes†on society! What a st*pid dum bass!
Comment by ValiantVenusGrewFromUranus — March 27, 2007 @ 5:37 pm
http://thinkprogress.org/ 2007/ 03/ 27/ drudge-posts-another-hoax/ #comment-2687344
March 29th, 2007 at 4:52 pm“It’s your *job*? Was that a Freudian slip “old manâ€?”
it’s not the first time:
“Keep bringing up my name in vain though — makes my job easier.
Comment by Jake”
March 29th, 2007 at 4:53 pmFor the record, I am retired, but my “job†currently is refuting liberal propoganda — as for “personal attacksâ€: Comment by Jake — March 29, 2007 @ 4:52 pm
Jake admits he’s the GOP equivalent of the Walmart Greeter! BAHAHA, yeah Jake, and you’re very good at your job! And just as *useless*!!!
March 29th, 2007 at 4:57 pm#73 For the record, I am retired, but my “job†currently is refuting liberal propoganda
Ooo, ooo, I can’t wait. When are you going to start your “job”?
March 29th, 2007 at 4:57 pmHugs and kisses to Schumer… he’s getting better looking all the time. Great job in trying to pin down this sleezeball… looks like the “I don’t remember” testimony will be interpreted as probably happened since Sampson wasn’t willing to say “NO” and commit perjury. Damn, this is getting to be fun to watch.
March 29th, 2007 at 4:57 pmWhat I find funny, is that Right Wing Nuts like Jake don’t consider “spending†and “debt†as “taxes†on society! What a st*pid dum bass!
http://thinkprogress.org/ 2007/ 03/ 27/ drudge-posts-another-hoax/ #comment-2687344 Comment by Jake — March 29, 2007 @ 4:52 pm
Yeah, those *facts* really portray you in a great light! The GOP idiot, that doesn’t consider *debt* and taxes on his children as a *tax-increase*! You’re a real *moral* person there Jake, if by *moral* one means, lying, stealing, cheating, hate filled piece of sh*t!
March 29th, 2007 at 4:58 pmToo bad it’s not your job to have a reasoned debate yourself or back up anything you post with anything even closely related to a fact.
And once you were caught lying, you lost all credibility.
Idiot. Comment by Wayne — March 29, 2007 @ 4:50 pm
Yeah, he smacks of that idiot michael - I think he’s just trying on a new tactic.
March 29th, 2007 at 4:59 pmJake has a *crush* on me, he keeps my words so he can repeat them to the world! Thanks for the tribute Jake, when you finally find *jesus*, let me know what he thinks of a lying piece of sh*t like yourself - will ya?
March 29th, 2007 at 5:00 pm#11
It is not against the law to fire U.S. Attornies.
Comment by Patrick1
Nope, it certainly isn’t.
And nixon was within his legal rights to fire special prosecutor Archibald Cox–but this was seen by congress and the American people as an abuse of power, since it came about as a result of Cox having the gall to actually issue a subpoena to nixon for the white house tapes.
And the subsequent Independent Counsel Act was put in place to protect against such abuses of power in the future.
So the point is that, while it may have been within the purview of the administration to fire the attorneys, to do so in order to deliberately affect the progress or outcome of ongoing investigations (which appears to be the case in at least some of the firings) is *not* within their purview, and can arguably be called abuse of power or obstruction of justice. At the very least these are impeachable offenses (see the articles of impeachment for both nixon and Clinton) that if push comes to shove could be used to get rid of the attorney general–if not bigger fish, depending on how high the corruption goes.
March 29th, 2007 at 5:00 pm“Ignore List”? What is that? Something like “Talk to the hand”? That is what has been so infuriating about this Republican totalitarian era –their sheer, bloody arrogance! “We don’t talk for no one. Nya, nya, nya.” Well, now Congress is asking the questions and the Veep can’t simply sneer and say FU to the Senate –as he has in the past. Words matter. And vague and meaningless phrase will no longer be accepted. Of course, Jake does have his right to remain silent; let’s hope he uses it.
March 29th, 2007 at 5:00 pmHey Jake, how close is your office to Rove’s office? Are you using the RNC web address?
March 29th, 2007 at 5:01 pmJebus H friggin Christ, can’t we get some fu*king trolls that have the ability put a sentence together?
March 29th, 2007 at 5:03 pmIt is not against the law to fire U.S. Attornies.
Comment by Patrick1 — March 29, 2007 @ 4:04 pm
uhhh, thank you Perry Mason.
But I got news for you slappy.
It is if its to block a federal investigation.
March 29th, 2007 at 5:05 pmJebus H friggin Christ, can’t we get some fu*king trolls that have the ability put a sentence together? Comment by Spudge_Boy — March 29, 2007 @ 5:03 pm
You have to turn on your inbred trailer trash translator ;)
March 29th, 2007 at 5:11 pmJake and Patrick–Dumb and Dumberer
March 29th, 2007 at 5:18 pmFor the record, I am retired, but my “job†currently is refuting liberal propoganda — as for “personal attacksâ€:
Comment by Jake — March 29, 2007 @ 4:52 pm
There you have it.
Let no troll mock anyone again for believing the GOP is using paid hacks to interfere with liberal blogs.
March 29th, 2007 at 5:18 pmSo can someone remind me again why being put on Jake’s “Ignore List” is a bad thing?
March 29th, 2007 at 5:21 pmWell, bob’s your uncle, I answered your question in a civil manner — if you don’t want to return the same common courtesy, it’s not “bad thing” at all from my perspective.
March 29th, 2007 at 5:32 pmWhat a coincidence! Another former Bush staffer full of CRAP (Convenient Republican Amnesia Problem.)
March 29th, 2007 at 5:32 pmhey jake,
it’s too bad gonzales doesn’t have an “ignore list” he wouldn’t be in this predicament. When he gets a call from leahy, he can just say “he’s on my “ignore list” becuase he’s a meanie! You should tell him about your new republican strategerei.
March 29th, 2007 at 5:33 pmThe new Republican Mantra:
“To the best of my record collection”
It’ll all become crystal clear when it comes time to write those Mega-Best-Seller books.
March 29th, 2007 at 5:40 pmLike I said before Jake, just put us all on The List ™ that way we would only have to put up with one of your asinine posts per thread.
You type a one sentence post, we rip the hell out of it and then you ignore us. Sounds good to me.
March 29th, 2007 at 5:48 pmWell, bob’s your uncle, I answered your question in a civil manner — if you don’t want to return the same common courtesy, it’s not “bad thing†at all from my perspective.
Comment by Jake
love the use of the “air quotes” jake. it makes you appear so “smart”. did they teach you that at “law school”? you are such a “clown” “!”
March 29th, 2007 at 5:54 pmTo the best of my record collection, indeed, and ad nauseum today as Kyle Sampson, Gonzo’s young (lying) “stoolie”, attempted to obstruct justice by using his lack of “recollection” (or a record collection since the guy is so wet behind the ears that he wouldn’t even remember that records even existed!).
Chuck Schumer’s “closing argument” was primo, however, in which he drew a very graphic picture of how the internal “hit list” was composed….someone (anyone?) within the DOJ, White House, and/or GOP could “finger” a US Attorney and add them to the “hit list”. Of course, Kyle Sampson, in his lack of intelligence or wisdom, just automatically added the name WITHOUT VERIFYING THE COMPLAINT to assess whether it was legitimate, true, and not some personal vendetta some congressman had against a particular attorney. This is not only a lie but a total derelection of duty by Kyle Sampson, the DOJ, and ultimately Rove and the White House to fail to “oversee” that the dismissals were not some “hit job” based on false accusations, etc. Of course, WE KNOW that is precisely what transpired and Kyle Sampson attested to it today.
I believe that Sampson did more to add more clouds to the DOJ, Gonzo, Rove and Bush in all of this and it is definitely “not over” in the least; in fact, Sampson’s testimony (or intentional lack thereof) only fans the flames of doubt - making it look pretty clear to the people that Gonzo “signed off” on this “hit list” and that Rove and Bush were actively in on it all, too.
This Scandal WILL absolutely devour and take down this White House! When people recognize that this amendment to the Patriot Act was intentionally inserted in the Act in order to be abused by this White House to circumvent the Congress, they will realize that it was criminal. It is a very serious offense for the Executive to usurp the constitutional authority (and obligation) of the other two branches of the government. The actual destruction of Bush’s administration has essentially begun now…..
Impeachment is the only answer! Gonzo will quit before he has to perjure himself. I suspect that Kyle Sampson perjured himself several times during the questioning - something which he will live to regret once the other testimonies contradict his statements and/or emails surface to substantiate the depth of his lies.
March 29th, 2007 at 5:56 pmJake, Patrick, I haven’t had a chance to watch the hearing, but don’t worry. AG Gonzales did nothing wrong. He can randomly hire and fire to his discretion. If anything, what former President Clinton did was even more serious than this issue, and Clinton wasn’t impeached. No worries, gentlemen. The democrats are harming themselves for the upcoming 2008 election year.
March 29th, 2007 at 5:57 pmThe poor ranking was for failure to salivate enough bootlicking juice.
March 29th, 2007 at 5:59 pmComment by Jake — March 29, 2007 @ 4:41 pm
Jake, just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean they’re not really out to get you.
BOO
March 29th, 2007 at 6:09 pmTP
I know we’re supposed to be Progressive here but is it really necessary to allow those 30% of the American people who can’t admit how incredibly stupid they’ve been about Bush to have a voice here. After all, we’re not allowed to post on any Conservative blog.
March 29th, 2007 at 6:13 pmAt the very least could you keep their posts to a representative 30% as opposed to threads like this where they take up 75%.
I may be on the list, Jake never responds to any of my posts. I do not understand why. I have never placed a derogatory post about Jake on this blog.
March 29th, 2007 at 6:14 pmbob’s your uncle
Fake Jake is something real Jake uses for his explanation when he gets caught in one of his plentiful lies.
One day he’s a lawyer, next day a doctor. One day he’s a Baptist, next day a Catholic. And he’s supposedly always Independent but clearly that’s the biggest lie he tells.
He puts us all on his list so he doesn’t have to address the myriad of discrepancies in his arguments.
March 29th, 2007 at 6:21 pmI have never placed a derogatory post about Jake on this blog.
Comment by WaltTheMan — March 29, 2007 @ 6:14 pm
Well I certainly have.
And he still won’t put me on the damned list.
March 29th, 2007 at 6:23 pmJake has a *crush* on me, he keeps my words so he can repeat them to the world! Thanks for the tribute Jake, when you finally find *jesus*, let me know what he thinks of a lying piece of sh*t like yourself - will ya?
Comment by ValiantVenusGrewFromUranus — March 29, 2007 @ 5:00 pm
Oooh you poor thing, makes you want to go take a shower doesn’t it? Interesting though how he ignores you and then reads and saves everything you post about him. Jake the Stalker lives.
March 29th, 2007 at 6:26 pmBut all of my posts defining Jake’s resume are replaced by VerbalKint.
March 29th, 2007 at 6:27 pmThey come and go as other posters send their input.
Hey Jake, how close is your office to Rove’s office? Are you using the RNC web address?
Comment by CoffinsDrapedWithFlags — March 29, 2007 @ 5:01 pm
I thought we had irrefutable evidence that Jake’s “office” is under Rove’s desk. Isn’t that what he really gets paid for, just like Jeff Gannon.
March 29th, 2007 at 6:29 pmWell, bob’s your uncle, I answered your question in a civil manner — if you don’t want to return the same common courtesy, it’s not “bad thing†at all from my perspective.
Comment by Jake — March 29, 2007 @ 5:32 pm
DON’T YOU DARE chastise anybody here you impotent, unwelcome troll! If you don’t like our treatment of you go to a site where the last few people who believe the crap you believe post.
March 29th, 2007 at 6:32 pmI haven’t had a chance to watch the hearing, but don’t worry. AG Gonzales did nothing wrong.
Comment by Daryll — March 29, 2007 @ 5:57 pm
Loser. How do you know. Because Big Daddy Rove said so. Nice of you boys to bend over so willingly so the Administration can stick it to you without any effort.
March 29th, 2007 at 6:37 pmGot enough KY Jelly?
Jake, Patrick, I haven’t had a chance to watch the hearing, but don’t worry. AG Gonzales did nothing wrong.
Comment by Daryll — March 29, 2007 @ 5:57 pm
This is the way those 30%ers form an opinion: by refusing to look at the evidence and sticking to their beliefs instead.
Such is the nature of their “informed” opinion.
March 29th, 2007 at 7:11 pmI placed Jake’s career description on my ThinkProgress FaceBook page. Anyone with an ounce of grey matter can find the entry as first 6 letters of my first name are Walter and the first letter of my last name is H.
March 29th, 2007 at 7:23 pm#98
Jake, Patrick, I haven’t had a chance to watch the hearing, but don’t worry. AG Gonzales did nothing wrong. He can randomly hire and fire to his discretion. If anything, what former President Clinton did was even more serious than this issue, and Clinton wasn’t impeached. No worries, gentlemen. The democrats are harming themselves for the upcoming 2008 election year.
Comment by Daryll
He probably could get away with “randomly” hiring and firing “to his discretion.”
The issue is that it appears that the firing (and at least one of the hires) was *not* random, but appears to have been motivated by a partisan desire to obstruct justice in on-going investigations of republican corruption, which could also lead to charges of abuse of power. That’s why this is being investigated and questions are being asked.
These are the same sorts of allegations that were being made against nixon after the saturday night massacre, and which formed the basis of the articles of impeachment drafted against him.
And if you question the validity of those article, you can find the same allegations in the articles voted against clinton.
As far as “what former President Clinton did” being “even more serious than this issue”–I assume you are talking about his replacement of all the US attorneys at the time he entered office in Jan ‘93. I can only assume you are ignorant, as it has been well established that incoming administrations routinely replace all US attorneys, as they are political appointments. Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, and bush II all did the same thing.
What sets apart what the current administration has done from the prior cases of inter-administration replacement is that the firing of these 8 USA’s 1) appears to have been done deliberately at the expense of ongoing investigations to benefit the party in power, and 2) has resulted in false testimony on the subject under oath by the officials involved.
But go ahead, keep whistling past the graveyard.
March 29th, 2007 at 7:34 pmIs being “retired” the same as doing 5 years for perjury & obstruction of justice? I hear it’s nice work if you can get it; and you can get it if you’re tried.
March 29th, 2007 at 9:08 pmObstruction of justice is a crime. It does not fall within the president’s discretion to do so. If the president had U.S. attorneys removed in order to impede investigations of wrongdoing, he will be held accountable and likely removed from office. This is not political fun and games but a serious matter. Those who think otherwise are probably not old enough to remember the summer of 1974. Richard Nixon was reelected in 1972 in a landslide of historic proportions. He was the most powerful man on the planet, and he used every tool of the federal government, including the FBI and IRS, to discredit, harass and intimidate his opponents. As the revelations of his misdeeds came to light, he was forced from office and barely avoided criminal prosecution and prison time. Many things have changed since 1974, but not this: No one is above the law.
March 29th, 2007 at 9:18 pmbarfly, I think I remember saying that the glee TPers were having over the Libby case was not going to be vindicated because they weren’t going to get who they were really after — Rove.
But Rove isn’t out of jeopardy yet, and the revelations of his involvement may yet bite him on the ass, thanks to the Libby conviction. For the Libby conviction gives the Wilsons enormous leverage in their civil suit: they can make the case that it was a concerted effort on the part of White House functionaries, both in the VP’s office, and upstairs. The civil suit has a much lower standard for proof, as I’m sure you’re well aware, and anything brought out in congressional testimony is fair game, as well. I believe that is the reason we’re seeing so many bad memories suddenly appearing in so many upper-echelon officials: they know the Wilsons’ lawyer is just sitting back, taking notes.
March 30th, 2007 at 3:29 amobstruction of justice/Karl Rove, obtruction of justice/Karl Rove,obstruction of justice/Karl Rove.
April 2nd, 2007 at 10:02 amAss Round Ass Tight Ass
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 5th, 2008 at 12:24 amYoung Girls Youngest Boys Gallery Young Girls Naked
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 7th, 2008 at 10:24 amNaked Girls Naked Black Men Girls Naked
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 14th, 2008 at 4:26 am