Sampson Under Oath: Gonzales Lied
In a press conference on March 13, 2007, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales attributed the administration’s conflicting stories on the attorney purge to his claim that information had not been shared throughout the department. Gonzales specifically faulted his chief of staff Kyle Sampson for not properly informing Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty and Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General William Moschella prior to their testimonies before Congress. Gonzales said:
I regret the fact that information was inadequately shared with individuals within the department of Justice and that consequently information was shared with the Congress that was incomplete. But the charge for the chief of staff here was to drive this process and the mistake that occurred here was that information that he had was not shared with individuals within the department who was then going to be providing testimony and information to the Congress.
In their testimonies, McNulty and Moschella attempted to downplay White House involvement or coordination in the attorney firings.
Today, under questioning from Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Sampson said, under oath, that he “shared information with anyone who wanted it.” Specifically, Sampson said he did share information with McNulty and Moschella prior to their testimonies before Congress. Schumer responded: “So the Attorney General’s statement is wrong, is false. How could it not be?” Sampson froze. Ultimately, he acknowledged Gonzales’s statement is “not accurate.” Watch it:
Digg It!
UPDATE: Here are the testimonies of McNulty and Moschella claiming ignorance of White House involvement in the attorneys purge.
CONYERS: Well, was anyone at the White House consulted or did they offer any input in compiling the list of U.S. attorneys to be terminated, to the best of your knowledge?
MOSCHELLA: The list was complied at the Department of Justice.
CONYERS: Was the White House consulted?
MOSCHELLA: Well, eventually, because these are political appointees which is unremarkable, send a list to the White House, let them know. [House Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law, 3/6/07]SCHUMER: Was the White House involved in any way?
MCNULTY: These are presidential appointments.
SCHUMER: Exactly.
MCNULTY: So the White House personnel I’m sure was consulted prior to making the phone calls. [Senate Judiciary Committee, 2/6/07]
Transcript:
SCHUMER: At the same press conference the Attorney General also said the charge for the chief of staff was to drive this process and the mistake that occurred here was that information that he had was not shared with individuals within the department who then were going to be providing testimony and information to congress.
The Attorney General was referring to you as his chief of staff correct?
SAMPSON: Yes.
SCHUMER: Was that an accurate state that he made?
SAMPSON: Senator I, uh, believe that at no time did I intend to mislead the congress or mislead witnesses that were coming before congress. I think we mishandled the preparation for Mr. McNulty’s testimony.
SCHUMER: Sir, I’m going to interrupt you, I’m trying to just get yes or no questions. He said that information that Carl Sampson had was not shared with individuals within the department. Is that true or false?
SAMPSON: Senator, I shared information with anyone who wanted it. I was very open with Mr. open and collaborative in the process. In the preparation for Mr. McNulty and Mr. Moschella’s testimony ….
SCHUMER: That’s what I want to ask, did you share information with Mr. McNulty with Mr. Moschella?
SAMPSON: I did.
SCHUMER: So the attorney general’s statement is wrong. It’s false.
How can it not be?If you shared information with Mr. McNulty and Mr. Moschella and the Attorney General is saying it was not shared with individuals in the department or where providing statements to Moschella and McNulty, his statement is false. Is that correct?
SAMPSON: Senator, as I look back on that process, the problem was that we were focused on other questions.
SCHUMER: Understand.
SAMPSON: But I think that any information that I didn’t provide….
SCHUMER: Forget it, time is limited, the statement is false correct?
THe statement is false, there is no way to believe it’s not.SAMPSON: I don’t think it’s accurate….
SCHUMER: Okay, we’ll leave it at that… It’s not accurate
SAMPSON: …if the statement implies that I intentionally withheld any information.
SCHUMER: I’m not asking intent, I’m just asking whether it was false, and you said it was inaccurate.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
bye bye
March 29th, 2007 at 12:46 pmNailed him!
March 29th, 2007 at 12:48 pmTime to head for the exits, Jake. You too, Gonzo.
March 29th, 2007 at 12:49 pmSomeone in the Bush Administration lied? Why, that’s not a very christian value, is it?
/sarcasm
ITMFA now!!!
March 29th, 2007 at 12:49 pm“Not accurate” is a lot different than knowingly “False” — DoJ has already apologized for creating the impression that Rove was not involved — political questions are ALWAYS involved in replacing U.S. Attorneys.
March 29th, 2007 at 12:50 pmWould jake like a piece of Gonzo Toast? We’ll even trim the nasty old crusts off for you.
It tastes just like crow.
March 29th, 2007 at 12:52 pmAs a computer programmer I could really use a parser like Jake. Jake 1.0
March 29th, 2007 at 12:53 pmOne of the Senators needs to ask Sampson to give the names of all of the DOJ and WH officials who added names to the list and find out specifically who added each of the USA’s to the list and the reasons given by each. Get all the reasons and the name of the person who offored each. Was this done by email, phone or some other means? Pin him down to specifics. What info was offered to the AG at the 11/27 meeting? Were the performance evaluations ever reviewed prior to the firings? What other info was reviewed, by whom and when? Were copies kept?
March 29th, 2007 at 12:55 pmWhat a beautiful sight. Repugnicans squirming under oath. I hope we see alot more of it during the 663 very long days remaining until Bush leaves office.
March 29th, 2007 at 12:55 pmGreat. The United States Attorney General — the person with the greatest authority and duty to enforce the laws — is a documented liar. He has lied to the American people.
Buh-bye, Gonzo!
March 29th, 2007 at 12:56 pmNahh, ya think?
March 29th, 2007 at 12:56 pmThis one needs a comic book callout like ‘ZOK’ or POW’.
(”KRA-KA-BLOOOIE” is reserved for Cheney’s departure)
March 29th, 2007 at 12:57 pmJake: ““Not accurate†is a lot different than knowingly “Falseâ€
Yes, yes, and sometimes things depend on what the definition of “is” is.
March 29th, 2007 at 12:59 pmFalse = untrue
Not accurate = habbida habbida um er cough cough
Forget it, Sampson. You and your former boss are toast. If someone says something that is “not accurate” it is “not true.” It’s not even “well kinda sorta not entirely wrong just not very close to being truthy.”
March 29th, 2007 at 12:59 pmFunny looking fat lady that Sampson but you got to love the song.
March 29th, 2007 at 12:59 pmHasta la vista, Alberto.
March 29th, 2007 at 1:00 pmWhen Clinton’s answer under oath was misleading (”define “sexual relations” please”… “I did not have sexual relations with that woman”), that was a lie.
But when Gonzales is misleading and lying, that is a lie.
This is all Clinton’s fault. I’ll get back to you when I figure it out.
March 29th, 2007 at 1:00 pm#5 The dictionary defines “accurate” as :
ac·cu·rate
Conforming exactly to fact; errorless.
Deviating only slightly or within acceptable limits from a standard.
Capable of providing a correct reading or measurement: an accurate scale.
Acting or performing with care and precision; meticulous: an accurate proofreader.
From this definition would you then agree that “not accurate” as you mention above is the opposite of what the defintion of accurate says?
For instance, if accurate means “conforming exactly to fact; errorless” would it be safe to assume, then that not accurate means ” not conforming exactly for fact; full of errors”?
Let me help you. The online version of Roget’s Thesaurus states that the antonym for accurate is
Antonyms: careless, faulty, inaccurate, vague
Does this still seem to be “not accurate” or could it be false? Need to confir with Gitmo Al before answering?
March 29th, 2007 at 1:00 pmIn their frenzy to be the first ones to post, the trolls obviously do not read the stories.
March 29th, 2007 at 1:01 pmIF LAURA BUSH WERE A DIRTY DIRTY DIRTY CRACK COCAINE ADDICTED PROSTITUTE, AND GONZALEZ CALLED HER A WHORE, DON’T YOU THINK THE NY TIMES WOULD REPORT THAT?
March 29th, 2007 at 1:01 pmSo, we’ve now established that our Attorney General, the highest law enforcement officer in the land, has a pattern of lying to the public.
Okay, Cons…your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to explain to us how this is good for America. We’re waiting.
March 29th, 2007 at 1:03 pmThe dictionary defines “LIE” as KNOWINGLY not telling the truth.
March 29th, 2007 at 1:04 pmIt’s already on the radio news.
March 29th, 2007 at 1:04 pmGod I love oversight!
March 29th, 2007 at 1:04 pmJake, your guy lied, and he got caught. Eventually he will pay for it. End of story. There is no basis for a debate. Move along.
March 29th, 2007 at 1:05 pm“Not accurate†is a lot different than knowingly “False
Comment by Jake — March 29, 2007 @ 12:50 pm
How do you know? You playing semantics is like an elephant dancing on the head of a pin.
March 29th, 2007 at 1:06 pm#4 YES! (but impeach cheney first) oh, and jake, please, for all of our sake, give it up…
March 29th, 2007 at 1:06 pmI have to say I am kind of enjoying the Fake Jake du jour, Jake J…
March 29th, 2007 at 1:07 pmNice imagery…
They should be going after Rep.Spicter and Tolman guy beccause they are the ones who put a prevention in the Pattiot Act II that Old Bush does not have to have approval from the Senate. The eight US Attorneys he put in to replace the fired eight should be fired as they where not voted by the senate.
March 29th, 2007 at 1:07 pmIn their frenzy to be the first ones to post, the trolls obviously do not read the stories.
Comment by Laura Bush — March 29, 2007 @ 1:01 pm
They don’t have to read the stories. They are working from a fixed set of talking points that are updated at discrete intervals. They aren’t authorized to improvise in the field.
March 29th, 2007 at 1:07 pmMr. Sampson, a Chicago Law School grad, did not say what information he shared with McNulty and Moschella before they testified, just that he shared it. “It” could have been the time of day.
Sampson, this wolverine in chipmunk’s clothing, has already debated whether he kept a “file”, “not a file”, “a drop file”, “a project file”, or “no file” on the two-year project to replace USA’s. And no one kept whatever “it” was for him. Whatever it was, he “threw it away”. Nice overlooked admission there.
Mr. Sampson implies that he just chatted at the holy water fountain about the most important operational staffing changes in the department for which he was chief of staff, on a matter that he acknowledged in writing was critical to the President’s personal lawyer and his chief political adviser.
Odds on how long it will take Sampson to show up on AEI’s payroll?
March 29th, 2007 at 1:08 pmVETO!!!
oh…wait…
CLINTON DID IT!!!
yeah…that’s better.
March 29th, 2007 at 1:08 pmThe distinction between ‘political’ and ‘performance-related’ reasons for removing a United States attorney is, in my view, largely artificial,†Sampson said.
How 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 “amnestyâ€?â€
(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 1:09 pmAlberto’s tenure was ‘quaint’,
but AG anymore, he ain’t.
Torture he supported,
But not those aborted
He better hope Bush is a Saint!
March 29th, 2007 at 1:09 pmOkay, Jake. Let’s give Alberto “the benefit of the doubt” AGAIN.
If Gonzales was so disconnected from what his direct reports were doing as to make false public statements about the factors that went into the decision to fire a large number of DA’s, how does that demonstrate that he is competent to be AG?
March 29th, 2007 at 1:09 pm# 22. This discussion started out with your comments that
in number 5 above.
Is the handwriting on the wall making your paranoid?? Or are you admitting, finally, that your boy was not only making false statements but actually lying?
Still need to confer with Gitmo Al?
March 29th, 2007 at 1:10 pmSo…
Either Sampson just lied under oath, or Gonzo did the same.
I’d like to see how Jake tries to spin this one…
March 29th, 2007 at 1:10 pmIF LAURA BUSH WERE A DIRTY DIRTY DIRTY CRACK COCAINE ADDICTED PROSTITUTE, AND GONZALEZ CALLED HER A WHORE, DON’T YOU THINK THE NY TIMES WOULD REPORT THAT?
Comment by Jake J. — March 29, 2007 @ 1:01 pm
What do you mean IF?
March 29th, 2007 at 1:10 pmI see Jake is dumbing down lying to “it is only lying if you know it is a lie”.
But of course, he’s an “independent” and we are all partisan hacks.
March 29th, 2007 at 1:10 pmComment by Jake — March 29, 2007 @ 1:09 pm
Jake, you already posted this on another thread. One thread is enough, thanks.
March 29th, 2007 at 1:11 pmSCHUMER: Sir, I’m going to interrupt you, I’m trying to just get yes or no questions. Yes or now, have you stopped beating your wife?
March 29th, 2007 at 1:11 pm#20 You go, Jake J.!
March 29th, 2007 at 1:12 pmLets all just let Jake babble on now. At 75 years old his alzheimers is probably kicking in big time anyway.
March 29th, 2007 at 1:12 pmI wear lacy undies.
March 29th, 2007 at 1:13 pmDeer, meet headlights…
March 29th, 2007 at 1:14 pmRobert:
How can someone “lie” if they think (even mistakenly) they are telling the truth?
March 29th, 2007 at 1:14 pmYou have now twisted the original comment in to
The dictionary defines “LIE†as KNOWINGLY not telling the truth.
Comment by Jake — March 29, 2007 @ 1:04 pm
The new, improved, version of arguing what the meaning of “is” is. We have come full circle.
March 29th, 2007 at 1:15 pmJake depends on talking points daily.
Strike that.
Jake’s depends are changed daily.
March 29th, 2007 at 1:15 pmCheck out this letter from the Border Patrol to Carol Lam lauding her for her work on immigration issues.
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/ docs/ lam-commendation/ ?resultpage=1&
This seems to demolish the Reich wing drivel about her not paying attention to immigration cases - this in spite of her having brought the 3rd highest number of immigration prosecutions among all 93 US Attorney’s.
Facts. Dont the Repugnicans just hate ‘em?
March 29th, 2007 at 1:15 pmHow about this editorial today from the NY Times?
JUST BECAUSE THE FIRST LADY STROLLS THE CORNER OF 1ST AND CONSTITUTION, SOLICITING PASSERSBY TO PAY HER $2 IN EXCHANGE FOR INTERCOURSE, DOES NOT MAKE HER A PROSTITUTE. AND JUST BECAUSE SHE IS ALWAYS DEMANDING TO SMOKE CRYSTALLIZED COCAINE, OR THAT SHE HAS TESTED POSITIVE FOR SYPHILLIS, DOES NOT MEAN SHE IS ADDICTED TO CRACK, OR HAS SYPHILLIS.
LAURA BUSH IS NOT A DIRTY DIRTY DIRTY $2 CRACK WHORE.
in my opinion, Kyle Sampson should have used this as Exhibit A.
March 29th, 2007 at 1:16 pmhummanna hummanna hummanna
March 29th, 2007 at 1:18 pmComment by Bluedog49
Didn’t see that you got there first; but it’s still valid, no matter who said it.
March 29th, 2007 at 1:20 pm#50. My page A18 of todays New York Times doesn’t contain that information Jake. Are you making an “inaccurate” statement, a “not accurate” statement or are you “lying’ about what is on the NY Times Editorial page today?
March 29th, 2007 at 1:23 pmAG Gonzales testimony, “I was not involved . . .”
Well Mr. AG, can you please tell us what the meaning of “was” is?
March 29th, 2007 at 1:23 pmI think Kyle Sampson should claim it was his twin brother Karl Rove. And then, when Karl Rove is indicted, he should claim it was his twin brother, Kyle Sampson.
I think I saw something like this in a movie about magicians lately.
March 29th, 2007 at 1:24 pmConcerning, lies and inaccurate statements, until we develop a lot better brain scanning techniques, they’re going to be very difficult to distinguish.
In this case, he had all the reason in the world to intentionally lie, and then events changed in such a way that it became obvious that his statement was wrong. So now he’s trying to cover up the lie with the veil of an accidental misstatement…
No thank you. You’re caught.
March 29th, 2007 at 1:24 pmThe dictionary defines “LIE†as KNOWINGLY not telling the truth.
Comment by Jake — March 29, 2007 @ 1:04 pm
Go look it up LIAR!
lie: to make a deliberate false statement; to give a false impression; make such statements habitually;
March 29th, 2007 at 1:25 pma false statement or action; anything that gives or is meant to give a false impression.
Now, we need to know if Sampson was also using an outside messaging system to avoid a trail; and if so, subpeona the records. Wouldn’t it be grand if their attempts at going outside normal communications ended up providing Dems the evidence of their misdeeds? This would then be an instance where the coverup was part of the crime, not simply attached to it, after the fact.
March 29th, 2007 at 1:26 pmShorter Sampson: “uh, er, Senator, I’d don’t think he lied, but it’s pretty obvious he was bullshitting you like crazy.”
March 29th, 2007 at 1:27 pmFor the record, the editorial I quoted above is on page A22 of the LOS ANGELES Times.
March 29th, 2007 at 1:27 pmI was not aware that the L.A. Times was a GOP “talking point” memo — perhaps I should cancel my subscription then??
LOL
March 29th, 2007 at 1:28 pmI would like to debate the use of the word “inadequately.” Any takers? Jake?
March 29th, 2007 at 1:28 pmIf anyone (NOT on the “Ignore List”) needs to know what the definition of “deliberate” means, let me know.
March 29th, 2007 at 1:29 pmGonzalez lied, nobody died
March 29th, 2007 at 1:30 pm#63…LOL! Right on cue, Jake!
March 29th, 2007 at 1:31 pmCheck out this, found on AmericaBlog: (not once but three times Sampson said Gonzales was “not accurate”)
From E&P:
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/ eandp/ news/ article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003564888
Specter asked about Attorney General Gonzales’ “candor” in saying earlier this month that he was not a part of any discussions on the firings. He asked about the November 27, 2006 meeting “where there were discussions” and Gonzales allegedly attended. Was Gonzales’ statement about taking part in no discussions accurate?
“I don’t think it’s accurate,” Sampson said. “He recently clarified it. But he was present at the November 27 meeting.”
“So he was involved in discussions in contrast to his statement” this month? Specter asked.
“Yes.” Sampson replied.
Sen. Charles Schumer then asked about Gonzales also claiming that he saw no documents on this matter.
Sampson replied: “I don’t think it’s entirely accurate.”
Schumer: “There was repeated discussions?”
Sampson : “Yes.”
Schumer: “As many as, say, five.”
Sampson: “Yes.”
Schumer then asked if Gonzales was truthful in saying Sampson’s information on the firings was not shared within the department.
Sampson: “I shared information with whoever asked….I was very open and collaborative in the process.”
Schumer: “So the Attorney General’s statement is false?”
Sampson: “I don’t think it is accurate.“
March 29th, 2007 at 1:33 pmI would like to debate the use of the word “inadequately.†Any takers? Jake?
Comment by Laura Bush — March 29, 2007 @ 1:28 pm
It would help Jake if you put the word in a sentence he can relate to. “My wife feels I handle all her needs inadequately.”
March 29th, 2007 at 1:34 pmIf anyone (NOT on the “Ignore Listâ€) needs to know why Gonzales should resign immediately, let me know.
March 29th, 2007 at 1:35 pmOne of the more intriguing points that appears to be overlooked was brought out by Senator Whitehouse of Rhode Island. He asked questions about Sampson’s and Monica Goodling’s experience as practicing lawyers and essentially revealed they had very little. In other words, Sampson and Goodling were most likely working at jobs beyong their levels of competence; although, they were no doubt dutifull Bushies.
March 29th, 2007 at 1:35 pmCareful Jake, don’t get up too suddenly, you’re bound to be dizzy from that spin.
March 29th, 2007 at 1:36 pmIt’s OK, you can say it. He lied. LIED.
March 29th, 2007 at 1:37 pmNeither the NY Times nor the LA Times ever contain GOP talking points. Neither do they ever accept GOP talking points. It is AGAINST THE LAW (unlike obstruction of justice, which is not a crime if it’s done by a member of the White House or Dept. of Justice).
IF KARL ROVE AND KYLE SAMPSON HAD $3 AND DIRTY DIRTY DIRTY $2 PROSTITUTE LAURA BUSH REFUSED TO GIVE THEM A DISCOUNT, DON’T YOU THINK THE NY TIMES WOULD REPORT IT?
March 29th, 2007 at 1:38 pmCZ-1:
Someone above (I assume an honest mistake) INACCURATELY thought I was quoting from the NEW YORK Times — was that a “lie”?
March 29th, 2007 at 1:39 pmIf anyone (NOT on the “Ignore Listâ€) needs to know what the definition of “deliberate†means, let me know. Comment by Jake — March 29, 2007 @ 1:29 pm
Buy a *dictionary* Jake, and we won’t have to correct your spelling, or explain the definitions of words you keep screwing up - son. You’re a st*pid little twerp, are you brain damaged - son?
March 29th, 2007 at 1:41 pmHey, I resent being called a cheap, dirty prostitute! I am not cheap!
March 29th, 2007 at 1:41 pmFor the record, the editorial I quoted above is on page A22 of the LOS ANGELES Times. Comment by Jake — March 29, 2007 @ 1:27 pm
Quoting an editorial, is like quoting the bible on evolution. It just proves how st*pid you are Jake’Off.
March 29th, 2007 at 1:42 pmi also wanted to let you know that ALL of my fellow 75 year old ex-veteran friends also use the term “LOL”. they also all surf the internet constantly, never have to take extended bathroom breaks or naps, and all type quickly and accurately, since that is something that veterans all did back in the good old days.
IF LAURA BUSH DROPPED HER PRICE TO $1.50, DUE TO COMPETITION FROM ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS, DON’T YOU THINK THE LA TIMES WOULD REPORT IT?
March 29th, 2007 at 1:42 pmFor the record, I subscribed recently to the LOS ANGELES Times because they are trying to bring Donald Rumsfeld (the best SecDef the U.S. has ever had) on as Guest Editor — I am open to BOTH points of view.
March 29th, 2007 at 1:43 pmCZ-1:
Someone above (I assume an honest mistake) INACCURATELY thought I was quoting from the NEW YORK Times, and then put that inaccuracy into a written form, backed by sworn testimony, which was vetted by White House lawyers repeatedly before being submitted– was that a “lie”?
March 29th, 2007 at 1:44 pmWhat a sad lonely existence, to have to come here, make idiotic posts, and get slammed by everyone else just to feel like one is getting attention. Wouldn’t it really be easier to accept one’s errors, see the light, and join a welcoming community of individuals looking for a better world?
March 29th, 2007 at 1:46 pmWow. This is really bad. Looks like there was bad communication between a high level government official and people who report to him. Good thing we have somebody like Schumer to investigate it, because he certainly knows about that subject:
http://www.newsday.com/ news/ nationworld/ nation/ ny-usschu024451742oct02,0,2622724.story?coll=ny-nationalnews-headlines
Why aren’t we investigating Schumer? We already KNOW his staff committed a crime. With Gonzalez we’re just on a fishing expedition…
Double standard anyone?
March 29th, 2007 at 1:47 pmCZ-1:
Let’s start with my first question.
March 29th, 2007 at 1:47 pm#79:
I INACCURATELY have portrayed myself as a 75 year old veteran of the Armed Services. That is a lie.
However, if I portrayed myself as a 75 year old veteran in response to a Congressional request or subpoena, and then I repeated that INACCURACY in sworn testimony before Congress, that would be a MISSTATEMENT.
Jackass.
March 29th, 2007 at 1:49 pmHow 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.
Comment by Jake — March 29, 2007 @ 1:09 pm
Why are you posting editorials.
March 29th, 2007 at 1:49 pmFor the record, I subscribed recently to the LOS ANGELES Times because they are trying to bring Donald Rumsfeld (the best SecDef the U.S. has ever had) on as Guest Editor — I am open to BOTH points of view.
Comment by Jake
They were just bought by the conservative Chicago Tribune Corp., so Jake likes his conservative news to be counter-balanced by — conservative news.
March 29th, 2007 at 1:50 pm#82…let’s start with your last question…of all time…then when we get that settled there will be no further need for you to post here.
March 29th, 2007 at 1:51 pmGonzalez lied, nobody died
Comment by Cynicon Implant — March 29, 2007 @ 1:30 pm
In Gitmo? Get real, Cyndy.
March 29th, 2007 at 1:52 pmHere are the three editorials on the editorial page of today’s Los Angeles Times. Please help me find the bombastic comments you referenced above:
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/
March 29, 2007
Congress isn’t commander in chief
The Senate and House want a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops in Iraq. That’s fine, as long as they don’t try to run the war.
By the way, Jake, I’m surprised you failed to mention this op-ed piece in today’s Los Angeles Times titled Bush’s long history of tilting Justice
http://www.latimes.com/ news/ opinion/ commentary/ la-oe-rich29mar29,0,1507657.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions
Sacrificial Lam
Firing U.S. attorneys over politics is bad. Firing them over immigration politics, as may have happened to Carol Lam, is even worse.
No such thing as a free lunch (bag)
March 29th, 2007 at 1:52 pmSan Francisco is wrong to think it can require grocery stores to use biodegradable bags without passing costs to consumers.
All of this HOOPLA for WHAT!
Waste of time, money, debate about Iraq. You guys need something better to do with your so-called majority.
What’s the Big F’n deal already? Yes, Fredo lied. What would you expect him to say, “Yes, we conspired to fire attorneys who weren’t towing the line?”
March 29th, 2007 at 1:52 pmWhy aren’t we investigating Schumer? We already KNOW his staff committed a crime. With Gonzalez we’re just on a fishing expedition…
Double standard anyone?
Comment by Cynicon Implant — March 29, 2007 @ 1:47 pm
I think local law enforcement or a U.S. attorney should be investigating the staffers.
March 29th, 2007 at 1:53 pmLet’s assume he wasn’t lying (he was, let’s just pretend).
March 29th, 2007 at 1:53 pmWould anyone want the chief law enforcement officer in the nation to have a memory that faulty?
Jake?
Looks like there was bad communication between a high level government official and people who report to him
Comment by Cynicon Implant — March 29, 2007 @ 1:47 pm
These people can’t handle interoffice communications but you want them to be given free reign to wage war without controls as long as they feel like it.
March 29th, 2007 at 1:59 pmSure no problem.
Not accurate†is a lot different than knowingly “False†—
Comment by Joke — March 29, 2007 @ 12:50 pm
What, you just hang around and wait for new posts to come out so you can be the first to offer your trailer park wisdom?
News flash slappy.
It doens’t matter two turds how Sampson words it.
He just admitted Gonzales lied, and all the white washed words in the world ain’t gonna change that.
sUkz2Bu
March 29th, 2007 at 1:59 pmActually, you are wrong again. Who would have guessed?
False:
1. not true or correct; erroneous: a false statement.
March 29th, 2007 at 2:00 pm2. uttering or declaring what is untrue: a false witness.
3. not faithful or loyal; treacherous: a false friend.
4. tending to deceive or mislead; deceptive: a false impression.
5. not genuine; counterfeit.
6. based on mistaken, erroneous, or inconsistent impressions, ideas, or facts: false pride.
7. used as a substitute or supplement, esp. temporarily: false supports for a bridge.
8. Biology. having a superficial resemblance to something that properly bears the name: the false acacia.
9. not properly, accurately, or honestly made, done, or adjusted: a false balance.
10. inaccurate in pitch, as a musical note.
–adverb
11. dishonestly; faithlessly; treacherously: Did he speak false against me?
—Idiom
12. play someone false, to betray someone; be treacherous or faithless.
DoJ has already apologized for creating the impression that Rove was not involved
Comment by Joke — March 29, 2007 @ 12:50 pm
Oh well as long as they apologized….
:|
March 29th, 2007 at 2:00 pmI think local law enforcement or a U.S. attorney should be investigating the staffers.
Comment by Nat
Thank you Nat, but I wonder why it hasn’t happened already? Curious, no?
March 29th, 2007 at 2:01 pmHowever, if I portrayed myself as a 75 year old veteran in response to a Congressional request or subpoena, and then I repeated that INACCURACY in sworn testimony before Congress, that would be a MISSTATEMENT.
Comment by Jerk — March 29, 2007 @ 1:49 pm
There you have it people.
What passes for honor among republicans.
Fortunately for us however, its what passes for bullshit with the justice system.
March 29th, 2007 at 2:03 pmLet’s start with my first question.
Comment by Jake — March 29, 2007 @ 1:47 pm
Let’s start with the fact that you’re an *idiot*, and too stupid and ignorant to either pose or discuss a legitimate question - son.
March 29th, 2007 at 2:05 pmlet’s ignore jake; pretend he’s not there. he thinks his stupidity will bring him attention. nothing he says is remotely intelligent.
March 29th, 2007 at 2:12 pm“Democrats have the breathtaking audacity to claim that Bush’s replacing his own political appointees is “politicizing prosecutions.”
They say this as Sandy Berger walks free after stealing and destroying top-secret national security documents — but Lewis “Scooter” Libby faces decades in prison for not outing a covert agent. (Let’s hope he’s learned his lesson!)
They say this as Rep. William “The Refrigerator” Jefferson sits on the Homeland Security Committee while waiting for the $100,000 found in his freezer to thaw — but Tom DeLay remains under an indictment by some hick prosecutor in Texas for an alleged accounting violation.
They say this as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid draws interest on the sale of a property he sold in a complicated land swindle — but American hero Randy “Duke” Cunningham rots in prison.
They say this while Sen. Chuck Schumer pays no price whatsoever for his Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee having illegally obtained a copy of Republican Lt. Gov. Michael Steele’s credit report, for which one employee, Lauren Weiner, pleaded guilty, but served no prison time.
They say this while Sen. Teddy Kennedy is still at large (and getting larger).”
March 29th, 2007 at 2:17 pmComment by Cynicon Implant
Sorry, not a comment by CI at all, but another piece of plagiarism. At least he included the quotation marks, although that may have been a slip-up.
If you’re going to post dopey comments about American “heroes” like Duke Cunningham, who accepted massive bribes from defense contractors (how heroic!) at least give credit where credit is due.
Troll.
March 29th, 2007 at 2:27 pmCynicon:
It is indeed very very curious that a Republican controlled Department of Justice, which has been driven to partisan extremes, should choose not to investigate or prosecute Senator Schumer for a “crime” that is so clear to the audiences of Rush Limbaugh and Freerepublic.com.
It’s almost as if they believe there is nothing to prosecute!
Very curious indeed.
March 29th, 2007 at 2:28 pmComment by Cynicon Implant — March 29, 2007 @ 2:17 pm
Cynicon, if you must post ridiculous screeds, would it be too much to ask for them to be your ridiculous screeds?
The content of Cynicon’s above-indicated post is lifted verbatim from a rant by our favorite poisonous neocon apologist: Ann Coulter.
Next time, Cynicon, try to be a bit more original…or if you can’t manage that, at least provide proper credit for your cut-n-paste nonsense. Plagiarism is pathetic…even for your kind.
March 29th, 2007 at 2:32 pmgummitch sez:
Drat. Beaten to the punch.
March 29th, 2007 at 2:33 pmgummitch,
Cynicon Implant isn’t capable of posting anything longer than two sentences by himself. If you see a posting with his name on it that is longer than two sentences, it is either a name jacking or he has plagiarized it without siting who really wrote it. TP used to delete posts that were not attributed. I wish they would go back to doing that.
March 29th, 2007 at 2:34 pmPlagairized by Cynicon Implant — March 29, 2007 @ 2:17 pm
Awww…. wazza matter.
Can’t handle when the spotlight is on you?
Thats ok.
Keep posting plagairized crap about stuff that happened a decade ago and telling yourself “BUT THE DEMOCRATS DID IT TOO”.
I’m sure it will impress the court.
March 29th, 2007 at 2:35 pmLet me paraphrase Cynicon: “I believe that Clinton people were criminals, so that makes any criminality on the part of the Bush adminsitration acceptable.”
Strange how these cultists’ minds work.
March 29th, 2007 at 2:52 pmI see Jake is using his time-tested Chewbacca defense to try to explain why Gonzales’ misleading statements do not amount to a lie.
At what point the pile of “inaccuracies” coming out of this administration will be high enough to be called a lie?
For the Jakes of the world, never.
March 29th, 2007 at 3:03 pmKyle Sampson, Gonzales Former Chief Of Staff Testi…
Mr. Sampson presents himself as contrite at 10:32am this morning before the Senate Judiciary Committee. He opens reminding the committee of his dedication to public service…….
March 29th, 2007 at 3:37 pmGONZO LIED!
March 29th, 2007 at 5:05 pmHe’s FRIED!
TIME HE DIED!
AND BURIED SIDE BY SIDE
WITH Jekyll and Hyde
In the Isle of Wight, City of RYDE!!!!!
Eric
…This brings up the second point, watch out for long contracts…
March 16th, 2008 at 2:29 pmPayday Advance Loan
Online provider for instant cash advances with instant payday loan programs.
March 21st, 2008 at 7:21 pmPayday Loan Faxless
Pay day loans will provide help for workers around Louisiana bothered by humongous payments, as you are looming a} age of emergency situations.
March 29th, 2008 at 12:49 amProm Dresses Hat Hollister Clothing
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 3rd, 2008 at 10:46 pminstant payday
Good post. I am looking into these issues on my blog.
April 6th, 2008 at 2:20 pmCash Advances Payday Loan
Please keep these excellent posts coming.
April 8th, 2008 at 8:15 amPayday Loan
can be found to be charming and encouraging result to budgeting subscriber in the eletronic highway.
April 13th, 2008 at 7:23 am