So, when exactly did Sampson do any evaluating? After all, as he said 437 times today, he was just Mr Aggregator, the Keeper of the Magic List.

Answer for thegeebus, Rove.

Incompetence? Incompetence? Criminal malfeasance...if you credit his testimony. Here's a Chief of Staff who, if we are to believe him, took no notes, "aggregated" information without checking said information, fired the best prosecutors in the government for things they were never told about, was the "keeper of the list" only there was no list, just what he had aggregated and on top of that he has a memory like a sieve with brain-damage.

Of course, all the above are seem to be prerequisites for the Bush regime job resume...but c'mon Kyle. You don't know how utterly ridiculous, and sordidly tawdry you looked today.

Let's keep our eye on the real crux of the matter: Did the AG lie to Congress and, if he did, what does that indicate?

In a nutshell:

(a) The firings raised concerns that the White House was actively trying to use the US Justice Department to affect election outcomes (by causing US Attorneys to choose whether to investigate or criminally prosecute persons based on party affiliation rather than actual evidence).

(b) In trying to determine if this was the case, Congress asked the AG whether the White House was involved in the decision to fire these 8 attorneys. The AG told them in no uncertain terms that the White House was not involved in the decisions related to firing the 8 US attorneys, that the matter was purely a DOJ personnel matter.

(c) Then the emails between Sampson and the White House were revealed contradicting the AG's statements to Congress. The AG said -- well, I didn't LIE to Congress about White House involvement, I just didn't KNOW that the WH was involved. I put Sampson in charge. I was hardly involved at all. He didn't properly fill me in on all the details. Please don't read anything into my *mistaken* statements to Congress. It's okay for the WH to be involved.

(d) Today Kyle Sampson said,

"I remember that he [Gonzales] asked me to make sure that I was consulting with the Deputy Attorney General [Paul McNulty], and that he agreed with the list of U.S. attorneys who should — who we might consider asking to resign. And he also asked that I be sure to coordinate with the White House."

See that last sentence? "AND HE ALSO ASKED THAT I BE SURE TO COORDINATE WITH THE WHITE HOUSE."

First the AG says the White House was not involved in the decisions. Then he says that he didn't know the White House was involved in the decisions. This when, according to Sampson, the AG had instructed Sampson to be sure to coordinate with the White House on the firings.

Now, why would he follow one lie with another if the firings were totally appropriate and there was nothing to hide?

>>If Sampson was just collecting information ("aggregator")and Gonzalez didn't know anything about it- who was making these decisions?<<

Posted by: thegeebus

I have a theory. The 'President' is making these decisions.

The 'President' is actually a board of directors type group. I say this because GWB often refers to the President as if it was someone else, third person.

Well basicaly the 'President' is more then one person. The true deciders. GWB is just the face of the group. You know, the most camera friendly.

I'm sure anyone can guess who is actually making the decisions. Come on. Really! GWB is the brains behind all this!?!

I was thinking the same thing in term of "heck of a job" Brownie and Sampson. This guy had tried ONE firearms case before getting his break as cheif of staff for Gonzalez. Was there anybody else with a bit more experience out there? That, in and of itself, is a complete joke.

i'm picturing the gonzales wedding process:

from time to time his finance would tell him "something" and that would confirm in his mind that the process was ongoing

there was probably never really any decision or proposal but somehow things just 'happened'

and that's been the story of the ag's life - no planning, no real work, no meetings - did the man really attend lawschool? or did someone else do that too?

"Again, they (GOP) is just not good at cover-up."

They're just not smart enough. The don't hire for brains, but rather for loyalty and ideology. And somehow they haven't gotten the memo about the results of last November's elections.

Corruption or incompetence? Interesting quandary.

To clarify these issues I would like to propose a thought experiment, a variation on Schroedinger's Cat.

Cat's in a sealed box, so you can't tell if it's alive or dead. Its fate depends on the quantum decay of some goofy particle, blah blah...

In my variation, the cat takes a nasty, stinky shit in the box, long before the quantum thingy happens and the poison gas is released or not. Now, an outside observer may not know whether or not the cat is alive or dead, but if that box is ever opened, oh boy, you know it's gonna stink.

Similarly, we don't know for sure what all those emails say, but the only two conclusions we face about Sampson's conduct are either blatant corruption or retarded incompetence, and either one of them stinks like the offal of a trapped carnivore.

I shall call this thought experiment Sampson's Catshit.

I am perplexed at the concept that if one "takes it back" that one was not involved in obstruction of justice. How can this be the head law enforcement official on the land? How is that possible? Any self-respecting person would have resigned by now...so the question is now when articles of impeachement will be raised in the House. Only a matter of time...