« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Sampson: Answers To Look For
So what, exactly, will Democrats be grilling Kyle Sampson about, starting in a couple minutes?
U.S. News has a general rundown which is a good start, but there a few key things to look for, a couple of which they touch on.
1) Sampson claims that the firings were the result of a broad, "consensus based" process. So let's hear the reasons, however subjective or unscientific they were. How was it, for example, that the Justice Department's second most senior official wrote two days before the firings that he was getting "a little skittish" about firing U.S. Attorney Daniel Bogden?
2) On May 11, 2006, Sampson emailed deputy White House counsel William Kelley: "The real problem we have right now with Carol Lam that leads me to conclude that we should have someone ready to be nominated on 11/18, the day her 4-year term expires." It was sent the day after Carol Lam had notifed the DoJ that she intended to serve search warrants to Foggo. It'll be interesting to hear Sampson explain that away.
3) Sampson repeatedly advocated for using the Patiot Act provision to circumvent Senate confirmation for Timothy Griffin, Karl Rove's former aide. Senators will want to hear about that, and why Alberto Gonzales and other DoJ officials told Congress that they did indeed plan to seek Senate confirmation.
4) How did Sampson know that Griffin's appointment was "important" to Karl Rove? And why did he tell Congress that Rove had no role in Griffin's appointment?
5) What was Rove's role in the firings in general? How often did he communicate with Rove, who is reportedly deeply involved in the appointment process, about the firings?
6) Why did he rate Patrick Fitzgerald as an "undistinguished" U.S. attorney?
7) Before he left, then Deputy Attorney General James Comey, who managed the U.S. attorneys, made up his own list of incompetent U.S. attorneys. It was completely different from Sampson's final list, save one -- the only one who indisputably had real performance issues. Why the difference?
There's more, to be sure. Are there other questions you're listening for answers to? Let us know in the comments.













And no need to stick to the script. Might also be interesting to ask Sampson if he was receiving regular updates on the Libby case from Fitzgerald or his staff.
March 29, 2007 10:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Did you have any input on the firing of Frederick Black in Guam? Did you have any discussions with Karl Rove or Alberto Gonzalez about Black?
March 29, 2007 10:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think the e-mails of spring '06 culminating in the plan to deal with Carol Lam are key. Was the plan to rehab Lam are was it a pretext for her ouster. The fifth bullet point gives the plan away. Who wanted to get a new USA 'from outside' into her office.
Here we go. Schumer sounds stoked.
March 29, 2007 10:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
You know, I'm waiting for this with my tongue hanging out, which is sort of sad. It makes me realize just how much I want to get rid of this whole nightmare of an administration.
Yeah, Schumer's ready to go!
March 29, 2007 10:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Looks to me like it wasn't Alberto who done the dirty deed. It was Karl,
March 29, 2007 10:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Its key to leave ZERO wiggle room - the question isnt "Rove"...its "Rove , Miers or anyone directly or indirectly working with EOP - and please be specific in your answer"
March 29, 2007 10:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
We need to find out more about Sampson's 'one criminal trial.' Also, look to the senator from California for the next earth-shaker- she's know's something about these CIA ops, and it's likely of a very criminal nature.
But the real scandal-- Sampson being the genetic hybrid of cheeney and rove. eww..
March 29, 2007 1:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sampson looks and acts like the product of a blissful evening between Chuckie and the Pillsbury doughboy...was he plagued today by truthful recollection?..doubtfull...as a perk he gets to birdhunt with Cheney.
March 29, 2007 1:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
RE: Question #7 - Is there somewhere on-line I can find Deputy AG Comey's list of incompentent US Attorneys?
March 29, 2007 2:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
So now we have full censorship?!? Or is the President preparing to take the fifth too. Well, at least some of the republicans remain proud Americans- understanding as they do this means loving and protecting the law of the land.
Perhaps if Bush ever held a real job who would understand just how devastating it is to be fired, especially after such ‘exemplary service.’ Then again, perhaps if Bush had actually served in the National Guard he would have understood just how devastating it is for a family to lose their son or daughter fighting a strategically meaningless war. Perhaps, perhaps .. Perhaps our senators are finally in the fight— getting involved, protecting our country now that they see how their own livelihoods are in constant jeopardy under such a politically mercenary administration. Or perhaps it’s just mercenary.
March 29, 2007 2:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
so we got a "FACT WITNESS" to crimes committed by abu gonsales
unless abu is removed and prosecuted, we can't claim to be a nation of laws, can we ???
March 29, 2007 4:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
While I think that the questions that are asked are important, I doubt that there'll be a lot that's accurate in his answers. In that case what's important are the discrepancies between his answers, the documentary record and any other testimony. It seems to me that that's where both the investigation, and its public appeal, will move forward.
March 29, 2007 6:52 PM | Reply | Permalink