Anyone have any idea why both Sampson and Goodling were, in 2004, suddenly handling their first criminal cases- and apparently low level criminal cases, at that? Why this sudden moonlighting?

Another TPM commenter has wondered whether Sampson and Goodling were quickly padding their resumes in preparation for their ascension to USA jobs after the election. With the Patriot Act change, Goodling ans Sampson could slip into USA jobs. Maybe the minimal crim experience was so that they could pass the laugh test as USAs?

He must have hit a sore spot. What was he talking about before they stopped the hearing?

Apparently there is a rule in the Senate that is rarely invoked that a committee hearing can only go on for so long while there is business on the floor, and any Senator can object to a hearing after that time has elapsed.

After reconvening, Kyle, Grassley and Kennedy had their turns. Kyle was informing Sampson of certain points where Sampson was "out of the loop," so perhaps that rocked the boat!

The committee had been back in session about 15 munites.

Code: sail - not smooth, eh?

US Attorneys are often future judges - Of course, preemptive court packing is involved.

AND bonus they woulda had the opportunity to inflicting a little pooching the election in 2008.

Shortly before the senate (still in session) objected to the proceedings and the hearing was recessed, Senator Kennedy was asking questions about "meetings at the white house" that Sampson attended where discussions about the USA's. Kennedy ended his questioning with a proposal to seek mor infomation on the white house meetings that Sampson attended, who attended the meetings and what was discussed. At the actual time the hearing was recessed, however, a republican senator was filling the air with "nothing wrong" rhetoric.

It would be nice to have the actual chain of authority nailed down much better. Dems are getting at it in bits and pieces, but here is the AG's COS, Samspson.

He’s giving marching orders to Elston, Battle, etc. to do something that he, Sampson, has no authority to do on his own – fire USAs.

How did he get authority? He can dodge on whether or not he knows if the President knew, but you can’t “forget” whether you received authority or not, especially written delegations of authority if they existed. 28 USC 541 provides that the President may remove – not the COS of the AG.

Did no one ask Sampson if he had authority to send them off to fire USAs?

If he cannot confirm he had authority to fire, bc he "can't remember," what does he think of the status of the firings? Can the AG’s new, replacement COS go out tomorrow and, on his own, without direct authorization from the President, fire USAs ? If he did, without authorization, are the actions valid?

So is the McNulty/Goodling tie from EDVA part of why she doesn't want to testify? Is she worried she might be asked about what happened with the Marianna's report and any role played out of the ED VA USAs office? Or is it tied just to the briefings to McNulty?

Lots more to get to - and no one has really hammered on the "gum it to death" and mislead Congress as to how we will handle the Ark appointment yet, have they?

The Regent law school alumni magazine profiles graduates - in one article a DOJ trial attorney explains how he was hired and trained. I don't have a legal background so I have no idea if any of this is relevant to the question above about Goodling's qualifications.

http://www.regent.edu/acad/schlaw/careeralumni/alumni.cfm

The only newsletter posted is Spring2006; sorry, no mention of Ms. Goodling. Maybe in another issue though?

The same talent pool of post-adolescent mouseketteers that schemed out the Purge-gate firings supplied all key personnel for post-invasion Iraq, anyone recall this? They were campaign workers, late 20s, no foreign affairs training, no language training... Koolaid Kids

.... meanwhile Whitehouse quick-stepped Costanza into saying "we in the bubblegum set didn't make these decisions, it was the AG and Rove !!! Sheee whizzz!!! "

re: Anyone have any idea why both Sampson and Goodling were, in 2004, suddenly handling their first criminal cases- and apparently low level criminal cases, at that? Why this sudden moonlighting?

Common practice to send political appointees to a field office for six month stints to gain some prosecutorial experience. They are usually sent to the prosecution friendly Eastern District of Viriginia (aka the Rocket Docket) in nearby Alexandria Virginia to handle speeding tickets that some shmuck got for driving his Porsche at 125 mph along the George Washington Parkway. Then the now former Special AUSA returns to Main Justice to sit in meetings and say "well when I was a federal prosecutor" while everyone else rolls their eyes.

Sen Whitehouse nailed it.

Central to the scandal is a structural choice to use unqualified stooges, only qualified to be zealous in loyalty. They also function as disposable pawns to protect and insulate bosses from consequences taken for decisions. That's a tactic used by organized crime to protect bosses from criminal prosecution.

They centralize power with a very small few, then stack the ranks with stooges who have no experience, accomplishments, or personal honor to defend. When investigation comes, the fallguys gladly do their part, insulate the bosses, and then are rewarded as "made men" for life in Republican circles.

This is like the mob, or some bananna republic.

Isn't the key point in this snippet that Whitehouse backed the witness into saying, directly, that the AG and the WHC made the final decision??

Nice job Sheldon! So glad my little state elected you!

code = meat

hello

hello