You Call That A Contradiction?It’s just become a routine of the U.S. attorney scandal — pinpointing a contradiction between something Kyle Sampson wrote or said and something else Sampson wrote or said… and then watching him try to wriggle out of it.
Here for instance, is a mind-bending dodge from last month’s hearing. He carefully explained why he wrote in an email last year that Timothy Griffin’s appointment was “important to Karl” and then prepared a letter to Congress in February that said the department wasn’t aware of Karl Rove having any role in Griffin’s appointment. I’d summarize his answer here, but it’s complicated.
And here we go again.
As I noted earlier, one of today’s documents shows Kyle Sampson suggesting possible replacements for U.S. attorneys to be fired. And as Dan Eggen points out in The Washington Post….
During the March 29 hearing, Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) asked Sampson whether he had specific replacements in mind for seven of the prosecutors before they were fired on Dec. 7.“I personally did not,” Sampson replied. “On December 7th, I did not have in mind any replacements for any of the seven who were asked to resign.”
But, of course, there’s an answer. From ABC News:
“There was some early brainstorming about possible replacements for one or more of the U.S. attorneys who were ultimately terminated. By the time they were let go in December 2006, no specific replacements had been identified or decided upon among any of the seven,” one source with knowledge of the discussions about the firings told ABC News.
Nothing to see here.