Comments (10)

I Adore Al Gore! wrote on March 17, 2007 1:00 PM:

AG Gonzales moved Karl Rove Jr to the DOJ's environmental division? There's an opportunity for a GOP operative to burnish his credentials if ever I heard one.

Was Sampson going to argue for the privatization of the environment?

The Bush administraton is already busy shutting down the EPA's 35 year-old national science library:

http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/mrs_panstreppon/2006/dec/14/book_burning_at_the_epa

mbbsdphil wrote on March 17, 2007 1:11 PM:

If rugby players eat their dead, what do neocons do? Put them in crystal coffins or on the payroll of the AEI?

If Mr. Sampson was considered as someone capable of replacing Mr. Rove on an interim basis, then it was someone other than Mr. Gonzales who tried to keep him at Justice in a more obscure position.

I Adore Al Gore wrote on March 17, 2007 2:01 PM:

Hey, this is pretty funny. I visited the DOJ Environment Division website and the 2005 Summary of Litigation Accomplishments is signed by Sue Ellen Wooldridge, Assistant Attorney General, Environmental and Natural Resources Division.

http://www.usdoj.gov/enrd/Current_topics.html

Sue Ellen Wooldridge, of course, made the news when it was revealed that she is the girlfriend of should-be-indicted-soon, J. Steven Griles, former Deputy Secretary of the Department of the Interior.

Is the DOJ Environment Division a dumping ground for Bushies in hot water?

JD Brooks wrote on March 17, 2007 2:22 PM:

How do they square this -- the fact that Sampson was just to be reshuffled elsewhere in Justice -- with their characterization from Thursday (WaPo, Eggen):

"McNulty, Moschella and other Justice officials were enraged when they found out about the communications last Thursday, when Sampson produced the documents, according to officials who declined to speak for attribution in discussing internal Justice matters."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/17/AR2007031700599.html

Yeah, that's exactly what my response would be to a staffer who 'enraged' me: give him a new post in the department.

SRK wrote on March 17, 2007 8:39 PM:

I have interacted with Kyle Sampson on a non-professional level for over a year, and can say that he is as fine an individual as they come. Hundreds of other people I know who know him would say the same.

The self-important chatter on this website about Kyle Sampson reveals no knowledge or experience with the man, and is therefore non-credible.

Richard L. Adlof wrote on March 17, 2007 9:27 PM:

Sense of comfort in the way things are and no long-term memory . . . Two things you want in a plutocratic facsist.

halle wrote on March 17, 2007 11:20 PM:

SRK-- but this site is only discussing he professional behavior, of which you admit you have no knowledge. We only have his professiona emails, statements and actions by which to judge him, not non-substantive personal impressions from non-professional matters. Perhaps you're the one who is mistaken, although there's no reason that both can't be right. He seems quite loyal -- willing to lie, smear and cheat for his bosses and overlords. Some people might see that as being "fine" behavior.

melior wrote on March 17, 2007 11:49 PM:

Friends of his assure me Kyle is the nicest, politest, conniving political shill they've ever met.

mbbsdphil wrote on March 18, 2007 1:44 AM:

"Raymond Shaw is the kindest, nicest, gentlest man I ever knew. He saved the whole squad, single-handedly destroying an entire company of North Korean regulars...."

I believe the issue is not whether Mr. Sampson kicks his dog or prays before he goes to bed. I believe the issue is whether he reads, understands and follows the Constitution and the laws of the United States, and puts them ahead of his ambition and personal loyalty.

His resume suggests that he is an adequate, if inexperienced, lawyer. His e-mail strings suggest that he is an ambitious and skilled bureaucrat. Neither suggests that he puts loyalty to the law or public service above his ambition. Quite the opposite.

RVM wrote on March 18, 2007 10:19 PM:

WASHINGTON — The following is a partial transcript of the March 18, 2007, edition of "FOX News Sunday With Chris Wallace":

WALLACE: Senator, do you think that the administration used its emergency powers under the Patriot Act to get around sending at least some of the replacements for these U.S. attorneys to the Senate for confirmation? And if so, was that appropriate?

SPECTER: I don't think they did. The provision in the Patriot Act which expanded the attorney general's power was not noticed by anybody, and it was in the conference report for some three months.

It was only when it was put into effect and we saw its harmful application that we saw it was a bad change in law, and Senator Feinstein took the lead, and I have co-sponsored her legislation to change that back.

Dear Paul: great job this past week on USA story, can you tell me why Specter seems to be getting a pass on this issue when he has taken the same approach as Gonzales by claiming it was his staff that put the USA provision in the Patriot Act 2006 and then claimed he knew nothing about it?

Thanks.