Comments (60)

Steambomb wrote on April 2, 2007 11:18 AM:

Aint he just great? Do you suppose that Hatch is close to retiring and that is why he is there defending Gonzo and Bush? Because we can see the writing on the wall. Or perhaps he actually is looking to step into the AG spot. God help us if he does. We need a new AG that will act with integrity and clean up the brown shirts in the system.

lip11 wrote on April 2, 2007 11:33 AM:

Yes, I saw that interview. Hatch was pathetic. Even for him, the amount of lies and misleading statements in such a short span was overwhelming. He was clearing his throat, sputtering, stammering. Either the WH has some real juicy info on him, or they paid him a lot to go on the air to help that worm Gonzales. Unfortunately, I thought Russert gave too much air time to Hatch compared to Leahy.

Cowboy wrote on April 2, 2007 11:40 AM:

"Tempest in a teapot! Tempest in a teapot!"

OH Lordy, this is a big one.

Out of curiosity Senator Hatch: Did you play any role in inserting the revised U.S. Attorney appointment authority in last year's Patriot Act?

Of course you didn't.

Punchy wrote on April 2, 2007 11:41 AM:

Hatch as AG? REally? Can we just keep AG as AG instead?

Seriously...Gonzo is bad, but Hatch is several levels of abysmall. Who takes his Senate seat if he's moved into the Cabinet?

Can I get a new security word?

drational wrote on April 2, 2007 11:50 AM:

Does anyone have a link to a good analysis of how the patriot act revision was inserted. It seems this is a big issue. Thanks.

NCBlueneck wrote on April 2, 2007 11:52 AM:

I always found it deliciously ironic that if you take the middle "m" out of Mormon, you get Orrin Hatch.

bobh wrote on April 2, 2007 11:55 AM:

I guess it depends on what your definition of the word "evidence" is?

And theres enough old bones in hatchs closet that hes taking a suicide pill if he comes up for confirmation. just idiocy there.

derek wrote on April 2, 2007 11:56 AM:

TPMmuck has summarized the Carol Lam case pretty well. I think there is more than a "shred" of evidence of impropriety there.

A few other points of reference for Sen. Hatch.

1. Sen. Pete Domenici and Rep. Heather Wilson (New Mexico) calling David Iglesias at home, asked about confidential grand jury proceedings, and exerted pressure for indictments against Democrats in the run up to the election. Iglesias' name was then added to the "can" list soon after. Bonus observation: Wilson's opponent in the election was the Democratic state attorney general, whom Wilson was hammering as being soft on corruption.

2. Testimony that Karl Rove, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, and President Bush all brought pressure to bear on the Iglesias matter, after said phone calls.

3. McKay in Washington being asked by Harriet Miers "why Republicans in Washington would have a problem with you" as the first question in his interview for a federal judgeship, prior to his canning as USA. McKay had investigated claims of Democratic voter fraud in the 2004 election but had concluded they were baseless and issued no indictments. Is the claim that he was fired "for cause" because he failed to pursue baseless indictments against Democrats?

4. The fact that replacing Cummins with Griffin was "important to Karl and Harriet" according to Kyle Sampson. Also, the reams of ancillary evidence that this replacement was Rove's baby.

5. Conveying false testimony to Congress is a felony. The Department of Justice recently confessed to conveying false testimony in the Feb 23 letter from McNulty to the Senate Judiciary Committee stating that the Department had "no knowledge" of any involvement by Karl Rove in the attorney firings.

That's just a taste but should be enought to get us started.

radjil wrote on April 2, 2007 11:59 AM:

Senator Hatch: the living, breathing definition of smarmy.

Disgusting.

Robin L. Boerner wrote on April 2, 2007 12:04 PM:

During the same appearance, Russert asked Hatch whether he would serve as the next attorney general. Hatch seemed shocked at the idea, stuttering and bubbling over with modesty. Somehow, he managed to add that if duty called, “I would serve this country any way I could.”

How about serving it by doing a few years with the rest of them in GITMO? Call it a national service.

Bearpaw wrote on April 2, 2007 12:06 PM:

Hatch evidently doesn't understand -- or pretends not to understand -- that the point of oversight is to *find* evidence if it exists. He's saying that if evidence isn't served on a silver platter, tied up with a bow, that nobody is supposed to look for it.

That seems to be how the Repub Congress acted with the Bush Admin, but that's not how it's supposed to work.

PeeJay wrote on April 2, 2007 12:14 PM:

What a putz. Classic Hatch.

But I did note his phrasing: "They're not going to pick me." No speculative response about "If the AG should..." Sure, reading too much into the details of any utterance is problematic. Here's a case where one would expect him to respond by contesting the idea that Abu Gonzales' resignation is imminent. Instead, he firmly denies he's in the running for succession.

Seems like a slip to me.

captcha: dress. As in "You can put a pig in a silk dress but it's still going to smell like a pig.

yellowdogfox wrote on April 2, 2007 12:14 PM:

And I hope we all noticed that smarmy Orrin managed to note that Gonzalez is Hispanic -- nobody plays Republican race cards with quite as much undiguised gusto as the Hatchman. (He couldn't speak Janice Rogers Brown's name without the mandatory "African-American woman" prefix, and he was just off-scale with Miguel Estrada.)

SeeDee wrote on April 2, 2007 12:17 PM:

No better example is available of Russert's catering to the Right-wing pols than yesterday's MTP...Why did Russert allow Hatch to run on and on at length with what was, basically, a litany of White House talking points?

Especially since his program was structured to follow Hatch's utter b/s with WH toadie Dan Bartlett who 'put the icing on the cake' for the GOP'ers..with no rebuttal from any Democratic spokesperson.

Russert should drop the charade and move to Faux News...and Democratic viewers should take note of NBC's advertisers on that show and boycott those advertisers.

JW1141 wrote on April 2, 2007 12:17 PM:

As a C-SPAN junkie I noticed during the scandals of the Reagan years there was old Orrin throwing soft ball questions at the witnesses in the HUD scandal, Iran/Contra, etc.

Remember when the Circus came to town, the guy walking behind the elephant picking up his droppings? After each scandal Hatch can be relied upon to be the guy with the pooper scooper picking up the Repubican scandal's droppings.

jhpearman wrote on April 2, 2007 12:17 PM:

Kyle Sampson once worked for Herr Hatch.I was hoping Russert would ask, "Senator Hatch who do you believe more AG Gonzales or Mr. Sampson?" It was a truely pitiful performance by Hatch,but it is difficult to defend the indefensible. This is about perjury,obstruction of justice and vote fraud perpetrated {in all or part}by the DoJ,White officials, Senator Domenici and Rep. Wilson.

Richard L. Adlof wrote on April 2, 2007 12:18 PM:

If the inability to recognize Truth and Justice (and join the White House circle-jerk at a moments notice) are the prime abilities considered by this Adminstration when appointing an Attorneys' General then Hatch is in.

If the Senate has its way . . . I'm voting for Black, Fitzpatrick or Iglesis . . .

screwn wrote on April 2, 2007 12:30 PM:

Yes, Mr. Hatch really sets the bar high: "I see no sign of any criminal activity here." As though that should end the discussion right there.

Of course, Mr. Hatch must not have looked into it too deeply. I saw criminal activity when Gorgonzales testified before the Judiciary Committee and claimed no involvement with choosing who was to be fired. In fact, based on Kyle Sampson's testimony, he was actively involved the whole time. So Gorgonzales lied when he gave his testimony -- which, last time I checked, was a crime.

Based on the fact that they LIED about it already, I'd say there's ample probably cause to continue the inquiry.

mayan wrote on April 2, 2007 12:46 PM:

I'd rather gargle with draino than listen to Hatch. The man's voice hurts my ears and his intrepid indecency hurts my inner core. What a wretched tool.

1970cs wrote on April 2, 2007 12:47 PM:

In 2005 it was Brett Tolman, chief council to the Senate Judiciary Committee that Hatch reccommended to be the USA in Utah, over his friend Kyle Sampson.

Tolman was the one responsible for changing the Patriot Act at the last minute to circumvent Senate confirmation of the USAs. Hatch has more explaining to do than Specter about this, and he isn't doing it very well.

Dab wrote on April 2, 2007 12:48 PM:

It's that Washington water again. Mr. Hatch just doesn't remember hearing any evidence.

What a joke he was yesterday! And so was Russert for letting Hatch go on and on and on.

Jay Severin has a small pen1s wrote on April 2, 2007 12:51 PM:

How do you find evidence without investigating?

How would someone who feels you shouldn't investigate possible crimes to find out if there are actual crimes function as an attorney general?

Wouldn't some of these USAs (especially Carol Lam) have had some 'free time' to follow other cases if Hatch had done his job and investigated corrupt Congressmen?

Will Hatch vow to resign if 'some evidence' shows up?

I feel like the US citizens are now serving at the 'pleasure of the president'.

http://www.goNODL.com

Cuchulain2007 wrote on April 2, 2007 12:54 PM:

Aside from the infuriating lack of response about "no shred of evidence", I noticed that Russert let Hatch filibuster. Leahy was cut off all too often and kept to short answers. Hatch was allowed to babble on and on with his talking points.

Recent studies have shown that more conservatives are on the Sunday Talk Shows than "libs". And I would bet that the share of time is skewed as well. It's almost as if the so-called moderators are afraid to cut off those mean old Republicans, but have no fear of doing same to the Dems.

Also, why don't the Dems just come out and frame this thing right? Why don't they just say what all the evidence is pointing to:

That the Bush administration has systematically used taxpayer money, the NSA, the CIA, the GSA, the FBI, and the DoJ (among other agencies), to further its agenda and the RNC's. Not America's agenda. But the RNC's. No administration has ever been so partisan, and so blatantly indifferent to the rule of law.

On our dime. On our time.

And, no, Clinton didn't do it too. Bush/Rove/Cheney have launched an unprecedented attempt to guarantee One Party Rule. No previous administration has spent so much time making sure its boys and girls are in place to push its extremist partisan agenda and stack the deck against its political opponents in future elections. No previous administration has used the cover of a tragedy in such an obscenely partisan manner.

Bush is not America's president. He's never governed in that way. He's always governed with an eye toward his base and no one else, and his strategy is to insure that that is sufficient to win future elections.

Luckily for America, he and his gang are too inept and far too much in a state of denial in the bubble to pull it off.

Though, without the Dem victories in 2006, they may well have.

justthetruth wrote on April 2, 2007 1:16 PM:

Given that there is a great deal of smoke, then it is rather obvious that that there must be a fire. Notwithstanding all the appearance and suggestion of wrongdoing, the only actual evidence that would support indictments is the misleading and false statements that Attorney General Gonzales and other senior Justice Department officials have made to Congress. So far, perjury is the only game in town and that is a difficult case to prove.

However, further investigation may reveal more. Time will tell.

Matthew Cowan wrote on April 2, 2007 1:23 PM:

Did Hatch get away with other big lies on MTP?

During the interview, Hatch said of Carol Lam:

"...it’s amazing to me she wasn’t fired earlier because for three years members of the Congress had complained that there had been all kinds of border patrol capture of these people but hardly any prosecutions. She was a former law professor, no prosecutorial experience, and the former campaign manager in Southern California for Clinton..."

Carol Lam was an assistant U.S. attorney from 1986 to 2000 for San Diego. That sounds like prosecutorial experience to me. I can't find anything in any of her on-line biographies about her ever being a law professor. I also can't find anything about her being a campaign manager for Clinton. Its seems unlikely Bush would appoint her if that's the case. An article on the web says she's a political independent who once appointed by Democrats to a two year position.

I suspect Hatch was lying.

Chuck Karish wrote on April 2, 2007 1:24 PM:

It's great that Russert let Hatch run on long enough to show how little he had to say and that he was too upset to say it coherently. A disinterested viewer might have wondered what Hatch was trying to hide. His vehemence was disproportionate to the issues that seem to be at stake.

steambomb wrote on April 2, 2007 1:32 PM:

Does anyone have a link to a good analysis of how the patriot act revision was inserted. It seems this is a big issue. Thanks.

Posted by: drational

Here is a link to a good summary article on Slate.

http://tinyurl.com/2drd5o

Enjoy. Or not.

Anonymous wrote on April 2, 2007 1:34 PM:

WTF?! Hatch as Attorney General? No effin way!

Code: nation

StephenH wrote on April 2, 2007 1:35 PM:

Hatch's face is the picture of an aging and respectable moral degenerate. It's the picture of the Republican party. No lie is too obvious for Hatch to embrace with the practiced conviction of someone who has spent his entire life lying. He lies with the bitter indignation of someone who knows that's all he has to show for his life.

steambomb wrote on April 2, 2007 1:36 PM:

Click on my url for Slates podcast of the Article just previously posted a link to.

friendlyfire wrote on April 2, 2007 1:44 PM:

I was angry through the entire interview yesterday - I couldn't believe that Hatch could sit and say those things in seriousness (actually, anger, as Leahy so hilariously pointed out). But when it came up that Hatch was hoping to be nominated as Attorney General it all became perfectly clear.

rlogan wrote on April 2, 2007 1:44 PM:

So criminals need to be convicted before an investigation can start.

Oh, so that's why we have to hold people indefinitely without habeas corpus. Since we can't even investigate or charge them we have to just incarcerate them without a trial.

Now it all makes sense.

code word: tits

knowsthe truth wrote on April 2, 2007 1:50 PM:

If Hatch said Carol Lam had no prosecutorial experience, he is either ignorant or a liar (or both). In fact, in 1987, I was in the same two-week new AUSA criminal trial training course as Ms. Lam, and I know she went on as an AUSA ot prosecute some of the largest and most complex health care fraud prosecutions in the country during the 1990's.

Cowboy wrote on April 2, 2007 1:52 PM:

Flashback to the Marston Scandal during Carter's presidency. Hatch was singing a different tune then:

"The Justice Department probers promptly announced that Bell and Carter were cleared of any charge of obstruction of justice in the affair. But the Republican partisans on Capitol Hill had no intention of letting the Administration off so easily. Thundered Utah's Orrin Hatch: "That two-day whitewash [the Justice Department's inquiry] isn't going to satisfy anybody!"

OH! Tempest in a Teapot! Tempest in a Teapot!

The Hypopcrisy!

http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,945941,00.html

FYI, the subject of the Marston investigation Rep. Eilberg was indicted and served 5 years in prison.

izzatxeaux wrote on April 2, 2007 1:52 PM:

Matthew Cowan and others -

can not find ANYTHING via google about Carol Lam working on ANY campaign - but it didn't stop serial shill Russert now did it ?!?! -

I gave his bosses a shout out and am going to go over to Tweety's blog and see if there's an appropriate spot to bring it up

Lou Branch wrote on April 2, 2007 2:21 PM:

Same old Hatch. Remember the Clarence Thomas
hearings? Hatch said the charges against Thomas
were based on the movie, "The Exorcist". Also
he didn't know that blacks had a reputation for
being more well endowed than the whites. He sounds like a broken record.

elrapierwit wrote on April 2, 2007 2:48 PM:

Can someone clarify who is responsible for the insertion of the change in the Patriot Act.
I was under the impression that it was Brent Tolman the present UT USAtty who formerly was chief counsel on Crimes and Terrorism subcommittee of the Judiciary Panel chaired by Spector.

Or is it Michael O' Neil who was the chief counsel for Spector and has said that when the request came from DOJ, Tolman handled it.

Which is it, O'Neil or Tolman..does anyone know?

I think it is Tolman, since he benefitted from the change and would have had incentive to insert the change.

Thinkerton wrote on April 2, 2007 2:49 PM:

Just writing to agree with others here that the whole "not a shred of evidence" argument is a red herring. We don't even have to discuss that yet! I think it's far easier to agree that there is good reason to investigate -- given the suspicious nature of the firings, and the misleading answers given so far. End of discussion. I wish the MSM would stop letting Republicans get away with this kind of misdirection. Is there reason to investigate? People are lying ("mis-speaking") left and right, so yes, of course there is reason to investigate. Once everyone has testified under oath and the investigation concludes, then we'll see if there's any shred of evidence.

Peddle Car wrote on April 2, 2007 2:51 PM:

Hatch is great man with tremendous discernment abilities. He can see the heart and true desires of those he judges, those he promotes. Few of his critics can see as clearly as he. They also lack songwriting talent and are envious of his.

Case in point... Check out this post and watch the 2nd video link if you don’t think Hatch is a clear thinker and great songwriter.

http://www.talk2action.org/story/2006/9/29/03943/6196

drational wrote on April 2, 2007 2:55 PM:

Thanks steambomb.
Any one figure out a reason why the legislative branch is letting this clear encroachment on their turf slide by so quietly? Justice Dept. wanted the Patriot act provision inserted, Tolman inserts it then gets Justice appointment to USAttorney Utah? Quid pro quo? Specter (and every other member of congress) is clueless about the manoevers of his subordinates? And Hatch pushed the sneaky Tolman into USA....

Jeannie wrote on April 2, 2007 3:21 PM:

**I believe Sen. Hatch is senile. He not only couldn't remember where tempests usually flourish (tempest in a .... coffee cup) but during the Judiciary hearings his second set of (ass-kissing)questions to Kyle Sampson was almost IDENTICAL to the first.
The questions were on the order of "You're a good doggy, aren't you? And you only play with OTHER good doggies, don't you?".

knowsthe truth wrote on April 2, 2007 3:33 PM:

speaking of Hatch, how scary is it that he is responsible for both Tolman (who he made US Atty) and Sampson, who he created but didn't make US Atty. Only hope is that this fiasco has exposed the politicization of DOJ and whoever takes over D.C. in 2009 will back off and leave the US Attys alone. Having been an AUSA for over 20 years, I never thought I would end up nostalgic for Ed Meese. Of course, I also thought no one could steal the cellar from President James Buchanan. Wrong twice.

Sam Thornton wrote on April 2, 2007 4:28 PM:

Hatch most resembles a take-no-prisoners defense attorney defending a pedophile, and after years of listening to him, I truly believe that's how he sees his role. In many respects he most closely resembles Mitch McConnell. I have trouble deciding which one is creepier.

John Bertsch wrote on April 2, 2007 5:17 PM:

I like Orrin, I really do. So if he wants to serve his country when duty calls, I'd like to remind him that duty has called and he can best serve us by going home and staying there.

Anonymous wrote on April 2, 2007 6:06 PM:

Why is Orin Hatch in such a frothing at the mouth fit about all of this? Who was the chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee from January 15,2003-January 6, 2005? None other than Senator Orrin G. Hatch, R-Utah. Wasn't he supposed to be maintaining oversight on the Justice Department? I wonder what he got out from Karl for not allowing any investigations and just looking the other way? I wonder what will come out about Hatch's involvment when this investigation gets really cranked up?

Matthew Cowan wrote on April 2, 2007 7:44 PM:

Thanks izzatxeaux!

Jack wrote on April 2, 2007 10:03 PM:

Orin sounded like a Jim Jones cult follower on Meet the Press, except the object of his very thick rose colored glasses was Alberto. If he really believes the garbage was was spewing on that show, then he should spend some time with a highly qualified mental health professional.

sybelia wrote on April 2, 2007 11:43 PM:

the nexus of corruption around Sen Hatch.

He has good reason to be trembling and angry. His dear mentees Kyle Sampson and Jeffery Taylor conspired to suborn false testimony before Congress - at a hearing Orrin attended. Jeffrey Taylor is the USA who - USA for DC - just signed off on the Griles “get out of jail free” plea deal.

Subtext - if the Bushies do their jobs, they can still help Big Energy/Mining evade hundreds of billions of dollars owed the Treasury for past and current oil and mineral leases. The Griles plea deal - not yet approved in Federal Court - is an essential part of the Sampson/Taylor efforts to obstruct justice.

Nice picks, Bishop Hatch.

And do make sure the energy/mining megacorps that own you don’t have to pay their bills. After all, we’d hate to Chevron and Exxon and KerrMcGee stuck with payments so massive they’d essentially shift the Iraq War costs from taxpayers to Big Energy/Mining.

That would be awful, wouldn’t it - Bishop Hatch?

share wrote on April 3, 2007 12:02 AM:

when he wasnt holding them together, Hatch’s hands were shaking. what had him so tense?

Hatch should look at the polls, only the gooper tps agree that this is the democrats playing politics. Orrin is angry not about the Constitution and the Rpublic, but about the collapse of his conspiracy and the possibility a co-conspirator would fold.

The Bush coup was funded and orgaized by megacorp power and the megacorps’ servants in Interior, Justice, the WH, and the relevant COngressional “oversight” comittees.

Why would Orrin be outraged at the success of his work to give Big Energy and Big Mining a free pass to loot public lands? Why would Orrin be outraged about the activites of his mentees Kyle Sampson (or US Atty for DC Taylor)? Orrin - serving the energy/mining megacorps - helped groom Sampson and Taylor for their positions in order to help the megacorps who own him.

Orrin’s tremors are those of a Senator closely associated with proteges who actively conspired to obstruct justice and to provide false testimony to the Senate - while Orrin attended the testimony Orrin is looking at the very real prospect of ending his career disgraced and convicted.

His hands shake from fear; his anger is only about his own personal destruction. He long ago ceased to care about the destruction of our public lands, Justice Dept, or Republic. No wonder he’s sucking for AG - still thinks he can save the cover-up.

Too late, Bishop Hatch.

on Hathch’s proximity to obstruction of justice and directing a witness to lie to Congress - in this case, the Senate. The context is the seemingly complex case involving extraction of minerals/oil/gas/resoucres from either Native American lands and/or US public lands (under Dept of Ag (Forest Service) or Dept of Interior).

This scandal is so deep that Abu adroitly used his current troubles to further serve his megacorp masters - and did it below the radar. Abu did so when he stiffed last week’s Congressional hearing on the public lands fraud. Even a dim bulb like Abu gets “Teapot Dome”.

Lots of background on this multi hundred billion (that’s multiple “$100 Billions”) bill owed to the US
Treasury - owed to us taxpayers - by cheney/Bush/Hatch’s owners in Big Energy/Mning/Timber may be found here. Even more from Wampum and Indianz. Follow the money.
__________________

Oh - and Kyle Sampson - Abu’s chief of staff? remember him? And the 122 times he couldn’t? Well - no one asked him on Thursday - and he prolly wouldn’t remember - but reliable Kyle did remember to conspire to commit Federal crimes against the Cobell plaintiffs. And he even remembered to commit them. When the Senate insisted on testimony on the Cobell accounting crimes at DOI from the Federal Special Trustee For American Indians (Tom Slonaker), Griles, Norton, and then advisor to the President Kyle Sampson ordered Slonaker to lie to the Senate by changing his written testimony.

After Slonaker showed up in person and testified honestly despite the Griles / Norton / Sampson conspiracy to obstruct justice and provide false testimony to Congress, Sampson (from Bush) and Griles (from Interior) fired Slonaker. Wampum had the story:

In July, 2002, Special Trustee for American Indians Tom Slonaker (a Clinton appointee held over by Bush) testified before the Senate Indian Affairs Committee (chaired then by Sen. Inouye) that the Interior Department’s handling of the Individual Indian trusts was pretty much as fcked fouled up as it had ever been, despite a federal court order that a “full accounting” take place. Slonaker had submitted his proposed testimony to his Interior superiors, namely Dep. Sec. J. Steven Griles and Gale Norton, who summarily demanded that he change most of it. Two Justice Department attorneys as well as Kyle Sampson, White House advisor to the President, also called Slonaker and demanded he change his testimony.

Slonaker did not submit his statement, but testified in person, saying that an accounting as Norton et al. were proposing would not meet the Court’s requirement. After he appeared before SIAC, Slonaker was fired. Sasha Polakow-Suransky, in TAP, asserted at the time Sampson was involved,“Slonaker claims he was forced out, and sources close to the case say Griles and White House counsel Kyle Sampson barred Slonaker from telling the Senate Indian Affairs Committee that theInterior Department was unable to live up to its trust responsibility because documents had been destroyed.”

Pete Dominici was at that SIAC hearing, as was Orin Hatch, for whom Sampson was a top aide before being placed at the White House. Sampson used twork for Parr, Waddoups, Brown, Gee & Loveless, many of whose clients are leasors of federal and Indian land, thus potentially affected by Slonaker’s testimony, i.e., if the government doesn’t have the docs for a complete accounting, then they need to get that info from the lessors.

I know it’s complicated, but I’ve argued for years that Interior and DoJ were in collusion to try and subvert the Court’s order on a full accounting, as it could cost the government and/or the resource extraction industries many billions (Gonzales testified recently that it could be upwards of $200 billion - that was just before he and Kempthorne offered a paltry $7 billion to settle all the cases.)

Nexus to:

- purge of USA’s
- co-conspirators to obstruct justice and lie to the Senate
- energy/mining megacorps protected by co-conspirators
- convicted corrupt DOJ ex-No 2(who was beneficiary of USA purge.and mega-lobbyist for energy/mining interests protected by co-conspirators)

Well - that nexus is good ‘ol Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah.

Now where have I been reading about criminal conspirators for Bush with close ties to Utah? And who was pulling Orrin’s strings during Orrin’s slurpfest on Kyle Sampson at Thursday’s hearing? .

Earl wrote on April 3, 2007 12:28 AM:

Hatch has always been a sincere, if smiling, "whitey righty," a term meant not to disparage, but only to describe. It means his only frame of reference is his perfect, white bread, life. A life Hatch believes is available to all hard-working Americans. He did, however, actually study the law. And irrespective of his pandering to the President and V.P., I would rather he be AG for the next couple of years, a nomination that would likely sail through the Senate, because he's been "one of them" for so long, his personal relationships with the other Senators could be counted on so his confirmation would sail. And having been a member of Congress for decades may actually have imparted on him a sense of responsibility and respect for a co-equal branch of our government. Plus, how could he be worse than the President's current long-time crony, whose single legal philosophy is and has been to admire the emperor's clothes? Moreover maybe Hatch as an AG would quell his desire to be a justice of the Supreme Court, a position that he has always coveted. Confirming that nomination would not be such a walk in the park, but maybe not impossible. That would be real bad.

Vulture Breath wrote on April 3, 2007 11:52 AM:

Well here's some smoke that should be pursued to see if there's any fire: the email from DOJ spokesperson Tasia Scolinos saying that immigration can be used as a cover story for some of the firings because those USA's were in border states.

ohiomeister wrote on April 3, 2007 8:20 PM:

Good job by Sen. Leahy to avoid saying that Sen. Hatch would get confirmed AND by putting it out there that rumor has it that Sen. Hatch has the knife drawn for the AG. Gonzo better watch his back! At least the Dems will tell him to resign in public and not shiv him from behind.

poll@gmail.com wrote on April 30, 2007 6:56 PM:

hello

poll@gmail.com wrote on April 30, 2007 6:56 PM:

hello

harry@gmail.com wrote on May 1, 2007 7:27 AM:

hello

bill@gmail.com wrote on May 5, 2007 5:51 PM:

hello

bill@gmail.com wrote on May 5, 2007 5:51 PM:

hello

harry@gmail.com wrote on May 6, 2007 7:32 PM:

hello

download free music wrote on September 26, 2007 9:41 AM:

Hi boys!e0a80d34117ea9792ef68af7debf8ee2

limewire wrote on October 7, 2007 10:38 PM:

Hi, there!..ed0b739c4398cc564f1f5aeba2fe91c9