Gonzales Update: former Chief of Staff Kyle Sampson agrees to testify

On CNN now.

"this will be an open session, there will be a transcript and he will be under oath."

He had resigned previoulsy.

Thanks for posting!!!!

Very bad news for bushco. Message to Kyle: avoid all small planes between now and Thursday.

ya' know?!

I wonder which will win.

:popcorn:

Gozalez will have white hair.

So why is Gonzales "allowing" him to testify? Isn't he a private citizen now?

There is no national security issue.

(now fixed), it seemed like Gonzo said it.

My bad.

I just misunderstood.

Nah...I think he wants revenge. He was used as the fall guy for the fired U.S. attorneys and he's probably not too happy about that. I hope he spills his guts. I hope he involves KKKRove, the psycho and Gonzo. Clean sweep.

I hate to delete posts.

I just think if it gets anywhere near the Lam investigation and the surrounding events something is gonna blow.

If he was aware that ousting most of the other USAs was a cover for getting rid of the thorn in the admins side that is Lam (which I am inclined to believe) then he was involved in a conspiracy to obstruct. Plain and simple . If he isn't granted immunity, I doubt he is going to offer up any tidbits regarding that scheme.

If I know Leahy and Schumer, they would gladly do that to get to KKKRove, the psycho and Gonzo.

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/politics/16962542.htm

WASHINGTON - In the year before her dismissal as San Diego's U.S. attorney, Carol Lam's Justice Department bosses griped about her in snide e-mails and strategized about putting her "on a very short leash."

Yet they gave no explanation when they finally kicked her out in December, Lam testified last month.

<snip>

"Lam won a bribery conviction from GOP Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham in 2005, and when she was fired she was prosecuting an ongoing corruption case, focused on Republicans, that grew from his plea."

On the other hand now that he has resigned he has a degree of freedom. Maybe he does not want to be a scapegoat like Libby. It's a lot of maybes.

I am waiting for a more detailed article to come out and I will post it.

He's not on trial, not defending himself against prosecution, and not in a court of law.

It may very well be that he is not able to invoke the 5th amendment protection. I've read that in grand jury testimony, one is also unable to "plead the 5th".

I remember a few years back this happening. There were several people in a hearing that took the fifth.

Someone help me.

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002860.php

Sampson: It's A Date!
By Paul Kiel - March 23, 2007, 4:27 PM

Yesterday, the Senate Judiciary Committee extended an invitation for Alberto Gonzales' former chief of staff Kyle Sampson to testify. If he didn't want to come voluntarily, the committee said, he'd be subpoenaed.

Today, via a letter from his lawyer to the committee, he accepted -- no subpoena necessary.

"Mr. Sampson looks forward to answering the Committee's questions," the letter reads. "We trust that his decision to do so will satisfy the need of the Congress to obtain information from him concerning the requested resignations of the United States Attorneys."

The hearing will take place at 10 AM next Thursday.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/23/AR2007032301396.html

Sampson's attorney, Bradford A. Berenson, wrote in a letter to the committee's leadership this afternoon that he hopes the testimony "will satisfy the need of the Congress to obtain information from him."

<snip>

Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales and other Justice officials said Sampson quit because he withheld information from others that may have led to misleading testimony before Congress. Sampson has disputed that characterization, saying he resigned only because he had failed to recognize the political ramifications surrounding the firings.

<snip>

"Kyle Sampson was at the center of what happened to the U.S. attorneys, and last week he publicly disputed the statements of Justice officials," Schumer said. "This increases the pressure on everyone to come clean."

Sampson has said through his attorney that others in the Justice Department were fully aware of his discussions with the White House about the attorney firings. The point has proven crucial because Justice officials had previously testified that the White House was only tangentially involved late in the process.

thom hartman speculated that Sampson may not want to take a bullet for his boss like Libby did

Will Sampson lie? I think it will be framed to the extent of covering his own ass, but not anyone elses

should be interesting - when is he scheduled to appear?

Cirque d'Sampson!

WTF with that, that a TRANSCRIPT is circus-like?? How weak is that. I never went to a circus that had transcripts available, LOL.

probably as good idea considering how this admin hangs people out to dry.

something smells.

I am so completely in disagreement with Richardson on this:

Question: Alberto Gonzalez happens to be a member of your community. Is this guy gonna survive? He's the first Hispanic to have that job.

Richardson: Yeah, I know. I'm rooting for him, I like the guy, I know him. I hope he survives....

Question: It occurs to me now, listening to you talk about your friend who you know, Mr. Gonzalez, it draws a stark contrast between—I haven't checked where all the other candidates are, but I know Obama is on record very clearly saying Gonzalez should step down. I suspect other Democrats running for president are maybe saying the same thing. That's a contrast between you and others on whether or not this guy should step down.

Richardson: That's right. I do believe that it's up to a president to make those decisions about Cabinet members. Obviously, Alberto's very damaged, and he's gotta be frank and testify and do what has to happen. But I think that's up to the president.

Question: So you would not call for his stepping down right now.

Richardson: No, no. And you know what? Part of it maybe is because he's the highest-ranking Hispanic ever.

Question: But wrongdoing is wrongdoing, though. If he did wrong.

Richardson: Well, I think it's more a lack of attention, lack of a plan, lack of being thorough. He's too much the president's lawyer. He's too much of a political person. And I recognize that. ... I've had conversations with him on immigration. I thought he was very competent. ... But I just think, Tavis, that this is a presidential decision. You can pick your Cabinet. And if somebody's not performing, let him go.

Source and more context: http://www.pbs.org/kcet/tavissmiley/archive/200703/20070321_richardson.html

Two things spring to mind. One: He would have to appear anyway. Two: He gets immunity by his testimony.

WHY would he say this shit? Is he CRAZY???(*&^%$#@

Which could reach all the way up to Shrub?

Something which would suggest that the BushCo regime was clearly abusing it's power by replacing neutral prosecutors with political operatives perhaps?
:shrug:

Important news, thanks!:kick: