Constant's pations

If it's more than 30 minutes old, it's not news. It's a blog.

Wednesday, March 28, 2007

Samspon Offers Inconsistent Testimony

Sampson asserted a legal standard which is not supported by the record.

US Attorneys, contrary to Sampson's assertions, may not be fired in retaliation for not doing something the President wants; or for doing something the President finds offensives to his political agenda.

* * *

Sampson contradicted himself when he asserted that there was no distinction between oplitlcal and legal objectives; but the contention that the President may fire anyone for any reason.

No, the President may not use retaliation.

It is up to the Congress to decide, not for Sampson to assert, whether there was or was not illegal retaliation for non-lawful objectives.

* * *

Contrary to Sampson's assertions, if there was no problem with what the President was doing, then Gonzalez and Goodling would have no reason to hide, provide inconstant testimony; or for Goodling to deny to volunteer all details.

Goodling has invoked her 5th Amendment privilege. This does not mean that she has or has not done anyting wrong; it means that Simpson's assertions are not consistent with post-disclosure conduct from the President, Attorney General, and other counsel associated with the White House.

It doesn't matter what Sampson believes or asserts. The records an open evidence does not suggest there is no reason to pursue this matter. Whether Sampson's is confused or not part of what the Attorney Generals inner circle is irrelevant.

The open record does not support Sampson's assertion that the President was doing something lawful; nor that the Attorney General was openly proud of what he was doing.

Sampson's testimony needs to be viewed in the context of the larger patterns of inconsistent statements; and what information Sampson and others may or may not have been selectively ignoring, not aware, or actively denying.

Sampson's testimony raises more questions than it answers. Surely if Sampson is genuine in his believe, the Attorney General and President have no explanation for why they are attempting to hide, avoid, and not discuss something which supposedly is not a legal problem.

We'll find out what they're protecting, why, and the reason for the inconsistent statements whether the alleged co-conspirators do or do not fully cooperate with Congress.