Whose water is Sampson carrying?

[cali]

One thing seems clear: Sampson did not agree to appear before the Senate Judiciary to heap blame on the administration. He may have been shit canned, but he's evidently still a loyal bushy.

I am puzzled though, by his opening statement in which he conflates strict political fealty with job performance. Does he really think he can get away with that line with Leahy and the other dem members of the Senate Judiciary? Will he answer some questions and refuse to answer others? Will he be struck with a sudden severe case of BAIA (Bush administration induced amnesia) a la Doan?

I guess we'll just have to tune in to today's episode of "As The Administration Squirms".

[Robbien]

1. The job is the GOP

The government is the GOP

Of course every single GOPer believes party loyalty equals loyalty to the job.

That is what they have been told for the last six years.

[The Count]

2. "I am a proud political appointee" said yesterday Lurita Duan from GSA

(as she was confessing to breaking the Hatch Act)Be prepared for more like this.

[cali]

3. Yeah, and happily she got shredded.

Can the Senate Judiciary Committee dems do the same to Sampson, or is a cannier cat than Doan?

[Robbien]

4. But she still has her job

and will continue to have her job.

She believes that nothing bad can happen to her because she is a GOPer and in this government GOPers rule.

[Blackhatjack]

6. After her testimony yesterday, Doan is history ... she cannot survive what she testified to...n/t

[Robbien]

9. I really wish that were true

but did you see her smirk through the most of the testimony.

Who is going to fire her? Who?

The GSA Department issued Press Release about the questioning entitled

Doan Presents Her GSA Goals, Fields Questions Before Congress
http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/03-28-2007/0004555424&EDATE=

news reports all say "Lawmakers press GSA chief at hearing".

Nothing is going to happen to her.

[cali]

7. No way.

Not ony will she be fired, she'll quite likely face prosecution for violating the Hatch Act. The evidence presented yesterday was literally overwhelming.

[Gabi Hayes]

8. I sure hope you're right...fervently. and will Sampson be applying

use, or transactional amnesia?

he's going to have the worst memory lapses since Bob Woodruff

[Blackhatjack]

5. After last nights document dump by the White House, he may change his tune today....

The White House waited until the night before Sampson was to testify to put out the documents that make it look like Sampson lied to them and their officials about what he was doing.

I wonder how Kyle will like wearing the same clothing that Libby wore at his trial?

[L. Coyote]

10. Email-Gate FACTS: Felons, georgewbush.com, gwb43.com , et. al.

This story is proving to be a full time task in the last day.
Here is a summary, and this thread is post #64

Email-Gate FACTS: Felons, georgewbush.com, gwb43.com , et. al.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x523978

====

"I've lost my ability to trust" in Gonzo and the premier Justice organization in this land. Iglesias live just now.

[onenote]

11. Policy. Performance. Partisanship.

Three related concepts. But they are not the same. That's what "loyal bushies" can't comprehend. Sure, its fine and dandy and not at all unusual for presidents to appoint people who share their policy priorities. And that share their political loyalties. And if, in carrying out their jobs, they don't adhere to those policy priorities, its okay for the president to find someone who will.

But it is not appropriate to assess the performance of a public official in their duties on whether they are sufficiently partisan in the carrying out of those duties. In other words, if a president wants to appoint members of his party, no problem. If he expects those appointees to carry out their duties differently in dealing with repubs v. democrats -- that's a no-no. Put in its starkest terms -- if the president thinks that going after corruption is a priority, fine. If its going after corruption by Democrats, and not going after corruption by repubs, that's an abuse of power.