Review of Kyle Sampson's testimony Before the Judicial Committee-Post 1

So, yesterday, John comes to me and says matter of fact, I want you to cover the testimony of Kyle Sampson for the blog tomorrow. I said, make sure you introduce the topic tomorrow, and yet…..Hmmmmmm….I see no topic this morning. Great!!!

Lol, I’m sure all of you who know John or me personally understand exactly why I had to write that joke as my opener. So, I thought how am I going to do this? Looking for a detour to sitting in front of the TV and watching the prelude to the event, I decided I should work out. As I finished my workout, I turned on the TV to watch. MSNBC, the more credible has the same old thing, strategists, who know everything that should be going on. I thought to myself, hmm…..good times to meet with local officials and provide there perspective on our upcoming IPTV Shows. Letting their knowledge flood my mind, I heard there thoughts on what we really know as the public, what was really going to be exposed today, and how much damage could be done by his testimony? It is all speculation of the worst, as is usual with the mainstream media. I wonder, could we balance the worst with the best. Or, could we just wait and see what he will tell us in his testimony, using this time to promote the groups of the local community and how they will be impacted by the testimony. Hmmm……Interesting thought for another time.

So, I come back in from the workout and talk with John’s wife a little. I turn on MSNBC again and they are still reviewing their own thoughts while we are waiting for the proceeding to begin.

While waiting, I did some research on Google about Mr. Sampson. From the LA Times:
WASHINGTON — The former Justice Department official who orchestrated the firing of eight U.S. attorneys last year plans to tell Congress today that such dismissals are appropriate when prosecutors prove ineffective from "a political perspective." In his first public remarks on the firings, D. Kyle Sampson says the process of identifying underperforming U.S. attorneys "was not scientific nor was it extensively documented," according to testimony prepared for delivery to the Senate Judiciary Committee.None of the prosecutors was asked to resign for "improper reasons," notes a copy of Sampson's statement obtained by The Times, but an unusually broad standard was used to decide on proper grounds for dismissing them
End of quotation from the LA Times...

He didn’t see a difference, it appeared, between firing someone for policy or political differences in any of his opening statement. In his opening remarks, he did make statements that things were mishandled—“poor judgments, word choices...” He talked of a “good faith attempt to carry-out management operations” and then one sentence later, admitted that actions have caused “misunderstandings and embarrassments”. He also indicated that he was not asked to resign, but instead chose to resign his post in an effort to hold himself accountable for what he “could have and should have done to prevent this”. He went on to assure the committee that he genuinely—“honestly and in good faith”—“never sought to conceal...facts...from anyone” within the department. Going far enough to state the “others in the department knew”. But, when discussing what happened in his opening statement, he simply stuck to the language already reflected in the LA Times excerpt above.

Reports from MSNBC say that he is currently being grilled on the language he has chosen to hear. But, they are not covering it live, and neither is CSPAN 1 AND CSPAN 2. I need to find a live feed to the proceeding and I will get our readers more. How does one get a press pass to this stuff, anyway?

Have any suggestions, email or call me.
Jeremy
(614) 519-3026