Incorrect. We covered that here already.

Sampson: “Real problem was prosecution of immigration cases.”

With that statement any support I would have given them just went out the window. I think most folks know my take on illegal immigration.

Between that and the H1-B changes the DOL pushed through, that I sent you Commie, I’m done.

Hang’em all. I’ll bring the rope.

And thats why I’m done.

See here

Maybe my notes were imprecise. Allegedly, it was her “non-prosecution” of immigration cases.

The error was mine.

I revoke my previously inflamed rhetoric

How about the Repubs stopping the hearings? Any idea what that is about? Was Sampson breaking from the script?

To late. Can’t have your rope back.

Commie:

Although the rule is rarely actually invoked, it’s existence is a factor in scheduling ahead of time.

My take, from watching hundreds of hours of other hearings, is that they’re (the Dems) getting more out of Sampson than they expected to, so the questioning went went long. So Hatch was within his rights

This is bad for the GOP–it’s a panic button. I don’t blame Hatch for pulling the plug … I pity him.

That can be left open to interpretation. To some of the American public those issue’s are more important than a crooked politician. Since when was there a politician who is not crooked?

This goes right to the root of why I think this whole case and charge is a farce.

The entire case is going to be a debate of semantics, because they can’t prove a violation of the law!

What can be proved is still uncertain.

There’s a lot to suggest that Domenici and Wilson tried to obstruct justice.

If that can be proved, then it’s a crime.

See the Specter quote above.

However that still is my point.

The initial over flow of information had the left screaming “Bush did it”

My contention was, and still is he himself did not violate the law.

That someone else may have is moot to me. As I said earlier it will be another Scooter Libby case of semantic juggling and a negatible trial with a pittance punishment, if one is even handed down.

All in all a huge waste of tax payer money. Just my opinion, I grant. But to me the money would be better spent, doing, say a law or referendum to prevent this from happening in the future.

Instead of attempting to make it a 3 ring circus so folks can say “Bush Republicans Evil.” Even though like 3 of the Attorney’s were part of the GOP. Heh.

On June 15, 2006, Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein complained about Ms. Lam to Alberto Gonzales, quote: “It is my understanding that Ms. Lam may have some of the most restrictive prosecutorial guidelines nationwide for immigration cases, such that many Border Patrol agents end up not referring their cases.”

19 members of Congress wrote Gonzales in October of 2005 complaining that they felt Lam was too lax on illegal immigration. One of the members of Congress who signed the letter complaining about Lam was Congressman Cunningham, who is now serving an eight year prison term after Lam successfully prosecuted him. “The U.S. Attorney in San Diego has stated that the office will not prosecute a criminal alien unless they have previously been convicted of two felonies in the district” the letter of complaint read.

Now Feinstein’s attempting to paint Lam as a victim. Simply priceless.

From fiscal 2002 through 2006, Lam’s office sentenced 88 people for firearms crimes, During the same period, 946 people were sentenced for the same crimes in the Southern District of Texas, 894 in the Western District of Texas, 897 in the District of Arizona, 437 in the District of New Mexico and 439 in the Southern District of Alabama.

The Alabama District has 1/5th of Lam’s resources.

fiscal 2002 through 2006, Lam’s office prosecuted an average of 1,711 immigration cases a year, which he said hit a low of 1,411 prosecutions in 2006. During that year, 4,132 immigration cases were prosecuted in the Southern District of Texas, 2,669 in the Western District of Texas, 2,193 in the District of Arizona and 1,361 in the District of New Mexico.

Concern about Lam’s prosecution rates came to Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s attention last summer, when Border Patrol agents complained that despite their high border apprehension rates, Lam prosecuted few such cases. In a June letter to the Justice Department, Feinstein, D-Calif., asked for Lam’s prosecution figures.

For any of the parties involved to say her numbers are not lacking…well, there it is in black and white. And for Feinstein to play second fiddle now is political grandstanding at its finest.

I would suggest to BloodSpite that a Congressman openly soliciting bribes and wasting untold more millions in taxpayer money on bogus defense contracts is a little bit more costly and important than a single obstruction of justice trial. I don’t think you want to go down the “waste of taxpayer money” line of argument with the Bush administration.

This comment by Specter cited by you:

4:55 - Specter is concerned about circumventing the Senate. “I feel victimized, esp. when you say you did it in bad faith. …

References the e-mail cited in the very first comment I had on this subject on this blog.

I been tellin’ youse guys … that’s the KILLER quote and it always was. You can spend a trillion dollars on a war you lied to us about to gain our support, but never screw with our prerogatives!