Sampson in the Lion's Den (there are more mixed allusions where that came from)

from Thursday's all-day Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on prosecutorial independence, or what I'll call the "Let's see if we can get a member of the Justice Department to re-think his position on cruel interrogation techniques via the role-play method, since reasonable debate hasn't had much effect" hearing. By the time everyone else had gone home to supper, the remaining three senators decided to go for a third 10-minute round. If he weren't such a lying weasel (I mean, alleged lying weasel) I would almost feel sorry for the guy.

SEN. ARLEN SPECTER (R-PA): On the issue about the appointment of Mr. Fitzgerald to be special counsel on the Libby matter, I think it ought to be noted that, while Mr. Fitzgerald was appointed in his capacity as an employee of the Department of Justice, by virtue of being United States attorney, that he could have been appointed under the regulations; 28 Code of federal regulations, Section 600.3 says that special counsel shall be selected from outside the United States government, so that terminating him as U.S. attorney would not necessarily have terminated him as the special counsel.

(Sampson had made a little joke/suggestion?, that, oops, made it into the record, that maybe they should go ahead and fire Fitzgerald while they're at it...)

He could have been appointed to carry on the duties in that capacity. I just want to clarify that the alternative procedure here -- and there's no suggestion...

KYLE SAMPSON, SQUIRMY JUSTICE DEPARTMENT FALL GUY: Senator, to my knowledge...

SPECTER: There's no question pending for you, Mr. Sampson. You'd be well advised not to answer when you don't have to.

SAMPSON: Thank you.

SPECTER: You might be well advised not to answer when you have to...

SAMPSON: Thank you, sir.

(LAUGHTER)

SPECTER: ... not when you don't have to.

And later, discussing the role of (the lack of) election fraud prosecutions (against Democrats) in the New Mexico attorney firing...

SPECTER: Here's the conclusion I reach. Iglesias began as one of our finest, was considered for promotions, was trained to -- was selected to train others in election fraud, had one of the best border records, and yet was fired for not doing a good enough job, all of a sudden, between October and November of 2006, on facts that were never checked on.

Do you still think David Iglesias deserved to be fired?

SAMPSON: Senator, looking back on all of this, you know, I wish that we could do it over again.

They'd remember to cover their tracks better this time.