Couldn’t his â€Kyle Sampson†recipient also be a distribution list? Not to say that there isn’t a heck of a lot of blind copying going around as well.

While Sessions may indeed be serving as the SJC mole for the WH, for the moment, I don’t think it can compare to the extraordinary corruuption of what Fred Thompson did in 1973. What â€Flaw & Odor†did was no ordinary leak – this was information from an investigation into obstruction of justice, and he is telling the targets of the investigation that the investigators know where to find evidence of the obstruction. He was counsel to the Minority on the Watergate Committee, not the White House! He was disclosing information that was solicitor-client privileged, not just to anyone, but the target of the investigation! So they could â€take appropriate actionâ€!!!!! How is this different from a D.A. working with the drug squad calling the drug dealers and saying, â€Hey, the cops have a search warrant and they’re going to raid tomorrow, better flush the drugs!†The â€conservative values†candidate for President, in other words, committed offences that would get him disbarred and charged with obstruction, conspiracy, and any number of other charges in the real world. And, he BRAGS about doing it, in his own book, and that he did it without authority!!! If he is still a member of any bar, I seriously could see a complaint leading to disbarment.

Fair enough, Ishmael.

Though I am wondering how AGAG’s testimony would have ended up if Sessions hadn’t tipped him off (if that’s what he did).

And, while on the issue of leakers to the White House – what committees is Joementum on, and what does he know from sitting in caucus and on committees with Democrats? I can’t imagine they would be dumb enough to say anything important in front of him, but still….

being as it’s alabama politics –

i’m curious abut session’s relationship with the white house vis-a-vis the don seigelman persecution.

especially, last week’s sentencing.

Ishmael and EW – As a technical interpretation, I am inclined to side with Ishmael’s original thought that Thompson’s conduct is far more egregious. Not necessarily in the result (time will tell on that), but as to the conduct itself. Sessions may be lame and low, but other than the scum factor, as a Senator, there is probably nothing per se legally or ethically improper about him discussing expected areas of inquiry in a technically non-adversarial fact gathering forum with fellow members of his party. This is NOT to say is was morally proper or acceptable under the circumstances.

Thompson, on the other hand, was working as an attorney, with duties to his client (Rep. caucus and therefore the citizens of the US) and to the forum/tribunal convening the proceedings of an adversarial nature with a target. That places Thompson in a far different posture than Sessions. I would hazard a guess that Thompson’s conduct violated all kinds of edicts under those circumstances. If this is indicative of his ethical and moral judgment, he isn’t fit to serve as a dog catcher. Big Fred is proud of this? Unbelievable.

Let’s not wait 30 years to find out this time…

Well, technically, we didn’t have to wait but a year or two the first time. Thompson admitted to the leak in his book published in 1975, and the story isn’t based on anything more than that and interviews with Scott Armstrong and others who were around at the time.

How about the arrogance of admitting it in writing and still, to this date, no shame just pride? Putrid.

bmaz and all:

I always thought Thompson had a direct line to the WH — even during the Ervin hearings. Afterall he had been Howard Baker’s Campaign Manager, then hired in the wake of the campaign as an AUSA, but quickly brought up to DC by Baker for the Ervin hearings once Baker was appointed to that special committee. One job of a campaign manager is to communicate in the name of the candidate outsided the campaign — for instance negotiate debates or arrange joint appearances with party spokespersons, etc, and above all, protect the back side of your man through an election. Thompson acted in the hearings as the Campaign Manager for Baker.

At one point, Dean testified that during a meeting with Senators at the WH, Nixon took Baker aside, wanting to talk about committee plans. Baker was smart enough to end the conversation before it went anywhere, but Baker did tell Nixon that he could communicate with him via Thompson, his man. In otherwords, Thompson was Baker’s back channel to Nixon in 1973. I remember the camera focused on Baker as Dean was testifying — and when it was his turn, he erupted, his honor had been challenged. Dean stuck to his story. Aside from Weicker who asked Dean some questions about the incident, the rest of the panel ignored — probably a Senatorial Courtesy.

The other Republican on the Committee was Senator Gurney (sp) from Florida. He didn’t run for re-election as he had some fairly serious financial problems regarding, if I remember rightly, personal use of campaign funds. Later — much later — it came out that through Beebe Robozo, Gurney and Nixon were co-investors in some off shore property, an interest Gurney acquired very cheap at the time of the hearings.

And the Democratic side wasn’t clean either — Senator Talamage eventually was found to keep an overcoat with about 100 thousand in cash in his hall closet, something he regularly replenished from time to time when people just handed him plain envelopes full of cash. He left in disgrace. Overcoats, Deep Freezes — someone should conduct a survey of the prefered place to keep the petty cash drawer.

Read Kutler’s Wars of Watergate for more about what was going on behind the scenes. When Baker said, â€What did the President know and when did he know it?†he thought he was giving Nixon cover, because he assumed that no-one would ever be able to prove that Nixon knew anything.

I have no idea who controls the original tapes from the Ervin Committee hearings — but just imagine the fun on U Tube if someone could get the snips of Dean telling the story about Baker’s backchannel being Thompson, and then Howard Baker’s eruption when his honor was challenged. Old Tapes of old hearings could have new uses.

By the way, there is plenty more. Nixon talks on his own tapes about having a back channel — can’t remember with whom, but it was in a transcript that came out some years back.

There’s another patch of Dean’s testimony describing a several day long meeting the â€cover-up†team had out in California at an Inn near Nixon’s Presidential Pad in February, 1973, where they tried to plot out how they were going to deal with the committee hearings. (The Inn was owned by the Teamsters Central State Pension fund — mob controlled). Dean testified that Nixon’s legislative liason said that Baker wanted to be helpful, but not obviously so. Same conversation where they described Daniel Inouye as â€Senator Ain’t no Way†They didn’t know who the minority counsel would be at that point, but Dean describes them as wanting a â€Real Bulldog†and then some even more macho descriptions. I think someone suggested, and Dean reported, Another Roy Cohen. All that would be in Dean’s reading of his testimony, remember it took a full day, and he read in the most unemotional dull voice possible. So snip the pieces — throw in Nixon’s audio tape (I think one can copy at the National Archives place in MD) –get it up on U Tube, and it will be an â€all time hit.â€

And I agree totally with Taylor’s recommendation of Kutler’s â€Wars of Watergateâ€. Stanley Kutler fought the good fight to get Nixon’s tapes made available — and he has several books out plus has supervised a number of Wisconsin PhD’s in Legal History on the case.