Sen. Specter (R-PA) asks Sampson what the “real problem” was with Carol Lam.

Hatch hatches a whopper. Sen. Hatch (R-UT) just said that the positive performance evaluations for the US Attorney that people have been referring to were purely statistical in nature. That’s false.

To evaluate the DOJ’s credibility on the various explanations for the firings, a good place to start is this November 21st 2006 email in which DOJ officials brainstorm about rationales for the firings. One pipes up: “The one common link here is that three of them are along the southern border so you could make the connection that DoJ is unhappy with the immigration prosecution numbers in those districts.”

Sampson: the firing process “wasn’t scientific or well-documented.”

Feinstein gets some more information from Sampson about Carol Lam’s firing.

A question I haven’t heard yet and really want to hear: If immigration was the problem with Lam, why didn’t anybody at the Justice Department ever raise the issue with her?

Read the letter the head of the US border control field office sent to Carol Lam. This is the subtext of Sen. Feinstein’s (D-CA) question below.

Sen. Kennedy (D-MA) makes a very good point. The prosecutor firings and replacements just happen to be in all the key 2008 swing states, and not in any states that are safe for either party — with the exception of California, where the Lam -Cunningham investigation is. Why do you think that would be?

Sampson: Arizona US Attorney Charlton fired because of difference of opinion over recorded confessions and death penalty, not his on-going criminal investigation of sitting Republican member of Congress. Also not about poor performance, as originally claimed.

Breaking: Republicans put the kibosh on Sampson hearing? More soon. See video here.

Late Update: Kibosh now removed.