Interesting that he’s in the news. When you start going after a president for firing at-will-employed political appointees, you know you’ve got a squeaky-clean administration.

Sampson got an unflattering profile in The New Repblic the other day. He gets their “all-time hack award.” It’s here (free registration required):

http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=w070326&s=schaffer032807

Seth, in order for it to fit into a pattern of bad behavior, it has to be bad behavior to begin with. Otherwise, your complaint that it’s bad ends up being circular: it’s bad because it’s part of a pattern, and the pattern is bad because it’s made up of bad items. In order to avoid this circle, you’ll have to explain why it’s bad (in and of itself) to release political appointees who are at-will employees.

Obstruction of justice is a technical legal term, and firing political appointees who are at-will employees does not fit the bill, no matter who they are — not by a mile. It’s within the president’s legal preview to fire them, even if it’s because they’re investigating him personally — and there’s nothing Congress can do about it.

I’m not sure what your argument is, Seth R, but I’m pretty sure you’re missing the point. Are trying to say that because a president does something unique, he’s done something immoral? Again, you have to show that the firing is bad in its own right before you can say that it’s uniquely bad, otherwise your argument is (again) circular: Something is bad because it’s unique, and something is uniquely bad, because it’s bad. Mere uniqueness is never a measure of moral turpitude.

Prosecutors are indeed “at-will.” But once appointed, it is imperative that they be insulated from Politics.

Mr. Sampson today, made the argument before the Senate Judiciary that in practice, it’s hard to distinguish between purely performance-related complaints about a prosecutor and more political complaints.

For example, a prosecutor who does not properly support the Presidents policy priorities – say, for instance, vigilantly prosecuting illegal immigrants – will not be “performing well” in that administration’s eyes.

That’s not a bad point. But what happened here is different. It’s not just a matter of failing to enforce Executive priorities. This was a removal of prosecutors solely because they were not conducting their office in a way that supported Karl Rove’s campaign wish-list. That is a blatant and clear case of subverting the apolitical conduct of ongoing investigations and prosecutions to purely partizan concerns.

So yes, the Bush administration was quite clearly interfering with law enforcement to advance campaign goals. Obstruction of justice.

A blanket firing of all appointees of the past administration, which does not similarly target specific ongoing investigations is not the same animal at all. It sends a completely different message to serving prosecutors, the criminal justice system, and the American people.

Even if you fired all attorneys to rid yourself of two prosecutions you don’t like, it doesn’t send the same message. That said, I would not approve of such an action. And most Presidents have refrained from firing Prosecutors involved in key ongoing investigations or prosecutions.

To say this is business as usual is clearly not true.

To say that the President has the authority to act in this fashion ignores the fact that it is an abuse of that authority and discretion.

A few funny things here:

- It seems that Gonzales and Sampson rejected Harriet Myer’s suggest that they fire everyone, which seems to be what the White House wanted. Instead they target specific prosecutors for political motives. Dumb.

- It seems that Gonzales may have perjured himself in the same way that Clinton and Scooter Libby did, by lying to cover up something that probably wasn’t a crime. Dumb.

Seth,

The real issue, as Joshua Marshall lays it out, is not actually “politics” but Karl Rove’s “math.” I.e., this is all about 2008. Look at which states had attorneys fired. Political battleground states (with two exceptions, the two fired attorneys in California). Carol Lam was deep in the underbelly of the administration, plucking out one Republican after another in her corruption probe. The administration’s lie is that she was fired for her lack of actions on immigration. Yet, interestingly, no one ever informed her that she needed to step it up. Huh….

This is all about 2008. This is all about using the resources of the federal government to aide and abet the Republican candidates win elections. That’s what this is about. This is engineered by Karl Rove. And Bush will fight to the death over making sure that Karl Rove never testifies under oath in public. This is about pressing bogus charges against Democrats in 2008, supressing just enough Democratic voters in key battleground states so that Republicans win. That’s what this is about. It isn’t about “politics” per se. It certainly isn’t about the false reasons they keep giving about why these guys were fired. They want to ensure that they have “loyal Bushies” in place in key sections; Karl Rove has done his “math,” he knows where he needs the “loyal Bushies.”

And people like Kyle Sampson fall on their sword as dutiful, loyal servants. Monica Goodling is throwing sand in our eyes to obstruct justice by pleading the fifth on flimsy grounds (those dratted Congressional questioners are meanies!). Their main purpose is to distract and obfuscate so that the truth cannot be found.

And really, what are good Mormons doing in this administration? The more we see of the underbelly of this beast, the more I ask myself that question.

Re: The “ethics” argument is the straw man.

Gonzales lying about his involvement in the decision-making process is an ethics problem.
Justice department officials lying about the competence of the fired prosecutors to cover their crass political maneuvering is an ethics problem.
Crass political manipulation of the prosecutorial system is an ethics problem (the fact that it’s been done in the past is no excuse).

I fail to see what is so laudable about any of these behaviors, and just because Clinton or [insert democrat here] also did it hardly makes it any better.

Congressing passing a law making it easier for Bush to appoint incompetent lackeys is not an ethics problem, but is worthy of investigation and reflection by Congress (since Gonzales has himself retreated from this position, that new law is expected to be repealed).

Re: …it’s ridiculous to imply that the hiring and firing of political appointees should be based on merit…

Of course, what would our Supreme Court justices, FEMA directors, Secretaries of Defense, government prosecutors, etc. do with all that useless merit anyway?

I’m not sure why you are trying to separate politics from perceived competence, anyway, since the two are hopelessly intertwined in making political appointments. But admitting that this administration does not even have merit or competence as a goal or ideal in filling political appointments only discredits them further. There is a good way to engage in politics and a bad way, it is not the engaging in politics itself that is bad. The administration simply got caught making very poor political decisions and then transparently lied to minimize the damage, to the opposite effect.

Michael Brown, Harriet Miers, Donald Rumsfeld, and now Alberto Gonzales are all part of a long line of incompetent failures that rose to prominence by the sole virtue of being “loyal Bushies.” When partisan politics gets so extreme that competence and merit become the least important virtues for high political officeholders, its time to clean house.

Sampson’s reluctant testimony today and the recent e-mails showing Gonzales’ involvement in the decision making process are a preponderance of the evidence that Gonzales lied when he emphatically denied any knowledge of the unique mid-term firing of 8 U.S. Attorneys. But, of course, when its your party in the hot seat, DKL, it’s time to argue about what the meaning of “is” is, isn’t it?

interesting discussion. I find one thing very fascinating and that is that many die hard Republicans cannot admit that the Bush White House has made mistakes. They most certainly have, just as every other administration has before them. DKL – I have not yet seen you admit that the Bush White House has erred – I think that perhaps your loyalty has blinded you to the fact that there have been screwups – maybe not as big as Clinton during his first term, but screwups nonetheless. Underestimating the Iraqi insurrgency being among the largest. They are human and will make mistakes and that is fine, I think most people grant that errors will be made. However, giving a mea culpa once in a while certainly helps…

DKL,

Dan, that theory is just plain nutty

Of course it is, just as all other theories proved right about this administration. Can you, a strong conservative, actually get yourself to see that your Dear Leader uses the federal government’s resources to bring his party to power? Probably not. But he is.

DKL,
I guess the real question here is burying a criminal investigation of corruption by political means, simply because you have the means to do so, ethical. I am not seeing it. This is the allegation. You may disagree. But if true, I simply cannot see any construct that makes this burying, because it hurts you politically, an ethical move. Prosecutors have this ideal that they hold to which is finding the truth. To be fired because you stuck to that is not going to sit well with me. Does it to you?

re: 22 Merit and competence matter very much. W/ SC justices, those who prove to lack either cannot be removed. Thurgood Marshall was a shell of his former, great self by the time he passed away. At the time of his passing, he was not competent by any stretch of the word, but he occupied a seat on the SC and could not be removed by the President or anyone else except the Man upstairs.

re: 24 From what I saw, I agree Sampson did very well, but most of the Senators on the Committee were overmatched by Sampson.

rbc,

I care far more about the integrity of separation of powers and checks and balances than I do about incompetent Supreme Court justices.

I was wondering when someone was going to bring up the Tolman/Sampson competition, and Sampson’s documented actions during this.

There’s a lot of LDS members in high ranking offices in the Federal Government here in DC. They aren’t all political apointees either.

rbc,

I think it was a misdirected response to a point I’m no longer sure you were trying to make.

Essentially, I was defending life-tenure for Supreme Court justices.

Sherpa #29 – of those high ranking DC officials – are the majority of them recent appointees or hires since 2000? I would guess that the Clinton era had basically very few Mormons in his administration.

Seth R, the “danger to the society” talk is, I think, mere hysteria. It reminds me of the kind of doomsday-talk that I used to chide my fellow Republicans for using in reference to Bill Clinton. It’s been 7 years now, and nobody much cares about the “long term impact” of the actions that Clinton took as president. 7 years from now, nobody will care about what Bush did, either.

It’s just kind of odd the way that people froth at the mouth about their political opponents. Here are the overriding facts of the matter: Nobody has any corner on decency, goodness, fairness, or balance. These are all things that reasonable people can disagree about. It’s sheer idiocy for one side of the aisle to constantly fume about how the other side of the aisle is threatening the very survival of our republic. Furthermore, we’re all working toward the same goals. The argument is over the means to those goals. The proponent of socialized medicine and I both want to see as many people as possible covered and adequately treated by our medical system. And opponents to the Iraq war don’t want to see another terrorist attack on American soil any more than I do.

Another important thing to remember is that American politics is boring, and there’s very little difference between American political parties compared to the differences in political parties in other nations (many of which actually have active parties representing fascist, socialist, and communist points of view and winning seats in proportional representation system). What strikes you as something extremely opposed to your values is but a hair’s breadth away when you compare it the position of your would-be opposition in other countries.

Thus, when I hear people talk about how “dangerous” Bush and Cheney are, I roll my eyes. It’s on par with when I hear a teenager tell their parent, “You never let me do anything!”

DKL, while some of the rhetoric from Democrats and Democratic supporters seems ridiculous at times (especially given the ethical lapses of their own leadership at the present) it also seems that Bush has done it again. I was iffy about Gonzales when he was appointed. He hasn’t exactly stood out as competent in most senses. Ditto Meirs. Indeed, regardless of whether some of the charges are merited, we seem once again to have a slew of Bush appointees guaged in terms of loyalty rather than competence.

I have (uncharacteristically) read every word of the topic post and those after. This is an intriguing subject. It seems like these Mormons aren’t going to benefit Romney much.

1.Is Karl Rove a Mormon? I see that he grew up in Utah, but he seems to dodge the question.

2. what was the reason Clinton gave when he fired all those prosecuters?

#9 Seth, your comment about the firings being uh, brb :)
Karl Rove’s campaign wish list, how do you know that? Are you sure?

#10 DKL, I was thinking what you said (second paragraph), but I thought it doesn’t really matter if those guys did wrong. If I shoot somebody in the leg, am I justified because “those guys shot somebody in the chest?” Can you reverse the situation and ask yourself how you feel if this was a Democratic administration?

ARJ, why do politicians do that? lie about something that’s embarrassing, but not a crime, knowing that the lie is a crime? Why do they do that?

#12 Dan, a short comment! But all politicians lie, blaming it on Reagan isn’t good logic. Especially since Bill Clinton.

Although if I were asked, what did you discuss in a meeting with the president September 12, 2005 at 3 pm?–I mean, whose memory is that good?

#14 Greenfrog, I thought sort of the same thing. A truly ethical person wouldn’t rely on legalities. Although comparing politically inspired firings isn’t anywhere near comparable to late term abortion.

Dan & DKL, I don’t this has to do with Republicans wanting to bring Democrats up on charges (Dan’s claim), but I do think it may have to do with the elections coming up in 2008.

#17 Leif, it’s not ridiculous, but it’s naive. Even I know that.

rbc, what was he wearing? I never watch the news.

#19 Devyn, that goes both ways. No Democrat will admit Bill Clinton is an evil rapist. I’m not a die hard anything, but I like Bush. I think he made a bad move, but I still like him. I really like what you say, though.

#21 Dan, good comment, but can you say the same? Clinton was totally self serving and served his party. Politicians all do the same thing, if they are the local sheriff or the president.

#26, Seth, I care! But good point, yeah, some of the most righteous people are really awful people.

#28 Leif, if I understand you right, and you’re correct, why didn’t Clinton bring down the government when he was doing all that illegal stuff? He fired a bunch of people.

#30 rbc, I think you missed some words in your first sentence because it doesn’t make sense. Although how can you refute an argument you’re not sure DKL has made.

LOL, I do it all the time, though–not sure what others are saying. Which is why I read this carefully.

I DIGRESS: I skimmed through a book about the Supreme Court and they said that Rehnquist delayed his retirement so that Sandra O-Connor would retire first and be replaced with a conservative. But the administration blew it somehow because they nominated Bork before Kennedy. I’m confused, but it was all very Machiavellian.

#35 DKL, excellent point. My favorite thus far, in fact. None of us is perfect. Hello.

#37, Clark, who hasn’t done that? (re your last sentence)

Really, I’m not being a smart aleck, who hasn’t? Maybe Jimmy Carter, who was a sucky president, which sort of makes Seth’s point.

My bottom opinion in this, which I don’t really care about, is that this is business as usual Democrat or Republican, OR Democrat vs. Republican. As a moderate who votes either way depending on the candidate, I am sick of party rhetoric. Just totally sick of it. I have good friends who are Democrats (think Dan) and good friends who are Republicans. I think that’s sort of what DKL said.

Or maybe it’s a vast left wing conspiracy and those of you who feel this is all the Democrats can drum up against GWB are right.

So is what you’re saying is that my question about how come Bill Clinton didn’t bring down the government when he did the same thing is irrelevant because the actual issue is related to the administration going beyond their power in other stuff?

How are the two related? Specifically. I’m trying to understand.

Well, it can’t be said better than it is here, by one of the fired prosecutors himself:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2007/03/31/cummins/

lief, I thought the prosecutor you site said it pretty poorly.

It boggles the mind how you liberals continue to site salon and npr to “prove” your mistaken points and then mindlessly complain that Fox is biased. If your not going to think for yourself, why must you rely on the all the same tired sources. Can’t you find something more original to parrot?

Seth, neither you nor lief has shown exactly how the firings themselves were unethical, though lief made a nice attempt to dodge the issue by accusing me of arguing about legalities.

One doesn’t concede integrity to liberals because he’s unfazed when justice department firings show up on DNC talking points. But you still haven’t shown how the firings were unethical, so integrity isn’t an issue.

As far as respect for the justice system, that only goes so far. It works on some level, to be sure. There are many justice systems that are far worse. But let’s not pretend that it’s not a political system with political influences, political interests, and political participants. This isn’t some circumstance to be lamented — it’s the baseline condition of the system as it functions.

The largest systemic flaw is the US constitution is the pretense that courts can be (or even should be) less political and should therefore be altogether unaccountable for any decision they make. From this pretense flows untold volumes of nonsense about respect for our justice system. But no such pretense is made concerning the executive branch, which is responsible for prosecuting crimes in the court system. That’s always already understood as fundamentally political, and it’s important we respect that.

If the fired attorneys really do serve at the pleasure of the President, shouldn’t that ought to mean that their firings are to be laid at the feet of the President? But instead, we’ve got Gonzales and Sampson taking the heat for what, arguably, was supposed to have been a Presidential decision. Where’s the paperwork with the President’s signature on it that says “fire these people”? Why won’t the President take the reponsibility if it really is his call?

Rush Limbaugh used to make fun of President Clinton by citing the old Harry Truman “the buck stops here” line and claiming (in his best Clinton imitation voice) that when it was Clinton’s turn to take the heat, “the buck never got here”.

Seems to me that Sampson and Gonzales are doing their level best to see to it that the buck never gets to Bush’s desk, either. They’re running interference for Bush, and that can only be because Bush really, really doesn’t want to see that particular buck end up at his desk. “Serve at the pleasure of the President”, indeed.

DKL,

But you still haven’t shown how the firings were unethical, so integrity isn’t an issue.

It hasn’t been fully proven yet, and this is the key. We’re trying to find out just how far this goes, but the White House wishes this would go away. Monica Goodling is throwing sand in our eyes and obstructing justice. Kyle Sampson is claiming amnesia so he doesn’t reveal too much. Bush will never let Karl Rove and Harriet Miers testify publicly and under oath because doing so would reveal too much, i.e. that this was indeed about what we claim it is about.

So no, it hasn’t been shown yet. We’re still in the investigation stage. But the evidence strongly suggests that this White House fired these attorneys because some did not press hard enough against Democrats and too hard against Republicans. To get to the bottom, the White House needs to be more open, after all, if it has nothing to hide, what does it fear from telling the truth?

Dan: It hasn’t been fully proven yet, and this is the key. We’re trying to find out just how far this goes…

But if they’re not unethical, then it doesn’t really matter how far it goes.

This is the entire problem with the conversation. Everyone talks about the firings in a way that assumes that they’re bad, and they never say anything to describe what makes them bad.

DKL,

What could possibly make them bad in your mind? Is there anything?

I missed that comment, Doc. You’re claiming that they buried investigations by firing US attorneys. This, of course, is false. This is not like when Nixon fired of Archibald Cox, though I don’t think that his firing was unethical either.

The articles in the news and this discussion are all around these awful firings, with vague hints as to why they might be unethical, surrounded by inflammatory rhetorical about how this is a pattern, or how this is unique, or how far it might go.

So, Doc, let’s get to the meat of the matter: Which investigations did the Bush administration terminate by these firings, and how were they politically self serving? As far as scandals go, this is pretty thin stuff.

What bugs me is that the US Attorney’s office still isn’t investigating the mobbed-up thug from Vegas whom the Democrats made their minority leader. Who do we need to fire to get them to follow up on mob-corruption in the US Senate?

annegb,

Clinton, Reagan, Carter, and other presidents (but not Bush Sr. since he inherited Reagan’s people) all conducted widespread mass-firings or mass-replacements of standing federal prosecutors and replaced them with their own picks.

But the difference is THEY did it when they first took office, and it was pretty-much across the board.

What Bush has done is highly unusual. He has conducted the firings MID-TERM. Reagan, Clinton, Carter… all of those presidents fired a prosecutor mid-term no more than twice! Bush has fired a completely unheard of eight prosecutors.

In each of the other three administration firings I mentioned, there was real evidence of incompetence or corruption (which is utterly absent in the current firings).

Not only that, but many of the firings in the Bush administration are linked to either an existing investigation or criminal prosecution of a corrupt Republican politician, or a failure to either speed up, or launch investigations against Democrat politicians.

Oh yes Anne, this is not business as usual in DC. Bush is breaking new ground here.

I still think if Bill Clinton, who I consider a rapist and a murderer, didn’t bring the country down, neither will GWB. This country is bigger than either man.

If Bill Clinton is a “murderer” then George W. Bush is a genocidal maniac.

Dan, where is the genocide that George Bush is spawning in this war to Iraq? What race does he hope to exterminate? He’s misguided, but his hope was to do good.

Call me crazy, but I believe a lot of those rumors about people Clinton had killed, including his own assistants. A man who will rape a woman and use his power to get away with it will do anything.

Nevertheless, America is still a great country. One immoral man cannot bring this country down.

Seth, it doesn’t happen all the time. Which country, which immoral man. Even Idi Aman failed to destroy Uganda.

I wonder how he’d respond to people saying “I can’t remember” to chastity questions as much as he did while testifying?

Or at the end-of-year tithing settlement?

“Brother Smith, are you a full-tithepayer?”

“I don’t remember if I paid it all or not, Bishop Sampson. But surely, you don’t intend to hold my temple recommend hostage as a result, do you?”