« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
For Sampson, Hiring At DOJ Was All Republicans All The Times
The highest-ranking official flagged for breaking federal law in today's Department of Justice Inspector General's report was Kyle Sampson, a former chief of staff for Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.
Sampson routinely violated DOJ policy and federal law by using overt political and ideological considerations when filling key DOJ jobs such as immigration judges, according to the report today from the DOJ's Inspector General. Federal law and Justice Department policy require career officials to be hired on merit and prohibit discrimination based on political affiliations.
Federal immigration judgeships were especially targeted for politicization. In October 2003, shortly after Sampson started working at DOJ, then as Counselor to Attorney General John Ashcroft, he began to overhaul the selection process for immigration judges. "[We] were only considering essentially Republican lawyers for appointment," Sampson said, according to the IG's report. (It was not clear from the report whether Sampson said that to IG investigators or in another setting)
Prior to 2004, immigration judges were appointed in an essentially non-political bureaucratic process handled by the Office of the Chief Immigration Judge. Vacancies were posted, resumes sorted, interviews conducted and decisions made by lower-level DOJ officials, according to the report.
Sampson's new process involved "coordination" with White House and an extra effort to get friends of the Bush administration into the judgeships when possible. Sampson circulated a document outlining the new process.
"Many lawyers seeking positions within the Administration, including judgeships, become known to the White House offices of Political Affairs, Presidential Personnel, and Counsel to the President." The document stated that some lawyers might qualify to be IJs, and that "coordination" was needed to ensure that such lawyers were "informed of the opportunity" to become IJs.
Also, Sampson often called over to the White House personnel office seeking "ideas for immigration judge postings." Sampson told a staffer to "contact the White House to get any candidate ideas that they had for immigration judges".
In one case, Sampson pushed a prospective judicial candidate who was supported by White House political director Karl Rove.
Regarding that candidate, whose name was not disclosed, Kevin Ohlson, then deputy director of the Executive Office for Immigration Review, told the IG's investigators that he was "fully aware of the fact" that Sampson was pushing Rove's pick and that was affecting the formal evaluation.
"The finger was on the scale," Ohlson said.
That candidate was ultimately appointed to be an immigration judge in October 2005, the report said.
When questioned, Sampson said he thought the Immigration judges were political appointees, not career positions, and therefore not subject to civil service rules. He said Ohlson and the Office of Legal Counsel told him that. But Ohlson said he never said anything to that effect and investigators from the IG's office found no evidence that OLC provided any guidance to Sampson on the matter.
Sampson's lawyer, Brad Berenson, said today the hiring decisions were an honest mistake and that Sampson "immediately agreed with the recommendation to put a stop to this process" when he first learned he may have been wrong.
Here's a clip of Sampson's testimony on Capitol Hill in March 2007.













, , and
If one swallow's this crap that it was an honest mistake, then we all are fools and desreve the fact our country has been lost!
July 28, 2008 2:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
So, what, you're saying you expect senior Justice Deparartment officials with hiring authority to be somewhat familiar with the federal law governing hiring and obey those laws rather than just doing whatever the hell they want whenever they want? That's just plain unreasonable.
July 28, 2008 3:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why is it okay for these schemers to say they didn't know?
The "honest" mistake seems to be the qualification guideline for every employee of this administration. Why, hell, even John Ashcroft can't tell the difference between his honest mistakes and the confabulations of others.
Skip torture (though this crowd doesn't and won't). I just want to shake their shoulders and smack 'em.
July 28, 2008 3:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Channelling Chief Wiggum:
"Where's your messiah now, Sampson?"
July 28, 2008 3:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
The obvious solution is to remove all immigration judges appointed by Bushies over the past seven years. Merit in civil service does not mean membership in the prefered political party. Hooray for those who bring civil action for non-merit hiring and promotion.
Recovering a functional government from these crooks will take years after they've left office (scot free).
July 28, 2008 3:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
@pajarito:
I totally agree. I would ask any constitutional lawyers reading this to enlighten us. Is it possible to remove ALL appointees made by the DOJ under Bush under the suspicion they were political appointees, does the next DOJ need to PROVE that a judge was criminally appointed to remove him -- if so, how difficult would it be to prove all those judges were criminally appointed to get them removed?
It's imperative that our nation's justice department be run by qualified professionals, our very safety and liberty relies upon it!
July 28, 2008 3:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
This falls under the next President simply undoing everything that Bush did, on the bases of incompetency and political moves rather than serving the country, i.e., We the People.
Well, I can dream, can't I?
July 28, 2008 6:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sure someone else has said it, but doesn't he look like he fell out of the turdblossom clone machine?
July 28, 2008 4:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
At least the finger-pointing has started in earnest. I'd like for a Senate Investigation Committee to get its hands on all the evidence the DOJ is basing its conclusions on. Anyone want to bet that they might reach different conclusions after seeing all the evidence and having everyone involved testify under oath including those who haven't had to do so before?
July 28, 2008 4:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Brad Berenson??? THERE'S another infamous right-winger for you. You ought to have interesting things to say about HIM, oughtn't you?
July 28, 2008 4:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe I'm off base here, but if the folks they hired all passed Goodling and Sampson's GOP loyalty test; then should they really be allowed to retain their positions?
These DoJ lawyers are like a virulent super strain; the result of forced political evolution, shooting for the most potent form of partisanship and injected with malice into the DoJ.
July 28, 2008 4:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Baath Party lives on and it's now named the Republican Party.
July 28, 2008 4:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ignorantia juris non excusat.
Unless that is you either support Nixon or the new Nixon: Bush.
July 28, 2008 4:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
And where is AGMM in all of this? Mukasey doesn't seem to be getting much of a boot out of this latest set of IG revelations about corruption in DoJ. Hang on long enough, Mikey & it'll all blow over. Cass Sunstein says it should...
Mikey Mukasey- a smarter version of AG Fredo, & his equal as a BushCo enabler & politicization coverup artist.
July 28, 2008 5:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know what would be really helpful in these articles? Names!!!
Start naming the people who got these jobs. These people are public servants - their names are NOT some kind of State secret.
Bust 'em out - publicly.
July 28, 2008 5:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ethics complaints need to be filed with home state Bar Associations of any and everyone hired by the DoJ during this Adminstration. Even if they are cleared of any wrong doing, they should be required to hang a foot-wide, neon green plaque about their necks until they die. After their deaths, any memorial marker bearing their name needs to cite in (minimally) two inch tall lettering that they were hired by the current Administration.
This is a scarlett letter offense.
July 28, 2008 5:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Goodling should be prosecuted but most likely will get a sternly worded letter instead.
July 28, 2008 5:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
The fact that individuals like Mr. Sampson were in put in charge and allowed to make such decisions that eroded our democracy is just pathetic. Tongue in cheek let me reiterate the suggestion made by someone earlier that I "... propose a lynching --- not for vindictive reasons --- but for instructional purposes.’”
July 28, 2008 6:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's a good question and I'd like someone who knows to comment. I suspect that it's easy enough to purge all the political appointees, but I'd expect trouble where the career appointees are concerned.
July 28, 2008 7:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's been clear for a long time that the DOJ was politicized in myriad ways, from employment decisions to what cases were pushed. Gonzalez claims ignorance of these practices, which is utter bs. Now they've been tracked up the food chain up to a certain point, but who bears the ultimate responsibility? So far the focus of these reports and testimony is on Ms. Gooding and Mr. Sampson. When are we going to get Bush, Rove and Cheney in the crosshairs?
July 28, 2008 9:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sampson is a weasel and we never did find out how he financed his house in Arlington without a mortgage.
Even Sampson's one so-called criminal prosecution was really a disguised vacation to Palm Beach. The defendant had already pleaded out.
BTW, Sampson is now an attorney with Hunton & William, handling FDA cases so Sampson hasn't suffered one iota for his despicable conduct as a public servant.
Lying little twerp.
July 29, 2008 7:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
What really needs to be investigated is what can be done to remove these pervasive, apparently often unqualified, partisan appointees from their positions. The amount of discretion that an Immigration Judge has in deciding the fate of an individual is enormous. Ditto many other bureaucrats.
I believe in civil service protections. But if these folks were illegally appointed, what can be done to deal with the damage to the system?
July 29, 2008 9:03 AM | Reply | Permalink