Mormons, Carlyle, Mitt Romney and Bush

Ripley at Zen Cabin has done the research:

In case you missed it, here’s a dKos diary I wrote about 18 months ago, noting the curious representation of BYU grads in the Bush administration – esp. in Legal and Environmental positions. I also mentioned some connections to Exxon-Mobil and Diebold.

That diary was inspired by an innocuous report I ran across about D. Kyle Sampson taking the Chief of Staff spot at the DOJ. Needless to say, it’s become semi-relevant again and received some renewed attention. That, of course, led me to start digging around again.

After connecting dots, Ripley notes:

So, Romney’s former investment firm, Bain Capital Partners – along with Thomas Lee Partners and the Carlyle Group – are under investigation by the DOJ, which is littered with BYU grads. I won’t go so far as to say there might be cause to claim conflict of interest, but it makes me wonder how far these investigations will progress. Granted, with Sampson’s exit, things may change but I’d still cast a wary eye on any conclusions in this matter. (I need to do some digging on these particular cases, so don’t assume there’s a conspiracy, yet. I just wanted to put this thread out there for thought.)

And after frightening us all, Ripley says:

Again, I don’t know, yet, if there’s really any cause for genuine concern – and I certainly don’t have an axe to grind with LDS (at least not at the moment). But I find it curious that BYU and LDS are so heavily represented in the Bush administration, esp. in light of Romney’s Presidential candidacy. The question I have to ask is this:

Is Bush (or Carlyle/Bain/LDS, et al) pushing for a Romney Presidency? If so, why? I’ve read claims that LDS isn’t very particular about where its members earn their money, as long as they’re tithing. Is LDS making a slowmotion power grab? How is it that Romney raised more funds than his opponents last quarter? sure, MCain is a dead-stick candidate, but still…

So. Long skirts, covered heads, multiple submissive wives, chickens in the backyard, large families.... What's not to like with the incoming new world order?

Don't think the fundamentalists are gonna like this.....

122 times

I forget, I don't remember, I can't recall, I am unable to think, I think I hear my mother calling me....

"I can't pretend to know or remember every fact that may be of relevance," he warned at the start -- and he wasn't kidding. He used the phrase "I don't remember" a memorable 122 times.

It may have been a tactical effort to limit his risk of perjury, but [Kyle] Sampson displayed the recall of a man who recently fell off a ladder.

"Since the 2004 election, did you speak with the president about replacing U.S. attorneys?" Leahy asked.

"I don't ever remember speaking to the president after the 2004 election," he said. (He later remembered that he had.) "Did you have further communications with the White House regarding the plan to regard and replace several U.S. attorneys?"

"I don't remember specifically."

"I wish you did remember," Leahy finally said. "I would hope that you would search your memory as we go along."

[snip]

After Schumer elicited three consecutive I-don't-remembers, John Cornyn (R-Tex.) objected to the questioning style.

Leahy overruled him. "We're trying to find what in heaven's name he does remember," the chairman said.

Schumer persisted, eventually asking the witness a question about Rove's role. "I don't remember," Sampson said. "I don't remember anything like that. I don't think so. I don't remember. I don't remember."

Sampson wasn't fired because he did something wrong

He was released because he failed to think of a proper political response.... uh wait a minute...

Do-Over!:

A revised statement drops the idea that DoJ officials didn't "deem" the White House role "important," and whereas before Sampson was regretting his inability to concoct an "effective politcal response" to the charges of impropriety, the word "political" has disappeared. After all, it's politics that got the DoJ into this mess.

As TPM Reader HR puts it: "Did someone go over his original release with a sharp blue pencil?"

Doesn't matter what you were caught doing, it's how you word it to the media. Like: Who are you going to believe? Me or your lying eyes?

Update: Of course, as Bryan points out, Sampson wasn't really fired! Kinda like Rove or Rumsfeld, they just remove the name tag on the door, that's all, or move them down the hall.

When neocons end up using 'Well, Clinton did it' as an excuse

You know it's getting a bit desperate.

Josh Marshall:

First, we now know — or at least the White House is trying to tell us — that they considered firing all the US Attorneys at the beginning of Bush’s second term. That would have been unprecedented but not an abuse of power in itself. The issue here is why these US Attorneys were fired and the fact that the White House intended to replace them with US Attorneys not confirmed by the senate. We now have abundant evidence that they were fired for not sufficiently politicizing their offices, for not indicting enough Democrats on bogus charges or for too aggressively going after Republicans. (Remember, Carol Lam is still the big story here.) We also now know that the top leadership of the Justice Department lied both to the public and to Congress about why the firing took place. As an added bonus we know the whole plan was hatched at the White House with the direct involvement of the president.

And Clinton? Every new president appoints new US Attorneys. That always happens. Always…. The whole thing is silly. But a lot of reporters on the news are already falling for it. The issue here is why these US Attorneys were fired — a) because they weren’t pursuing a GOP agenda of indicting Democrats, that’s a miscarriage of justice, and b) because they lied to Congress about why it happened.

And there's an email:

...to Harriet Miers on Jan. 9, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales’s chief of staff Kyle Sampson (who resigned yesterday) admitted that the Clinton administration never purged its U.S. attorneys in the middle of their terms, explicitly stating, “In recent memory, during the Reagan and Clinton Administrations, Presidents Reagan and Clinton did not seek to remove and replace U.S. Attorneys to serve indefinitely under the holdover provision”

When will the aides get tired of being thrown under the bus

And begin to tell us all about it?

"The president has all the confidence in the world in Alberto Gonzales," Bartlett told reporters covering Bush in Merida, Mexico.

Kyle Sampson, the chief of staff to Gonzales, resigned, effective immediately, after acknowledging he did not tell other Justice Department officials earlier about the extent of his communications with the White House about firing the prosecutors.

Next up: Bush saddened by betrayal of Alfonso Gonzales, whom he did not know well enough to remember his first name. 'How could he stab me in the back like this?' sobbed Bush on national tv.

Morse notes Sam Seder is taking bets as to how long Abu Gonzales will last. (fixed link)

Update: Ooo! The Abramoff case gets swept up into the mess:

In recent weeks, Congress has investigated the Bush administration’s recent purge of qualified, well-respected U.S. attorneys. But one former prosecutor — Frederick A. Black — has received little attention. The administration fired Black shortly after he began investigating Jack Abramoff’s dealings in Guam. Today in a letter to the House and Senate Judiciary Committees, Reps. George Miller (D-CA) and Nick Rahall (D-WV) urge Congress to investigate “the potential political manipulation by Jack Abramoff and his allies in Congress and the Administration” in the Black case.

Aren't you glad Harriet Miers

Didn't get to the Supreme Court?

Harriet Miers is nothing if not loyal to her bestest buddy Bush: (my bold)

Sampson sent an e-mail to Miers in March 2005 that ranked all 93 U.S. attorneys. Strong performers "exhibited loyalty" to the administration; low performers were "weak U.S. attorneys who have been ineffectual managers and prosecutors, chafed against Administration initiatives, etc." A third group merited no opinion.

At least a dozen prosecutors were on a "target list" to be fired at one time or another, the e-mails show.

Only three of those eventually fired were given low rankings: Margaret Chiara in Grand Rapids, Mich.; Bud Cummins in Little Rock; and Carol S. Lam in San Diego. Two were given strong evaluations: David C. Iglesias in Albuquerque, who has alleged political interference from GOP lawmakers, and Kevin V. Ryan in San Francisco, whose firing has generated few complaints because of widespread management and morale problems in his office.

Update: TPM Muckraker has the timeline.

Update: Res Ipsa Loquitur at Rising Hegemon notes:

... in December 2005, Specter's chief counsel "slipped a provision into the Patriot Act reauthorization bill that made it possible to replace U.S. Attorneys permanently without Senate confirmation."

Am I supposed to think that Specter didn't know what was going on? That his chief counsel, who, I assume, he supervises, just happened to make it easier for the administration to can U.S. Attorneys the administration thought unfriendly to their great and glorious Republican revolution? Was Specter negligent? Is he stupid -- or does he merely think I am stupid?

The Attorney General is not the only one with some explaining to do.