House committee doc dump: Kyle Sampson knew of rejected judgeship selection by Judicial selection commission

P. 210:

From: Kyle.Sampson@usdoj.gov
Tuesday, August 08, 2006 3:16 PM
To: Hoyt, Robert F.
RE: W.D. Wash.
I assume Seattle, but am not sure.

-----Original Message-----
From: Robert_F._Hoyt@who.eop.gov [mailto:Robert_F._Hoyt@who.eop.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, August 08, 2006 3:11 PM
To: Sampson, Kyle
Subject: RE: W.O, Wash.
I'll inquire about what happened with him.
Which seat was he-looking for -- Seattle or Tacoma?

- - -- -original Message"-- --
From: Kyle. sampson@USdoj.gov [mailto:Kyle. Sampson@usdoj . gov
Sent: Tuesday August 08; 2006 3:03 PM
To: Hoyt Robert F
Subject: W.D. Wash.
I heard' that our, U. S. Attorney John McKay got screwed by Washington’ s judicial selection
commission. What do you know? Can we let them know that we 'want to consider him along with the recommended candidates?


In addition on the email below was scribble the words: "little trial experience" and 'Just had concerns i.e. philosophy." This is in reference to then U.S. Attorney John McKay. Interesting, a White House aide know the judicial selection commission's decision on a judicial candidate. Here is what we know about the judicial selection commission:

The Judicial Selection Commission reviews and evaluates applications for all judicial vacancies, and vote, by secret ballot, to select qualified nominees.

Secret ballot? And how would Kyle Sampson know that then U.S. Attorney John McKay was rejected?

Here is more information from an article from Komo News in 2007. Here is an excerpt:

Commission of three Republicans and three Democrats was vetting potential replacements for Seattle U.S. District Judge John C. Coughenour[which the position that McKay was applying for].

But when the commission named three potential nominees in early August, McKay wasn't on the list.

A close friend in the White House counsel's office - McKay won't say who - told him the administration believed Republican members of the judicial selection commission opposed him for not diligently investigating claims of voter fraud during the 2004 governor's election, which Republican Dino Rossi lost by 129 votes after two recounts."That was what they understood as being the reason I was not selected," McKay said. "That was the first I had heard inside the White House that they were concerned about this."

McKay called Harriet Miers, then the White House counsel, in August and asked for an interview with the intent of correcting the record and making his case for the judgeship.

Miers agreed to interview him. McKay met with her and other White House lawyers on Aug. 22.Their first question, McKay said, was "Why would the Republicans oppose you?"

And there is more:

A candidate needs four votes to advance. McKay got three, all from the Democrats.

But that came to a halt:

[Associate White House counsel Robert] Hoyt was told [from a co-chairman of the one vetting Coughenour's potential replacement]: that McKay "doesn't share the president's judicial philosophy."

According to a copy of McKay's judicial application obtained by The Associated Press, he wrote: "I believe all justice must be tempered by compassion and mercy; yet a fair society is built on the rule of law - not the desires of individuals, including judges."

Finally, a blast from the past, here is an interview that Jason Leopold did of former US attorney John McKay. In the interview, McKay did discuss his pursuance of judgeship and his appointment with then White House counsel Harriet Miers. Click here to watch interview.