Before Mr. Sampson goes before the Senate Judiciary Committee tomorrow, let’s get one big chunk of administration bamboozlement out of the way. In a much-quoted passage from the prepared remarks he’ll deliver tomorrow, Sampson says “The distinction between ‘political’ and ‘performance-related’ reasons for removing a United States attorney is, in my view, largely artificial.”

This use of the word ‘political’ is at the heart of Sampson’s and others effort to lie their way out of what happened here.

‘Political’ can mean many things in different contexts. US Attorneys are ‘political’ appointees, in that they are overwhelmingly, though not exclusively, drawn from among the president’s political supporters. They are also subject to ‘political’ direction, in that they are expected to follow the administration’s law enforcement priorities — more or less gun prosecutions, crack downs on dead beat dads or pornography, etc.

Neither of these meanings of the word ‘political’ are what this investigation is about. And, like others, Sampson is using these multiple meanings of the word as a dodge. The charge against Sampson and crew is not that they fired them for ‘political’ reasons. The charge is that they fired these prosecutors for not using their law enforcement powers to help the Republican party.

Set aside for the moment whether the charge is proven or whether you think it’s true. That is the charge. That’s what this is about.

The evidence with respect to John McKay in Washington state and David Iglesias in New Mexico is copious and overwhelming. They were fired because Republicans in their states were angry they weren’t seeking indictments against Democrats over bogus claims of voter fraud — claims which are themselves cudgels in the GOP political arsenal. In the case of Iglesias his unwillingness to use his prosecutorial powers to turn a congressional election in the Republicans’ favor also played a key, perhaps the decisive role. In the case of Carol Lam, the case remains circumstantial though very strong that she was fired for pursuing the expanded Cunningham investigation.

In the cases of the other US Attorneys it is not always clear precisely why they were fired. In a case like Arizona, scuttling an investigation into a Republican congressman seems a reasonable hypothesis. But we don’t know enough to say. Yet in those cases where we lack clear evidence of a partisan political aim behind the firing, the lack of any other credible explanation and the clear-cut cases of McKay, Iglesias and Lam make an assumption of wrongdoing reasonable and the need for further scrutiny unquestionable.

But this is getting ahead of ourselves. This is all about the investigation and what it may or may not uncover. But Sampson’s claim and conceit is not so much that he and his crew are innocent of the charge but that the charge doesn’t even really exist, that it’s all just a misunderstanding or a witch-hunt. What he did is fine, he says. The problem is just the “confusion, misunderstanding and embarrassment” caused by how the thing was handled.

So, have your eyes out for Sampson’s word play and games. This investigation is about whether Sampson and his crew corrupted the justice system by purging US Attorneys who wouldn’t use their prosecutorial powers to help the Republican party.

The corruption runs very, very deep. Hear the radio attack ad Republicans are running against David Iglesias in New Mexico. Some weird mix of parody and infamy. But give it a listen. As I said, the depth of the moral corruption of the GOP at the moment is profound. And it shows itself in both the contemporary (bribery and self-dealing) and Early Modern (bodily and moral decay) senses of the word.

Just in time — an oped in the Washington Post explaining what everyone who’s really studied the subject knows: that the GOP ‘voter fraud’ claims are themselves a fraud. The whole thing is a scam designed to make it harder for people — especially members of minority groups — to vote.

So who’s behind the anti-David Iglesias radio ad now running in New Mexico?

The website of the group running the ad, New Mexicans for Honest Courts, says that the group’s chairman is Linda Chavez Krumland.

Krumland was an at-large delegate to the 2004 Republican National Convention.

FEC records show, not surprisingly, that Krumland is a major contributor to Republican candidates in New Mexico. And she lists her business as Roswell Toyota.

A year ago, Krumland’s husband Tom — also a 2004 RNC delegate — got in a heap of trouble after he and state Rep. Dan Foley tricked the New Mexico state National Guard into arranging an F-16 flyover to mark the opening of his new dealership. When first confronted about the scam, Krumland said, “If we offended anybody, then they’re unpatriotic.” As the controversy continued to grow, he eventually was forced to apologize.

In any case, you can see the Krumlands seem to be real pieces of work.

There’s probably more to find out about New Mexicans for Honest Courts and the Krumlands. If your sleuthing bears fruit, let us know.

Today’s Must Read: a taste of Kyle Sampson’s testimony. Turns out the Attorney General isn’t so good with words.

Update: Here are some key things to look for in Sampson’s testimony.

We’ll be providing running updates on the Senate hearing with Kyle Sampson, which just started, here.

Muckraker’s got running coverage of the Sampson hearing this morning. But here are some questions I’ll be listening for from the senators. 1) Did anyone from the Department of Justice speak to Carol Lam about the Department’s alleged concerns about her immigration enforcement policy? Lam says no one ever did. Did she lie? 2) Is it true that the Department of Justice long delayed okaying the indictments of Rep. Cunningham, Brent Wilkes and Dusty Foggo? 3) Did Lam’s corruption investigations ever come up in the context of the debate over her dismissal?

Given the context of these questions, they could and should of course be more tightly and narrowly tailored. But that’s the essence of them.

Senate passes Iraq bill.

For the first time, both Houses of Congress have voted for withdrawal from Iraq.

Mr. Sampson is now saying that he believes that US Attorneys should follow the president’s policy priorities. But he won’t answer why certain US Attorneys were fired for not prosecuting Democrats for what turned out to be bogus claims of voter fraud or using their prosecutorial powers to turn a congressional election, as occurred in New Mexico. Hopefully he’ll be pressed on this.

Sen. Hatch (R-UT) is now questioning Mr. Sampson. Remember, Sampson used to work for Hatch.