Posted on 03/27/2007 10:51:33 AM PDT by Enchante
Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty, ignored White House Counsel Harriet Miers and senior lawyers in the Justice Department when he told the committee last month of specific reasons why the administration fired seven U.S. attorneys -- and appeared to acknowledge for the first time that politics was behind one dismissal. McNulty's testimony directly conflicted with the approach Miers advised, according to an unreleased internal White House e-mail described to ABC News. According to that e-mail, sources said, Miers said the administration should take the firm position that it would not comment on personnel issues.
Until McNulty's testimony, administration officials had consistently refused to publicly say why specific attorneys were dismissed and insisted that the White House had complete authority to replace them. That was Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' approach when he testified before the committee in January.
(Excerpt) Read more at abcnews.go.com ...
McNulty seems like just the kind of weakling that has crippled this administration in so many areas. Of course, the "new tone" coming from the top has been pushed far beyond anything that can be justified, given the savage, vicious derangement of the 'Rats and DBM.
Has anyone figured out what crime was committed here?
Gee, and when Clinton did it in '93, there were NO politics involved; such a manufactured scandel.
"Has anyone figured out what crime was committed here?"
Opposition to liberalism. The Left is in the process of criminalizing opposition to itself.
They succeeded in Scooter Libby's case.
In '93 Clinton received letters of resignation from all the US attorneys as is traditional at the beginning of a new administration. It happens at the beginning of every new president's term. Just FYI...
Son, you need to get your head right. Clearly you need more Two Minutes of Hate therapy.
That's the whole story right there.
Trent Lott was correct on the Sunday shows when he "skewered" Sen. Feinstein on this point:
They were give the jobs for "political reasons". Why can't they be fired for "political reasons"???
I heard a Q & A between one of the whiners (former US attorneys) and some interviewer today. Didn't pay enough attention to get names. When the whiner complained that politics was behind their firing the interviewer ask "how do you think you got the job in the first place?" Sort of sums up the whole phony turmoil.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1803579/posts?page=17#17
Welcome to FR?
Thanks goodness you've arrived. As some believe that errors of omission can be as misleading or harmful as a bald-faced lie, shouldn't you have mentioned that X42 accepted ALL of the tendered resignations but Bush did not? Just curious ... ;-)
Schumer was also the one who pushed Plamegate "investigation", so the MO is not exactly new for him.
This guy thinks that Schumer actually has friends? What a dope! Being 'friends' with Schumer would be like petting a rattle snake.
Hell, the moles date all the way back to Carter and LBJ, not just Clinton. Conservatives tend to take a public service job for a few years and then return to the real world out of frustration with bureaucracy. Lefties take those jobs and stay forever because they can't survive in the real world.
Hardly. He was one of the prosecutors in Clinton's impeachment trial. Here's more:
(btw, there were only TWO "Clinton holdovers"--Warner and Mueller. The rest were removed by Bush shortly after taking office.)
Paul J. McNulty was sworn in as Deputy Attorney General of the United States on March 17, 2006. Prior to his confirmation by the Senate, Mr. McNulty had served as Acting Deputy Attorney General since November 1, 2005.Mr. McNulty has spent nearly his entire career in public service, with more than two decades of experience in federal and state government. From September 14, 2001, to March 17, 2006, Mr. McNulty served as the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia. Under Mr. McNulty's leadership, the U.S. Attorney's Office in Eastern Virginia grew more than 20 percent, and he made the prosecution of terrorism, gun violence, drug trafficking, and corporate fraud his top priorities and successfully prosecuted many of our nation's highest profile cases in the War on Terror. He also launched initiatives against gangs, cybercrime and procurement fraud.
Before becoming U.S. Attorney, Mr. McNulty directed President Bush's transition team for the Department of Justice and then served as Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General. In the prior Bush Administration, Mr. McNulty was the Justice Department's director of policy and its chief spokesman.
Mr. McNulty has over 12 years of experience in the United States Congress. He was Chief Counsel and Director of Legislative Operations for the Majority Leader of the U.S. House of Representatives. He was also Chief Counsel to the House Subcommittee on Crime where he served for eight years. During those years he was a principal draftsman of many anti-terrorism, drug control, firearms and anti-fraud statutes.
Mr. McNulty has played a significant role in shaping criminal justice policy in the Commonwealth of Virginia. He served then Governor George Allen as a primary architect of the "Parole Abolition and Sentencing Reform" initiative in 1994, and he served on the board of the Department of Criminal Justice Services and the Advisory Committee of the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
Mr. McNulty grew up in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. He married his college sweetheart 25 years ago, and they have four children.
All but 2 U.S. Attorneys were removed by Bush. What is the "bald-face lie" you refer to?
From September 14, 2001, to March 17, 2006, Mr. McNulty served as the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia.
That part coincides. I was wrong on 1995, mixed up the reference material with someone else's name, thanks for correcting.
From http://www.gcc.edu/Biography_-_Paul_McNulty.php :
From 1995 to 1999, he served with the House of Representatives Judiciary Committee, first as Chief Counsel to the Subcommittee on Crime and then as Director of Communications and Chief Counsel to the Committee. As Director of Communications, he directed house Republican media relations for the Clinton impeachment process.
Why was he freelancing, does he have an axe to grind, or hoping for advancement if AG resigned? Or is every "realist" going back to Bush-41 administration (Scowcroft, Powell, etc., "ambassador" Joseph Wilson being a "very" special case) trying to stab W in the back, for fun and potential profit?
"Some people should view it as a sign of good management. What we do is make an evaluation about the performance of individuals, and I have a responsibility to the people in your districts that we have the best possible people in these positions. And that's the reason why changes sometimes have to be made. Although there are a number of reasons why changes get made and why people leave on their own, I think I would never, ever make a change in the United States attorney position for political reasons, or if it would in any way jeopardize an ongoing serious investigation. I just would not do it."
That's always a given :-) , but I don't think that Schumer ever needs to be motivated.
I was actually going by an earlier thread :
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1803579/posts - Fitzgerald Ranked During Leak Case , granted it's from WaPo, but the "quotes" there, as opposed to commentary and opinion, seem real. I am not AG fan, but neither I am willing to slam him in this non-case where no matter what DoJ does, Dems will "exercise oversight responsibilities", and turn every political disagreement into a crisis and "investigation", as they have done with Reagan and Bush-41.
I don't think that "we fired these eight just because we could, and there were no performance issues" defense would help any with this political witch-hunt that Dems are hoping to turn into a criminal one à la Plamegate by Fitzgeralding someone during hearings, and they would have hearings due to "seriousness of the charges". Somebody from DoJ or some US Attorneys would bring up "pressure" etc. etc. We'd have the same political circus, only without any "cause" defense. That's where I differ with Charles Krauthammer (a very rare occasion, indeed) : http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1805398/posts?page=11#11 - Unnecessary Scandal
I've been slowly reading through those 3000+ emails, which includes the transcript of the SJC hearing at which McNulty testified, as well as the statement of Moschella to a House committee (he also mentioned "performance." This "anonymous" source is spinning on behalf of a handful of players, IMO, and not providing the full story.
BTW, Specter's questions to McNulty were just about as hard hitting as Shumer's.
Glad someone is doing the work of actually getting to the "source", not second-hand accounts through al-media.
Most likely outside of emails, but any truth to so-called "friendship" between McNulty and Schumer? I understand that in DC a "friendship" has a different meaning than in normal life, but was there something that could give him an idea that Schumer could be pacified, or is the entire line about this completely made up?
Re Specter, not surprising... He and Hagel and some other "Republicans" "are dead to me".
Schumer didn't specify who needed to testify--he just gave subject/questions to DOJ. Some suggested McNulty (DAG), but he didn't want to testify and recommended Moschella. After a few more emails, Sampson pushed for McNulty and I guess he finally acquiesced. Sampson's final email:
"We need to nail this down. I continue to think DAG ought to do it and really knock this down. Plus, he has a good relationship with Schumer. I know no one wants to do this hearing, but I think it needs to be done at a senior political level. I really think that Paul would be best. If he just will not do it, I don't know who else could do it. Maybe we can chat tomorrow."
Although I haven't made any general conclusions yet, my general impression is that McNulty was not a bad guy, nor did his testimony cave to Schumer. I think the above article is totally off base--conveniently published with help from someone who wants to point fingers somewhere (to save their tail). That's just a guess.
Thanks for update. My problem with all this is that Schumer just wants another scalp, and after that another scalp and another... all the while having talking points about "no confidence" and "corruption" in Justice Dept and AG - which would also have a detrimental effect on judicial appointments and nominations.
Since there is nothing there, if DoJ people just decided on a strategy and talk from the same page, there would be no need to for anyone to "save their tail". When it gets to pointing fingers, none will be left unscathed and everyone will suffer... most of all, us.
I hope they will get their act together, and not deviate from script. Dems know their plays by heart, they've been using the same MO for decades.
I realize that. They serve at the convenience of the President. Saying that the situations are different, is simply an attempt to hide the fact that ALL removals of US attorneys by a president are done for political reasons. The only differences between now and then are:
1) Pres. Bush gave these attorneys a chance to work towards the goals he set forth as wanting met. In fact, IIRC, he kept them on, despite recommendations to release them at the beginning of his 2nd term.
2) The Dems are turning this into a manufactured scandal, in order to isolate the president from support. Those are the real facts that should be policed through this whole thing.
I apologize for the delay in my response but I was awaiting factpolice's response. Factpolice signed up that day and to date has made only that single post, blandly suggesting that x42 did nothing unusual. That was the error of omission.
Personally, I viewed my response as a drive-by preemptive zot. ;-)
In fact, Reno's immediate firing of all 93 Us attorneys (after "consultations" with the Whitehouse)was unprecedented and many surmised that it was designed to cut off active investigations and prevent investigations of his Whitewater problems, fund-raising "irregularities", etc from the start.
As you are aware while political appointees may customarily submit their resignations to a new administration - they are generally replaced over a series of months as the new administration appoints and then has confirmed their selections.
I was not aware of the standard practice of submitting resignations to new administrations - I only recalled the brouhaha when Reno/Clinton fired all 93. I did run across this interesting blast from the past - note also how Linda Tripp was fired on the last full day of his administration for not "voluntarily" resigning:
Bill Clinton Saying Goodbye to the White House and the Independent Counsel
FNC's Hume Chastises Media for Failing to Point Out How Clinton Fired Every Attorney
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1800773/posts
Justice denied (Clinton fired 93 US attorneys)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1801515/posts
FNC's Hume Chastises Media for Failing to Point Out How Clinton Fired Every Attorney
http://newsbusters.org/node/11398
WHITE HOUSE AND JUSTICE DEPARTMENT - BEGIN U.S. ATTORNEY TRANSITION
http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2001/March/107a.htm
Nets Didn't Care About Clinton Firing 93 U.S. Attorneys, Lead With Replacement of 8
http://newsbusters.org/node/11399
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.