or, what did he really say in san antonio?
what is not written in this
letter of resignation is going to
prove to be far more interesting than
what is — i
will have more in the on this story — but it is
safe to say that there is much
more going on here than just finan-
cial strain, as his children reach
college-admission age. . .
sen. patrick leahy’s statement:
May 14, 2007
“The American people deserve a strong and independent Department of Justice with leaders who enforce the law without fear or favor. Regrettably that is not the Justice Department we have today. Instead, we see a Department rife with scandal and another agency this Administration seeks to manipulate as a political arm of the White House. Our justice system should not be a political arm for this White House or any White House, whether occupied by a Republican or a Democrat. This is not the first resignation from the Department of those involved in the United States Attorney scandal.
“We need to restore the Department of Justice to a place deserving of its name and the way we do that is get to the truth about the role the White House played in the replacement of United States Attorneys for political purposes. The Committee has made requests for cooperation from the White House and I hope the information and cooperation requested will finally be forthcoming. If the White House has done nothing improper, then they have nothing to hide. The Administration should come clean so that we can begin the process of reconstituting the leadership of the Justice Department. Then all Americans can renew their faith in its role as our leading law enforcement agency. The obligations of the Justice Department are to the Constitution, the rule of law and to the American people, not to the White House.”
now, tomorrow’s new york times has the goods on this one:
. . .But friends said that Mr. McNulty had long chafed in his role as second in command under Mr. Gonzales and had realized that the furor over the prosecutors had probably ended his hope to be named to a seat on a federal appeals court.
Mr. McNulty, whose affable presence was said by friends to conceal an aggressively conservative approach to legal issues, had been shaken by the intensity of the storm over the removals and the sometimes sharp personal criticism directed at him from the White House and former Republican allies.
At times, Mr. McNulty found himself pushed aside by D. Kyle Sampson, the former chief of staff to Mr. Gonzales, who granted Mr. Sampson wide-ranging authority, especially in personnel matters.
Mr. McNulty blamed himself for failing to resist the dismissal plan when Mr. Sampson brought it to him in October 2006, according to associates. He took one prosecutor off the removal list but acquiesced to the removal of seven others, according to Congressional aides’ accounts of his private testimony to Congress on April 27.
Friends of Mr. Sampson and his former deputy, Monica Goodling, were angry at Mr. McNulty’s testimony on Feb. 6 when he told the Senate Judiciary Committee that most of the United States attorneys had been removed for performance reasons.
In testimony that even angered Mr. Gonzales, according to a Justice Department e-mail message, Mr. McNulty said that one prosecutor, H. E. Cummins III of Arkansas, had been dismissed solely to make room for J. Timothy Griffin, who had been named as the temporary successor with the backing of Karl Rove, the senior White House political adviser.
Friends of Mr. McNulty said he had tried to be candid about what he knew of the removals. . .
i think this last bit is absolutely
true — he was simply lied to, by ms.
goodling. and, she better say so, now
that she has immunity. she should also
admit that — just as mcnulty let slip
in february — rove was behind almost
all of it. he was the puppet-master.
al l e g e d l y. . .
[i’ve been editing some more of the
may 10, 2007 house judiciary committee
testimony this evening, and will
add one more installment, installment
four — rep. robert wexler, shortly.]