DAG Double Play

by emptywheel

ThinkProgress reports that current (well, until a few minutes ago?) Deputy Attorney General is resigning. This comes on the eve of somewhat under-publicized testimony by former Deputy Attorney General James Comey before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

I'm not suggesting these are related. But I do think the actions of both DAGs may provide some movement in the USA scandal--hopefully before Ms. Goodling testifies.

Let's start with James Comey. As I suggested before Comey testified before the HJC, Comey's presence at DOJ seems to have forestalled some of this politicization. He apparently never knew Kyle Sampson was asking his advice about weak USAs so he could fire them. But under more thorough questioning (Dear Senator Leahy: Please allow Senator Whitehouse an extra half hour for his questioning), we might have learned more about the existing hiring guidelines that Gonzales felt the need to change by delegating all authority to Monica Goodling. And please, Messrs. and Mrs. Senators, please don't let Comey go without asking him the substance of the two exchanges he had with Kyle Sampson in January of this year. Since Sampson refused to turn over those emails, I suspect they're rather damning to the Department. While you're at it, you might want to ask for much more detailed description of Comey's conversations last fall with Paul McNulty.

Which brings us to McNulty's resignation. Via TP, the NYT reported that McNulty was contemplating resigning last week.

But there has been tension between Gonzales loyalists and backers of Paul J. McNulty, the deputy attorney general.

Friends of D. Kyle Sampson, Mr. Gonzales’s former top aide, and Mr. Sampson’s former deputy, Monica Goodling, blame Mr. McNulty’s February testimony for accelerating the furor over the ousters by prompting prosecutors to speak openly about their dismissals. But Mr. McNulty’s allies have faulted Mr. Sampson for misleading Mr. McNulty and other officials about the origin of the dismissals and the extent of White House involvement.

Mr. McNulty is said by associates to be considering whether to step down soon.

It is Mr. Gonzales, though, who has been most damaged over the dismissals, which he acknowledged were ineptly handled though he defends them as justified.

I'm not sure how McNulty's resignation will pressure Gonzales one way or another. Perhaps he just gave up serving in a Department hopelessly compromised by Gonzales' presence. But McNulty's resignation will give us one thing Gonzales has thus far deprived us of--a nomination hearing, and some leverage with Bush over who or what is acceptable going forward in DOJ. While Bush might postpone nominating a replacement, DOJ is fairly well gutted at this point, with Gonzales sidelined, Monica gone, Sampson's replacement USA O'Connor not yet approved. They're going to need to appoint someone--or else DOJ's efforts to much up the Foggo Wilkes case (and others) may just grind to a halt.

Though Harry Reid might want to consider leaving a freshman Senator or two behind in Washington rather than fully recessing over Memorial Day. Because the last thing we want to do is give Bush an opportunity to recess shill replacements in DOJ going foward.

Update: One more interesting bit from the AP--the venue of McNulty's departure.

McNulty, who has served 18 months as the Justice Department's second-in-command, announced his plans at a closed-door meeting of U.S. attorneys in San Antonio, according to two senior department aides.

Was AGAG present at the meeting? If not, was there discussion among the USAs and their former colleague McNulty about the best way to restore some dignity to their offices?

Update: Boy, Gonzales sure doesn't want to piss off McNulty with his statement on the latter's resignation, does he?

Paul's long career in public service includes his work for the U.S. Congress and the Commonwealth of Virginia, and there can be no doubt that the Nation has benefited from his selfless dedication to good government.

Paul is an outstanding public servant and a fine attorney who has been valued here at the Department, by me and so many others, as both a colleague and a friend.  He will be missed.

Is AGAG worried that McNulty's going to hit the talk show circuit with David Iglesias?

Update: ABC has an important description of McNulty's "legacy."

A former Justice spokesman and policy director, McNulty was keenly aware of the importance of the public's perception of the department, which prides itself on its political independence from the White House.

Still, McNulty is also a longtime GOP loyalist who was spokesman for House Judiciary Committee Republicans during the impeachment of President Clinton and later directed the transition team for the new Bush administration's Justice Department.

Earlier this year, he scaled back tough department tactics that aimed to curb corporate fraud after the Enron-era scandals. The so-called "McNulty Memo" limited prosecutors' ability to obtain confidential data from corporations without first receiving written approval from the department.

McNulty also led Justice Department crackdowns on military contracts, most notably in Iraq, that were awarded or otherwise pushed by bribed officials. His interest in those cases largely stemmed from his tenure as U.S. attorney, where his office had criminal oversight of the Pentagon.

 

Comments

[darclay]

Who do we contact about the questions that you posed at the beginning of you article? I have no problem writing them and bringing this to their attention.

[John Casper]

"Perhaps he just gave up serving in a Department hopelessly compromised by Gonzales' presence."

Wow, emptywheel, are you fast, really appreciate the post. Per you, I wonder if the Shrub wanted it business as usual at politicizing the DOJ, and a lot of people, including McNnulty, started "pushing back," and saying, "no, the AG has to sign off." Then this escalated into what amounts to a termination.

Hope springs eternal.

[Anonymous Liberal]

It will be interesting to see who the White House chooses to replace McNulty. Only someone with a James Comey-like reputation will be confirmable (Ironically, but for the CIA leak investigation, the obvious choice would be Patrick Fitzgerald).

Whoever it is, the Senate will use that confirmation as an excuse to ask a whole lot of questions.

The White House will be awfully tempted to sit on this one and appoint someone during the next recess. But that might be one step too far. While I wouldn't put anything past this administration, that might be too provacative even for them.

[Anonymous Liberal]

Meant to say "too provocative"...

[Neil]

Busy day EW. You're prolific.

Did you catch this?
Representative Henry Waxman, the Democratic chairman of the House oversight committee, announced that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice will not testify on the prewar Iraq WMD intelligence before his committee tomorrow, as previously scheduled. She is now scheduled to appear on June 19. Why the delay? His office says, "The hearing is being postponed to allow former CIA Director George Tenet to testify with Secretary Rice and to accommodate Secretary Rice's travel schedule." Rice and Tenet together--that should be an interesting double feature, especially since Tenet has some choice words for her in his book. He accused her of being remote, of failing to broker the policy differences that led to the disaster in Iraq, and of refusing to recognize the troubling realities of Iraq after the invasion. I'd like to see the two grill each other. link

[BlueStateRedhead]

MT,
Is it truly possible for congress to stay in session over the Memorial Day break? If so, it would be good to know just how many foxes slated for the henhouse types are awaiting a now doubtful confirmation. So that we can write, call, email and importune Harry Reid to do something

[emptywheel]

AL

Someone at DKOs pointed out that Comey has said he'll stay until Fall or until Senate confirms. Doesn't that rule out a recess before teh Fall?

[obsessed]

EW, you mean McNutty, right?

[bmaz]

I briefly read this post before having to go into a client meeting. I came back to post the exact thought you related in update 1 above. What, and how much, does McNulty have, or do they think McNulty has, on their almost seven year run of nonsense? Must be a lot for Gonzales to issue that little love letter so incredibly fast. And how tall of a "Chinese wall" will they build around him during his last weeks there? My first thought above was that Schumer should give him a call. Now I wonder if, after the little rage outburst from Gonzo after McNulty's committee testimony, McNulty might well have been covertly talking to Schumer for much of the time since. It is my inclination that McNulty is a loyal Gooper, but has a core belief in the integrity of the justice system. Now I don't know about McNulty, but most lawyers that I know who have a deep love of the law, that transcends party concerns completely. I think we are going to get a chance to grade exactly what love for the law Paul McNulty really has.

[emptywheel]

It is my inclination that McNulty is a loyal Gooper, but has a core belief in the integrity of the justice system.

I mostly agree with you on this, bmaz. But remember, they've had a pretty big wall preventing McNulty from learning anything already constructed--it's not clear how much he really knows. Though I have a bit of a fantasy that whatever he said to Comey in the Fall was damning--and that he knows Comey's going to share it tomorrow. And I'm most fascinated by the venue. WAS McNulty at a meeting with the USAs without AGAG?

[bmaz]

Aye, that is a fascinating question. I am also curious about this SJC hearing with Comey tomorrow. It sure looked like it took you by surprise when it was announced on the FDL thread. Clearly whoever it was that so posted it was taken aback as well, because they set the info out in a question as to whether it could be true. I certainly had no idea. How long has this been planned? Was Leahy keeping it under wraps intentionally? If so, then I think something big is coming; because there is no reason to be cute unless you are protecting your play.

[Anonymous Liberal]

I think you're right, EW. McNulty said he's staying on until Fall. But still eventually they'll have to replace him. The question will be whether the Bush administration bothers to nominate someone or just appoints a recess guy.

No one who has any partisan background or reputation has even a chance of being confirmed.

[obsessed]

Nice surprise to see that Comey is going before the Senate. Is it me or does the HJC seem significantly less incisive?

[darclay]

Bmaz, I think you are right that Shrub will try appoint someone during recess. Does Congress really have any power to do anything to end this. It seems to me the Admin. ignores them and Lord knows I support congress, but as EW said why are they not asking the right questions?

[TomJ]

The interesting thing to me, something we see with Bush/Gonzo is that you know how high the corruption goes by who gets fired. Even someone being _allowed to resign_ is a stain on higher ups. If someone did a bad job, you don't let them resign, you fire their ass with indignation. Otherwise their actions were perfectly okay with you as the underling has more of a sense of what is acceptable than the boss.

What we have seen as a defining characteristic is that BushCo never fires anyone, thus validating their behavior. The message is never sent that anyone really cares what you do. If you want to quit, go ahead. This feature is probably what will define BushCo, and it points to the key flaw in Bush's leadership psychology: he either doesn't care, or doesn't want anyone to think he cares. I don't know which is worse.

[Jeff]

It is my inclination that McNulty is a loyal Gooper, but has a core belief in the integrity of the justice system.

I mostly agree with you on this, bmaz.

Is there any evidence of this? Any at all? The fact that his role was quite diminished is not evidence; I think what the White House and DoJ did in that regard is a reflection on Comey, not on McNulty, and they would have done so regardless of who the new DAG was.

And do the high-profile prosecutions he undertook as USA in VA demonstrate that core belief, or betray any such thing? What about the contractor abuse cases referred to him, how'd he do with those?

He seems to have been protected by Schumer, that's about it.

[obsessed]

I never had any reason to believe McNutty was less crooked than Rove, Gonzo and the rest ... except that Schumer seems to like him ... but Schumer himself has only recently show any signs of having the potential to be anything other than a spineless hack. My jury's still out on Schumer but it convicted McNulty a long time ago in connection with AIPAC, Plame and a number of other things I can't recall.

[Quzi]

Great point about the recess over Memorial Day -- I hope Harry gives that one a thought.

I was excited to hear about McNulty resigning tonight, and I am interested to see if he might have something new to say about the firings.

I've been very disappointed by much of the tesimony so far in the HJC hearings. And I do not hold much hope that Goodling's testimony will expose any new facts or tidbits in this case. But I'm not giving up on something unexpected revealing itself either!

[hauksdottir]

If I were a Senator, freshman or otherwise, I'd volunteer to stay in Washington to keep the lights on and the session open. It would be a great time to clean out the desk, really read the upcoming bills before voting on them, and actually get some work done without interruption and meetings. Maybe Reid would let me borrow his gavel so I could officially tap it each morning before settling down with a cup of coffee and a marking pen. ;)

Joking aside, I'm really worried that Bush will use any proposed recess to replace Gonzales.

There are plenty of other openings in various departments, too. My suggestions so far have been for the House and Senate to alternate weeks off or for them to overlap on the weekend, but if all confirmations are done by the Senate, having a couple of Senators (not including Lieberman) continuously on hand may be the only way to preclude more skullduggery.

I don't trust Bush.

The people who've had to endure his failed promises should surely not trust him. And given his Easter appointments as well as the sneaking around with Bolton, there is enough evidence that bully-boy Bush will use any opportunity to get his own way.

McNulty resigning does open yet more cracks in the Justice Department. A new President might have to sit down with Congress and remake the entire organization from scratch. That will be the only way to restore some integrity to the system.

[orionATL]

mcnulty resigned but he did not leave, i.e., did not set a date certain to leave the department.

odd.

the whole thing smells fishy to me.

i suspect there is a bit of puppeteering going on here. i just don't know enough to guess who and why.

certainly, imo, no tears should be shed for paul mcn; he was a loyal soldier.

i'd love to see an analysis of his social network at doj.

was he buds with sampson or delilah?

did he know comey well?

if physiognomy means anything, this guy is not impressive.

looks like a repub buddy holly.

[dotsright]

As to whether the meeting with the US attorneys had anything to do with McNulty's resignation, it has been rumored for a while. Here is a link to a TPM article dated April 16.

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/003021.php

So apparently he's been job hunting for awhile. I wonder if that date, middle of April, had any significance in the timeline?

[radiofreewill]

McNulty got end-arounded on the Kyle/Monica empowerment memo ('this package to bypass the DAG') - he may be a loyal Gooper, but he wasn't considered a loyal Bushie.

My guess is that Rove was scared of Comey, but pretty sure he could scam McNulty in the January testimony with Goodling's 'coaching.'

McNulty was a never more than a harpoon-catcher to Rove/Miers/Gonzo/Goodling - he wasn't on the 'inside' of the Kingdom.

[Jeff]

Anybody care to offer any evidence that McNulty has a core belief in the integrity of the justice system?

[bmaz]

Jeff - When I made the statement above, I indicated that it was just my gut feeling. The things I would point to are his congressional testimony for one. For the most part, he was responsive to questions. Now I probably view it through somewhat of a different lens than most because I have been around a fair amount of federal and state prosecutors and have an idea how they generally will respond to questioning. Comey is a good example; he was forthcoming, but only to adroit questioning and sadly there was very little of this in the HJC. McNulty was not as forthcoming as Comey, but he was not a dead stick in the mud like Gonzales and Sampson. McNulty also gave fairly damning testimony on Griffin/Cummins and I think he knew exactly what he was doing and knew it was not what Gonzales and the WH wanted. Far as I can tell, he could have easily said he didn't know or otherwise avoided saying what he did. Secondly, Comey and/or Fitzgerald have said that he is a man of principle at heart and are friends with him. At this point, I am not sure they would go that far if they did not believe it; again, they could say nothing and have about others. Lastly, there is a reason all the theocrat nasties consistently worked around him, even before his testimony; they thought he had an honest streak somewhere. Do not get me wrong, I don't find any of this to be substantive or definitive evidence, nor am I saying that even if true he is overly admirable. He is not; to much has gone on without him taking action previously. But, I am hoping there is an internal line of ethics in him and that it has been crossed sufficiently that, if approached and questioned properly, he will give up the ghost. Not taking any bets on the proposition; we'll see.

[Albert Fall]

I was doing a post hoc ergo prompter hoc connection between Monica getting immunity Friday and McNulty resigning Monday.

But the McNulty Monday resignation on the announcement of surprise Comey testimony Tuesday sounds more like cause and effect.