High Noon At The House Judiciary Committee

Paul J. McNulty, the former number 2 at the DoJ will be the only witness appearing before the Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law later today. The hearing is scheduled to start at 12:00 PM. You can find the live webcast here.

You might recall that Monica Goodling essentially called McNulty a liar during her testimony last month. If he sticks to his prepared remarks, McNulty has apparently decided not to hit back.

I hope they ask him probing questions like why did they really fire the Gonzales 8? You know questions that the DoJ has never truthfully answered. In his remarks McNulty says

It is important for this Committee and the public to know that when it comes to enforcing the law, Justice Department employees are blind to partisan politics. It plays no role in the Department’s actions.

I believe he has stated how the DoJ is supposed to operate, but after Bradley Schlozman's testimony about the Acorn 4 and all the rest can anyone really believe that is the way the DoJ has been run by Karl Rove, er Alberto Gonzales.

Pardon the Acorn 4.

There's more: "High Noon At The House Judiciary Committee" >>

Remember Paul McNulty--According To Alberto Gonzales It's All His Fault

ThinkProgress has just put up the C-Span Video of Alberto Gonzales throwing Paul McNulty under the bus this morning at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C.. Simply amazing video. Here is a partial transcript

GONZALES: The Deputy Attorney General has a unique position at the DOJ. Most of the operational authority and decisions are made by the Deputy Attorney General. He is the chief operating officer — that’s the way I’ve structured the Department. And so he occupies a very central place in the work of the Department.

[…]

GONZALES: Mr. Sampson provided the recommendations. The one person I would care about would be the views of the Deputy Attorney General because the Deputy Attorney General as a direct supervisor of the United States Attorneys and in this particular case Mr. McNulty was a former colleague of all of these United States Attorneys and so he would probably know better than anyone else about the performance and qualifications of our United States Attorney community. So at the end of the day my understanding was that Mr. Sampson’s recommendations reflected the consensus view of the senior leadership of the Department — in particular the Deputy Attorney General. And the day of Mr. Sampson’s testimony, I had a conversation with the deputy as I testified where I went back to the Deputy Attorney General and I asked Paul did he still stand by the recommendations and he said yes. And so — for me that is the most important — his views would be the most important.

[…]

QUESTION: It seems clear that two relatively inexperienced Justice Department appointees Kyle Sampson and Monica Goodling were intimately involved in these personnel issues. Why were such that young and unexperienced people put in charge of such matters?

GONZALES: Well again you have to remember at the end of the day, the recommendations reflected the views of the Deputy Attorney General. He signed off on the names and he would know better than anyone else, anyone else in this room. Again, the Deputy Attorney General would know best about the qualifications and experiences of the minds it’s a community and he signed off on the names.

What does Gonzales do all day?

There's more: "Remember Paul McNulty--According To Alberto Gonzales It's All His Fault" >>

Deputy AG McNulty quits Department of Justice

Dan Egan of the Washinton Post is reporting that Deputy Attorney General Paul J. McNulty has announced resignation "saying he is leaving the Justice Department later this summer to enter the private sector, officials said. . . . McNulty is the latest senior Justice official to announce his departure amid the swirl of controversy over the firings last year of nine U.S. attorneys. Three other top aides to Gonzales have quit in recent months." In addition to Monica Goodling and all the other familiar names in the US Attorney firing scandal, McNulty is professionally linked to Rachel Paulose, the embattled US Attorney in Minneapolis.

There's more: "Deputy AG McNulty quits Department of Justice" >>

There Is Something Here

On August 30, 2006, a workgroup of US Attorneys, the Regional Law Enforcement Information Sharing WG, wrote a letter to Deputy AG Paul McNulty regarding the LiNX information sharing system between federal, regional and local law enforcement. The letter takes the position that the DOJ should be in the lead on this. The letter was written over USA John McKay’ signature and was signed by 17 other US Attorneys.

It caused quite a stir and Mark Connor sent an email to Michael Elston with a cc: to Michael Scudder:

Mike: I believe McKay is way out of line here. This document was drafted-under the guise of an info sharing working for the AGAC - and it was directed to the DAG: Internal deliberations and policy recommendations should not be shared outside of the Department unless so authorized by the DAG. I don't know what McKayns motives are, but this is embarrassing and outrageous. . MAC

This letter has been pointed to as a reason for McKay’s forced resignation. Let’s look at the other members of the committee and see how they fared. A pattern emerges quickly

• John McKay - Western District Washington - Fired.
• Carol Lam - Southern District California - Fired.
• David Iglesias - New Mexico - Fired.
• Michael Heavican - Nebraska - Retired between 9/06 and 10/06.
• Debra Wong Yang -Central California - Resigned January 1, 2007 - Correction: October 2006. TPM's on this.
• Charles Larson - Northern Iowa - Retired 12/31/06.
• Paul Perez - Middle Florida - Resigned March 2007.
• Lisa Wood - Southern Georgia - Resigned between January 31 and February 9, 2007.

The remaining ten members were all (100%) Presidential appointees. Four were recently appointed. Watch this:

• Thomas Anderson - Vermont - Appointed June 2006.
• Don DeGabrielle - Southern Texas - Appointed March 2006.
• Catherine Hanaway - Eastern Missouri - Appointed April 2006.
• Chuck Rosenberg - Eastern Virginia - Appointed March 2006.

Of the remaining six, all were appointed by Bush between 2001 and 2004. USA Karin Immergut from Oregon, appointed October 2003, wrote a letter to McNulty implying that she had been tricked into signing the letter.

I really don't know if the letter has much to do with this although a 45% loss rate is pretty big, but I do see a pattern in US Attorney appointments. The purge appears to have been alive and well, ambling along because Senate confirmation was required from 2001 through 2006. Slowly, however, because they didn't really want us to see what they were up to but it was happening.

Finally, however, the damn broke with that key little revision to the Patriot Act.

As you know, I've been trying to get Senator Nelson's letter to the DOJ inquiring about this very issue but Nelson's office is moving with at a snail's pace - including using snail mail to reply.

There is something here. We are all around it but we're just not there yet.

There's more: "There Is Something Here" >>

Rachel Paulose--Persecuted for Being An Aggressive Bush Loyalist?

Yesterday I read some things about Rachel Paulose that seemed to indicate she was a brilliant but callow youth unequipped by either training or experience to handle her job. Much like a young West Point graduate in over her head, she tried to compensate with a dictatorial style alienating all the people around her. In the Army old sergeants and captains teach young lieutenants the fine points of leadership. Nothing in her resume indicates she ever encountered a wise old sergeant. In short, it could be argued that the problems in Minneapolis are nothing more than a bright rising star running into reality. In time she will either learn how to lead or will be sent back to private practice. Nothing unusual about the situation. Every administration, indeed many organizations, have bright young stars who are pushed too far, too fast. Most of them learn. Those who don't, fail. An isolated problem. Not really tied to the US Attorney scandal.

This morning's New York Times article suggests that Justice Department headquarters sees the matter differently. Ms. Paulose has been victimized by her subordinates. According to Paulose's unnamed supporters at Justice Department headquarters, the "older lawyers had difficultly dealing with a young, aggressive woman who had tried to put into place policies important to Mr. Gonzales like programs to combat child exploitation."

In short, the problems in Minneapolis are caused by professional jealousy and immaturity on the part of the rebellious lawyers. She is just doing her job with zeal. The career professionals are rebelling against headquarters polices as much as they are rebelling against Ms. Paulose's lack of leadership skills. The employees are the problem, not the supervisor.

Three observations. First, the "rebellious" lawyers are career professionals. They have years and years of experience. They were there when Paulose arrived. They were there when her predecessor arrived. When both Ms. Paulose and Mr. Gonzales are gone in two years they will still be there. They are all smart and realize that their Paulose or Gonzales problem will be solved in time. They have been there, done that. They all know how to get along with political appointees, even aggressive political appointees.

Second, blaming the career professionals doesn't help Ms. Paulose learn to be an effective leader. In fact blaming the career professionals reflects an immaturity on the part of the Ms. Paulose’s defenders at Justice Department headquarters. Who might those defenders be? How about her former boss Paul J. McNulty. Didn't his decision to trash the fired Gonzales 8 really start Mr. Gonzales' woes. In this case the buck stops with Mr. Gonzales for not telling Paulose' unnamed defenders at Justice Department headquarters to stifle. If MrNulty is one of Ms Paulose's unnamed defenders, maybe it is time for him to go. If I were Gonzales, I would be asking for the names of the "unnamed defenders." Maybe he already knows. If so, given his tenuous hold on his department, he is a fool for allowing the comment.

Third, isn't everybody against child exploitation. Just what other department policies has she embraced with "a single-minded zeal that cost her the confidence and trust of lawyers in her office." How about prosecuting Democrats to the exclusion of Republicans? That seems to be a popular headquarters policy career professionals don't seem to embrace with much vigour. Most of the career professionals believe in the Rule of Law.

There's more: "Rachel Paulose--Persecuted for Being An Aggressive Bush Loyalist?" >>