http://thenexthurrah.typepad.com/the_next_hurrah/2007/05/why_were_the_hi.htmlWhy Were the "Highest Levels of Government" Rushing Lam Out?by emptywheel
Although Carol Lam, in her answers to HJC, never directly said she was forced out of her position because of pending cases, she provided one significant answer about how main DOJ--and the "highest levels of government" they work for--treated Lam's pending cases. Significantly, she provided this answer in response to a question that had nothing to do with pending cases.
20. After you were so notified by Mr. Battle, did you have any conversations with either DAG Paul McNulty or DAG Chief of Staff Michael Elston about the reasons why you were being asked to resign? If so, please describe your recollection of these conversations.
Following the call from Michael Battle informing me I was to resign effective January 31, 2007, I called DAG McNulty to inquire why I was being asked to resign. He responded that he wanted some time to think about how to answer that question because he didn't want to give me an answer "that would lead" me down the wrong route. He added that he knew I had personally taken on a long trial and he had great respect for me. Mr. McNulty never responded to my question.
After a follow-up call with Mike Battle a few days later, I requested additional time to ensure an orderly transition in the office, especially regarding pending investigations and several significant cases that were set to begin trial in the next few months. On January 5, 2007, I received a call from Michael Elston informing me that my request for more time based on case-related considerations was "not being received positively," and that I should "stop thinking in terms of the cases in the office." He insisted that I had to depart in a matter of weeks, not months, and that these instructions were "coming from the highest levels of the government." In this and subsequent calls, Mike Elston told me that (1) he "suspected" and "had a feeling" that the interim U.S. Attorney who would succeed me would not be someone from within my office, but rather would be someone who was a DOJ employee not currently working in my office, (2) there would be "no overlap" between my departure and the start date of the interim U.S. Attorney, and (3) the person picked to serve as interim U.S. Attorney would not have to be vetted by the committee process used in California for the selection of U.S. Attorneys.(emphasis emptywheel)
Geez, where to start? How about with McNulty, who appears to have given no answer to Lam's question rather than reveal the real reasons why she was fired. I do hope he is asked about his cryptic response to Lam.
But of course, the Elston responses are much more telling (he's not a very good shill, seeing as how he made the issues involved in Lam's firing pretty obvious). Now, if I remember my high school civics course, the "highest level of the government" is the President. Though, in this administration, you could argue compellingly that either Karl Rove or Dick Cheney occupies a higher post. Which begs the question, why was Karl Rove so intent on seeing Carol Lam out of office in weeks, not months? Why didn't Rove "receive positively" Lam's determination to see the cases she was working on in January through to some kind of closure?
MORE
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
