Why Did McNulty Ignore WH Advice Regarding His Testimony?

McNulty was briefed the day before his testimony and told to downplay the entire scenario. He said he had to give the Senators something and basically blew off their advice. He also said he was confident that his friend of 12 years, Schumer, would see him through. This is the same Schumer who has stated on television that there are disgruntled DOJ employees that have been speaking to him about what has been going on over there, and who behaved like a pit bull when questioning his friend. The answers that came out of that hearing were completely contrary to what the WH wanted, and brought to light that the prosecutors were fired for political reasons and one was gotten rid of so Rove's pal could be placed in the clot.

Now we find out that Goodling's lawyer, Dowd, said McNulty was the one who told a Senator that Goodling and others gave him incorrect info before he testified. McNulty was the prosecutor who was doing a fine job on the AIPAC before he was pulled into the DOJ to be asst. AG.

Now why I wonder why a guy with a bright future at DOJ and with the publicans in general be telling a senator what the WH and DOJ under Gonzo has been up to? And what is McNulty up to?

Below are links which will help fill in this story:


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x512966


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?
az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=510581&mesg_id=510581

I think this is an important issue. It deserves our attention. And so I'm going to take a minute to mention a few things people might want to consider regarding Mr. McNulty.

After I. Lewis Libby was convicted, there were some discussions about what direction the investigation(s) into the scandals relating to those who ran the operation against the Wilsons might take. I suggested that we should keep an eye on the neocon/AIPAC espionage scandal, including the trial coming up in the summer. Here are a few things to keep in mind:

On September 9, 2001, there was a newspaper article that revealed that President Bush, going against the wishes of some in his administration, was going to meet with Arafat. Two days later, of course, that planned meeting came to an end. (See: "The Big Chill"; Laura Rozen; The Nation; 7-14-05)

However, then NSA Condi Rice was furious about the leak to the media. She requested an FBI investigation. This ended up part of a larger investigation of suspected leaks related to espionage that involved, among others, two high-ranking members of AIPAC.

These two were found to be coordinating efforts with Larry Franklin, who worked directly under Douglas Feith in his Office of Special Plans. Franklin has since entered a guilty plea, and will be testifying against the two AIPAC officials, who provided classified information about Iran to a foreign country.

In a move that I think indicated that there was hostility between groups within the administration, the AIPAC official's attorneys would ask a federal judge to issue subpoenas for Rice and three other government officials in April of 2006. (See: Lawyer: Rice Leaked Defense Information; Matthew Barakat; AP; 4-21-06)

People might want to consider McNulty's role in this case, including the possibility that he was pressured to slow the pace of the prosecution for political reasons.

Part V <§ 6001 et seq.> of title 18 of the United States Code governs the granting of immunity to witnesses before Federal tribunals. The immunity provided under part V is only use immunity, not transactional immunity. Part V applies to all proceedings before Federal courts, before Federal grand juries, before administrative agencies, and before Congressional committees........ "It requires the Attorney General or the U. S. attorney to request or to approve any grant of immunity, whether before a court, grand jury, agency, or congressional committee."......

The best example of how this type of immunity can hinder a criminal prosecution is found in the Iran-Contra scandal. I had posted a link to a good article on two threads last night .... I'll look to see if I can find it. But you are making the same point. Very important.

He was instrumental in the Florida Recount. He coached Ashcroft through confirmation hearings. He was appointed to be US Attorney in Virginia's Rocket Docket in order to be a FIXER for the WH. And then last year he's appointed to be DAG prior to the politicization of the DoJ. I do not believe he would act in his own separate interest or that he would act for any honest, noble reasons. He is a willing tool in this attack on the separation of powers. He may have overestimated his influence on Schumer -- I think that's kind of amusing. The NY lawyer-politician apparently has more reverence for the Rule of Law than does the DAG.

You might be exactly right. He is certainly what we call "one of the boys." No doubt. But sometimes even one of the boys does the right thing -- even if for what we might view as the wrong reason.

About why he wouldn't do it, so why did he is my query? Now in several threads and again today in the H20 thread linked above, there is a discussion of the power elite, those invisibles who pull strings, and how displeased they seem to be at the very the least with junior. Could that be the "higher" calling McNulty is responding to?

used to say, "You won't find a trout in a pickle barrel." It is true that he is one of the boys. But, a good investigator finds a way to divide the people in that barrel against one another. McNulty isn't of the same character as, say, Patrick Fitzgerald. But that is okay.

In the Franklin/AIPAC espionage scandal, he appears to fall into the Rice camp, rather than the OVP/OSP camp. I assume that no sincere DUers are Condi fans, but we can still appreciate it if someone in her camp turns on someone in the OVP/OSP camp. While not an exact fit, I think of Ari Fleischer testifying against Libby. We may hold Ari in distain, but we enjoyed his testimony.

Also, when we think of Mark Felt, the head of the "Deep Throat" operation, we appreciate that he helped knee-cap the Nixon administration. He was offended by the Huston Plan. Yet he would be convicted for similar crimes.

And we know who is at the bottom of every dirty deed, a corruptor of note and protege of the nororious Atwater. All roads lead to Damascus or Rove in this case.

If the powers are displased and are cutting the legs out from beneath junior, shouldn't they be going for the legs of the spider first so as the head will die?

What will it take for the publicans to get fed up with him? After all, he didn't have THE numbers.

are all about power. Again, we keep in mind that "power" comes from the Latin "posse" -- which means to "possess the ability." It's true that Bush has some of the power that comes from the office, and that Cheney has some very real power from his shadow government. But neither enjoys the power -- or possesses the ability to accomplish what they used to. They aren't the vehicle that other republicans will ride to power on .... good night, look at the flat tire McCain's campaign has as a result of associating McCain with the Iraq war. More, the Cheneyites have offended many people, and not just democrats.

look at the administration from 2003 and today, there are some significant differences.

The thing I always remember about McNulty was that he was working closely with Fitzgerald. Between them they got the Niger forgeries from Italy. Then all of a sudden he's given a plum position at DOJ, and the AIPAC case slows down to a crawl. Now here he is at the center of a scandal that gets bigger daily. What was it, that inspired him to testify truthfully and place himself in jeopardy? And make no mistake, this is the guy who says he's not going to resign but yet has gone up against the gang who couldn't shoot straight. Are they so despicable that he couldn't hold his nose any longer? Was he the DOJ official who was speaking to Schumer?

seems to have played a central role in several of the related scandals.

After reading the affadavit from Goodling which specifically brings up a "Senior Department of Justice official" telling Schumer he lied under oath, I poked around and found where Schumer said this and he did specifically name McNulty.

The affadavit. That statement is in #5:
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/goodling-5th/?resultpage=5&

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Schumer_Its_highly_unlikely_Alberto_Gonzales_0318.html
Schumer on Meet the Press
MR. RUSSERT: Paul McNulty, the deputy attorney general, came before the Judiciary Committee in February, was asked about this, and this was his response:

MR. PAUL MCNULTY, DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL: (From videotape.) All of the changes that we made were performance-related.

MR. RUSSERT: Is that accurate?

SEN. SCHUMER: That's totally inaccurate. Paul McNulty, himself, I know him, he called me on the phone and said, "I am sorry that I didn't tell you the truth. I was not told that these things were happening by the people who were supposed to brief me. And now one of those people is Kyle Sampson, Kyle Sampson, the chief-of-staff to the attorney general. And Kyle Sampson says everyone knew what was going on here. We have to get to the bottom of this.

and maybe he thinks it`s the right thing to do....

slugs in the White House--find a bus and throw you under it.

He saw that scenario coming and had the prudent sense to come clean.

Just in case the evening crowd is interested

that by the end of next week, DUers will think back to this thread and say, "Uh-huh. 'Me' was right."