« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Fired USA: DoJ #2 Said Performance Not Reason for Firing
In a phone conversation last December, Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty told then-U.S. Attorney for Nevada Daniel Bogden that Bogden's performance "did not enter into the equation" as a reason for his firing.
That's at odds with what McNulty told the Senate Judiciary Committee under oath in February -- that Bogden and others had been fired for "performance related" reasons.
The account of the phone conversation comes from Bogden himself, in written answers to questions from the House Judiciary Committee. The committee will release correspondence with Bogden and others today.
Remember that McNulty had written in an email two days before the firings that he was "skittish" about firing Bogden -- a concern that was apparently allayed by a 90 second meeting during which McNulty and others decided that it wasn't so bad to fire him since Bogden is a bachelor and has only himself to feed.
Monica Goodling and other Justice Department officials subsequently joined in a brainstorming session to figure out just what performance related issues had led to Bogden's firing.
There are some other telling details in Bogden's account of his conversation with McNulty (posted in its entirety below). McNulty told Bogden that he'd had only "limited input" in the firing process. That further confirms McNulty's minimal role in the firings -- even though the deputy attorney general is traditionally the senior official to oversee the U.S. attorneys at the Justice Department. McNulty reportedly told congressional investigators last week that he wasn't responsible for adding a single name to the firing list.
McNulty also told Bogden that the decision for the firing came from "higher up." If that's a reference to the attorney general, well, we know that's at best partly true. If it's a reference to the White House, then it's a shame that McNulty didn't say more.
More soon.
Update: You can read Bogden's full Q&A here (pdf).
Bogden on his convesration with McNulty:
Our telephone conversation was relatively short as DAG McNulty had to attend a recital or some family event that evening with one of his children. In the telephone conversation, he alluded to the fact that the decision had come from “higher up”and he made reference to the fact that although he had some input as DAG in the decision process, it seemed to me from his comments that the ultimate decision did not come from him. He stated words to the effect that although he was present during the decision process, he only had “limited input” in the final decision process. I did specifically ask DAG McNulty during that telephone conversation if the call requesting me to step down had “. . . anything to do with my performance or the performance of my office.” His response to me was — “. . . that did not enter into the equation.” I was given no more specifics, details or information from DAG McNulty as to the reasons for the decision. Due to his having to be somewhere that evening, we ended the conversation. It was a cordial conversation and he stated that he had no problem with me calling him back to discuss the matter further.
Comments (26)
Punchy wrote on May 2, 2007 12:55 PM:Here comes the "I don't recall that conversation" from McNulty in 3...2...1...(where can I bet on this? I'd like to win a bazillion dollars...)
Really, if it wasn't recorded (and even if it was!), they'll deny it. Bad apple, that Bogden. Book to sell, probably. Disgruntled employee. Making up stories. Aiding AQ with his testimony.
legion wrote on May 2, 2007 1:05 PM:In the telephone conversation, he alluded to the fact that the decision had come from “higher up”and he made reference to the fact that although he had some input as DAG in the decision process, it seemed to me from his comments that the ultimate decision did not come from him.
Oh I'd loooove to be on the committe that gets to talk to him or Gonzo next.
FlyOnTheWall wrote on May 2, 2007 1:13 PM:"Mr McNulty, who was your direct superior at Justice?"
"Um. Alberto Gonzalez."
"And who's _his_ boss?"
"Um. The President."
"So, when you say 'higher up', there's really not many people contained in that group, are there?"
"Um. No."
"So, Mr McNulty, WHO EXACTLY DECIDED THE USAS SHOULD BE FIRED?"
"..."
The best part of the transcript has to be the ruthless grilling Bogden endured at the hands of the minority staff:
"Questions for Daniel Bogden, Esq.
1. When you were a U.S. Attorney, did you understand that you served at the will of the
President?
Yes.
2. Did you serve out the full, four year term of your appointment?
Yes."
The Republican Party: leaving no stone unturned in its relentless pursuit of the truth.
Mellifluous wrote on May 2, 2007 1:16 PM:Punchy, you forgot "9/11", "9/11", "9/11", "9/11", "9/11", "9/11", "9/11", "9/11", "9/11", ...
litigatormom wrote on May 2, 2007 1:16 PM:Oh, come on, now. Everyone knows that Karl Rove is Bush's superior. And Scott Jennings is Abu G's superior.
Unless McNulty was referring to Dick Cheney, who is EVERYONE's superior.
paul lukasiak wrote on May 2, 2007 1:27 PM:The potential "deciders" at the JoD keep getting smaller and smaller.
Battle (Exec. Office of USAs): When pressed on the decision, he alluded to the fact that the decision had been made by “higher ups” and that he had not been privy to the reason for the request.
Mercer (Associate AG): In speaking further with AAG Mercer, he seemed to distance himself from the decision process and stated that he had been outside the loop in the decision process and reasons for it.
McNulty (Deputy AG):In the telephone conversation, he alluded to the fact that the decision had come from “higher up”and he made reference to the fact that although he had some input as DAG in the decision process, it seemed to me from his comments that the ultimate decision did not come from him. He stated words to the effect that although he was present during the decision process, he only had “limited input” in the final decision process. I did specifically ask DAG McNulty during that telephone conversation if the
regular lurker wrote on May 2, 2007 1:38 PM:call requesting me to step down had “. . . anything to do with my performance or the
performance of my office.” His response to me was — “. . . that did not enter into the equation.”
I sincerely hope that "higher up" doesn't allude to "God."
Anonymous wrote on May 2, 2007 1:45 PM:The thing about these attorneys is, they were all loyal Bushies- but unfortunately for them I guess they were just not rightwing enough. McNulty knew they were royally screwing Bogden's life. Bogden was 50 years old and as McNulty noted had "never had a job outside of government." But after Goodling points out that he'll be alright, he's a bachelor, McNulty quickly agrees- not that it really matters if he agrees to a damn thing. He was nothing but Goodling's bitch in this whole affair and Goodling was just carrying out the wishes of her masters at the White House. It's unraveling. Keep up the good work MuckRakers.
tjallen wrote on May 2, 2007 1:49 PM:To regular lurker - thanks, I snorted my milk for that one!
:-)
Anonymous wrote on May 2, 2007 1:52 PM:Wait a second- Mercer told Bogden he was fired because, "the Republican party would have more future candidates for the Federal bench and future political positions." I've never heard this excuse before (perhaps others have)- so this is yet another reason- and his friend Mercer is admitting that the reason is essentially political. Experience be damned, we've got to pad some more rightwing resumes and we've only got two years left to do it. Is this yet another disgusting reason why this occurred?
Spencer's Mom wrote on May 2, 2007 1:55 PM:Question: How "bushy" does loyalty get before it needs to be pruned?
PEACE
Vulture Breath wrote on May 2, 2007 1:56 PM:And to think perhaps this entire scandal could've been prevented (from becoming public) if only they hadn't been so stupid as to use the phrase "performance related". All these USAs would have kept silent except that they felt so insulted!
Anonymous wrote on May 2, 2007 2:00 PM:Gotta love how Battle tried to buy Bogden off with a job as a Immigration Judge. SCUMBAGS!
vox clamantis in red state wrote on May 2, 2007 2:12 PM:Buy who off?
guyermo wrote on May 2, 2007 2:19 PM:Their corporate credit card has been pulled for nonpayment of prior debts..credit limit has been exceeded.
lurker, the only things this scandal is missing are sex and Jeff Gannon. We already have God with Rachel Paulose in MN.
jak1 wrote on May 2, 2007 2:24 PM:Anyone else miss the days when the big scandal at DoJ was that liberty was covered with a $3,000 sheet?
>>"Mr McNulty, who was your direct superior at Justice?"
"Um. Alberto Gonzalez."
"And who's _his_ boss?"
"Um. The President."
"So, when you say 'higher up', there's really not many people contained in that group, are there?"
"Um. No."
"So, Mr McNulty, WHO EXACTLY DECIDED THE USAS SHOULD BE FIRED?"<<
it's funny how people can claim to be there during the decision making, but can't remember who made the decisions.
Wait, I saw this on Battlestar Galactica. It's the final 5 cylons right! it's got to be. You know they are there, you can see them. You just can't see their faces.
Anonymous wrote on May 2, 2007 2:25 PM:Who is this Brent Ward, director of the Obscenity Prosecution Task Force? I get the feeling, and from his statements I think Bogden might feel the same, that Mr. Ward's complaints ring of being manufactured, ie, someone asked him to send those emails to help provide cover for the firings. I think this Brent Ward is someone who might need to testify under oath. Perhaps Monica Goodling had Ward send those emails claiming Bogden was ineffective in going after porn? Those emails from Ward just seem so contrived- I would really like for them to haul Ward in and question him.
Anonymous wrote on May 2, 2007 2:28 PM:Monica Goodling is taking the fifth for a reason- she's has done some seriously unethical shit and knows it.
Anonymous wrote on May 2, 2007 2:55 PM:Bogden was set up. They cut his budget hoping things would fall apart, though to his credit he still managed to do more with less. They then had Ward send emails (that would be released to the public and provide cover for the firing- and give Gonzo a chance to complain about how sad it is that these attorneys had their reps dragged through the mud because of the Dems oversight) slamming Bogden for his inability to pursue the ONE porn case that Ward had a hard on for (though if you read what Bogden says he in fact did not refuse to pursue the case). Bogden might be the most problematic case for them to explain away- the guy comes across as very sharp. You would think there was just no reason to go after him.
ebmck wrote on May 2, 2007 3:12 PM:UNTIL you read the article from The Las Vegas Review Journal that mentions the three cases he pursued where high ranking Republicans were entangled! We've got to get Goodling to spill the beans- somehow, someway. She is key to the cover story falling apart. This all goes straight back to the White House (Bush/Rove/Miers) trying to keep Republican bigwigs happy and punish hardworking folks like Bogden who were just doing their jobs and going after crime, regardless of whether the criminal was a Republican or Democrat. That is what everything points to. Can you imagine if a loyal Bushie like Miers had ended up on the Supreme Court?! What we got now ain't great but DAMN!
How is that some much gets done at Justice? I mean, everyone seems to have "limited input" on decisions and "no recollection" of anything that transpired.
Maybe they should find the mailclerk and see what he or she knows since no one with a big corner office seems to know or have the authority to do squat.
jdw wrote on May 2, 2007 3:46 PM:FWIW, Daniel Bogden was nice enough to give the House COJ his performance evaluations. They can be found here:
http://judiciary.house.gov/Printshop.aspx?Section=534
They are his suplimentals.
ebmck wrote on May 2, 2007 4:39 PM:After reading Mr. Bogden's performance review it sounds like he was doing an adequate job -- but that thing is 3 years old. I think the fact that he has been called out by the Federal Judge in his district speaks volumes about his performance since 2003.
Also, why did Michael Battle send his thank you note (page three of supplemental three) to Bogden's office in Nevada? Couldn't he have saved a stamp and walked it down that hall to his DC office?
Whistler wrote on May 3, 2007 9:16 AM:I think one thing we're all seeing is that our assumptions could use looking at, from time to time. I'm beginning to wonder if "Performance Related Reasons" isn't a euphemism for "You're doing so well that you're making those of us born with no talents, brainpower, or ability to reason independently ... look bad." (Sure readers have been one of the few competent folks working in some place or another; and can related to that?)
salenko wrote on May 25, 2007 4:11 PM:Sorry, but I am buy pure watch for frend here - Europe Relica Watches
ptorinx noqfweizc wrote on June 6, 2007 7:01 AM:Rolex... replica :)
jfrdnamgq umldnzvt iewhsal jugocfykq dvocxnw rlwxybgp acdpeolq
ptorinx noqfweizc wrote on June 6, 2007 7:02 AM:jfrdnamgq umldnzvt iewhsal jugocfykq dvocxnw rlwxybgp acdpeolq