« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Lam's Responses Raised Questions, Graves Set To Testify
Several readers have alerted us to a piece in the San Diego Union Tribune about a 13-page document written by former U.S. Attorney Carol Lam. We think the document refers to a 13 page document Lam sent to Congress responding to written questions in May. Her full response is available here. (pdf)
We covered Lam's response last month, which included additional dubious details about her firing. In one passage, Lam explains that she was not immediately told why she was being let go:
Following the call from Michael Battle informing me I was to resign effective January 21, 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 and 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 base 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 very 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.
Former U.S. Attorney from Missouri, Todd Graves, is set to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee this afternoon. Graves is the most recent U.S. attorney to say he was asked to resign suddenly. The questionable layer to his case hinges on whether his decision not to force a voter-fraud lawsuit on the state led to his dismissal. It will be interesting to see if there are any similarities in his testimony.
Comments (13)
Richard L. Adlof wrote on June 5, 2007 1:52 PM:No overlap = no bringing the next dude up to speed PLUS no stink-eye shot at the newbee.
The current Administration is going to argue that they were attempting to spare her the disgrace of training her replacement . . . Who cares if one or two minor cases suffered a minor set back or a public dismissal.
Grrrrr.
mo2 wrote on June 5, 2007 2:08 PM:Bush/Rove/Cheney were packing the judicial system before November 2006, but after the repukes lost the majorities in the House and Senate they went into overdrive to prepare to steal November 2008 elections.
Will the Senate Judiciary Committee or some ethics committee look at appointments made prior to the obvious nine or ten we know about?
Mrs Panstreppon wrote on June 5, 2007 2:11 PM:Ask Schlozman about how much contact he had with GOP fronts, the American Center for Voting Rights and the Free Enterprise Coalition.
Ask Schlozman if the the MO USA's office put together the info on the 4 ACORN employees he inidcted or did a private firm like Hearne's Lathrop & Gage give him the info?
Steve5117 wrote on June 5, 2007 2:16 PM:Mrs Panstreppon
Good to see you here, do you have any insight on Evergreen Airlines and the JFK plot??
Pinson wrote on June 5, 2007 2:47 PM:Schlozman's on. What a fussbudget. He just referred to his work in MO as "impressive." It will certainly be enjoyable to watch Leahy beat him to a pulp.
Mrs Panstreppon wrote on June 5, 2007 2:51 PM:Steve - No, I don't any particular insight into the JFK plot. Awhile ago, I was going over Jack Ruby's movements after JFK was murdered and I wondered if Ruby talked to anyone at his synagogue that Friday night but that's about it.
Every time I see that photo of Ruby stepping forward with the gun to shoot Oswald, I can't help but think it was staged.
I don't know anything about Evergreen Airlines. But don't tell me more if you are going to post a very long comment about it here. Not the place.
Steve5117 wrote on June 5, 2007 2:57 PM:Mrs Panstreppon
When you get tim, thanks
Steve wrote on June 5, 2007 3:29 PM:FYI, Time has a new story on Rove influencing the Alabama U. S. Atty to indict the Democratic former governor, Don Siegelman, on bribery charges.
Steve wrote on June 5, 2007 3:31 PM:FYI, Time has a new story on Rove influencing the Alabama U. S. Atty to indict the Democratic former governor, Don Siegelman, on bribery charges.
Paul Rosenberg wrote on June 5, 2007 10:34 PM:YOU HAVE TO UNDERSTAND
Pinson:
Schlozman's on. What a fussbudget. He just referred to his work in MO as "impressive."
You have to realize, like most interns, he is easily impressed.
JNagarya wrote on June 6, 2007 12:52 AM:"Will the Senate Judiciary Committee or some ethics committee look at appointments made prior to the obvious nine or ten we know about?
"Posted by: mo2
Date: June 5, 2007 02:08 PM"
Congressional committees have staffs who do the grunt (I think exciting) work of interviews prior to public testimony, and investigation. And they do that work even when there isn't any public evidence of it, such as public testiminy from such as Schlozman.
You can be pretty certain that the staff on the Democratic side are all over it.
JNagarya wrote on June 6, 2007 12:55 AM:"Will the Senate Judiciary Committee or some ethics committee look at appointments made prior to the obvious nine or ten we know about?
"Posted by: mo2
Date: June 5, 2007 02:08 PM"
Congressional committees have staffs who do the grunt (I think exciting) work of interviews prior to public testimony, and investigation. And they do that work even when there isn't any public evidence of it, such as public testiminy from such as Schlozman.
You can be pretty certain that the staff on the Democratic side are all over it.
epenisa wrote on January 11, 2008 1:37 AM:Hi
Nice work from your side... have a nice time with yoru blog :)
Bye