McNulty: How to Make a Mountain

Out of Molehill, in 10 Days…

From ABC’s exclusive report on the role of Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty.  Read, and listen as you say to yourself, over and over, “oh no he didn’t…”

The official, Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty, ignored White House Counsel Harriet Miers and senior lawyers in the Justice Department when he told the committee last month of specific reasons why the administration fired seven U.S. attorneys — and appeared to acknowledge for the first time that politics was behind one dismissal. McNulty’s testimony directly conflicted with the approach Miers advised, according to an unreleased internal White House e-mail described to ABC News. According to that e-mail, sources said, Miers said the administration should take the firm position that it would not comment on personnel issues.

How hard is it to “We do not comment on personnel issues”?  A trained monkey could make the hand signs.

But McNulty, who worked on Capitol Hill 12 years, believed he had little choice but to more fully discuss the circumstances of the attorneys’ firings, according to a a senior Justice Department official familiar the circumstances. McNulty believed the senators would demand additional information, and he was confident he could draw on a long relationship with New York Sen. Chuck Schumer, a Democrat, in explaining in more detail, sources told ABC News.

It keeps getting worse.

(Via ABC)

The Groundhog Doesn’t Want to See His Shadow

This the end of the culture of corruption. Apparently Democrats weren’t upset that Republicans were corrupt, they were just insulted at how poorly they covered up their crimes. (Emphasis Mine)

Democrats promised reform and instituted “a moratorium” on all earmarks until the system was cleaned up. Now the appropriations committees are privately accepting pork-barrel requests again. But curiously, the scorekeeper on earmarks, the Library of Congress’s Congressional Research Service (CRS)–a publicly funded, nonpartisan federal agency–has suddenly announced it will no longer respond to requests from members of Congress on the size, number or background of earmarks. “They claim it’ll be transparent, but they’re taking away the very data that lets us know what’s really happening,” says Oklahoma Sen. Tom Coburn. “I’m convinced the appropriations committees are flexing their muscles with CRS.”

…

But other CRS staffers are happy to talk privately about the political pressure members often exert, despite Mr. Mulhollan’s new directive that all employees inform management within 24 hours of any contacts with the media. “The director operates out of fear members will get upset,” says Dennis Roth, a CRS labor economist who is president of a union representing 250 CRS workers. “The groundhog doesn’t want to see his shadow, so he stays in the dark hole so he won’t.”

“There is real anxiety members will complain if CRS says something is an earmark when the new appropriations committees say it isn’t,” says another CRS staffer. He notes CRS “caught hell” last year with its report finding that more than 95% of all earmarks in fiscal year 2006 bills weren’t written into law and thus not legally binding.

The concern now is that free-spending appropriations committees will use the new CRS gag rule to define earmarks downward.

They did say they were going to ‘clean up’ the system. Excuse me. I’m going to go watch The Godfather.

(Via WSJ, HT Club For Growth)

Tony Snow

Tony has showed a lot of gumption as press secretary, and brings that whole rare decent guy look to a place that could use many more decent guys.

A growth that was surgically removed from White House press secretary Tony Snow was cancerous and the cancer has spread to his liver, the White House disclosed on Tuesday.

… She said the cancer had spread to his liver and that Snow was in consultation with his doctors about starting chemotherapy.

… Snow, 51, had his colon removed in 2005 and underwent six months of chemotherapy. He recently passed the two-year mark since that took place and was pleased with his prospects.

Get well Tony.  We’re rooting for you.

(Via Reuters)

Edwards Defends Couric’s Probing Interview

Youtube clips of the interview

ABC Wrote:

During the interview, Couric probed the Edwards’ decision to continue campaigning for president, despite the news this week that Mrs. Elizabeth Edwards has been diagnosed with incurable bone cancer.

Criticism of Couric’s interview surfaced in the blogosphere, some suggesting the interview was ‘insensitive’ and ‘callous’.

However the Edwards campaign said Mrs. Edwards felt the interview was fair.

Why did Edwards defend her?  It is better than looking defensive over somthing that a lot of people probably were thinking, plus, Edwards base of support consists of Couric (or former-Couric, as the case may be) viewers.  They’d probably rally to Edwards’ side anyway, given the cirucumstances (because even if you’re thinking the cynical, you’re not supposed to say it), but best not to risk it.

(Via ABC’s Political Radar)