« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
DoJ Official Resigned over Purged Prosecutor Flap?
About an hour ago, we heard that Michael Battle, the Director of the Executive Office of the United States Attorney, had resigned from his post, and that the resignation had been reported on Fox News.
Since then, we've been madly trying to confirm that. I called Mr. Battle himself, who refused to confirm or deny the report, referring me on to the Department of Justice's public affairs office, whose number it took him some time to dig up.
The public affairs office, however, seems to have been caught unawares by Mr. Battle's resignation (if indeed he has resigned). I've been informed that a statement from the department is forthcoming. We'll bring it to you as soon as we have it.
Update: The AP reports:
The department also said that Michael Battle — a senior Justice official who directed the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys and who had personally informed the ousted U.S. attorneys of their removal — would leave his post March 16.Battle, who has held his post since June 2005, notified U.S. attorneys of his decision in January and had informed the department last summer that he wished to pursue opportunities in the private sector, the department said. Battle was not involved in the actual decision-making that led to the prosecutors' ouster, the department said.
"His departure is not connected to the U.S. attorney controversy whatsoever," Roehrkasse said.
Later Update: Sen. Schumer comments:
“This raises another question about a subject where there are already too many unanswered questions. While Mike Battle, a man of integrity, must issue the customary denial, the timing of his resignation asks whether he’s another casualty of the U.S. Attorneys imbroglio.”
Later Update: And comments from House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers (D-MI):
"Michael Battle's resignation raises even more questions about the growing fallout from the firing of the U.S. Attorneys... Rest assured, we will do everything within our power to unearth the facts surrounding this matter, which calls into question the integrity of our system of law enforcement."
And House Judiciary Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law Chairwoman Linda Sanchez (D-CA):
"The wheels seem to be coming off the Bush Administration's increasingly hollow defense of its decision to fire eight U.S. Attorneys.... The Administration's explanation of Mr. Battle's apparent resignation is as murky as everything else they have told us about this case. I look forward to hearing the testimony of the fired federal prosecutors so we can get closer to the truth of what happened."
Comments (15)
wpt wrote on March 5, 2007 1:53 PM:Battle is directly in line with Gonzales. Bigger game to follow??? Wonder if AG will start answering some of those letters he received from congressional leaders?
Crust wrote on March 5, 2007 1:53 PM:"His departure is not connected to the U.S. attorney controversy whatsoever," [Justice spokesman] Roehrkasse said.
Uh huh. And that statement will really help enhance the credibility of everything else coming out of the DoJ.
EasyRider wrote on March 5, 2007 1:57 PM:Impeach AG for Obstuction of Juctice.
Do it now!
EH wrote on March 5, 2007 1:58 PM:SOP, just like Domenici. "Oh no, this has been in the works for AGES."
Jeff B. wrote on March 5, 2007 2:00 PM:And we inch ever closer to our national "Pravda Moment," which is when everyone (except Bill O'Reilly and the other 5 percent "Dead Enders") comes to realize that the Bush Administration lies like normal people breathe.
Richard L. Adlof wrote on March 5, 2007 2:16 PM:The answer to Senator Schumer's question will be found in if Battle collects a check from an employer at the end of the month and who signs it . . .
LEO A BOYLE III wrote on March 5, 2007 2:24 PM:The hens are coming home to roost. This is the disentegration of everything Bush. This reminds me so much of the Nixon White House. A lot of people will resign just to keep their reputations and resumes intact.
Mrs Panstreppon wrote on March 5, 2007 2:27 PM:Senator Schumer may be right about Michael A. Battle being a man of integrity but he is also a big Republican.
In a 4/17/05 Buffalo News story about Battle's appointment as Director of the Executive Office of the United States Attorney, Battle said he was grateful to many people, including President Bush,Gonzales, Gov. George E. Pataki and Rep. Thomas M. Reynolds, R-Clarence.
In a 7/18/01 Buffalo News story about Battle being nominated to be US Attorney for the Western District of NY, the News reported that Gov. Pataki and NY's senior GOP House member, Ben Gilman of Middletown advised the White House on whom to nominate for judicial and prosecutorial posts in New York State. In the past, senators had made those recommendations.
Battle's wife, Sheila, contributed $1k to Rep. Tom Reynolds in 2004 and $300 to Reynolds in 2005.
Battle is also responsible for the dubious prosecution of the Lackawanna Six, thereby giving Team Bush one of its only "wins" prosecuting terrorists. Battle's big strategy was to hang the charge of enemy combatant over the defendants' heads. The defendants could either end up like Jose Padilla in no-man's land or plead guilty.
Battle was first appointed as a family court judge in Buffalo in 1996 by Governor Pataki
Mrs Panstreppon wrote on March 5, 2007 2:33 PM:According to a
Re: Battle's intent to pursue opportunities in the private sector
From the same 4/17/05 Buffalo News story I referred to above:
"Battle's status as a prominent, highly respected African-American Republican has caused many in the legal community to predict he eventually will wind up back in Buffalo as a federal judge.
"It all depends on the political future, but I see the odds of a federal judgeship being very high for Michael Battle," said Lee A. Albert, a professor at the University at Buffalo Law School..."
Michael Battle has never worked in the private sector but after little more than a year on the job as Executive Director at the DOJ, he suddenly decides to go private? Doubtful.
Maalox wrote on March 5, 2007 3:15 PM:Scandal fatigue is making me sleepy.
How many steaming piles can we manage?
Arkansan wrote on March 5, 2007 3:15 PM:Articles of Impeachment might cause Gonzales to find the time to answer those bothersome congressional inquiries. You’d think congress would do it just because Gonzales is so obnoxious, flagrant, whatever, in the way he flips them the bird, but they sold their pride with their souls.
Johann wrote on March 5, 2007 3:30 PM:How long will it take for one of the Congressional committees looking into the firing of those 8 US Attorneys to subpoena Michael Battle?
Pied Piper wrote on March 5, 2007 8:33 PM:I completely think the firings raise tons of questions. That said, this guy is a bit player and out-of-the-loop of political decision-making, so I would be surprised if he played any role.
mg wrote on March 28, 2007 9:08 PM:This is what gets me more than anything else in the GQ interview:
Quoting: "We have more responsibility and more authority than anyone in federal government with the exception of some generals and admirals that are running wartime operations. We take people's lives away, we take their property away, we take their liberty away. Those are serious things. And you cannot let politics infect that process. Rove never understood that. We were just another political hire."
Ironic. Code=foot (Give Karl the boot...)
Helen Djenasevic wrote on June 17, 2007 11:03 AM:I have evidence of a case in Federal courts in Florida, where the Courts are working with the Prosecutors to cover up illegal extradition from Africa to the USA, spending taxpayers dollars for trivial cases and all under the auspices of mutual legal assistance, when the channels are not followed and the prisoners are kidnapped back to the USA. Vendetta or personal satisfaction the motive?
The problem lies int he court system and no one being accountable for the wasted tax dollars and the victims given life for small offences which are racked up.
Where do we get some media attention as the legal system with attorneys is not working.
H Djenasevic