TPMmuckraker | Talking Points Memo | Fox: Official Resigned "About a Month Ago"

Fox: Official Resigned "About a Month Ago"

By Paul Kiel - March 5, 2007, 2:19PM

The original report from Fox News on Michael Battle's resignation is now up on their website.

In it, Jonathan Hunt reports that Battle is resigning and that he "made that decision and sent out an internal email about a month ago." Hunt reported that the email had been confirmed to Fox "from three separate sources," but that the resignation had not been "publicly announced by the Department of Justice." The AP is reporting that Battle will leave his post March 16th.

Battle, a former U.S. attorney himself, was the DoJ official who actually made the calls to fire six federal prosecutors back in early December. Hunt reports that one fired prosecutor told him "Mr. Battle seemed unhappy about having to make those calls."

The Washington Post has reported that "Battle was apologetic but offered little in the way of explanations during the calls, telling some that the order had come from 'on high.'" He told one prosecutor, according to Salon, "It's hard not to think you did something wrong when you get a call like this, but that's not always the case."

A Justice Department spokesman told the AP that Battle "was not involved in the actual decision-making" behind the firings.

Comments (42)

RT wrote on March 5, 2007 2:34 PM:

Sounds like a guy you'd want to subpoena, to find out who his orders came from, and what they in turn said about the orders being from higher up. Time for the Good Guys to follow this one up the ladder, to see just how high it goes.

Lordy, ain't it great that the Dems can actually subpoena people when they need to?

EH wrote on March 5, 2007 2:36 PM:

Last paragraph = fall guy. Could they be smart enough for him to resign just in case this caused a problem once the last days of the fired prosecutors approached? Seems kind of conspiratorial, but there's a certain nefarious air about the situation that invites contemplation.

Citizen92 wrote on March 5, 2007 2:40 PM:

We may be seeing a lower-level replay of Nixon's Saturday night massacre.

J3 wrote on March 5, 2007 2:41 PM:

It was on Fox. Every word of it must be true. They got it from 3 independent sources!

Battle needs to spend more time with his family...

Legalize wrote on March 5, 2007 2:47 PM:

Wow. This thing is moving up the chain of command very quickly. Irrelvant side note: Battle spoke at my law school commencement.

linda wrote on March 5, 2007 3:03 PM:

interesting how the fall guy is a black man

Citizen92 wrote on March 5, 2007 3:03 PM:

When the Administration's own handpicked lawyers start calling wolf, then you know you've got a crisis in this country...

Allsburg wrote on March 5, 2007 3:08 PM:

Sounds like he got an order that he didn't like. He followed through, then resigned in protest. Perfectly respectable. Now let's see if he'll talk.

Senator Schumer, don't put those subpoenas away yet.

Peter wrote on March 5, 2007 3:09 PM:

Hard not to think that by getting Battle resigned and out the door, Gonzalez hopes to put him beyond a Congressional subpoena, or at least to limit his testimony to just a person speaking on his own behalf, and not on behalf of Main Justice.

Anonymous wrote on March 5, 2007 3:13 PM:

Allsburg: "Sounds like he got an order that he didn't like. He followed through, then resigned in protest. Perfectly respectable."

Bullshit. If he had an ounce of respect he would have resigned before obeying an order he didn't like. He's nothing by an ass-kisser who hoped to curry favor with Gonzalez and others at Justice. And it blew up in his face so he's trying to spin it to look like he's a good guy. He's nothing but slime like the rest of the Bush administration.

Legalize wrote on March 5, 2007 3:26 PM:

"Hard not to think that by getting Battle resigned and out the door, Gonzalez hopes to put him beyond a Congressional subpoena, or at least to limit his testimony to just a person speaking on his own behalf, and not on behalf of Main Justice."

His personal knowledge is what they are after here anyway. As long as his testimony takes the Committee a little bit further up the ladder, they can get closer to the AG and / or his immediate staff.

mbbsdphil wrote on March 5, 2007 3:51 PM:

If George would just fire everyone involved in making or communicating the decision to fire these US Attorneys - from Mr. Cheney down - we might all breath easier. After all, the requirement of politicians and doctors alike should first, do no harm.

As other knowledgeable readers have said, it's shoot the messenger and stab the fall guy time. Hope that helps more people see the true colors and real priorities of Mr. Cheney's team.

Tortoise wrote on March 5, 2007 3:59 PM:

It's SOP to kill the assassin.

Dennis wrote on March 5, 2007 4:12 PM:

Battle's not being an AG will not matter as to the information he can give. He may no longer "speak for" the DOJ, but under oath and if the congressional committee asking the question is an honest committee, he'd best tell what he knows and tell it straight.

IF? this pans out to anything at all, could it lead to other things which will finally expose so many wrongs within the Cheney/Bush administration?

You don't have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.

DallasNE wrote on March 5, 2007 4:13 PM:

Battle is no Richardson or Ruckleshouse (sp), that is for sure. The honorable thing would have been to resign when confronted with the order to fire the 6 US Attorney's. At lease Battle is no Bork either (though he was for a month).

numbertwopencil wrote on March 5, 2007 4:18 PM:

... it's shoot the messenger and stab the fall guy time...

Yes, that's quite clear.

However, a group of successful US Attys seem like exactly the kind of people you don't want to have to smear and trip up--unless you have some bigger aim or are quite stupid. I'd buy stupid, just on principle, except for the Patriot Act business. (And, oh, WTF was up with the big NYT article not mentioning the Patriot Act? Like, hello, that's what got the ball rolling.)

Allsburg wrote on March 5, 2007 4:21 PM:

I don't know--If he'd been asked to do something illegal, then I'd say he should refuse and resign. But we're talking about politically motivated personnel changes here, not the My Lai massacre. He did what he was told, and then (probably) decided that he worked someplace that he no longer wanter to be. I don't see (yet) that the guy is morally blameworthy. And he could be the person most situated to blow the whole thing open.

Anonymous wrote on March 5, 2007 5:24 PM:

Allsburg, again bullshit. There's illegal and there's unethical. He was the head of all the USAs. He HAD to know their performance was good and the reasons he was given for firing them was unethical. As Mary Jo White, former USA just said on All Things Considered, even though USAs serve at the pleasure of the President it is a long standing tradition that they are not fired mid-term unless there's serious problems with them. No one can believe there were 7 (or is it 8?) USAs were all guilty of serious problems at the exact same time? Hell, we already have a Justice Dept. official admitting the USA in Arkansas was fired so one of Turdblossums henchmen could pad his resume.

Sure, Battle might blow it all open but you can bet sure he's looking out for his own ass. Do you really think it is pure coincidence that his month-ago resignation was not announced until now?

Richard L. Adlof wrote on March 5, 2007 6:04 PM:

There was no lie . . .

The firings were performance based. A Republican politico or supporter was nailed by everyone of these US Attorneys . . . That is performance that this Administration did not desire.

Just cuz Bush and Gonzales are evil beyond all belief does not mean they lie about everyting . . . That's Cheney's mode of operation.

Anonymous wrote on March 5, 2007 11:05 PM:

No lie? You mean except for Domenici, Wilson, Battle and Gonzalez, right?

ChrisO wrote on March 6, 2007 8:32 AM:

"Bullshit. If he had an ounce of respect he would have resigned before obeying an order he didn't like. He's nothing by an ass-kisser who hoped to curry favor with Gonzalez and others at Justice. And it blew up in his face so he's trying to spin it to look like he's a good guy. He's nothing but slime like the rest of the Bush administration."

Geez, we are judgemental, aren't we? The guy was given an order to do something legal but that he may have disagreed with. That's a situation many of us have faced in our jobs. Eating shit and following orders is part of having a job. I have a family to support, as may Battle. I've had to fire people I didn't think deserved it. Unfortunately, even attorneys don't always have the luxury of walking away from their job whenever they feel like it. Maybe he was trying to line up something else before he walked. I don't think government attorneys are rolling in dough.

And no, I'm not a wingnut troll. I hope everybody gets nailed. But this is hardly an Elliott Richardson situation.

Salmo wrote on March 6, 2007 12:13 PM:

Firing someone on orders to further partisan politics may not be criminal (immoral, yes), but firing someone as part of a conspiracy to cover up criminal acts and or facilitate prosecutorial misconduct certainly is. Assuming that he knew the reason for the order, he should be compelled to explain which one it was.

Anonymous wrote on March 6, 2007 10:37 PM:

ChrisO, I could toss that little snipe about being judgemental at you or any number of people here. So let's just drop that line of argument, OK.

For the record, I didn't say Battle should have resigned because he was given a nasty task to do. Although, if he knew it was wrong he should have had the guts to resign (as should you if you are asked to do something that you know is wrong). No, I said he knew it was unethical and I'll add perhaps illegal. He knew the line about performance problems was a smoke screen. Hey, just read some of the fine reporting at TPMmuckraker about the letters to Senators describing the great performance of some of the USAs mere months before they were canned for performance. It's pure bullshit.

This is a hatchet job. Even I know that if you want to fire someone you need to build a paper trail lest you open yourself up to a lawsuit. Or worse in this case. You simply *must* tell someone where their performance is falling short and give them an opportunity to improve. Anything short of that is simply unethical. It's backstabbing at its worst.

And I won't even get into the two cases where the firings were purely to give political hacks a chance to pad their resumes before the Bush circus packs up and leaves town. I didn't know the USA had on-the-job training! Imagine how bad the prosecution statistics will be for these new USAs with no experience. I guess we can look forward to them being fired in a couple of months for poor performance. Now that would be justice!

This whole thing stinks like just about everything Bush and his lackeys do. You will see all kinds of crap come out in the following days about this mess. It has "Scandal" written all over it. I even venture that Dick Cheney has a hand in this. Time will tell.

braga132 wrote on March 25, 2007 10:24 AM:

Hi,

Windows Vista Ultimate Upgrade free download
More cheaply will not find

Prices:
Ebay.us - $145 Item 120100537431
Ebay.co.uk - GBR 75 Item 120100548459
Ebay.de - 110 Euro Item 120100527069

www.all.isearch4all.net too!

qupis95 wrote on April 3, 2007 9:02 AM:

Hello,
I searched for such site. Thanks you

qupis95 wrote on April 4, 2007 4:46 AM:

Hello,
I searched for such site. Thanks you

qupis95 wrote on April 4, 2007 7:02 PM:

Hello,
I searched for such site. Thanks you

qupis95 wrote on April 4, 2007 10:30 PM:

Hello,
I searched for such site. Thanks you

xoom6661 wrote on April 6, 2007 5:13 PM: