Gonzo: The kids are all right.

NATIONAL JOURNAL: Secret Order By Gonzales Delegated Extraordinary Powers To Aides

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales signed a highly confidential order in March 2006 delegating to two of his top aides — who have since resigned because of their central roles in the firings of eight U.S. attorneys — extraordinary authority over the hiring and firing of most non-civil-service employees of the Justice Department. A copy of the order and other Justice Department records related to the conception and implementation of the order were provided to National Journal.

In the order, Gonzales delegated to his then-chief of staff, D. Kyle Sampson, and his White House liaison “the authority, with the approval of the Attorney General, to take final action in matters pertaining to the appointment, employment, pay, separation, and general administration” of virtually all non-civil-service employees of the Justice Department, including all of the department’s political appointees who do not require Senate confirmation. Monica Goodling became White House liaison in April 2006, the month after Gonzales signed the order.

The Department of Justice had made dozens of document dumps on this matter, and released thousands of documents, in what the White House claims to be an effort at cooperation. Somehow, this order and documents related to it have not been released; nor did any of the people testifying before Congress mention it.

Trackbacks & Pings

  1. Unpartisan.com Political News and Blog Aggregator on 30 Apr 2007 at 11:25 pm

    Students heckle Gonzales at Harvard

    A small group of student protesters, including one wearing a black hood and an orange jumpsuit, heck…

Comments

  1. Redhand wrote:

    The story gets more bizarre all the time.

  2. Brian H wrote:

    When BC came to office, he fired 93 US attorneys. In order to align the prosecutors with Administration policy.

    Different strokes, huh?

  3. a former european wrote:

    Infidel heretic Brian H! How dare you compare the extremely corrupt Bush (who is Hitler, by the way), with the only moderately corrupt Clinton! This moral relativism will not be tolerated. Pursuing the gradations of culpability along the political corruption spectrum is all-important.

    I look forward to endless hearings, 24/7, by the democrats to get those running dog republican lackeys of Halliburton! I then also look forward to endless republican hearings against those soulless democrat socialists when the republicans get back in power. All scandals, all the time, make our political system great!

    Now get thee gone, obvious minion of the Great Satan, lest I issue a fatwa against you! Inshallah!

  4. canuckistani wrote:

    Sigh. How many times? Incoming presidents get to dismiss and appoint USA’s at their whim. It’s normal procedure. But when presidents start dismissing their own appointees in the middle of the term for what appear to be partisan reasons, then there is good reason to investigate potential obstruction of justice. I’m not saying it happened. I believe it was politically motivated obstruction, but I’m not going to convince you no matter how many links I provide, so I’m not going to bother. You can look it up yourself. I’m just sick of the “B-b-but Clinton did it!” excuse for any wrongdoing. What Clinton did or did not do is irrelevant. You guys had your chance to bring down Clinton for his wrongdoings, and now it’s time to shut up and let justice be done on the current administration.

  5. commissar wrote:

    Brian, AFE,

    You’re not really in the spirit of TPD commenting - no personal attacks, no mindless repetition of debunked talking points.

    The difference between incoming presidents putting in their own team and this mid-term sacking has been made abundantly clear.

    Please don’t keep annoying me with this.

    Thanks.

  6. a former european wrote:

    Commissar, my “attack” on Brian H was completely tongue-in-cheek. I had hoped the sarcasm was obvious. I would never really issue a fatwa against him.

    As to the corruption thing, I thought we were agreeing to disagree. You believe that this scandal is the major political issue of our day, while I believe it is just another one of the endless scandals, by both parties, that permeates Washington.

    How did I transgress? Is it simply because I don’t agree with you on this point?

  7. commissar wrote:

    afe,

    I understood your comment. Inasmuch as it’s supportive of the “Clinton did it too,” (a debunked argument), it’s annoying.

    If you prefer to construct some very large “they all do it” blanket to cover Bush’s politicization of the entire Federal gov’t, that’s a personal preference. But the notion, on any of the material accusations, that “Clinton did it too” is bogus.

  8. Redhand wrote:

    Returning to the substance of the post, one wonders why Gonzo chose to do this.

    It makes absolutely no sense. Delegation of “the authority, with the approval of the Attorney General,” is an oxymoron. It illustrates perfectly the fact that this is (or should be) a non-delegable duty. It is also meaningless as a form of political “cover” for precisely this same reason. On its face the memo is incomprehensibly stupid.

    Maybe I shouldn’t be surprised that an oxymoron is generated by a moron, but the shock of disbelief remains. There are apparently no standards for competence, or even common sense, in this administration. January 2009 can’t come fast enough for me, regardless who is elected to replace Bush.

  9. a former european wrote:

    Commissar, of course the scandals were different, as to specifics, for each corrupt politico, but the corruption has remained the same. Whether Clinton, Nixon, Bush, Dan Rostenkowski, Abramoff, Abscam, the S&L scandals, etc., the scandals and corruption have remained a constant fixture. I am sick of all of it! What bothers me is apologists for each party point only to the other fellow and ignore their members’ transgressions. We will never be able to even attempt a true reform unless we realize that both parties are guilty of corruption and are hopelessly broken.

    I am not trying to defend Gonzales or Bush. I don’t particularly like either of them. Having blowhards like Barney Frank or Ted Kennedy pontificating about corruption, though, is hard to take. I see it as the pot calling the kettle black. I would feel the same way if blowhard republicans like Tom Delay or John McCain were trying to nail Ron Brown.

    With respect to politicizing the govt, I believe this already happened decades ago. Again, both parties are guilty of this. I think people who believe this all first began under Gonzales are incredibly naive. Perhaps this is why I am not as outraged by this latest form of corruption.