In case you missed it, the National Journal's Murray Waas had a huge scoop yesterday. Attorney General Gonzales apparently didn't tell congress the whole truth in his testimony before the Senate:
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 existence of the order suggests that a broad effort was under way by the White House to place politically and ideologically loyal appointees throughout the Justice Department, not just at the U.S.-attorney level. Department records show that the personnel authority was delegated to the two aides at about the same time they were working with the White House in planning the firings of a dozen U.S. attorneys, eight of whom were, in fact, later dismissed.
A senior executive branch official familiar with the delegation of authority said in an interview that -- as was the case with the firings of the U.S. attorneys and the selection of their replacements -- the two aides intended to work closely with White House political aides and the White House counsel's office in deciding which senior Justice Department officials to dismiss and whom to appoint to their posts. "It was an attempt to make the department more responsive to the political side of the White House and to do it in such a way that people would not know it was going on," the official said.
An original draft of Gonzales's delegation of authority to Sampson and Goodling was so broad that it did not even require the two aides to obtain the final approval of the attorney general before moving to dismiss other department officials.
As was the case with the fired U.S. attorneys, the employees targeted for dismissal would never know that they had been selected by the White House or the Justice Department aides, according to records and interviews.
An original draft of Gonzales's delegation of authority to Sampson and Goodling was so broad that it did not even require the two aides to obtain the final approval of the attorney general before moving to dismiss other department officials, according to records obtained by National Journal.
The department's Office of Legal Counsel feared that such an unconditional delegation of authority was unconstitutional, the documents show. As a result, the original delegation was rewritten so that in its final form the order required "any proposed appointments or removals of personnel" be "presented to the Attorney General... for approval, and each appointment or removal shall be made in the name of the Attorney General."
The senior administration official who had firsthand knowledge of the plan said that Gonzales and other Justice officials had a "clear obligation" to disclose the plan's existence to the House and Senate Judiciary committees -- but the official said that, as far as he knew, they had not done so.
This story goes a long way towards explaining why Gonzales couldn't recall any of the details of the attorney purge. If he wasn't involved, there wasn't anything for him to remember.
It also makes Sampson's previous testimony much more significant. Sampson testified under oath that he did not personally add the names to the list. Instead, he was merely the list's keeper, adding the names that were given to him by some other unidentified source. But as this story makes clear, we now know who that source was: Monica Goodling and her contacts at the White House.
You can now forget those claims that Gonzales' staff and the White House weren't working together to politicize the Dept. of Justice. This memo clearly establishes that as fact. What is needed now is an investigation into Goodling's role in the process, as well as an examination of why Gonzales didn't reveal the existence of this "secret" memo" to congress during his testimony.
Beyond that, it is also critical that congress begin to investigate the activities of some of the USA's that were installed using this process. For the past several months, the TPM Muckraker crew has been doing a fabulous job piecing together the puzzle, and day by day they are getting closer to building a complete picture.
Take, for example, today's story about Bradley Schlozman, one of the most controversial interim appointments in this entire story. After working to turn the DoJ's Civil Rights Division into something of a farce, Schlozman was rewarded with a Patriot Act approved nomination as interim USA for Kansas City. Schlozman took over in early 2006, and - surprise! - just prior to the fall election he issued a series of what we now know were bogus indictments designed explicitly to suppress minority turnout in one of the most important Senate races in the country. Paul Kiel does an excellent job laying out the facts, so I won't repeat them here. As you read the coverage, be sure to pay particular attention to Scholzman's defense: although he was clearly breaking with long-standing DoJ policies and directives, he claims everything he did was approved by Justice Department officials in DC.
I will say it again: in a democracy, nothing is more sacred than the right to vote. If the Department of Justice was using bogus claims of voter fraud to create a climate of fear designed to discourage minorities and other disadvantaged populations from exercising this most basic right, it strikes at the heart of our system of government. This is not, as some DC pundits keep claiming, an inside the Beltway, made up scandal. It is a scandal that is central to who we are as a nation.
Thankfully, it appears at least some in congress truly understand this. In both the Senate and the House, investigations are going to continue. Sen. Leahy is demanding Gonzales explain why his "secret" memo was neither provided to the Senate nor revealed in his testimony before the Judiciary Committee. Over in the House, Gonzales is scheduled to testify before the Judiciary Committee about the firings next week, while the House Oversight Committee continues to advance a series of wide-ranging investigations into administration misconduct.
It may take the better part of a year to learn the truth, but we will get there. Bit by bit, it will find its way to sunlight. It always does.
Subscribe to this blog's feed
