Comments (118)

Nina wrote on May 9, 2007 12:28 PM:

That's one pathetic document.

Nina wrote on May 9, 2007 12:29 PM:

"Mommy, I'm tired. I'm gonna let Kyle be the Attorney General for a while, O.K.?"

Ed wrote on May 9, 2007 12:33 PM:

At this point, if I were the Attorney General, I would resign simply to restore the sanctity of my manhood.

bobh wrote on May 9, 2007 12:34 PM:

Leahy should hand Gonzales a jar with two golfballs in it and say: "Here, Monica is done with them."

Anonymous wrote on May 9, 2007 12:34 PM:

What a weirdo signature the AG has.

And I'm frankly a little suspicuous about that signature, as it is exactly the same, wiggle for wiggle, on both documents. I hardly think that a personnel delegation is a document that is appropriate for auto-penning!

Unless of course one of the "delegated aides" signed his name the docs... The last few letters are very wobbly!

me wrote on May 9, 2007 12:38 PM:

This saddens me at so many levels, including the one I call "I have a better memo writing style then the AG of the USA?" level.

Sad.

Security Code: Goodling, not so good.

Anonymous wrote on May 9, 2007 12:39 PM:

Little known fact about the AG (from his official bio):

Gonzales was honored by the United Way in 1993 with a Commitment to Leadership Award, and received the Hispanic Salute Award in 1989 from the Houston Metro Ford Dealers for his work in the field of education.

Houston Metro Ford Dealers...?

pj in jesusland wrote on May 9, 2007 12:39 PM:

I wonder why the order wasn't published in the Federal Register . . .

Clearly, Gonzalez never stopped being Bush's attorney. What a gopher. What a knucklehead. He's no Elliot Richardson, that's for sure.

Anonymous wrote on May 9, 2007 12:40 PM:

What's really interesting is that the AG apparently amended the dept. regs to retain more hiring and firing power for himself and then immediately delegated that power to his subordinates. I hope someone asks him why he took the power in the first place? Did other department leaders have "performance-related issues"?

mik wrote on May 9, 2007 12:42 PM:

Where's the secret order giving Bush's Presidential power to the Chinese...

Mary wrote on May 9, 2007 12:42 PM:

OK -so that's what OLC said Gonzales had to do to delegate his authority to remove inferior officers over whom he had removal power.

Well, he has no removal power of USA - by statute it is the President who can remove them, not the AG.

So where is the delegation from the President to the Executive Branch members who removed the USAs for him?

And why wouldn't it need to meet the same review and done in his name requirements?

I've never seen anyone in Congress really go after this point and nail it down - but only the President had the right to remove. What prevents all the removals from being fraudulently induced and illegal abuses of power/office UNLESS there was an effective and defensible delegation of power by the President along the lines of this order?

JTL wrote on May 9, 2007 12:43 PM:

Here we go. This is the set-up for Monica "I have immunity" Goodling to take the fall for all of this. The AG empowered her with this memo and she used the power unethically. Tsk, tsk.

Anonymous wrote on May 9, 2007 12:45 PM:

Regardless of what this document says, paper absoultely has to flow through the White House for any and all political appointments.

Paper flows through the Office of Presidential Personnel.

And paper flows through the Office of Staff Secretary (to obtain the Presidents' signature).

Now we have evidence that Gonzales likes to delegate approvals to inferior aides....

So stepping back to Gonzales' old haunt, the White House, who at the White House was delegated the President's signature authority for important things?

fatkat wrote on May 9, 2007 12:46 PM:

ok..these guys are to be the watchdogs for government agency's, yet they are the ones under investigation!!!

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/05/federal_watchdo.html

Anonymous wrote on May 9, 2007 12:48 PM:

Fridays...wonder who will get the "boot", or will someone go to jail?

Anonymous wrote on May 9, 2007 12:49 PM:

so this is a secret order!? NOT anymore! :)

HES TOAST! HES TOAST!

Anonymous wrote on May 9, 2007 12:49 PM:

OK- I missed a chapter, please help me catch up. I’m serious here.

Did Gonzales ever make mention of this document in any of his sworn testimony? If he didn’t, isn’t that perjury and sufficient grounds for impeachment?

Robin wrote on May 9, 2007 12:57 PM:

I swear, I will go to my grave believing that this spring 2006 order was really devised, written and signed off on in January 2007, about the time abuG testified before Congress -- that this is just some hindsight activity to 'paper' their lies.

za wrote on May 9, 2007 12:59 PM:

Now, this is the one that wasn't entered into the Federal Register, right?

That's the first question out of my mouth, if I'm on the Committee.

Why not?

Dabb wrote on May 9, 2007 1:00 PM:

This "delegation" sounds very close to the line of changing the Constitution.

za wrote on May 9, 2007 1:01 PM:

From Wikipedia:

The Federal Register is the main source for the U.S. federal government agencies':
Proposed new rules;
Final rules;
Changes to existing rules; and
Notices of meetings and adjudicatory proceedings.

In essence, the Federal Register is a way for the government to think aloud to the people, and also serves as official journal of record for the acts of the U.S. Government. The notice and comment process outlined in the Federal Register gives the people a chance to participate in agency rulemaking.

Robin wrote on May 9, 2007 1:02 PM:

Asked just above: Did Gonzales ever make mention of this document in any of his sworn testimony? If he didn’t, isn’t that perjury and sufficient grounds for impeachment?
_______________________

I think the first light this memo saw was when it got filed in the federal register in early Feb 2007, after the first round of hearings. I think...

Jay Severin has a small pen1s wrote on May 9, 2007 1:06 PM:

How come it's not written in Spanish?

Maybe we should just outsource the government jobs to India?

wrb wrote on May 9, 2007 1:06 PM:

Unless the was going to be in the hospital for an extended length of time there is no plausible purpose for such a document other than an amateurish attempt to preserve deniability of something known to be wrong. So it demonstrates guilt, not innocence.

Dan Kurtz wrote on May 9, 2007 1:08 PM:

I John Mitchell, by virtue of the office of Attorney General, do hereby grant the authority to E. Howard Hunt and Gordon Liddy to bug the headquaters of the Democratic Party; to plot break-ins of the Brookings Institute and the psychiatrist of Daniel Elsberg; to smearing Democratic candidates; and assisting in using the secret slush fund of CREEP during this elecion.

mo2 wrote on May 9, 2007 1:09 PM:

Timeline -
Feb 7, 2006 - The department published regulations in the Federal Register stating that the final authority would be reserved for the attorney general. (from Waas)
Feb 24 - Corts memo informed Gonzales that delegating his authority is unconstitutional.
March 1 - Gonzales signed the order giving Sampson and Goodling unprecedented powers.

Questions - When did Gonzales give the first draft to Corts? Was it before or after Feb 7? Who did Gonzales consult with before writing the memo?

"Per instructions received from JMD [the Justice Department's Management Division], ODAG [the office of the Deputy Attorney General] is to bypassed on the package." (from Waas)

More question - Why did Corts keep his reply to Gonzales away from McNulty? Can we assume Gonzales' original letter to Corts was also kept from McNulty? If so, what did Corts think about this?

bobh wrote on May 9, 2007 1:10 PM:

Are Rules enforceable or lawful if they ARE NOT published int eh FR? It seems as if America would be in deep shit if they were.

Anonymous wrote on May 9, 2007 1:11 PM:

Interesting. The cover memo was prepared for Paul Courts but was signed off by Michael H. Allen.

Paul Corts, the Assistant Attorney General for Administration was previously the President of Palm Beach Atlantic University, "a Florida Baptist School." Corts, while at DOJ, is concurrently the President of the Christian college council.
http://www.abpnews.com/927.article

Mike Allen, the signer-off on this memo is Deputy Assistant Attorney General for Policy, Management and Planning. Surprisingly, he too was "Vice President and CFO of a small private university in West Palm Beach, FL."
http://www.usdoj.gov/jmd/biomikeallen.htm

1/DOJ has been successfully re-made in God's image.

2/Corts somehow managed to hire his friend as his deputy.

3/Allen's portfolio includes records management at DOJ. Keep that in mind as investigators are looking for "missing" RNC emails.

vox clamantis in red state wrote on May 9, 2007 1:12 PM:

There is nothing to shift, but the blame itself. So it goes, a truly shiftless bunch.

phil james wrote on May 9, 2007 1:12 PM:

Just as the "reasons" for the USA firings were invented after the fact, so this document was created, and for the same reason. This document is a fraud created to cover the reason Sampson and Goodling were so deeply involved in the USA firings and hirings in the first place and the fact that Gonzo testified that he was not involved. Need cover? Presto, a signed order! Gonzo was told they would be in charge by Rove. He himself has never been in charge of anything except covering our boy Dubya's ass. This is just more of the same. For Gonzo to be in a position to cover Dubya he has to have his own cover.

vox clamantis in red state wrote on May 9, 2007 1:12 PM:

There is nothing to shift, but the blame itself. So it goes, a truly shiftless bunch.

Anonymous wrote on May 9, 2007 1:14 PM:

Why not?

28cfr0.183 has this to say about the distribution of orders:

The distribution of orders, unless otherwise provided by the Attorney General, shall be determined by the Assistant Attorney General for Administration.

So there are only two options here. Note that the memo backing up the order is either from or to (it's a little confusing) the Assistant AG for Administration.

That memo also says that the AG's staff asked them to implement the new regulations reserving this power to the AG, which is to say, the delegation of the power from AG to his Chief of Staff and White House liaison.

There is also the question of who initiated, and why, the reservation of this authority to the AG in the first place. As far as I can tell, it specifically took the authority away from the Deputy AG and the Associate AG. I take it this was significant at least as far as the DAG's own office goes - taking the power of hiring, firing and general administration away from the DAG and giving it to the AG who in turn puts his Chief of Staff and White House liaison in charge.

bobh wrote on May 9, 2007 1:15 PM:

The committee should request the electronic copy of this document. I bet you, I BET you its not from 2006.

Get the E-Copy!

liz wrote on May 9, 2007 1:18 PM:

Signature is too weird , just like Speedy Gonzales. The english language does not spell A L B E R T O with a T with two dots in it. Is that arabic? Is it a sick joke or what? That man needs serious help for his identity crisis.

Weber wrote on May 9, 2007 1:18 PM:

Here is the DOJ entry in the Federal Register for Feb. 7, 2006. How anyone could tell from this entry that the AG was given away his executive power to two 35 somethings is beyond me.

http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/01jan20061800/edocket.access.gpo.gov/2006/06-1084.htm or tiny URL
http://www.tinyurl.com/394237

Weber wrote on May 9, 2007 1:21 PM:

Here is the DOJ entry in the Federal Register for Feb. 7, 2006. How anyone could tell from this entry that the AG was giving away his executive power to two unqualified political appointees is beyond me.

http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/01jan20061800/edocket.access.gpo.gov/2006/06-1084.htm or tiny URL
http://www.tinyurl.com/394237

lawrence kansan wrote on May 9, 2007 1:23 PM:

Here's my hypothesis on Alberto Gonzales: I suspect that at one time, he used to be a decent fellow. But then The Family, this time under the direction of its current manager, Karl Rove, set its sights on Gonzales as a future pawn. Gonzales probably used to be a somewhat naive, but ambitious, moderately bright lawyer on track for a comfortable life as a successful attorney. I don't know if he was sophisticated enough to fully comprehend what he was eventually going to be used for, under the direction of Rove. My theory is that he was targeted because of his ethnicity; I suspect Rove knew he could use Gonzales's ethnic background as "cover"; I don't mean to be condescending or racist or anything like that; I'm just saying Rove knew they could do exactly what they have done: as soon as Gonzales started getting into trouble they threw out the fact that he was the first Hispanic Attorney General and that he had come from humble beginnings and how dare we criticize Gonzales after he had overcome all the obstacles and prejudices put in his way as a Hispanic... I suspect that somewhere down deep, Gonzales realizes what shame he has brought on his family by letting his ambition let him get tangled up in The Family's dirty deeds and tangling of the Justice Department. I suspect that back in the beginning when he was first courted by Rove he never could have imagined he'd be made to sign off on things like torture and this whole twisted plan to politicize Justice, like this memo shows. I just imagine Gonzales is handed these pieces of paper and told what he is supposed to sign and say, and at this point is in it so deep that he doesn't know what else to do other than just keep doing what Rove tells him to do and hope that he isn't thrown under the bus like others that have been used up by The Family.

The Political Junkie wrote on May 9, 2007 1:24 PM:

All this means is that Monica Goodling is going to get slung under the bus for all of this crap.

I'd waive immunity and start singing like John Dean did during Watergate. He only got a couple of years in Club Fed, rehabilitated himself, and is now a respected political voice in media circles, because he's been there, done that, and learned from blindly following and doing whatever Tricky Dick told him to do.

Those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it. Obviously the ReThugs learned nothing from Nixon, and certainly nothing from the Gipper, either. Let them be forced to own up to this administration that has FUBAR.

Hang it around their necks and the necks of Congressional enablers for 2008 and decades beyond...

Carl Nyberg wrote on May 9, 2007 1:27 PM:

When I was a midshipman I had an amiable lieutenant commander as my leadership (aka "leadersleep") instructor.

He advocated for delegating as much as possible. And I think he really believed in delegating, because he was speaking with more enthusiasm than normal.

He challenged the class with the question, "Is there anything you can think of that wouldn't be better delegated if it could be?"

After all the other midshipmen seemed to buy into the LCDR's argument by not objecting, I offered a response.

"Authority to use nuclear weapons."

My instructor acknowledged I had a point.

AGAG delegated some exceedingly powerful stuff. The U.S. military wouldn't give Sgt. Williams the authority to use nuclear weapons because it just doesn't make sense.

And AGAG's decision to delegate firing U.S. attorneys also doesn't make much sense. Why would he delegate this if he wasn't trying to create "plausible deniability" for some act that he didn't want to have his fingerprints on the weapon?

The memo is pretty damning circumstantial evidence of AGAG's state of mind. And when it comes to divining the intent of a criminal--absent a confession--circumstantial evidence is the only kind of evidence one gets.

lysias wrote on May 9, 2007 1:29 PM:

Doesn't the memo contain the instruction to bypass McNulty that it was reported to contain?

Jeff wrote on May 9, 2007 1:29 PM:

Weber

The February 7, 2006 published order does not give the AG's power to his Chief of Staff and White House liaison. Rather, the February 7 order reserves the relevant power to the AG - apparently taking it away from the Deputy AG and the Associate AG.

Then the secret order of March 2006 delegates that power from the AG to the Chief of Staff and the White House liaison.

So there's no way to tell from the February 7 order that the AG was giving his power away - it was done in secret.

ahem wrote on May 9, 2007 1:36 PM:

That really does set up Mistress Goodling to play the role of Oliver North and fall upon her sword for God and GOP.

I hope that the HJC thinks very carefully about that immunity offer after Gonzo's visit tomorrow.

(keyword: 'shame'. Something lacking in the Bush admin.)

gab wrote on May 9, 2007 1:36 PM:

Is Goodling's immunity written in stone yet?

mayan wrote on May 9, 2007 1:36 PM:

Maybe the Shrub signed a secret signing statement allowing abu Gonzo to delegate hiring and firing to Kyle and Monica

Florida Democrat wrote on May 9, 2007 1:37 PM:

Just a moments research provides the following:

Palm Beach Atlantic University appears to be a legitimate educational institution accredited through widely recognized agencies (not just Christian School accreditation).

The school is accredited to an impressive level of PhD in Pharmacology.

Their Board includes at least one widely recognized leader in Pharmacology.

Anyway, this is quite an impressive resume for a small Christian school and I believe separates it from many of the scam Christian degree mills.

Mary wrote on May 9, 2007 1:38 PM:

"I, John Mitchell..."
*grin* You forgot where he's supposed to require that they do it in his name!

From the comments I don't think people are getting that this Order can not be "cover" for the USAs being fired bc it does not delegate to Sampson and Goodling the right to fire USAs. Bc the AG doesn't have that power to delegate it - only the President.

What it does show is that when the AG was delegating his firing powers, the Office of Legal Counsel said he had to do certain things or his delegation might be illegal/unconstitutional. They said he had to get them to give him lists for his approval, he had to approve, and the firings had to be done "in his name."

Now - that leads to - where is the delegation from the PRESIDENT (who could fire USAs, like the AG could fire assist USAs and other DOJ staff) to the people who fired the USAs?

Paul wrote on May 9, 2007 1:39 PM:

Interesting, but still ... under law, even the Attorney General doesn't have the authority to remove U.S. Attorneys -- only the President does. So it's worth investigating what use of the phrase "final action" means in this order. And it's certainly worth asking: was there some similar delegation of authority from the President to the Attorney General that prceded this?

vox clamantis in red state wrote on May 9, 2007 1:40 PM:

There is nothing to shift, but the blame itself. So it goes, a truly shiftless bunch.

TheraP wrote on May 9, 2007 1:46 PM:

There is no way monica is the one who came up with the whole rovian conspiracy to aggregate the entire government into a fascist mafia entity.

We see many pawns. And gonzales is in way too deep to be counted as a pawn any longer - he worked his way up - or better yet, failed his way up.

Pawns we have aplenty. gonzales has clearly accepted his assigned role - of court fool.

mo2 wrote on May 9, 2007 1:48 PM:

March 1 - Gonzales signed the order giving Sampson and Goodling hiring/firing authority.
March 2 - The USA Patriot Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005 is passed by the Senate.
March 9 - Bush signs the USA Patriot Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/usa-timeline.php

Anonymous wrote on May 9, 2007 1:50 PM:

That's one crazy signature gonzo's got.

anon wrote on May 9, 2007 1:51 PM:

lawrence kansan

Love your analysis. It comports with mine, but yours is so much more well articulated and fleshed out than mine would be on paper.

Recall Bush bragging about his "Latino lawyer"? Jesus, was that patronizing or what?

It was a some-of-my-best-friends-are [_______] moment for Bush.

Yes, I suspect Gonzo was a relatively decent, honest guy, but naive. He had no idea he was making a pact with the devil when he signed on with The Family. Once in, however, he did what he had to do, what he was told by consigliere Rove, including ignoring his own ethics, to maintain his role and position.
Now he has to throw himself on to the barbed wire to protect Il Padrone. Like the Al Pacino character in "Donnie Brasco," a true story, he reports to a meeting with his bosses knowing that it will mean his execution. True to the code of omerta unto the grave.

Another commenter here pointed out that none of these folks rise to tragedy. They don't have the honor or nobility that makes them deserving of sympathy to be tragic figures in our history.

Ah, it is written grasshopper...

Anonymous wrote on May 9, 2007 1:51 PM:

@May 9, 2007 01:11 PM

Thanks for the links. Are Paul R. Corts and Michael H. Allen even lawyers? Doesn't sound like it.

Were Corts and Allen both with Palm Beach Atlantic University, a Florida Baptist school, before joining the DOJ?

Michael H. Allen's DOJ bio (http://www.usdoj.gov/jmd/biomikeallen.htm):

"Michael H. Allen is Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Policy, Management and Planning, for the Justice Management Division of the Department of Justice. He is responsible for oversight of the Office of General Counsel, Management and Planning Staff, Departmental Ethics Office, Office of Records Management Policy, Internal Review and Evaluation Office, and Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization. He serves as Senior Procurement Executive for the Department. Prior to joining the Department of Justice, Mr. Allen served as Vice President and Chief Financial Officer for a private university in West Palm Beach, Florida. He completed twenty-five years of service with the U.S. Navy as a Naval Flight Officer. Mr. Allen holds a Bachelor of Science degree in computer science from North Carolina State University and a Masters of Business Administration from New Hampshire College."

Paul R. Corts bio from the Associated Baptist Press (http://www.abpnews.com/927.article):

"DALLAS (ABP) -- Former Baptist college president Paul Corts has been named the fifth president of the 30-year-old Council for Christian Colleges and Universities.

The selection of Corts, who has served as assistant attorney general for administration for the U.S. Department of Justice since 2002, was announced March 31.

Prior to his work at the Department of Justice, Corts worked for nearly 12 years as president of Palm Beach Atlantic University, a Florida Baptist school. His brother Tom recently retired as president of Samford University, affiliated with the Alabama Baptist Convention.

Paul Corts previously served as president of Wingate University in North Carolina and held administrative and teaching positions at Oklahoma Baptist University and Western Kentucky University.

The Council for Christian Colleges and Universities is an association of more than 170 intentionally Christian institutions around the world. The council works to advance Christian higher education through institutions that relate "scholarship and service to biblical truth."

“I have known Dr. Corts for more than 15 years and have observed with admiration his excellent leadership abilities,” said David Dockery, president of Baptist-affiliated Union University in Jackson, Tenn., and chair of the CCCU board of directors. “He is a man of much wisdom and godly character, a devoted churchman and a brilliant leader.”

Corts succeeds CCCU president Bob Andringa, who announced his retirement last year. Corts will assume the office in June 2006 at the CCCU headquarters in Washington, D.C"

What the f...?

Ivy wrote on May 9, 2007 1:58 PM:

>What a weirdo signature the AG has.

It's a picture of Gonzo peering from behind the christian cross. The Re-pubics all do it.

C 92 wrote on May 9, 2007 1:58 PM:

@ May 9, 2007 01:51 PM, aka Mrs. P:

What business does an Assistant Attorney General have being the President of the Council for Christian Colleges and Universities while he is on the job at DOJ? I think most Executive Branch ethics preclude senior SES officials from holding any sort of outside job or office. And being President of an organization is wholly different from being a Board member. Particularly when that organization has a "headquarters" in Washington.

Mrs panstreppon wrote on May 9, 2007 1:59 PM:

Florida Democrat@May 9, 2007 01:37 PM

Nice try but do you have any indication that Corts and Allen are lawyers? What were their qualifications for their DOJ jobs?

How did anyone even know these two characters were interested in working for the DOJ? Let me guess - Goodling found them.

If both Corts and Allen were execs at Palm Beach Atlantic University, didn't their departure leave a gaping management hole at PBA U.?

SteveW wrote on May 9, 2007 2:00 PM:

Well, isn't that a convenient little document. How do we know when this document was originally produced and signed by Fredo?

In any case, that begs the question what exactly does Fredo do all day if he doesn't do his appointed job? Golf? Wear knee pads? Come on, we've gone way beyond the absurd in what is considered moderately tolerable behavior from this administration. The man repeatedly and blatantly lied to Congress...Under Oath! Geez!

While we're at it, what exactly does McNulty do, considering, at least according to this document or what can be gleaned from this document, apparently Monica Goodling and Kyle Sampson were the AG and Deputy AG?

These Bush folks have quite a life, what with all the vacation time, no adherence to laws, moving up the ladder regardless their level of competence.

Heck, Wolfowitz, Kellems, and Riza have the best gig of all, they can do or not do as it were, all of the above and pay NO INCOME TAXES as employees of the World Bank.

Kinda makes you just wanna shake your head...right?

Cesar wrote on May 9, 2007 2:02 PM:

When this story broke, W stomped his feet and flared his nostrils indignantly that the United States attorneys were political appointees and they serve at the pleasure of the President. He pointed out several times that he hired them and he could fire them.
This document not only proves that that They have consistently lied (no surprise there) but the USAs actually serve at the pleasure of the AG Chief of Staff and/or the White House Liaison to the DoJ. Nice.

mo2 wrote on May 9, 2007 2:03 PM:

"It's a picture of Gonzo peering from behind the christian cross. The Re-pubics all do it."

Are you serious? Or are you kidding?

Mrs Panstreppon wrote on May 9, 2007 2:07 PM:

C 92@May 9, 2007 01:58 PM

Looks like Paul Corts accepted the CCCU job sometime in March or April 2006 and resigned on or around June 1, 2006.

Corts was replaced with Lee Lofthus who has been with the DOJ for a number of years although he doesn't appear to be a lawyer either.

"Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales today announced the appointment of Lee Lofthus as Assistant Attorney General for Administration. Lofthus has served in an acting capacity since June 1, 2006, following the resignation of former Assistant Attorney General for Administration, Dr. Paul Corts.

"Lee has demonstrated that he is an exceptional manager, advisor and leader," said Attorney General Gonzales. "We are extremely fortunate that, with his breadth of experience and commitment to the Department of Justice, he will continue to serve in this important role."

Under the leadership of the Assistant Attorney General for Administration, the Justice Management Division (JMD) serves as the management arm of the Department of Justice, advising the Attorney General and Deputy Attorney General on various issues related to the operation of the Department. The Assistant Attorney General for Administration serves as the Department's Chief Financial Officer, and his responsibilities include Department-wide financial reporting, budget formulation and execution, accounting operations, asset forfeiture fund operational support, procurement and debt management support.

Lofthus also oversees facilities management, human resources, business services and planning. He is a key executive liaison with the congressional Appropriations Subcommittees on appropriations matters. Lofthus is also responsible for key financial initiatives in the President's Management Agenda, and the issuance of the Department's public financial statements.

Lofthus has served in several financial management positions with the Department of Justice for more than 20 years. He joined the Department in 1982 and since that time, has held senior management positions overseeing financial operations, financial policy, reporting and systems. Prior to his appointment as Acting Assistant Attorney General, Lofthus served as the Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General/Controller of JMD. He also served as the Department's Deputy Chief Financial Officer. Prior to becoming Controller, he was the Director of the Finance Staff. Earlier in his career, he served as the Chief of the Finance Branch for the Federal Bureau of Prisons.

Lofthus received his M.B.A. in 1982 from The American University in Washington, D.C., with a concentration in financial management."

C 92 wrote on May 9, 2007 2:08 PM:

With the Assistant Attorney General in charge of administration, personnel, etc at the Department of Justice *concurrently* being the President of the Council of Christian Colleges and Universities --- methinks that might open a pretty big pipeline of Christian "talent" for Monica and others to hire...

Maddie wrote on May 9, 2007 2:10 PM:

Hey If Gonzo gave them "authority" let's have Monica fire Gonzo and we can all call it a day...

Arkansan wrote on May 9, 2007 2:11 PM:

Linked below, on page 27, From Monica to Kyle, on 9/12/2006:

"This is what I intend to send to Harriet. Any corrections?"

Followed by an outline of the various vacancies. In it Monica seems clerical. What I mean is it isn't as if Monica is offering recommendations so much as passing information for a decision at a higher level. She doesn't impress me as the decider anywhere in the document, more the facilator for the decider..

Throughout the Monica email exchanges she vets the bureaucratic details of the appointment of Griffin. He even complains about time off to her. No where is there any indication that hers is the last word, quite the contrary.

mo2 wrote on May 9, 2007 2:12 PM:

Cesar, Goodling and Sampson could fire Assistant USAs, not USAs. See Mary's comment at 12:42 above. Also, Goodling and Sampson could fire people in McNulty's office and McNulty was explicitly not informed of the change to be made. (What to even say? This is so weird.)

Anonymous wrote on May 9, 2007 2:12 PM:

Following up on Mrs. P's note at 2:07, that gives fire to the conspiracy theorists here.

The 2/2006 memo was written for Corts to sign, yet his deputy Allen signed it. Corts left the Department in 4/2006, but Allen is still there.

Now if the memo was fabricated a few weeks ago, they would have had to forge Corts' signature since he's no longer there.

Crust wrote on May 9, 2007 2:15 PM:

Was it legal to exclude this memo from the Federal Register? Wikipedia mentions that classified documents are excluded, but I don't think that applies here. As Weber noted above, *something* did appear in the Federal Register, but not the full information. As Waas reported, and as you can see at the bottom of page 1, the document itself specifies that it should be excluded:

"INTERNAL ORDER — NOT PUBLISHED IN F.R."

Is the fact that it was an "internal order" -- whatever that means -- valid/legal grounds for excluding it from the Federal Register?

scavok wrote on May 9, 2007 2:15 PM:

OK. So we have this secret order that basically allows Kyle and Monica to remake the criminal and civil rights divisions in their own, twisted image.

Where is the order from President Bush that authorizes the replacement of the USA? That has to be around somewhere or Gonzo broke the law by replacing anyone.

Anonymous wrote on May 9, 2007 2:17 PM:

Take a look at line 3 of the first page: Gonzelz is saying that he retains approval.

Also note the last page: http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/others-charge/?resultpage=4& There is a workflow signature. This tracks to an internal DoJ tracking number which is used to follow-up with meetings, reviews, and other things.

A. Where is the workflow number for this document?

B. What planning documents, meetings, and conferences were scheduled, creqated, and rviewed to support this signature?

C. What is the overall timeline -- spreadin the events over time -- of this workflow associated with this signature?

Security code "attack" as in "attack the workflow number assigned to this memo"

Arkansan wrote on May 9, 2007 2:18 PM:

Monica on 9/12/2006

"I am only in favor of executing on a pan to push some USAs out if we are ready and willing to put in the time necessary to select candidates and get them appointed --it will be counterproductive to DOJ operations if we push USAs out and then don't have replacements ready to roll. In addition, I strongly recommend that, as a matter of policy, we utilize the new statutory provisions that authorize the AG to make USA apointments...."

No way was Monica the decisionmaker. None.

Crust wrote on May 9, 2007 2:21 PM:

Here's an idea for a subpoena request: Ask for all non-classified rules/regulations/orders that were excluded from the Federal Register on the grounds that they were "internal". I wonder if there is an intersecting scandal here of selected rules not being reported to the Federal Register.

mo2 wrote on May 9, 2007 2:27 PM:

Arkansan,
Goodling did not write that, Sampson did:

Perino said "White House officials including the President did not direct DOJ to take any specific action with regards to any specific U.S. attorney." ...
Sampson also strongly urged bypassing Congress in naming replacements, using a little-known power slipped into the renewal of the USA Patriot Act in March 2006 that allows the attorney general to name interim replacements without Senate confirmation.

"I am only in favor of executing on a plan to push some USAs out if we really are ready and willing to put in the time necessary to select candidates and get them appointed," Sampson wrote in a Sept. 17 memo to Miers. "It will be counterproductive to DOJ operations if we push USAs out and then don't have replacements ready to roll immediately.

"I strongly recommend that as a matter of administration, we utilize the new statutory provisions that authorize the AG to make USA appointments," he wrote.

By avoiding Senate confirmation, Sampson added, "we can give far less deference to home state senators and thereby get 1.) our preferred person appointed and 2.) do it far faster and more efficiently at less political costs to the White House."

"Kyle thanks for this," Miers wrote back. "I have not forgotten I need to follow up on the info. But things have been crazy."

On the day of the Dec. 7 firings, Miers's deputy, William Kelley, wrote that Domenici's chief of staff "is happy as a clam" about Iglesias."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/12/AR2007031201818_pf.html

tm wrote on May 9, 2007 2:30 PM:

I think that the firing of the USATTY's is serious. But why isn't anyone asking about the opinions he wrote justifying torture?

mo2 wrote on May 9, 2007 2:30 PM:

Dana Perino said "White House officials including the President did not direct DOJ to take any specific action with regards to any specific U.S. attorney."

So who put the names on the list??!

ebmck wrote on May 9, 2007 2:43 PM:

It reminds me of a forged suicide note....

mattinjersey wrote on May 9, 2007 2:45 PM:

No Problem!
I am sure Alberto will soon testify that he has forgotten about this secret order.
He can blame that on his subordinate!

lysias wrote on May 9, 2007 2:46 PM:

I wonder if Gonzales, Goodling, and/or Sampson got autopens allowing them to sign for the president?

Arkansan wrote on May 9, 2007 2:56 PM:

How about this memo from Kyle to Harriet on 1/09/06:

Harriet, you have asked whether President Bush should remove and replace U.S. Attorneys whose four-year terms have expired. I recommend that the Department of Justice and the Office of the Counsel to the President work together to seek the replacment of a limited number of U.S. Attorneys.

(plotting, followed by..)

If a decision is made to remove and replace a limited number of U.S. Attorneys, then the folowing might be considered for removal and replacement:

LS wrote on May 9, 2007 2:57 PM:

The two Gonzales signatures look like stamps. They look identical except for ink content. How can you authorize someone to sign for you to authorize them to have greater authority? If you want to sell a house, you have to use an original signature or the original signature of a power of attorney. I call bull on the validity of the two Gonzales signatures, and the validity of the authorization for that reason. Upthread someone noted that Cort did not sign for himself. I think the timeline of his employment is possibly a factor in why it wasn't signed by him. I smell a rat.
Security code "Stiff", Bwaahaha

lysias wrote on May 9, 2007 3:05 PM:

Signatures produced by an autopen would all be identical, would they not?

jinny wrote on May 9, 2007 3:12 PM:

Disgusting that they refer to the USAG's as "inferior officers". That term only applies to themselves.

Anonymous wrote on May 9, 2007 3:15 PM:

Gonzo delegated the authority before the change in the Patriot Act?

bordersmuggler wrote on May 9, 2007 3:20 PM:

lawrence kansan

Thoughtful remarks portraying Gonzales as a unwitting victim in a conspiracy where he was way over his head. Hard to find sympathy for him though, considering the scores of individuals held for years at Gitmo without being charged, who were recently cleared of charges, but who continue to rot there because they have no country to go to.

my too sense wrote on May 9, 2007 3:20 PM:

So the whole thing is that these people serve at the pleasure of Goodling and Sampson.

my too sense wrote on May 9, 2007 3:21 PM:

So the whole thing is that these people serve at the pleasure of Goodling and Sampson.

OleHippieChick wrote on May 9, 2007 3:23 PM:

How TF many OTHER laws were changed by Internal Decree, er, Order? How TF many OTHER laws were added to or subtracted from by nightcrawlers into Senators' offices? Who now trusts The Law? This is systemic rot of the first order.
How many laws haven't been buggered? might be a better rhetorical.

TheraP wrote on May 9, 2007 3:23 PM:

tm: Yes, the torture memo. Very important!

What we need is to find out about ALL the secret memos.

What worries me is what we still do not know.

mbbsdphil wrote on May 9, 2007 3:25 PM:

No executive actually in charge of an organization delegates this kind of authority to anybody. S/he may have people coordinating tasks, but top picks are the prerogative of the top dog; they're essential to implementing goals and to staying top dog.

Litle wonder, then, that 'Fredo expressly relinquished his authority to inexperienced gofers who would not exercise independent judgment, but do the White House's bidness. Question is, since this is 'Fredo doing the same thing, why didn't he want to be on the hook for it? Because he knew what they were going to do and it wasn't legal or ethical?

A vertebrate would have tried to sway them from wrongdoing or resigned in protest. Little wonder that Mr. Bush's most ardent successors don't believe that "man" has evolved from lower species; some of them don't seemed to have evolved at all.

mbbsdphil wrote on May 9, 2007 3:31 PM:

Edward Luce at ft.com has a great story about the rats jumping ship from the S.S. Bush. A quote from John Bolton was precious:

"'The president is the top dog and he should announce policy and then it should be implemented,' said John Bolton, who was forced to resign as the US ambassador to the United Nations in January. 'The whole system of inter-departmental policy de-liberation has broken down.'"

Mr. Bolton was one of the sappers who did most to undermine the govt's policy apparatus, to blow away resistance to Cheney Policy, and to hide that it was being implemented by the White House via zealous gofers who, because of their role as conduits, had more authority than their nominal agency heads.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/93a35d02-fdca-11db-8d62-000b5df10621.html

mbbsdphil wrote on May 9, 2007 3:39 PM:

TheraP, I think those are what Rummy called the "known unknowns"?

The White House and Congress are in the early stages of a dogfight. The White House is dropping flairs and chafe to keep those heat seekers off their tale. Let's see how good a pilot is Mr. Waxman. Pity that Mr. Lieberman seems to have grounded himself. He is an embarrassment to the democratic process; I hope that '08 makes him irrelevant, since he seems to be doing neither CT nor the US any good.

epistemology wrote on May 9, 2007 3:41 PM:

Bush is the decider, except when he secretly delegates this responsibility to someone else.

How's the search for a war czar coming along? CEO of Blackwater not available?

Only impeachment can cleanse us now.

phil james wrote on May 9, 2007 4:01 PM:

mbbsdphil

Flares and chaff might actually do better and those trusting voters in CT won't have a go at Independent Joe until 2012, by which time he will have declared as a Republican.

Steve5117 wrote on May 9, 2007 4:04 PM:

ala Jon Stewart

Hee hee hee, I the decider and I decided to let people smarter than me make the decisions.

This administration sounds like a Gilbert and Sullivan operetta....
"I am the model of the party attorney general..."

Carneades wrote on May 9, 2007 4:08 PM:

A couple people above have said Alberto Gonzales was probably just a nice guy who didn't know what he was getting into when Bush/Rove brought him in for AG. I believe in giving people the benefit of the doubt... until they lose it.

The role Gonzalez played in Texas, covering up Bush's drunk driving conviction, tells me he's been dirty for a long time.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6857224/site/newsweek/

Sound familiar how, conveniently, "Judge Gonzales has no recollection of requesting a meeting in chambers" during that cover-up?

Somehow, I find the witnesses who can recall the meeting more credible. Bush was about to serve jury duty on a drunk driving case, which would force him to reveal his own conviction (which was actively hidden in other ways). The Judge and prosecutor say Gonzales, argued to keep Bush out of case with the dubious claim that Governor Bush could someday be asked to pardon the night club employee if convicted of drunk driving.

Together with Gonzales' stand on torture? I think he's used up his benefit of the doubt.

TEL wrote on May 9, 2007 4:12 PM:

Florida Democrat@May 9, 2007 01:37 PM:

FYI, there are different levels of accreditation for universities. Top-tier schools (such as the ivy leagues, and many of the major state schools) have had to satisfy a number of requirements to receive top-tier accreditation.

Second teir, third tier, and fourth tier schools, while also accredited, have not satisfied a number of the requirements the top-tier schools have. Students have to do a lot more to earn a degree from a top-tier than a lower-tier school (this is a very simplified explanation). So if you really want to know what kind of school Palm Beach Atlantic University is, look up what tier of postsecondary institutions it belongs to, not whether it is accredited.

For example, while Monica Goodling's law degree came from an accredited university, it came from a 4th tier accredited university, and therefore has significantly less cache than a law degree from a top-tier university.

Long Memory wrote on May 9, 2007 4:30 PM:

Stop me if I'm wrong, but shouldn't the Hatch Act alarm have rung when Fredo wrote the part about delegating hiring decisions to the White House liaison?

Mary wrote on May 9, 2007 4:46 PM:

jinny - that is actually a Constitutional reference. Appointees who have to go through Advice and Consent (in general) are called principal officers and those who Congress has decided do not need to go through that process are called inferior officers.

mo2 2:27

Add this one,
Asked if Bush himself might have suggested the firings, Snow said, "Anything's possible ... but I don't think so." He said Bush "certainly has no recollection of any such thing. I can't speak for the attorney general.

"I want you to be clear here: don't be dropping it at the president's door,"

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/n/a/2007/03/16/national/w091456D17.DTL&type=printable

All the intial responses were "the President had nothing to do with this" and the initial irritation of Gonzales with McNulty is now being reported as being related to McNulty tieing the WH to the firings.

However, Bush makes it back to DC, sits down with Fred Fielding, and realizes, Ruh Roh.

He's been saying he had nothing to do with it - - but you can't fire USAs without him. So he begins to make this increasingly strong series of Iraq-9/11 style statements about "hey, people at the DOJ are cooperating and besides, USAs serve at the pleasure of the President"

Without ever saying - I FIRED THEM. ME. DECIDER GUY.

And we can see from the Sampson emails on how Battle should handle the firings that there is no reference to the firings being done "in the President's name" the way the Gonzales delegated firings would have to be done.

Why not?

How did any of these people know they were actually authorized to fire a USA who can only be fired by the President - not the AG? And why was the WH so terrified of having the President affiliated with the firings in any way, until they got the "word" that they HAD to use the "serve at the pleasure of the President" talking point to make the firings "legal" and yet - avoid the "I fired them" to keep from making the President's original statements be lies.

I'm guessing they will go for trumping up some kind of delegation to Gonzales, but that's where the Secret Order just kills them. Gonzales is pretty much required by OLC to tell Samspon/Goodling that their authority is non-delegable, and yet if the PResident made the same kind of delegation - how many people has it gone through before it gets to Battle making the calls? Where is the President mentioned in the calls (in his name)? Where is the list that was provided to the President and approved by him?

If none of those things happened - things OLC seemed to think Gonzales was requried to do for his delegations - then there's a very big oops. The reason not to provide the order isn't just that it makes them all look like charlatans, it's also that it makes it very awkward for the President to claim he delegated without meeting those same standards.

IMO.

Anonymous wrote on May 9, 2007 4:54 PM:

The signatures on the documents are clearly auto-penned, which would mean Gonzales did not sign them.

I hardly think a delegation of this magnitude is valid if they weren't acutually signed by the delegating official.

Unless the Office of the Attorney General can show a chain of custody for use of his auto-penned signature, otherwise I will have to believe that everything bearing the AG's signature may be false and erroneous.

Is this the height of plausible deniability -- ?? "My chief of staff stole my signature?""

Anonymous wrote on May 9, 2007 4:54 PM:

http://www.rawstory.com/images/other/AGtestimonyrawstory.pdf

check this out

Punchy wrote on May 9, 2007 5:11 PM:

Wow, there's two of us here from Lawrence, KS. Small world.

I, too, cannot understand how he's legally allowed to just give up responsibilities to others, sans an injury, sickness, or absence. Can the Pres voluntarily give up his power to the Vice-Pres minus sickness or absence? Is this allowed?

DiFi Fan wrote on May 9, 2007 5:11 PM:

Is Gonzales going to read 26 pages of self-congratulatory crap tomorrow? He didn't say one goaddamned word about his secret memo as far as I can tell.

If Gonzales reads 26 pages of crap, Leahy shouldn't say one word other than to tell Gonzales to read his secret memo out loud and then order him to explain it.

Anonymous wrote on May 9, 2007 5:16 PM:

Remember, he's not going in front of Leahy, he's going in front of Connor! House, not Senate!

http://judiciary.house.gov/schedule.aspx

Steve5117 wrote on May 9, 2007 5:18 PM:

His listings of priorities sounds exactly like the ones the new Royal AG in Minn. spouted off to the reporter in the extended interview.

mo2 wrote on May 9, 2007 5:28 PM:

Gonzales is scheduled to appear before the House Judiciary Committee on Thursday, May 10. In his statement released today, only pages 1-7 out of 26 deal with USA firings. The rest is fluff:

Gonzales: "Thank you for the opportunity to appear here today to discuss some of the important work currently underway at the Department of Justice."

Umm, that is not why we are here today.

Gonzales: on March 13th when I said that I
“was not involved in any discussions about what was going on.” That statement was too
broad.

Umm, so broad as to be non-factual, as in a lie?

mo2 wrote on May 9, 2007 5:56 PM:

Whose initials are those under Concurring component OLC dated 2/28/06 on the last page? It looks like sgb.

Did either Gonzales or Corts sign this memo between themselves?

Mrs Panstreppon wrote on May 9, 2007 6:27 PM:

The initials, SGB, under the OLC Concurring Component are probably belong to Stephen G. Bradbury, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel.

I don't kow anything about Bradbury yet but take a look at some of the topics under review by the OLC:

http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/whatsnew.htm

Why are these guys worried about whether the president himself signs a bill?

Why would they delegate presidential appointment authority to the secretary of defense?

So many questions, so few answers.

Mrs P wrote on May 9, 2007 6:39 PM:

Cripes - Last year, Stephen J. Bradbury told the Senate Judiciary Committee that the president is always right.

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/07/12/president-always-right/

LS wrote on May 9, 2007 7:15 PM:

Question #1:

Is this your original signature on these documents?

Question #2:

Who on your staff is or was authorized to stamp your signature?

Question #3:

When did you authorize anyone to sign these documents for you?

Question #4:

Why did Cort not sign his own document?

Question #5:

When did you become aware that these documents were stamped with your signature?

Question #6:

Who on your staff requested this authorization?

Question #7:

What other documents of authorization to act in your name have been stamped with your signature since you have been Attorney General?

acuppajo wrote on May 9, 2007 10:08 PM:

As I emailed TPM earlier, I think the AG is replacing the Alberto portion of his signature in Prince-like fashion with St. Peter's cross.

St. Peter's cross is an inverted cross sometimes adorned with two keys. Speaking from personal experience, it's a Catholic thing...humility, martyrdon, keys to the kingdom and such.

Anonymous wrote on May 9, 2007 10:48 PM:

What the h-ll is the "excepting clause of the Constitution"?

There is no "excepting clause of the Constitution". There is an explicit "Appointments Clause," but to the extent that an "excepting clause" exists it seems that it is a matter of convention, or an inherent authority. It is not IN the Constitution.

In fact, the basis for the "Excepting Clause" seems to date all the way back to 2005, about two years ago, as laid out in this White House Counsel opinion:
http://www.justice.gov/olc/2005/militaryappointments.pdf

The Constitution does EXPLICITLY invest in CONGRESS the authority to vest in the Executive authorities not delegated by the Constitution, but this idea that unconfirmed subordinates at DOJ could hire and fire seems like an incredible stretch. It is certainly NOT "in the Constitution".

As far as career civil service goes, there are explicitly statutory limits on the actions of a Dept. Chief, which would not seem to come into play with this so-called "Excepting Clause".

As far as second level staff goes, it would seem odd to vest this power in subordinates so as to bypass the authority that section chiefs may have. Highly dubious.

Anonymous wrote on May 9, 2007 11:19 PM:

I would also add that the author of the 2005 decision spelling out this "excepting authority," Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel C. Kevin Marshall, is probably another name worth doing some research on.

Who is this guy?

phil james wrote on May 10, 2007 12:11 AM:

Dana Perino said "White House officials including the President did not direct DOJ to take any specific action with regards to any specific U.S. attorney.

What Pretty Dana is actually saying here is this: White House officials did in fact direct DOJ to take action against a general class of USA. And from what we already know this "class" of USA's was constructed using a list built by Sampson and Goodling. All Sampson and Goodling needed to do was to be coachable enough to construct the list so that they would come up with the specific USA's that the White House wanted gone, without Bush/Rove having to name any one of them individually. Voila! Plausible deniability.

Mrs P wrote on May 10, 2007 12:15 AM:

C. Kevin Marshall, Stephen J. Bradbury and Howard C. Nielson, Jr. authored a very popular memo about the second amendment in which the authors conclude that the individual right to own a gun is about equal to first amendment rights.

What is not as well known is that Marshal defended Wen Ho Lee when he was with the D.C. office of Sidley Austin Brown & Wood.

I found one search engine link to a Federalist Society newsletter that mentioned Marshall but the link is no longer operative.

One law website referred to " C. Kevin Marshall, "Putting Privateers in Their Place: The Applicability of the Marque and Reprisal Clause to Undeclared Wars," 64 U. Chi. L. Rev. 953 (1997)" so I assume Marshall attended the U. of Chicago Law School.

Marshall's boss, Stephen J. Bradbury also attended U. of Chicago if I'm not mistaken and is a member of the Federalist Society, according to his SourceWatch entry.

Anonymous wrote on May 10, 2007 1:06 AM:

Great work Mrs. P.

JNagarya wrote on May 10, 2007 10:13 AM:

"C. Kevin Marshall, Stephen J. Bradbury and Howard C. Nielson, Jr. authored a very popular memo about the second amendment in which the authors conclude that the individual right to own a gun is about equal to first amendment rights."

Except that a reading of the debates of those who WROTEthe Second Amendment refutes that NRA lie, which is the source of the above "conclusion". And those debates, unlike the NRA's lie, are legislative history, therefore legal authority. The only "individual right" debated concerning the Second read, variously, "no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person." That being voted down, the Second is irrelevant to the issue of private, individual ownership of guns.

As concerns the Gonzales memo/delegation: All the fired AGs were in fact fired for "performance issues": they refused to switch their loyalty from upholding the Constitution and laws to protect the Bushit criminal enterprize, thus refused to perform in compliance with Rove's string-pullings.

JNagarya wrote on May 10, 2007 10:15 AM:

"C. Kevin Marshall, Stephen J. Bradbury and Howard C. Nielson, Jr. authored a very popular memo about the second amendment in which the authors conclude that the individual right to own a gun is about equal to first amendment rights."

Except that a reading of the debates of those who WROTEthe Second Amendment refutes that NRA lie, which is the source of the above "conclusion". And those debates, unlike the NRA's lie, are legislative history, therefore legal authority. The only "individual right" debated concerning the Second read, variously, "no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person." That being voted down, the Second is irrelevant to the issue of private, individual ownership of guns.

As concerns the Gonzales memo/delegation: All the fired AGs were in fact fired for "performance issues": they refused to switch their loyalty from upholding the Constitution and laws to protect the Bushit criminal enterprize, thus refused to perform in compliance with Rove's string-pullings.

Jeb wrote on May 10, 2007 11:34 AM:

Clear evidence of the need to provide for an attorney general that is independent of the White House.

lawrence kansan wrote on May 10, 2007 11:49 AM:

Never mind what I said about Gonzales being a pawn. After watching his performance this morning in the House Judiciary hearing, I now see him as a very willing, deceitful player, without any trace of the decency I hypothesized he may have at one time had. He is dripping with contempt for his Democratic questioners, and is performing what appears to be a well-choreographed or well-rehearsed dance with his Republican apologists on the committee. It is disgusting. I can hardly stomach to watch him preen in response to Republican "questions".

kilka wrote on July 31, 2007 12:51 PM:

gmc trucks here www.gmctruck.fora.pl
gmc from america www.gmctruck.fora.pl
real gmc www.gmctruck.fora.pl

and www.emeraldring.fora.pl rings