Perjury?

By now we all know of Murray Waas’ block-buster secret memo story.

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.

[snip]

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.

I was thinking about this last night, and I recall that both Kyle Sampson and Alberto Gonzales testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee that it was Gonzales who made the final decision on the firing of the eight US Attorneys.

Sampson:

“The decision makers in this case were the attorney general and the counsel to the president.”

Gonzales:

“I recall making the decision, I don’t recall when the decision was made.”

If Gonzales signed a secret directive authorizing Sampson to fire political appointees how is it that both Sampson and Gonzales testified that it was Gonzales who pulled the trigger?

Did both men believe that the secret memo transferring Gonzales’ firing authority to Sampson would never be revealed?

Did Gonzales and Sampson perjure themselves when they testified that Gonzales was the one who made the final decision?

4 thoughts on “Perjury?

  1. MapleStreet says:

    I’m missing something here. It seems to me that as the boss, Gonzo the Great could delegate his decisions. Even with the decision delegated, Gonzo is the head and therefore responsible for the decisions. Yet this goes along with a pattern of everything being top secret.
    So why the “top secrecy” of the memo? Why risk perjury on what should be a routine structural matter if done in the light of day?
    Is this the Little Orphan Annie kids club where only the select few get the secret decoder ring? Or do they figure that if every single fact is secret and tied in a convoluted pile of secret spaghetti that it will make it harder to ascertain the facts (as opposed to the fact that the secrecy is a red flag that something is rotten)? Was this done as an action that on the surface appears innocent but has a nefarious hidden purpose?
    Is it a red herring – akin to emphasizing the fact that the prez can dismiss the AGs while ignoring the real crime is the politicization of the AG office an who they prosecute – which should bring cries of RICO?

  2. Aaaargh says:

    While the first poster’s comment is well taken, a delegation of authority doesn’t necessarily mean that the authority was exercised by the delegatee–it is possible that he delegated the authority but then made the decision himself and they ended up doing nothing. Not being a Bushie apologist here, just pointing out that a perjury conviction is unlikely from what we know. Now if they did in fact make the decision and exercised the power, then we do have a perjury situation.

  3. pansypoo says:

    i am sure Abu had to sign the finalization papers for dismissal.
    the werk was actually done by the rovians.
    abu and georgie-2 peas in a pod, neitherwerk very hard.

  4. Alex Fetcher says:

    Great site!1401e615567942dd304d893253ac0ec7

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: