Excellent find! Thank you. I am going back over Gonzo’s testimony carefully to determine if he said exactly what date Griffin was appointed. Possible perjury, again. The more I read of his testimony, the more convinced I am that Gonzo is very slick, not the bumbling moron circumstances have forced him to play on TV.

Ishmael

I’m not sure the backdating was illegal, I agree. But it clearly had to do with an attempt to get this â€in place†before the Pryor conversation on the 15th, if for no other reason than to say they didn’t use PATRIOT to bypass Congress (in the last days before the Republicans lost Congress, of course).

And yes, there was a discussion of the Constitutionality of Griffin’s appoint already, the judge ruled it legal.

Though that has limited application. It was to challenge the second superseding indictment on a Capital murder case. The first and second indictments came under Cummins, so they could not argue the indictment itself or the superseding to make death penalty an option was improper. The third indictment came under Griffin, signed by an AUSA, sothe AUSA’s sign would make it valid in any case. But the judge did say that, even if the PATRIOT appoint was illegal, Griffin was still within the 120 days he’d be able to serve under the old law. So it’s probably ripe for another challenge.

Here’s a question though.

The document got forwarded to OLC for â€numbering, and handling.â€

Would OLC really have to normally oversee an appointment? Or was Gonzales sending it to OLC so that they could simultaneously invent a number that hid that the control sheet came out of order, and justified the retroactive post-dating.

Apparently, a federal district judge in Griffin’s district has concluded as a matter of law that because Griffin remains in office after his first 120 days, and his name has not been submitted for Senate confirmation, he is an AG/Patriot Act appointment whose tenure is at the discretion of the President. Seems a valid application of the maxim that the law abhors a vacuum. Sorry, no site; believe it was last week. I have not seen any response from the AG, WH, etc.

It may be like getting Capone on tax evasion, but I am delighted that the Texas Bar may soon receive an ethics complaint, alleging unethical behavior related to Gonzales’ visit to Ashcroft’s bedside.

Gonzo had actual knowledge that Ashcroft did not then have authority to sign as Attorney General. Ashcroft was semi-conscious and on narcotic pain killers, and so sick he’d been in ICU nearly a week. His signture would have been invalid and Gonzo knew it. If he’d played that game over a signature on a will, an SEC financial disclosure, or a twenty-year lease on a downtown Houston office building, and been caught, I think he’d be worried about censure or suspension, even in Texas.

I think that’s one reason for the absurd WH spin that the Justice Dept had not informed it that Ashcroft had delegated his authority to Comey. No knowledge, no intent to break the law or commit unethical behavior. Simple mistake. Right. It’s all over the newspapers that the guy who’s response the President might need within minutes has been in hospital a week after surgery and general anasthesia. Glad that even Ashcroft’s office has a â€confirmed receipt†showing the WH received their fax notice of the delegation of authority to Comey.

Except that this is not a legal dispute about whether the WH actually knew it was committing a wrong. It’s a public relations dispute – like everything in this administration – and that WH announcement that â€no one told me†is an effective gambit unless this really ends up in court.

Can I just be a fanboy for a moment?

EW, you’re amazing.

This is a mindless red herring from the White House. Ashcroft’s condition was crystal clear and spoke for itself. He was incapacitated and authority automatically transferred to Comey because of that incapicitation. Any discussion beyond that as an explanation is flat dishonest and laughable.

I can imagine Tony Snow: â€No one could have anticipated that the Attorney General would be sedated…â€
Great. The dog-ate-my-homework presidency. Please, can we wake up from this nightmare soon?

Doesn’t answer the question, Jeff, but it raises a bunch of new ones. Such as: Does the OLC review normally take place before teh AG signs an AG order? You’d sure think so, since then they would have the ability to review it before it went into effect.

â€The third indictment came under Griffin, signed by an AUSA, sothe AUSA’s sign would make it valid in any case. But the judge did say that, even if the PATRIOT appoint was illegal, Griffin was still within the 120 days he’d be able to serve under the old law.â€

AUSA’s signature cannot make it legal. Indictments MUST be signed by USA unless there is a written delegation in place usually to the First Deputy USA. A regular AUSA’s signature and a token, gets you on the subway.

LHP – Been a while, but I recall the Criminal Chief having that authority in the local district. If Cummins had already so delegated to FAUSA or Crim Chief, until revoked or modified wouldn’t that still hold even with transfer to Griffin?

With all this retro-Reaganeering resurrection the R’s are attempting, maybe its time to do a remake of â€Bedtime for Gonzo…â€

Or did I spell that wrong?

Also, as for the Ashcroft/Gonzales sick-bed intrigue, one of the most revealing, yet subtle, statements Comey made during his recent testimony was the description of Card and Gonzo’s reaction when Ashcroft pointed at Comey and said â€He’s the AG for now.â€

Then Comey says, (loosely paraphrased) â€Card and Gonzales refused to acknowledge me..â€

That is, at least to the Sherlockian receptors in my brain, clear proof that THEY KNEW EXACTLY who was the official AG at that point in time; had they actually been unaware of the fact, and learned it from Ashcroft at that moment, there would doubtless have been some sort of verbal exchange in the follow-up.

Considering their transparent desperation, they surely would have at least tried to â€convince†Comey of their case for a signature, if they â€suddenly†discovered he had â€the power.†But their refusal do so only proves they already knew.

The fact that they refused to even acknowledge Comey’s presence proves they knew everything that they later deny. They already KNEW Comey wouldn’t acquiesce, which means they already KNEW he was the official AG, or they wouldn’t have done the end-run around him.

Simple logic…

EW – Not sure if your question was directed at me or not. If so, here is my best stab, at least as to what I was talking about vis a vis LHP’s statement. LHP is correct that a line level AUSA would not be a binding signature/authorization on an indictment or original direct complaint; i.e. initial charging document. Such a line level signature is fine for subsequent pleadings, motions etc. once the case is filed. The initial charges, however, must be brought by the United States through it’s duly authorized agent/representative, which is the USA of that district. LHP discussed that there could be a proper delegation of this authority in that particular district to the FAUSA. That is very true. I added that I actually recall seeing such authority delegated to the head or chief criminal deputy in districts I have practiced in (its been a while, but I am fairly certain). My point was simply that once such a formal delgation is made in a district USA office, I think it would hold, or stay in effect, until rescinded, revoked or modified. If Cummins had indeed entered such a delegation, even years ago, (and, again, this would be expected, the actual USA probably does not want to see every indictment generated in the office), there is no reason that order would terminate with the shift in USA duties from Cummins to Griffin, irrespective of Griffin’s status before assuming the helm. After assuming control, Griffin could change it or not at his discretion. I am not sure this really impacts the angles you are covering that much; but does explain why John Weley Hall’s Motion to Dismiss in Arkansas went nowhere. Quite frankly, I doubt that he thought it would, he was probably just trolling for soft spots.

Per MayBee,

12/15/06, Friday: Sen Pryor objected to Rover’s Little Darling (Tim Griffin) as USAG, signaling trouble for the appointment.
12/15 Cummins believed that he could resign the following week, on the 20th.
12/15, Gonzo, Sampson, Goodling move fast to make Griffin’s appointment a fait accompli:
— Griffin is hastily appointed,
— Cummins is treated like sh*t, and
— Bu$hCo sends Sen Pryor a huge â€f*ck youâ€.

12/18/07 Gonzo and Bu$hCo’s ’f*ck you’ of Pryor is officially dated to Dec 15th, but is signed on the 18th. Dating it the 15th puts the icing on the fait accompli.

It’s about what one might expect of people who were also willing to harrass a heavily medicated man recovering from surgery in ICU. Thuggish.