1 Boring Old Man

The "PDAG" Who Approved Harriet’s Immunity Had No Authority to Do So

 

There are two big tidbits in the questions Leahy sent to AGAG to "pre-refresh" his memory before he testifies next week. The first is a question that seems to suggest that the "Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General," Steven Bradbury, who wrote the opinion judging Harriet immune from compelled Congressional testimony was acting as Acting AAG of the Office of Legal Counsel, in spite of the fact that his nomination to be the AAG was already rejected by the Senate.

This Committee recently became aware of a memorandum dated July 10, 2007, and signed by Steven G. Bradbury as “Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General” for the Office of Legal Counsel.  It contends that Harriet Miers, who is a former White House Counsel, is “immune from compelled congressional testimony.”  Pursuant to what legal authority did Mr. Bradbury issue this memorandum, and how is Mr. Bradbury’s issuance of this memorandum consistent with the Vacancies Act?  At the end of the last Congress, Mr. Bradbury’s nomination to serve as the Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel was returned to the President.

I’m not sure I completely understand this one, because Bradbury was, apparently, PDAAG when he was appointed to be AAG in 2005; I assume that means he would remain PDAAG, even though he failed to become AAG. But I’m guessing the sticking point is that Bradbury is effectively serving as AAG after his nomination was rejected. Leahy seems to be busting DOJ for keeping Bradbury in a functional role that the Senate has already rejected him for. If I’m reading technical jargon correctly, Bradbury can only serve as Acting AAG 210 days, which has long expired.

Senate Dems Corner Bush and Gonzales on Their Attempt to Game Appointments

… The letter goes on to describe why Bradbury cannot be the acting AAG, explaining what I reported yesterday about the Vacancies Act violation, and therefore had no authority to write the letter.

This move is so priceless on a number of levels. The letter goes on to place this against the background of Bush’s attempts to game the appointments process with the original PATRIOT provision. The suggestion is that this is another attempt to do so (one that parallels his apparent attempt to stretch out the tenure of the USAs currently serving under the PATRIOT provision). It also emphasizes that Bradbury was never approved as AAG (by a Republican Senate) because of his implication in the NSA scandal. And then reminds Gonzales that the problem is that Bush refused to allow OPR to investigate whether the OLC acted improperly under Bradbury. This letter has it all: USA Purge, NSA Scandal, and abuse of Executive Privilege, all rolled up into one.

And if the letter was written without the proper authority? Well, then, Harriet is in contempt by anyone’s measure, not just John Conyers’.

I expect this one’s not over yet, but I think I get it. The DoJ has been painted into a corner. They don’t have enough confirmed lawyers in their central office to even render an opinion. They’ve all quit. So they fudged. And in the case of Harriet Miers, Alberto Gonzales has already been recused. In this game of political chess, they’re moving very carefully. While it’s a bit like listening to paint dry to follow it all, the Senators and Congressmen are playing a skillful, highly competative game…