Washington Post profiles Scott Bloch "The Investigated Investigator"
Scott Bloch's announcement that he'll be investigating the White House political operation has generated enormous attention. Much of the attention has been on Scott Bloch himself -- given the controversy he's engendered in his role as Special Counsel:
When Special Counsel Scott J. Bloch put his obscure federal agency at the center of one of the furthest-reaching political investigations in the nation last week, it surprised many, but for different reasons than one might expect.
Bloch and the Office of Special Counsel aim to learn whether officials from Karl Rove on down used federal time and resources for Republican politicking, or pressured federal employees into doing the same. The team will also pursue allegations that David C. Iglesias was fired as U.S. attorney of New Mexico for his reluctance to undertake politically motivated cases and for absences related to his service as a Navy reservist.
Bloch has spent most of his tenure under investigation himself due to allegations of illegal personnel practices -- and he would be investigating the executive branch at the same time that it is investigating him. What's more, as a Bush appointee who once wrote that he "sold all my mutual funds when Clinton was elected," Bloch is not quite apolitical.
"There's no conflict of interest and no law to support a theory that I have a conflict of interest," he said in an interview. "It would be inappropriate for the White House to interfere with my independence, or suggest I cannot undertake investigations that pertain to matters inside the White House. . . . I have had those throughout my tenure."
We're not swayed by Mr. Bloch's defense of himself. CREW thinks that the Office of Special Counsel (OSC), headed up by highly controversial Scott Bloch, is the wrong entity for the investigation of the White House staff.
JUSTICE DEPARTMENT By Murray
JUSTICE DEPARTMENT
By Murray Waas, National Journal
Monday, April 30, 2007
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...
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.
The DoJ official
who was the source seemed to be well-informed.
This article makes it clear that the intention of this secret order was to transfer personnel decisions to the White House and facilitate politicization of the Justice Department.
The ultimate question is whether this was engineered as a result of the apprehension of criminal liabilities embarrassing to the White House, a la Abramoff et Al.
This article provides some insight on Monica Goodling's reluctance to testify and the anxieties of her attorneys.
From another website:
Well they can only grant immunity for past crimes and her objection was that she was going to committ crimes in the future, i.e. lie to Congress in her testimony, if forced to testify.
I don't think her lawyers will accept. She is in a horrible position in that she has the goods on Rove and she doesn't have the stones to lie to Congress under oath. If I were a realtive of Goodling I would be sure she doesn't stay alone in a hotel. People with he goods on BushCo tend to get suicided under those conditions.
Posted by: ineedalife
Date: April 25, 2007 02:12 PM
Syndicate this content
"There's no conflict of interest.."
That is very good, and how glad we are. But please keep in mind that we are looking at an administration that has produced the likes of Alberto Gonzales and his crowd, and there is good reason to believe that some of these people face criminal liabilities in connection with matters that you propose to investigate, these matters pertaining to other investigations which went awry, and we are aware that you are as much a political appointee as they.
If you would engender public confidence in your efforts, you should put this investigation under the auspices of career officials of your office, and not interfere with their work.
What do you say, Mr. Bloch? You are to investigate public employees regarding their public duties as a matter of public concern, and so the public is entitled to more than just verbal reassurances, are we not?