Well, well, well. It appears the executive branch appointed Amy Gleason as an “expert/consultant” to HHS on March 4, in an effort to bolster their claim that DOGE itself was not acting at HHS. This evidence of when she was appointed was made public via litigation. Full text at https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.277150/gov.uscourts.dcd.277150.65.1_1.pdf. Case is AFL-CIO v. Dep’t of Labor, docket at https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69613359/american-federation-of-labor-and-congress-of-industrial-organizations-v/
For more on why the timing of Gleason's "hiring" at HHS matters see https://mastodon.social/@heidilifeldman/114186478619323488. #LawFedi
@heidilifeldman I hate to be obtuse...but I am. What is the significance of the date? Why does it matter if Gleason is part of HHS, and why should she have been named a consultant before the admin claimed she was leading DOGE?
In normal democratic country this would be perceived as a lie and frowned upon by publ8c (with severe consequences)
Unfortunately USA are not in any shape or form democratic or even normal
@tobie1 Hi. See thread starting at https://mastodon.social/@heidilifeldman/114186478619323488 for clarification.
@heidilifeldman Thanks so much, Heidi, for this. Off to read now.
@heidilifeldman I'm not sure what your point is here. This appointment seems completely separate from the DOGE Administrator role. There's no reason why the DOGE Administrator couldn't also subsequently be appointed an expert/consultant to HHS. DOGE and HHS are completely different agencies.