|
Banned
|
Contradicting earlier Bush admin. claims that US attorneys were recently dismissed because of deficient job performance, the NY Times published this information:
Quote:
http://news.google.com/news/url?sa=t...cid=1113934225
February 25, 2007
Dismissed U.S. Attorneys Praised in Evaluations
By DAVID JOHNSTON
WASHINGTON, Feb. 24 — Internal Justice Department performance reports for six of the eight United States attorneys who have been dismissed in recent months rated them “well regarded,” “capable” or “very competent,” a review of the evaluations shows.
The performance reviews, known as Evaluations and Review Staff Reports, show that the ousted prosecutors were routinely praised for playing a leadership role with other law enforcement agencies in their jurisdictions.
The reviews, each of them 6 to 12 pages long, were carried out by Justice Department officials from 2003 to 2006. Each report was based on extensive interviews, conducted over several days with judges, other federal law enforcement agencies and staff members in each office.
It had been known that the reports were mostly favorable, but the reports themselves had not been made public.
Over all, the evaluations, which were obtained from officials authorized to have them, appear to raise new questions about the rationale for the dismissals provided by senior Justice Department officials. The officials have repeatedly cited poor job performance to explain their decisions to oust the eight prosecutors, all of them Republicans appointed by President Bush in his first term.
On Saturday, Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York, who has led a Congressional investigation into the dismissals and has been briefed on the evaluations, said the reports showed that new legislation was needed to keep the Justice Department from politically motivated firings.
“As we feared, the comprehensive evaluations show these U.S. attorneys did not deserve to be fired,” Mr. Schumer said. “To the contrary, they reveal they were effective, respected and set appropriate priorities.”
In response, a senior Justice Department official said the reviews, which focused on management practices within each United States attorney’s office, did not provide a broad or complete picture of the prosecutors’ performance.
The official, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the confidential nature of personnel information, said, “The reviews don’t take into account whether the U.S. attorneys carried out departmental priorities.”
for the rest of the article click to show
Referring to the 94 United States attorney’s districts, the official said, “You can’t have 94 different sets of priorities,” suggesting that the dismissed prosecutors had failed to follow priorities set by the Justice Department in Washington.
However, each case report included a statement that each of the ousted prosecutors had established strategic goals set by the Justice Department in high priority areas like counterterrorism, narcotics and gun violence.
Of the dismissed prosecutors who have spoken publicly, all have said they were given no reason for their dismissal. At first, most appeared willing to leave quietly with the understanding that they were presidential appointees who could be replaced at any time.
But their willingness to step down without complaint changed abruptly when Paul J. McNulty, the deputy attorney general, said at a Senate hearing earlier this month that most of the dismissals were carried out to correct performance problems, according to associates of several prosecutors.
In recent days, several of the prosecutors have described conflicts with the Justice Department over death penalty cases and pending political corruption investigations as a possible factor in their firings. Justice Department officials have denied such issues were a factor.
One of the most glowing evaluations was given to H. E. Cummins III of Arkansas, who was asked to leave last summer. Mr. Cummins was replaced temporarily by J. Timothy Griffin, a military and civilian prosecutor who also had close ties to Karl Rove, the senior White House political adviser. Mr. Griffin has since withdrawn his name from consideration as Mr. Cummins’s permanent successor.
A report dated Jan. 23-27, 2006, said, “United States Attorney Cummins was very competent and highly regarded by the federal, judiciary, law enforcement and civil client agencies.” It said Mr. Cummins’s office had a “well-managed” antiterrorism program and “very successful” counternarcotics efforts.
Another report, dated Feb. 7-11, 2005 evaluating the performance of Carol C. Lam, who was dismissed as the United States attorney in San Diego, <b>concluded that she was “an effective manager and respected leader in the district.”</b>+
|
IMO, this DOJ "action" smells. Why would the POTUS and Atty. Gen. Gonzales fire the prosecutor who forced a guilty plea from sitting congressman, Duke Cunningham, from his briber, Mitchell Wade, and who now has indicted his other briber, Brett Wilkes, and Wilkes' best friend and the former #3 at CIA, Kyle Foggo, before she can even prosecute Wilkes and Foggo?
Last edited by host; 02-25-2007 at 01:25 PM..
|