Related Stories
Ousted U.S. attorneys received positive job evaluations
Key Excerpts from Article on Website of San Jose Mercury News
Posted: February 15th, 2007
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/politics/166...
Although the Bush administration has said that six U.S. attorneys were fired recently in part because of "performance related" issues, at least five of them received positive job evaluations before they were ordered to step down. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, using authority he gained in March from a little-noticed provision of the Patriot Act, has appointed interim U.S. attorneys from the Bush administration's inner circle. Daniel Bogden, the U.S. attorney in Nevada, was described in his last job performance evaluation in 2003 as being a "capable" leader who was highly regarded ... said a Justice Department official. David Iglesias, the U.S. attorney in New Mexico, also received a positive evaluation last year, according to another Justice Department official. Both officials asked not to be identified. The other U.S. attorneys who received good reviews were John McKay, the former U.S. attorney in Seattle; Paul Charlton, the former U.S. attorney in Arizona; and Carol Lam, the current U.S. attorney in San Diego. The decision to fire the U.S. attorneys came under scrutiny late last month after Senate Democrats discovered a change in the Patriot Act that allowed Gonzales to appoint interim U.S. attorneys for indefinite terms without Senate approval. In testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee last week, [Deputy Attorney General Paul] McNulty conceded that H.E. "Bud" Cummins, the former U.S. attorney in Arkansas, wasn't fired because of how he handled his job. Rather, McNulty said, administration officials wanted to make room for Timothy Griffin, a former aide of presidential adviser Karl Rove.
Note: To read a related Associated Press article on U.S. Attorney General Gonzalez, click here. The article starts with "Attorney General Alberto Gonzales criticized federal judges ... for ruling on cases that affect national-security policy. Judges, he contended, are unqualified to decide terrorism issues that he said are best settled by Congress or the president." Isn't that negating the balance of powers laid out in the U.S. Constitution?
Related Stories
Latest News
Key News Articles from Years Past
