Just last week, Paul McNulty, the deputy attorney general, told the Senate Judiciary Committee that the U.S. Attorneys purged from their positions “had been urged to leave because of poor performance.”
Even at first blush, it was an odd argument. Bud Cummins, removed in Arkansas so a Karl Rove acolyte could replace him, was highly regarded for his on-the-job performance. Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) specifically asked McNulty whether Cummins had ever received a poor performance evaluation, to which he said, “I’m not aware of anything negative.”
But Cummins is just one person. How about some of the other purged prosecutors?
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. The firings and appointments have raised concerns that Gonzales is politicizing the process.
Supporters of the U.S. attorneys and Justice Department officials familiar with the job evaluations suggested in interviews that top Justice Department officials may have exaggerated the role job performance played in the firings.
A Justice Department official who spoke on behalf of the administration said the dispute might simply be a matter of “semantics.”
I literally couldn’t help but laugh at that one. A top Justice Department official testified under oath that poor job performance led to the purge; the reality is the fired U.S. Attorneys did their jobs well. But this isn’t about “dishonesty,” or a “cover-up”; it’s about “semantics.”
A Justice Department official defended the characterization, saying, “Performance-related can mean many things.”
Actually, it can’t. It means one thing.
Performance reviews of U.S. attorneys are conducted every three to four years by a team of experienced Justice Department officials, who interview judges, staff members, community leaders and federal agents. In some of the five cases, the reviewers made recommendations for improvements, but overall their assessments were positive, Justice Department officials said.
For instance, 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 by the federal judiciary and investigators. “He didn’t get any dings,” said a Justice Department official with knowledge of the review. “The overall evaluation was very positive.”
David Iglesias, the U.S. attorney in New Mexico, also received a positive evaluation last year, according to another Justice Department official. 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.
McKay, who stepped down recently, said in an interview that his positive review in May 2006 didn’t explain his ouster, nor did the phone call he received in December from a Justice Department official who ordered him to resign. “I was not told that it was related to my performance,” he said.
Lam was described in her 2005 evaluation as “well respected” by law enforcement officials, judges and her staff. Overall the review was positive.
“We’re not aware of any significant issues,” said another Justice Department official, who also asked not to be identified. Lam is leaving office Feb. 15.
Officials with the U.S. attorney’s office in Arizona said Charlton received his last review in December 2005. He was described as being respected by his staff, federal investigators, judges and Native American leaders for “his integrity, professionalism and competence.”
Remember the old adage, “the cover-up is worse than the crime”?
It’s likely that Bush Justice Department has the legal authority, under an obscure provision of the Patriot Act, to conduct the U.S. Attorneys purge. But that doesn’t explain why administration officials have been misleading lawmakers and the public about why the purge took place.
When these guys act like they have something to hide, it’s generally because they have something to hide.
Tomorrow, Paul McNulty is scheduled to brief senators privately on the reasons for the firings. Should be interesting.