About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

LA Times ignored evidence refuting Gonzales claim that U.S. attorney firings were "performance-related"

March 26, 2007 5:34 pm ET
image

33 Comments

A March 26 Los Angeles Times article reporting on the investigation into the dismissals of eight U.S. attorneys noted that Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales had claimed the dismissals were "performance-related." However, while the Times quoted one of the ousted U.S. attorneys, H.E. "Bud" Cummins III, describing this claim as "outrageous," the article ignored the evidence that contradicts Gonzales' assertion. Not only have Department of Justice officials acknowledged that performance played no role in the firings but also many of the dismissed U.S. attorneys had received positive job evaluations before being fired.

The Times began by noting that "Republican senators joined Democrats on Sunday in saying that the credibility of [Gonzales] had been badly undercut by his confused and seemingly contradictory statements on the firing of eight U.S. attorneys last year." The article continued, adding Gonzales defense but only noting criticism of that defense from Cummins:

It is unusual for an administration to fire a group of prosecutors that it appointed. Gonzales has said the eight prosecutors were dismissed for "performance-related" reasons rather than because of political pressure from Republicans or the White House, as critics allege.

A recently released memo written by D. Kyle Sampson, Gonzales' then-chief of staff, said that in early 2005, President Bush's top political strategist, Karl Rove, and then-White House Counsel Harriet E. Miers suggested replacing some U.S. attorneys while retaining, as Sampson put it, "loyal Bushies."

[...]

Cummins, who served as U.S. attorney in Little Rock, Ark., said the Justice Department's contention that he and his colleagues were dismissed for poor performance was "outrageous."

However, as Media Matters for America has noted, assistant attorney general Paul J. McNulty testified before the Senate Judiciary committee that performance played no role in Cummins' dismissal. McNulty claimed that Cummins' resignation was forced in order "to provide a fresh start with a new person in that position." This "new person" was J. Timothy Griffin, a former aide to Rove who replaced Cummins in December 2006. In a recently released December 19, 2006, email, Sampson stated: "Getting him [Griffin] appointed was important to Harriet, Karl, etc." -- a reference to Rove and Miers.

In addition, The New York Times reported on March 20 that according to emails released by the Justice Department, McNulty admitted that he had not reviewed the performance record of Nevada U.S. attorney Daniel K. Bogden before Bogden was fired:

One e-mail message released showed that even top officials were not certain of the rationale for some firings. In a December 5 Mr. McNulty admitted that he had not even reviewed the record of Mr. Bogden and appeared to have mixed feelings about removing him.

"I'm still a little skittish about Bogden," Mr. McNulty wrote to D. Kyle Sampson, then Mr. Gonzales's chief of staff, noting that Mr. Bogden had never worked outside of government and was counting on a longer tenure.

"I'll admit have not looked at his district's performance," Mr. McNulty added.

The March 26 Los Angeles Times article also did not mention that Gonzales' claim is undermined by the fact that a majority of the dismissed U.S. attorneys received positive, and in some cases glowing, job evaluations, as reported by numerous news outlets. For example, a February 12 McClatchy Newspapers article reported:

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 had received positive job evaluations before they were ordered to step down.

[...]

Supporters of the U.S. attorneys and Justice Department officials familiar with the job evaluations suggested in recent interviews with McClatchy Newspapers that top Justice Department officials may have exaggerated the role job performance played in the firings.

[...]

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.

A February 28 New York Times article, citing "[i]nternal Justice Department performance reports," also noted that some of the fired U.S. attorneys had received positive job evaluations:

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 New York Times article added that some of the fired U.S. attorneys were not given any reason for their dismissal and that their decision to speak publicly on the matter resulted from testimony given by Assistant Attorney General Paul J. McNulty to the Senate Judiciary Committee on February 6 that the attorneys were fired for "performance-related" issues:

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.

Reporting on the high job ratings, a Washington Post article also noted that the attorneys' decision to go public with their version of events came after McNulty's testimony:

The breaking point for Cummins and the others was testimony this month by Deputy Attorney General Paul J. McNulty, who told the Senate Judiciary Committee that the six U.S. attorneys in the West and Southwest had been dismissed for "performance-related" reasons and that Cummins had been pushed out to make room for Griffin.

In addition, the Post reported on March 19 that U.S. attorney David C. Iglesias of New Mexico was "fired by the Bush administration after Republican complaints that he neglected to prosecute voter fraud," but the report added that Iglesias "had been heralded for his expertise in that area by the Justice Department, which twice selected him to train other federal prosecutors to pursue election crimes."

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by flimflam421 (March 26, 2007 5:40 pm ET)
         

      "Performance related" is the new adminstrative phrase.  While you may think of "performance" as doing what's right for the country, or doing what's right for Americans, or measuring performance against a job description, "performance related" to the administration means that they aren't making the President happy.

      So when US Attorneys are fired for investigating Republicans, or for not pursuing phantom cases of "voter fraud" against Democrats, it IS performance related.  They obviously didn't follow the WWWD bracelet they were given: What Would W Do?

      That's how Gonzalez, et al, can sit in front of Congress or in front of reporters and say it's all "performance related" and convince themselves that they aren't lying.

      When this phrase is used, I would like a reporter to ask how performance is measured.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by snoopy (March 26, 2007 5:41 pm ET)
         

      It's true. They didn't perform in a biased manner, ergo buh-buy! All hail dear leader, he is just and wise beyond all.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by WhereIsMiddleAmerica (March 26, 2007 6:16 pm ET)
         

      The crying over this baffles me.

      Why did Clinton fire all the U.S. attorneys he inherited. Why did he do that? It may help me better understand why this is such a big deal.

       

      Report Abuse
      • Author by valentinian (March 26, 2007 6:20 pm ET)
           

        I don't know, why did Reagan?

        Report Abuse
        • Author by WhereIsMiddleAmerica (March 26, 2007 6:26 pm ET)
             

          Why are you short on answers?

          Report Abuse
          • Author by clams casino (March 26, 2007 6:40 pm ET)
               

            Because you should have educated yourself at least this much before bothering to post in this thread. If you don't know anything about the topic, don't post until you've at least absorbed the basics. Nobody here is obliged to take their time to educate you. Simply reading the article and the links provided shouldn't be too much to ask.

            Report Abuse
            • Author by WhereIsMiddleAmerica (March 26, 2007 6:51 pm ET)
                 

              Thanks for the compassion a$$hole. Maybe I came on here to learn as well.

              Report Abuse
              • Author by valentinian (March 26, 2007 6:53 pm ET)
                   

                Hey, come across with a little less condescension and I think you will be surprised at the willingness of people here to engage.

                Report Abuse
                • Author by autopsychic (March 27, 2007 8:17 am ET)
                     

                    You will never be willing to discuss, only to engage. He asked a simple question related to this case and you take it wrong. I fully understand the question. What is the difference between the reason Clinton, Reagan, Bush I or Bush II fired the attorneys? The answer apparantly is that republicans are not allowed to fire without some sort of investigation while democrats can fire for whatever reason they want without recourse.

                    MiddleAmerica exposed your hypocrisy with one simple question and the leaders of the left fell for it.

                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by rusty shackleford (March 27, 2007 9:04 am ET)
                       

                    He exposed nothing but his own laziness and possible trollness.  You clowns keep asking "what's the difference?" when it's been explained a million times, here and in the media at large.  At this point it looks like nothing more than a weak attempt to divert the topic.

                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by autopsychic (March 27, 2007 9:09 am ET)
                         

                       The reason you call us trolls is because the democrats are in the wrong and you know it. Now, you need to find an excuse for being wrong and some kind of distraction that will keep your insane diversionary tactics from being what they are...wrong. And that excuse is that you call all those who are correct a troll. Where's the 'screachmonkey' statement. You guys all seem to use the same words over and over again when you lose an arguement, why is it taking so long for all the good words?

                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by rusty shackleford (March 27, 2007 9:32 am ET)
                           

                        I call you trolls when you act like trolls.  Purposefully derailing a thread by asking a question that you know the answer to for the millionth time is troll-like behavior.  Thus, troll.  If the shoe fits, wear it.

                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by autopsychic (March 28, 2007 8:45 am ET)
                             

                           thread by asking a question that you know the answer to for the millionth time is troll-like behavior

                            Gosh, I guess that makes mmfa a troll? Since, for the millionth time they question why lawyers can be fired by the President! And, those pesky democrats, they just won't let it go, either. Face it, you have nothing to stand on when defending the democratic call for an inquiry. No laws were broken. Although, democrats are trying to create some (just like the Plume case). And you liberals are so gullible that you do whatever is told of you by your democratic leaders. You even have a web site owned by the democratic party just to stir up hatred of a fair government. Quit your whining, you're starting to sound like others on this site who simply denegrate others for the sake of hearing her own voice.

                          Report Abuse
                          • Author by rusty shackleford (March 28, 2007 9:24 am ET)
                               

                            Yeah, that's certainly not troll-like behavior...

                            *rolls eyes* 

                            Report Abuse
              • Author by clams casino (March 26, 2007 6:56 pm ET)
                   

                Hint: You learn by reading and listening, not by spouting off about things you don't understand. All the information you need is right at your fingertips. You don't need us to explain every article to you. If you wish to have an educational debate, then come to the table with something other than questions that you can answer yourself by simply doing a little research.

                Report Abuse
                • Author by autopsychic (March 27, 2007 8:26 am ET)
                     

                   YEAH! The answer that he can find himself is that democrats are so power hungry that they feel they can demand things they aren't legal to ask for. But, they do it in such a whiny way that the leftist followers all think it's appalling that a leftist lawyer got canned because he didn't do an appropriate job. A simple case of the blind following the blind.

                     Perhaps the left should realize that when a lefty lawyer isn't doing what a righty administration intends to have done, they will get fired. Isn't that WHY all the lawyers are fired in any given administration?

                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by open_mind (March 27, 2007 11:29 am ET)
                       

                    "Perhaps the left should realize that when a lefty lawyer isn't doing what a righty administration intends to have done, they will get fired." --autopsyche

                    You are misrepresenting the facts at a basic level.  These weren't "lefty lawyer[s]".  They were Bush appointees being fired.  Let's keep the statements of fact honest here.

                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by autopsychic (March 28, 2007 8:48 am ET)
                         

                        Oh?, then prove how that makes them 'non' lefty lawyers. You think he didn't hire leftys? Come on, put you money where your mouth is. Prove they were not lefty lawyers.

                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by open_mind (March 28, 2007 11:43 am ET)
                           

                        For what it is worth, the burden is on you.  It was your original positive statement: "when a lefty lawyer isn't doing what a righty administration intends to have done, they will get fired." --and your job to back it up with something more than simply dubious assertions.

                        It is pretty silly for you to ask me to 'prove a negative': "Prove they were not lefty lawyers." -- and a rather transparent attempt at re-framing the argument in a self-serving and illogical way.

                        Report Abuse
          • Author by snoopy (March 26, 2007 6:45 pm ET)
               

            Using your logic, why did bush fire 91 attorneys when he 1st took office?

            "At the beginning of each presidential term, it is traditional for anyone occupying a "political office" to turn in a signed letter of resignation. For example, when President George W. Bush took office in 2001, he received the resignations from 91 of 93 sitting U.S. attorneys.[93] "

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S._attorneys_controversy

            Report Abuse
            • Author by rusty shackleford (March 27, 2007 9:05 am ET)
                 

              Okay, Autopsychic and WIMA, there's your answer.  Happy?

              Report Abuse
              • Author by autopsychic (March 28, 2007 8:55 am ET)
                   

                  " The President of the United States has the authority to nominate, and to remove U.S. Attorneys from office "

                   From the linked web site ^.  Yes, and we knew that answer all along. So, now tell us why are you people whining about his authority to do this? He does not need a reason to fire them. Neither did Clinton, Bush, Reagan, ect... They had the authority! The "reason fired" only comes into play when they apply for unemployment insurance. Some reasons preclude you from getting those benefits, some do not. But, it does not make the firing of those attorneys illegal like you liberals all seem to think. Now, it's time to get over it. As in the words of a popular poster; you sound like a little girl...WAAAHHHHH !

                Report Abuse
                • Author by rusty shackleford (March 28, 2007 9:27 am ET)
                     

                  It is also completely legal for the president to get an adulterous blowjob in the oval office.  Yet that led to an impeachment.  Why don't you tell us how that came about, Doctor?

                  Report Abuse
      • Author by steeve (March 26, 2007 6:23 pm ET)
           

        It's customary on a changeover, and there's no obstruction.

        In the middle of an administration, with that very administration being investigated, it stinks all over.

        But why are we still talking about this?  Let's move on to celebrity gossip.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by steeve (March 26, 2007 6:24 pm ET)
             

          And oh yeah:  WE had to answer your question because the mainstream media didn't.

          Simple, one-sentence defenses of democrats have no place on the airwaves.

          Report Abuse
        • Author by WhereIsMiddleAmerica (March 26, 2007 6:27 pm ET)
             

          Celeberty gossip is the biggest waist of time.

          Report Abuse
          • Author by valentinian (March 26, 2007 6:31 pm ET)
               

            Here's a suggestion: go to the dictionary and look up "sarcasm."

            For extra credit, look up the words "waste" and "waist." 

            Report Abuse
      • Author by snoopy (March 26, 2007 6:31 pm ET)
           

        Answer is - HE DIDN'T FIRE THEM! Actually he accepted their resignations as it is the defacto standard that political appointees tender a letter of resignation upon a change of administration. Clinton accepted their resignations, totally different from firing them. Also worth noting that it is practically rare to nonexistant for 2nd term firings, let alone replacing republicans with more loyal republicans. It's no secret that the Bushies ranked and rated all the republicans based on loyalty, and it is also no secret that all the firings took place in states where democratic contenders are from. Why is that, republicans need someone in state to dig up dirt in time for 2008? Nah, nothing partisan going on here. Let's just bring up Clinton so we can wash it over again.

        Report Abuse
      • Author by redking75687 (March 26, 2007 10:41 pm ET)
           

        Because Bush just sent 40,000 more troops into Baghdad and the Dems just funded it and neither side wants us to be focused on the death and destruction, so they sidelined everything with a load of pointless fluff meant to keep the sheep asleep to the realities.

        That's why.

        Report Abuse
    • Author by cwazycajun1 (March 26, 2007 7:03 pm ET)
         

      I wonder how gonzo and bush can say that it waz performance related since according to them  they didnt have anything to do with it  huh  makes ya wonder dont it

       

      Report Abuse
    • Author by mjh (March 26, 2007 8:58 pm ET)
         

      Of course the firings were "performance-related."

      The fired USA's were investigating Republicans, and "performing" too well.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by conleytgwinn (March 26, 2007 10:06 pm ET)
         

      Memo to Karl: WH talking point to avoid like poison: "performance related".

      See: "heckuva job, Brownie", "listening to the Generals on the ground", "it's HAMMER time!", "Rumdumb is one of the all-time great Sec-Defs".

      Why would we again draw attention to this issue when the media has already allowed us so much slack?

      /Dick

      Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.