Fired U.S. Attorneys Received Positive Job Evaluations From Justice Department
Fired U.S. Attorneys Received Positive Job Evaluations From Justice Department
Last week, Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty claimed that six U.S. attorneys were fired for “performance-related” issues. But according to the former prosecutors and Justice Department officials, five of the six attorneys received positive evaluations from the DOJ shortly before they were told to resign.
John McKay, former U.S. Attorney in Washington:
“McKay said he was called Dec. 7 by Michael A. Battle, head of the Executive Office of U.S. Attorneys, who only months before had sent him a congratulatory letter for the laudatory report issued by the Justice Department audit team.”
Daniel G. Bogden, former U.S. Attorney in Nevada:
Bogden “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.’”
Carol Lam, former U.S. attorney in California:
“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.”
Paul Charlton, former U.S. attorney in Arizona:
“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.’“
David Iglesias, former U.S. attorney in New Mexico:
Iglesias “received a positive evaluation last year, according to another Justice Department official.”
Bogden, McKay, and Charlton have all confirmed that the Justice Department did not cite any performance-related issues when it told them to resign.
Knight-Ridder notes that “Justice Department officials are now completing the evaluation of Kevin Ryan, who’s being forced to step down as San Francisco U.S. attorney.” McNulty has admitted that a seventh U.S. attorney, Bud Cummins, was pushed out to make way for a “37-year-old protege” of Karl Rove.
TPMmuckraker has more.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
I’ve been following this story and I think it is highly interesting. I cannot help ponder over the real reason that these people where fired, although I am sure that politics it is a hard game to play.
February 13th, 2007 at 11:11 amThese firings are obviously meant as a threat to all remaining U.S. attorneys to toe the line or else.
February 13th, 2007 at 11:12 amwhy would anyone in such a position resign? I can understand if they wanted to, but I do not understand why they would feel as though the government could force them to?
this is rather bizarre to me. our government wanted prosecutors to resign.
Is it to pressure Fitzgerald and those like him?
February 13th, 2007 at 11:12 amHe was described as being respected by his staff, federal investigators, judges and Native American leaders for “his integrity, professionalism and competence.’“
No wonder this guy was given the boot. Integrity? Professionalism? Competence? Strike three, yer out!
February 13th, 2007 at 11:13 amRemember, folks, thanks to an obscure provision in the PATRIOT Act, replacements for these attorneys can now be appointed soley by Chimpy, without any need for Senate confirmation.
February 13th, 2007 at 11:16 amOFF TOPIC (somewhat), but you all gotta hear/see this”
Here’s the clip of Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY) that we just played. Share it with your friends and ask them, “Is debating the security arrangements for the Speaker the best the Republicans can offer? Is this really the best they can do?”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wsqprEihjXg&eurl=
fantastic!!!
February 13th, 2007 at 11:18 amMoradin sez:
Because, pre-9/11, U.S. attorneys had to be confirmed by the Senate. The President had the power to appoint an interim U.S. attorney to an empty position, but only for a period of 120 days, after which a suitable candidate had to be found and confirmed.
Now, post-9/11, thanks to a provision in the PATRIOT Act, the President has the power to appoint U.S. attorneys on a permanent basis, no confirmation necessary. Add this to the recent spate of U.S. attorneys being forced out due to alleged ‘performance issues’, and it’s not hard to connect the dots.
February 13th, 2007 at 11:20 amThis has to be coming down from Gonzales, who sees his position as AG to be the personal defense attorney for Boosch, Chainee, etc.
February 13th, 2007 at 11:23 amHe (Gonzales) is attempting to weed out the ranks of potential whistle blowers and prosecutors.
The position of Attorney General of the United States was to seek out and prosecute corruption and abuse of power in the other two branches of government, as well as crime and corruption in the business sector.
Under the current regime, both Ashcroft, and now Gonzo, the AG has become the equivalent of the Inquisition’s Torquemada.
Don’t mess with the boy king.
February 13th, 2007 at 11:29 amLike we needed more proof that this administration doesn’t give a crap if you actually do your job well.
February 13th, 2007 at 11:42 amThis is Republican World, where there is affirmative action for the close friends of the corrupt politicians and where people who are qualified are fired and subject to character assassination.
Remember the Clintons? At least they kept their cronyism to meaningless jobs like the Whitehouse Travel Office.
Bush would appoint one of his drunken, cigarette smoking, jobless daughters to head the joint chiefs of staff if he needs too.
They are like Uday and Qusay with boobs.
-GSD
February 13th, 2007 at 11:43 am#7 TripSapiens sayeth:
Now, post-9/11, thanks to a provision in the PATRIOT Act, the President has the power to appoint U.S. attorneys on a permanent basis, no confirmation necessary. Add this to the recent spate of U.S. attorneys being forced out due to alleged ‘performance issues’, and it’s not hard to connect the dots.
Comment by TripMaster Monkey — February 13, 2007 @ 11:20 am
but they gotta know that one day, one day (please, soon!), someone other than a republican is going to be prez.; pretty short sited, but i guess that characterizes bush and co. (despite their plans for “the american century” etc)
February 13th, 2007 at 11:43 amWhat eventual course of action will these attorneys take and what damages will they seek for wrongful termination? It seems evident what course the administration is seeking to take by dismissing them and inserting thier own party-friendly cronies in thier stead. In the event of legal action, impeachment, trial or what have you, it only acts as a cushion to have friends in high places. Alberto Gonzales and Karl Rove should be dealt with quickly and severely. That being done, the administration might experience a crippling effect and have some of the fight taken out of them.
February 13th, 2007 at 11:47 amMcNutty is a partisan hack who, when asked by the Bushytes to jump, says “how high?
February 13th, 2007 at 11:48 amWhen ordered to shit, asks, What color?
Just to time for the current indictments handed down. Now the new puppet Prosecutors can dismiss all the cases against friends of Bush. Nixon would be proud of how well the corruption is going. As for Americans well we just set back and say we can’t do anything. America most likely will vote for another corrupt Republican just to make sure we have a two income country yes the rich about 7% and the rest of Americans will be listed as poor. We let it happen so why complain. I wonder what Americans will feel like when the middle class now experience what it’s like to be at the bottom. Slaves fought for their rights and are still fighting today now they have company.
February 13th, 2007 at 11:51 amThanks for putting up this thread.
Here in Little Rock there is a formal legal challenge underway to put Tim Griffin, who replaced Bud Cummins, in front of the Senate.
This administration never fails to surprise, does it?
February 13th, 2007 at 11:55 amKarlX,
Well we would like to think there will be a Dem pres who will be able to use all his powers.. but in my opinion we’ll either have another false flag like 9-11, or an actual terrorist attack, with nukes. Shrubby will declare martial law, elections will be canceled, and we’ll all be called to fight in this “holy war for oil”.
February 13th, 2007 at 11:56 amShake-ups in the furherbunker? Re-arranging the furniture won’t save them.
February 13th, 2007 at 11:58 amIf I were a US Attorney appointed by the bushco I would be fervently preparing my resume. Availability: January 21, 2009.
February 13th, 2007 at 12:08 pmThe firing was fo job performance: they DID their jobs!
February 13th, 2007 at 12:09 pmIt was job related: they DID their jobs.
February 13th, 2007 at 12:10 pmI really cannot agree with the worry of martial law being used by Bush. Even his group doesn’t want a civil war repeated in this country, and going for a power grab like martial law will have even the military disobeying his orders.
February 13th, 2007 at 12:11 pm#17 Well alrighty then (is that you Trip master, i’ve never seen this moniker)
orwe’ll either have another false flag like 9-11, or an actual terrorist attack, with nukes. Shrubby will declare martial law, elections will be canceled, and we’ll all be called to fight in this “holy war for oilâ€. time to head for the hills?
comment by allrigthythen
that is a bleak prediction; i would be really suprised if bush got away with declaring martial law. Although, we certainly are heading for a much more stark choice of “Who’s side do you take?” Elite’s (that top %7) accross the globe seem content to bring us to the brink, time for the other 93% to move (mass peaceful revolution?)
February 13th, 2007 at 12:15 pmCronyism, incompetence, and corruption. That is all Bush worldwide will ever know, and it will come back to haunt them.
February 13th, 2007 at 12:16 pmNope, sorry tin-foiled hats.
Martial law would interfere with people’s shopping behaviors and ability to work and pay taxes. We wouldn’t want to distract the general populace from thier stuper of going to work, spending money, and watching TV.
February 13th, 2007 at 12:17 pmkarlx sez:
That’s not me, karlx. I never post under any name but this.
That being said, I can understand how you might think that ‘well alrighty then’ was me incognito…we seem to think alike, although in the details, I believe he’s a bit bleaker than I.
The false flag attack won’t be happening here…it’ll be happening in the Persian Gulf…but it will be happening to U.S. troops. As for martial law, I agree with you there…a bit heavy-handed, when ‘a vote for a Dem is a vote for terror’, combined with the usual massive election fraud, works just fine.
February 13th, 2007 at 12:24 pmIsn’t McNulty Cheney’s son-in-law?
Does that answer most of the above questions?
McNulty should be put in front of the Senate for some waterboarding.
February 13th, 2007 at 12:42 pm#27- You’re absolutely right. I read this article and that didn’t even register with me. Thanks for drawing my attention to that.
February 13th, 2007 at 1:52 pmwhere was the outcry when Clinton removed and replaced with all his attorney cronies when he was elected? Having worked for the Govt. there are many reasons for good evals. and then being “asked” or forced to move on. Not everything is conspiratorial.
February 13th, 2007 at 1:56 pmDemocrats!
Remove all Bush appointees and those promoted during his administration. They are all against our values and only want to destroy our government and our America.
Please show the bite and remove them now!
February 13th, 2007 at 2:28 pmIslander2x sez:
Two things:
1) Details? (preferably substantiated with links)
2) Bubba’s U.S. attorney selections would still have been subject to Senate confirmation. Chimpy’s are not. See the problem?
List them.
And not everything is coincidental, either.
February 13th, 2007 at 2:39 pmMaybe you have forgotten but one of Clinton’s first official acts in 1993 was to fire every United States attorney then serving — except one. Presidents can do that. These were not Clinton’s appointees. The ones Bush just removed were HIS own appointees. same
A list of reasons to fire in the face of good reports: ask the Clintons. They did a lot of it.
coincidence vs conspiracy: whats your issue?
February 13th, 2007 at 3:53 pmA futile attempt to try and sugar-coat the purging of federal attorneys for the sake of replacing competent attorneys who do their job in favor of ideologically similar supporters of Bushland Uber Allies–kinda like anesthetizing the one to be replaced before sticking the dagger into their backs–shows the completely morally depraved, incompetent and criminal inqusitor general Alberto VO5 Gonzales and his INJUSTICE department and the way Bushland Uber Allies does its FILTHY LAWLESS BUSINESS!
February 13th, 2007 at 7:26 pmre # 31.
You asked for details (including links) of the wholesale firing of all US Attorneys by Mr. Clinton.
Try taking at look at
There you will see the following: http://opinion.latimes.com/opinionla/2007/02/in_one_of_the_m.html
It really is funny to see all the outrage on the left over Mr. Bush firing some US attorneys when there was a deafening silence over Mr. Clinton firing them all. Funny, but not surprising. Most outrage from the left is based on who is involved, not any actual principle.
February 13th, 2007 at 8:58 pm[...] seven US Attorneys that were fired and replaced with White House Lackeys? The ones that the White House claimed were removed for “performance [...]
February 13th, 2007 at 10:16 pmIsn’t McNulty Cheney’s son-in-law?
Does that answer most of the above questions?
McNulty should be put in front of the Senate for some waterboarding.
Comment by Zimzone
No, McNulty isn’t Cheney’s son-in-law. His son-in-law is Philip Perry, who is ideologically similar to McNulty but works in the Dept of Homeland Security.
February 13th, 2007 at 11:20 pmI basically don’t believe in torture, but I agree that McNulty should be put in front of the Senate in some form.
No need to ponder…Bush & Co. are stacking the deck to avoid prosecution for their crimes. What could be simpler?
February 19th, 2007 at 1:22 amGuess what, both Bush and Clinton are Lazy mined baby-boomers. Both are loosers in thier own right and both have brought about the degeneration of America.
February 19th, 2007 at 10:15 pmHa !! ; You all missed it (the: “reason”) and it was right there in front of your noses !
The (real) reason for all the Federal Defense Attorneys’ firing’s is (oviously) to have a more smooth transition once Marshall Law is implemented. Now, with all the (unexpected) firing’s it appears as though that will be happening sooner than expected.
February 24th, 2007 at 8:02 pm8 appointed attorneys versus firing all the US attorneys.
“We have to get those people out and our people in.”
Does that quote remind you of anyone running for President?
March 6th, 2007 at 9:04 amFunny I don’t remember the media running the pictures and sympathetic stories on all the attorneys the Clintons fired right out of the gate.
I almost fell asleep reading the same old liberal banter. Tremendous outrage at Republican behavior, but a blind eye to the same behavior by a Democrat.
Liberal rhetoric is always mixed in with personal attacks on people they don’t personally know; there must always be blanket stereotypes and insults; and it must include a reference to “neo-cons” or nazis. How about writing something original, or having an original thought?
Maybe that’s because Liberals can’t stand a debate or dialogue; and this is supposed to be the kinder, gentler, more enlightened side of the political spectrum. I guess if I were them, I’d also be afraid of losing an argument every time.
March 6th, 2007 at 1:50 pmre: Clinton’s firing of U.S. attorneys upon assuming office.
March 8th, 2007 at 7:35 amThe posters making this point are correct; however, this is pretty much S.O.P., Bush (G. W.) did the same in 2001 (with no outcry, hypocritical or otherwise, from the Dem.s).
Hope this helps clarify how what occurred this past December is being looked
at as a different matter, and why it is causing so much concern. : )
So Mertz, you are saying Bush is firing his own appointees?
March 13th, 2007 at 9:38 amAnd why again does everyone have their panties in a wad about it?
“this is pretty much S.O.P., Bush (G. W.) did the same in 2001″
March 13th, 2007 at 9:54 amUntrue. Bush fired attorneys only at the beginning of his second term – after he had an opportunity to see their track records. Clinton did it almost as a first act – knowing nothing about who he was firing except that they were Reagan and Bush I appointees. Now which was the more politically motivated?
Bush did fire appointees in 2001. I can’t link directly to the article, but the NYT ran an article on this:
As Bush Replaces Prosecutors, a Formidable One Stays On
Benjamin Weiser. New York Times. (Late Edition (East Coast)). New York, N.Y.: Jun 18, 2001. pg. B.1
“Nearly five months after President George W. Bush was sworn into office, his administration has begun to replace dozens of top federal prosecutors, ousting Democratic appointees across the country and installing Republican selections.
This political rite of change, though, has been postponed in at least one prominent jurisdiction: Mary Jo White, the United States attorney for the Southern District of New York, has been kept on, largely to complete two politically charged investigations that have already provoked precisely the cries of partisanship Ms. White has so successfully avoided over the last eight years…”
As pointed out, the replacements for those attorneys, as well as the ones fired by Clinton, had to go through the Congress. That is the importnat thing here. US attorneys serve as the pleasure of the President; the Pres can in theory fire them at any time. however, thanks to a provision thrown into the Patriot Act, thanks in part to a letter written by Gonzales that brings up 9/11 as a reason why this needed, the Pres can fire any attorney AND replace them without a confirmatio hearing, allowing him to put into place naked political hacks with no oversight and no resistance. [And we have seen how this admin loves to do that, whether it was Heckuva Job Brown, the former horse racing commissioner, as head of FEMA or the people in Iraq being asked their position on Roe v Wade]. Indeed, according to the WashPost article today, the admin had ranked lawyers; good evaluations meant that the attorneys were strongly loyal to the admin; they like hacks, they want hacks, they get hacks. And we get screwed.
One of the attorneys had, in fact, just brough a major case against some higher ups in the admin connected to the Duke Cunningham case.
March 13th, 2007 at 12:10 pmOne other point, which I had forgotten. While it isn’t unknown for incoming Presidents to fire attorneys [as Clinton and Bush II did and which, with a little bit of research, we could probably shows others doing], it is pretty unpredented for it to happen midstream. Before these eight were fired [and remember, it could have been more], only five in the previous twenty five years had been fired.
March 13th, 2007 at 12:17 pmClinton Ends His Presidency as He Began It
Christopher Ruddy
Friday, Jan. 19, 2001
Bill Clinton’s last full day of his presidency ended as he began his first full day, with a subversion of justice.
Today Bill Clinton cut a deal with independent counsel Robert Ray that lets him off the hook for criminal prosecution.
We should not forget that Bill Clinton’s first act as president was to fire all the U.S attorneys across the U.S. – an unprecedented act by an American president.
At the time, critics of the president linked the firing to an effort to stave off the prosecution of House Ways and Means Committee chairman Dan Rostenkowski.
But the real truth became clearer as the scandal known as Whitewater unfolded.
The real reason Clinton fired every U.S. attorney was to save himself, not Rostenkowski.
As we now know, the U.S. attorney in Little Rock was closing in on Clinton for Whitewater-related matters and his and Hillary’s involvement in the defrauding of the Small Business Administration.
Clinton’s replacement for U.S. attorney in Little Rock was Paula Casey, a former law school student of his. She did much to protect her patron.
Clinton carried much criminal baggage before he arrived at the White House, and his administration soon opened his luggage to create an administration in his image: the most corrupt in American history.
Clinton is no dummy; he knew the Justice Department would be his Achilles’ heel.
This is precisely why he sacked all the U.S. attorneys.
This is why he put his “best” friend, convicted felon Webster Hubbell, over at Justice as associate attorney general.
This is why his administration secretly sabotaged the nominations of Zoe Baird and Kimba Wood to make way for Janet Reno, the prosecutor from Miami Vice who had almost a perfect record of never prosecuting white-collar criminals or politicians.
This is why he fired FBI Director William Sessions in an unprecedented and sudden act the day before Vince Foster was found with a bullet hole in his head in Fort Marcy Park.
This is why he had Janet Reno hand-pick Robert Fiske as Whitewater special counsel – a man who as U.S. attorney in New York never found one politician who had committed a crime.
This is why he accepted Robert Fiske’s recommendation of Louis Freeh as the FBI director.
This is why he consented as Freeh quickly removed, retired or transferred out the entire executive committee of assistant FBI directors in a most effective coup d’etat that got no press ink.
No doubt Clinton knew that by controlling the Justice Department and the FBI, he and his administration would have a free hand.
His minions could blackmail U.S. congressmen, the IRS could engage in witch-hunt audits, his head of White House security could gain custody of 1,000 confidential FBI files of Republicans, his Pentagon appointees could illegally release the personnel files of Linda Tripp, and so on.
So powerful was Clinton’s control over the judicial and law enforcement apparatus of the country, the communist Chinese could illegally funnel more than $10 million to help his 1996 re-election campaign.
At the same time, the president could give away the most guarded secrets of our nation to China, an avowed enemy, including supercomputer technology to build nuclear weapons and ballistic missile technology – technology that now allows China’s missiles to hit our cities with pinpoint accuracy.
And all of this could be done in silence and with the complicity of the highest officials in the land.
It comes as no surprise that on Clinton’s last day in office he has again cut a “deal” that lets him off the hook.
“I tried to walk a fine line between acting lawfully and testifying falsely, but I now recognize that I did not fully accomplish that goal and that certain of my responses to questions about Ms. Lewinsky were false,” the president said in a statement issued today.
Basically Clinton admits he committed perjury, got caught at it, but feels he’s been punished enough. He has decided his punishment, not an independent legal authority such as a jury or court.
Robert Ray, like his predecessor Starr, has taken the low road. Perhaps he believes it is in “the best interests of the country,” a phrase often used by cowardly men.
I disagree strongly that Clinton should walk and that somehow this is in the interests of the country.
The country may well see the fruits of the Clinton corruption and acquiescence of people like Starr and Ray to Clinton’s corruption, as domestic problems and foreign crises emerge in the months and years ahead.
March 13th, 2007 at 1:50 pmHow is that everyone seems to have forgotten that Mr. Clinton fired ALL (except one) prosecutor right after taking office? The President has the constitutional right to fire them for anything, even politics, but the Democrats play that game to the hilt, and then conveniently forget about it when they are not in power. Give me a break!
March 13th, 2007 at 1:59 pmUm, nobody has forgotten it. If you would kindly scroll up just a few posts you would see multiple posts about it. You would also become educated as to the fact that US attorneys serve four year terms and that it is customary for an incoming President to replace US attorneys with his own people. In the case of Clinton, some of those attorneys [who customarily resign] were hinting that they wouldn’t after so long on the job; Clinton merely did what other Presidents [including President Bush II] would do–replace attorneys.
US Attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President. NOBODY is denying this. Bush had the right to replace attorneys at any time. What his admin does not have the right to do is pressure attorneys to committ unethical acts and punish them if they don’t [in the case of Iglesias]. Or punish them for bringing up charges against prominent republicans. [As in Lam's case]. Also at issue is the provision in the Patriot act, put in by Arlen Specter at the behest of an administrative official, allowing the Presiden the authority to install interim attorneys for an indefinite period of time and without them having to go through the regular confirmation process–thereby allowing the President the ability to staff the US attorney’s office with hacks who will committ the un-ethical acts that the fired predecessors would not.
now, you can go on trolling, or you can actually respond to said arguments in a thoughtful manner. somehow i have no doubt as to what will happen.
March 13th, 2007 at 3:34 pmYou’re right. No one can be pressured to commit unethical acts (aka break the law).
You’re WRONG, that the President needs a REASON to fire a U.S. Attorney.
As you, yourself, said, they serve at the pleasure of the President.
He is FREE to fire them “just because” – no reason needed. PERIOD.
None of the verbal hand-wringing or moch indignation on the part of Liberals (neo-progs) is going to change that…
If Congress does not like it – let them change the LAW.
Hey, maybe they can pass a NON-BINDING resolution voicing their opposition to firing U.S. attorneys.
March 14th, 2007 at 8:55 amOh, and since so many posts (granted not in this thread) are SO concerned over the (alleged) “Stellar” records of some of the fired attorneys, perhaps you’d like to explain why it is that so many “stellar” Judicial Nominees are REJECTED by the likes of Schmuckie Schumer and Teddy (I left a woman to die in a car) Kennedy? That is, if one’s “stellar” record is the be-all to end-all.
March 14th, 2007 at 9:05 amWell, you might be strictly right that the President was in his bounds to fire an attorney.
However, even so, isn’t it illegitimate for a sitting President to have his Justice Department: a.) pressure their Attorney’s to bring bogus charges against the opposition [as may have happened in New Jersey]; b.) Punish them if they do not [as in Iglesias]; and c.) punish them if they indict Republicans [as is it is becoming more and mroe clear that this happened with Carol Lam in California].
Let me put it another: if Hillary Clinton wins the election and does the same thing [tells her attorneys that their main allegiance is to her and not to the law, and that they must go after republicans even if the charges are bogus, and that if they do not, or if they go after Democrats breaking the law, that they will be punished]…well, wouldn’t you go totally apeshit? And if not, why not? If Hillary Clinton had a provision slipped into the next huge tome of the Patriot Act giving her the ability to hire political hacks who are more loyal to her than the law, and without the safeguard of congressional oversight that was in place prior to 2006], wouldn’t you be up in arms? If not, why not?
March 14th, 2007 at 11:08 amDear Congress:
Although I am glad to see you rushing in to protect our wrongly fired U.S. Attorneys, I must ask you – WHERE HAVE YOU BEEN? The very same political network, “good old boy clique,†that fired these attorneys, has been around for years attacking other federal government employees who dare to speak out against wrongdoing. Yet you, dear Congress, have done nothing to protect these brave souls who dare become National Security Whistleblowers.
Currently there is no real whistleblower protection for government employees on the front line of our national security (Border Patrol Agents, Customs Agents, Transportation Security Agents, etc.). Many of these government employees have endured wrongful firings, harassment, threats, and other retaliation on an enormous scale for simply doing the right thing. They have witnessed extreme instances of waste, fraud, abuse and corruption that they are required by law to report. For many of them, what they have witnessed are criminal acts by their mid-level and sometimes very high-level managers. If they don’t report these abuses, they the employees may be criminally charged with a felony (Misprision of Felony). Yet when they do the right thing, the whistleblowers are most certain to be severely retaliated against by the people benefiting from the wrongdoing.
Moreover, this has been documented and presented to Congress repeatedly by numerous organizations like The Government Accountability Project (GAP), the Project On Government Oversite (POGO), and the Patrick Henry Center. All three of these organizations list scores of National Security Whistleblowers that have testified repeatedly before Congress in different forums (e.g. the 911 Commission; the Blue Ribbon Commission; Whistleblower Counsel). Yet the Whistleblower Protection Act that was authored and sponsored by Senators Akaka and Grassley, and has passed the Senate, sits idle for months now on the House floor.
As you rush to protect these more powerful federal government employees (U.S Attorneys) who are often hand picked by their home state Senators, remember, there are others who have suffered much more because they have risks much more via the national security issues that they have reported. I doubt that these U.S. Attorneys will have to file bankruptcy because they are being “blackballed†by corrupt government officials, in the same way that National Security Whistleblowers do. I doubt that these U.S. Attorneys will fear the threats and intimidation to themselves and their families; repeated frivolous internal affairs investigations; the passing over of earned promotions, and numerous other tools that government managers have at their disposal to discredit whistleblowers and SHUT THEM UP.
Yet you, Congress, point the “Political Finger†at the folks who have fired these U.S. Attorneys, while you sit and allow much worse behavior to continue for others. Maybe someone should wave that same “Political Finger†back at themselves. Why is it that the U.S. Attorneys have been given preferential treatment over other government employees who, quite frankly, have put their necks much more on the line for this country than the U.S. Attorneys?
Don’t get me wrong, I’m sure that the firing of these attorneys is political, morally wrong, and perhaps illegal – BUT SO WHAT! Why are you rushing to their aid over the dead bodies of National Security Whistleblowers who were also government employees – and I do mean literally dead bodies. Numerous whistleblowers have had their lives so destroyed by doing the right thing, that they have died of heart problems due to stress, and/or have committed suicide. The whistleblower cases that I have witnessed, including my own, are much more egregious and appalling than what has happened to the U.S. Attorneys. One may conclude that the answer to this question is that U.S. Attorneys are simply more powerful in their positions, and can be of more assistance to Congress in said positions – hence fostering the notion that this sudden interest for Congress to protect them is merely POLITICAL! Therefore, while you waive the “Political Finger†at this administration for firing these attorneys, please take a close look in the mirror at the other end of that very same finger – which is pointing straight back at you! I would encourage you to provide protection to ALL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, not just the influential ones.
Sincerely,
Darlene Fitzgerald
March 14th, 2007 at 5:18 pmNational Security Whistleblower & proud of it
Author: “BorderGate, the story the government doesn’t want you to readâ€
http://www.BorderGate.net
All you folks are forgetting the basic equation: politicians=pond scum. ‘Nuff said. Hang in there, Matt
March 14th, 2007 at 9:08 pm[...] on Fox News Sunday, former U.S. attorney David Iglesias confirmed that he was fired not for performance reasons, but as a “political [...]
March 18th, 2007 at 10:48 amEchbergt: How could you make a bald-faced assertion about G. W. Bush not firing any US attorneys until his second term started without doing any checking of the factual record? You are an example of why conservatives are accused of being interested only in “truthiness.”
March 18th, 2007 at 4:26 pm[...] Today on Fox News Sunday, former U.S. attorney David Iglesias beat back several misleading claims by Bush administration officials, and reasserted that his firing was a “political hit,†not done for performance reasons. [...]
March 19th, 2007 at 6:44 pm[...] This is why the prosecutor purge is a genuine scandal. Not only is there clear evidence that the firings were unprecedented and purely politically-motivated, but Alberto Gonzales lied about it under oath and the White House keeps changing it's story. What conclusion can we draw from these lies and revisionisms other than they have something to hide? Namely, that these eight prosecutors were selectively fired because they did not sufficiently politicize their offices and succumb to pressure to do so, only later to be fired for "performance-related" reasons despite receiving exemplary evaluations. [...]
March 19th, 2007 at 7:37 pmI saw the author of “Bush’ Brain” and his theory was that Karl Rove was convinced that the Repubs. lost in 06 due to all the scandals. So what does his twisted brain think – get rid of all the AG’s who brought these scandals and replacing them with Bushies and putting a chill into the rest of the AG’s for ‘08.
It’s sick and twisted and evidence of Rove’s evil genius. Looks like it’s finally can bite him in the balls. I hope he twists for a good long time.
March 19th, 2007 at 7:39 pm[...] This is why the prosecutor purge is a genuine scandal. Not only is there clear evidence that the firings were unprecedented and purely politically-motivated, but Alberto Gonzales lied about it under oath and the White House keeps changing it's story. What conclusion can we draw from these lies and revisionisms other than they have something to hide? Namely, that these eight prosecutors were selectively fired because they did not sufficiently politicize their offices and succumb to pressure to do so, only later to be fired for "performance-related" reasons despite receiving exemplary evaluations. [...]
March 24th, 2007 at 11:16 amLarry
[...] There is a wide variety of prices and quality between manufacturers [...]
March 19th, 2008 at 11:15 amPay Day Loan
Challenge antifouling payday loans for Scientists
April 1st, 2008 at 1:15 amNaked Girls Naked Black Men Girls Naked
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 4th, 2008 at 11:25 amluggage scale
Many blogs have stopped using trackbacks because dealing with spam became too burdensome. (Blogger now has backlinks – very similar
April 5th, 2008 at 12:25 pmBig Tits Soft Tits Hot Tits
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 6th, 2008 at 8:31 pmbusiness studies report writing
Many blogs have stopped using trackbacks because dealing with spam became too burdensome.. This is similar to comment spam but avoids
April 7th, 2008 at 1:34 pmAlessandra
our life of tomorrow: Our life is the creation of our mind.
April 9th, 2008 at 2:22 pmlawyers new jersey
If the client is a corporation, the lawyer is known as “house counsel” and usually advises the company concerning legal issues related to its business activities.
April 11th, 2008 at 1:19 pmWendy
From my background I never thought about it that way.
April 11th, 2008 at 4:20 pm