Alberto Gonzales: Attorneys' dismissals were related to performance, not to politics.

[sabra]

http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20070307/oppose07.art.htm

They lost my confidence
Attorneys' dismissals were related to performance, not to politics.

By Alberto R. Gonzales

As any employer or manager knows, the handling of personnel matters — especially the termination of employees — is one of the most challenging tasks in any business. Personnel matters in the federal government are no exception.

To be clear, it was for reasons related to policy, priorities and management — what have been referred to broadly as "performance-related" reasons — that seven U.S. attorneys were asked to resign last December.

The Justice Department, out of respect for these individuals, would have preferred not to talk publicly about those reasons, but disclosures in the press and requests for information from Congress altered those best-laid plans. Although our reasons for their dismissal were appropriate, our failure to provide those reasons to these individual U.S. attorneys at the time they were asked to resign has only served to fuel wild and inaccurate speculation about our motives. That is very unfortunate because faith and confidence in our justice system are more important than any one individual.

...

Like me, U.S. attorneys are political appointees, and we all serve at the pleasure of the president. If U.S. attorneys are not executing their responsibilities in a manner that furthers the management and policy goals of departmental leadership, it is appropriate that they be replaced. After all, the responsibility of the Department of Justice, and of the Congress, is to serve the people of the United States. While I am grateful for the public service of these seven U.S. attorneys, they simply lost my confidence. I hope that this episode ultimately will be recognized for what it is: an overblown personnel matter.

:eyes:

[Captain Hilts]

1. Then how come six out of eight got good evaulations? Answer me that. nt

[LynneSin]

9. Judges weren't living up to the incompetence expected from the Bush Regime

:shrug:

[originalpckelly]

14. I think they were spied on. That the only way I've been able to come up with a reason...

Mr. "Bud" Cummins, who wanted to move on, but had not told the Department, was found out. They said they knew that. Either someone in his office ratted him out, they searched through his work phone conversations and internet traffic, or his personal telephone conversations and internet traffic.

[Solly Mack]

2. If I fire someone for not kissing my ass and bowing down to my every demand

I can truthfully say I fired them based on their performance (or lack there of)

Wouldn't be the whole truth but it would be a truth.

[Bandit]

17. Ahh yes but when has the Administration been known for telling the truth?

The truth is just not in them period....no matter how obtuse..

[Solly Mack]

27. they tell their definition of the truth

much like they use their definition of torture, etc..

they define a word/concept to fit the reality they wish to manufacture

in that way, they are very transparent - just gotta hear what they mean by it

[rodeodance]

3. ok, there you havit folks! Gongo said it. must be true!

hardy har har

[originalpckelly]

4. It was "an overblown personnel matter" and Watergate was just a third rate burglary.

[Donnachaidh]

5. trying to avoid a confrontation in the Congress Gonzo?

We DEMAND you haul that furry behind of yours to the hearings. FACE THE MUSIC. Stop hiding under your desk. :grr:

[whistle]

6. Are you now, or have you ever been.....

...this is the Gonzales justice department's performance evaluation and loyalty question. If you get it right you stay, if not you go. It is about power and who rules.

[Pab Sungenis]

7. It was based on performance.

Some of them were performing too well, like Carol Lam.

[asjr]

8. The current administration is

full of creeps, but Gonzales takes the cake. He has surpassed Cheney in my estimation.

[plcdude]

10. Their performance appraisals

will tell the tale then. Anyone who has been a manager knows that an employee with good or even adequate performance ratings cannot be summarily dismissed unless there is a violation so severe as to warrant immediate termination. I think the DOJ has a significant legal problem with these actions.

[originalpckelly]

16. I do as well. I'm betting they were being followed. Their phones/computers...

were spied upon. That would explain a lot.

[NewJeffCT]

18. I can see it now...

Carol Lam was fired because a family member called her with an emergency, and personal phone calls are against policy.

Iglesias was fired because he went online to check the status of his mom's cross-country flight, and personal internet use is against policy.

[originalpckelly]

28. No, that's not what I mean.

I think they and a lot of other people in our government are being electronically surveilled.

[NewJeffCT]

30. I agree with you

And, they probably got worried when they saw/heard some of that surveillance... and, they will justify firing these prosecutors for the trivial items I mentioned above. "sure, she may have been a good in the courtroom, but she checked an auction on eBay for 3 minutes one day from 12:31pm to 12:34pm and using the internet is strictly against department policy, so she left us with no choice..."

[Manifestor_of_Light]

29. No emergencies allowed!!

Real life and family emergencies are NOT allowed to intrude upon your job!! Your kid is dying??? The house is on fire between 8 and 5? Tough shit!!!

I know someone who said that he was not allowed to call or be called by his wife from the other side of town. That in turn contributed to his having an affair with a woman at work!!! Family values, uh-huh!!!

[Richard Steele]

11. Lying asshole. nm

[Xipe Totec]

12. Lawsuit city, here I come!

If they were fired for cause, you better be ready to back up those claims. Otherwise it is defamation of character, and damages are appropriate.

If it was a mater of policy, then you have to explain the policy to the public.

If it was for political reasons, then the 1st amendment will bite you in the ass.

[City Lights]

13. He makes no sense.

Their dismissal was related to performance, not politics, but they are all political appointees, serving at the pleasure of the president. :crazy:

[NewJeffCT]

15. "they simply lost my confidence"

translation: "I was afraid they might (gasp) prosecute fellow Republicans, or not speed up investigations of Democrats to coincide with elections."

Or maybe "They didn't bow down & praise me quickly enough the last time I saw them, so I've lost confidence in them."

Unfortunately, unless there is a written memo detailing these issues, or a tape recording, it will most likely degenerate into a "he said, she said" scenario and the media will write it off as disgruntled ex-employees, like Paul O'Neill, Richard Clarke and others.

[ProfessorGAC]

20. Well, Alberto Has Certainly Lost Mine

What little i had in him to begin with.
The Professor

[gratuitous]

19. Isn't that nice of USA Today?

Lord knows that the Attorney General of the United States doesn't have any means of getting his side of the story out, so USA Today just hands him whatever space he feels he needs to go on and on without any questions, contradictions, or niggling little facts to get in the way.

Would you care to repeat your statement under oath before an informed committee, Mr. Gonzales?

[Kagemusha]

22. Yes, wasn't Gonzales TOO BUSY to answer Congress' questions directly?

He sure has the time to write an op-ed in USA Today though.

[Kagemusha]

21. They were replaced 'cause the law now permits un-confirmed cronies

Simple as that.

[bdamomma]

31. that is it right now, they are packing the courts with their own

un qualified people who will cover for Bush, and whoever else is brought up on charges will have to face W's cronies in court.

[RaleighNCDUer]

23. I think he's telling the truth about it.

"... not executing their responsibilities in a manner that furthers the management and policy goals of departmental leadership..."

His policy and goal, as head of the department, is to use the attorney's office to strengthen the fascist coup, and these attorneys were not cooperating - they were overzealous in prosecuting Republican corruption and insufficiently overzealous in prosecuting Democratic corruption. Therefore, they were not furthering the management and policy goals of the departmental leadership.

Gonzo gets 1 point for honesty.

[The Magistrate]

25. Indeed, Sir: They Did Not Perform As Partisan Republican Hacks

Prostituting one's office to the Republican cause is part of the job description, and these ladies and gentlemen were certainly not performing to the required standard....

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[applegrove]

24. They got fired for being good performeres... didn't they. The whole justice

system needs to be FEMA - ized so that it can soon be privatized. The only way to get tons and tons of qualified attorney's to quit the public service is to fire their respected bosses. :sarcasm:

Actually - I look forward to the investigation of this.

[dkofos]

26. Sorry but I won't believe anything that comes out that mans

(should have said SCUMBAG COCKSUCKER) mouth.

Unless it is "I plead guilty to the crimes I am charged with".