write_parts.c-54 : failed to open = [/local/etc/httpd/cgi-lis/txt_templates/compr_reg_crumb.txt]
110th Congress (2007-2008)
Senate Report 110-522
Senate Report 110-522 - R E P O R T
D. DANIEL BOGDEN
Daniel Bogden, former U.S. Attorney for Nevada, was told to resign on December 7, 2006, announced his resignation on January 17, 2007, and left office on February 28, 2007. The Department stated Mr. Bogden was removed because he `lacked energy and leadership, and was good on guns but not good on obscenity cases.' The Department also proffered that he was removed for using a provision of the Patriot Act to obtain evidence in a criminal case.
The OIG/OPR investigation found no support for the allegation that Mr. Bodgen was told to resign due to the Patriot Act incident. The investigation determined that the primary reason that Mr. Bogden was placed on the removal list was because of complaints to the Department by Brend Ward, the head of the Obscenity Prosecution Task Force, about Mr. Bogden's decision not to assign a Nevada prosecutor to a Task Force case. It appears, however, that no Department official other than Mr. Sampson knew that justification for Mr. Bodgen's listing and were instead led to believe that his inclusion on the list for removal was because he was a `mediocre' U.S. Attorney and the Department could `do better.' Attorney General Gonzales and Deputy Attorney General McNulty were apparently never informed of the real reason for Mr. Bodgen's removal.
The investigation concluded that Mr. Bogden's removal was `troubling' because neither Sampson nor any other Department official involved in the removal process asked for Mr. Bogden's explanation about Mr. Ward's complaint, no Department official ever raised concerns or objectively assessed Mr. Bodgen's performance to determine whether he was in fact `mediocre' prior to his removal, Deputy Attorney General McNulty's qualms about Mr. Bogden's removal appear to have been quashed by his marital status or family status, and Attorney General Gonzales and Deputy Attorney General McNulty stated they did not know why Mr. Bogden was removed.
E. PAUL CHARLTON
Paul Charlton, the former U.S. Attorney for the District of Arizona, was instructed to resign December 7, 2006, announced his resignation on December 18, 2006, and left office January 30, 2007. The Department provided the following reasons for his removal: (1) Mr. Charlton advocated for additional resources for his office directly with Senator Kyl; (2) Mr. Charlton instituted a policy for tape recording interrogations; (3) Mr. Charlton did not timely file a notice that the Department would seek the death penalty in a particular case; and (4) Mr. Charlton refused to prosecute obscenity cases.
The OIG/OPR investigation called into question the propriety of what it found to be the two primary reasons for Mr. Charlton's removal. Regarding the first of these reasons, Mr. Charlton's implementation of a pilot program for tape recording interrogations, Deputy Attorney General McNulty testified that while he did find Mr. Charlton's actions insubordinate, he would not have removed Mr. Charlton based on an attempt to implement the policy. The second reason for Mr. Charlton's removal, the one described in the report as `the most significant factor' in his removal, was Mr. Charlton's efforts to re-evaluate the Department's decision to seek the death penalty in a specific case. The report concluded that these efforts were not insubordination or inappropriate, but warranted given the magnitude of the Department's decision.
F. JOHN MCKAY
John McKay, former U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Washington, was asked to resign on December 7, 2006, announced his resignation on December 14, 2006, and left office January 26, 2007. The Department proffered that Mr. McKay was removed because he was `enthusiastic but temperamental,' made promises about information sharing that the Department could not support, was `overly aggressive in seeking resources' to investigate the murder of an Assistant U.S. Attorney, his district's sentencing statistics were out of line and was resistant to Department leadership. According to media reports, Mr. McKay was removed because he failed to investigate voter fraud claims following the 2004 Washington State governor's race.
Although the OIG/OPR report concludes that the evidence suggests the primary reason for Mr. McKay's removal was his conflict with Deputy Attorney General McNulty over an information sharing program, the investigation could not make a conclusive determination as to the reasons for Mr. McKay's removal. Based on the evidence, OIG/OPR could not determine whether or not complaints of Mr. McKay's handling of the voter fraud cases caused him to be removed.