Constant's pations

If it's more than 30 minutes old, it's not news. It's a blog.

Friday, April 06, 2007

AG Gonzalez Work Flow Comparison To Test for Perjury

Comparing DOJ AG Work flow Production To Evaluate AG Veracity. Gonzalez Work Flow Problems: US Attorney Firings vs. Written Responses To Senate Four [4] Months Late

It's possible to do a manpower study on Gonzalez level of effort dedicated to the US Attorney work flows; then compare his work and accomplishments relative to the reported results to the Senate. The inconsistent work flow performances show Gonzalez is lying about what he is or is not doing.

The ratios provide information into whether the US Attorney General can be believed as to whether he was or was not involved; and whether the Attorney General is or is not responding to the Senate questions using resources in the same way he says they were or were not being used for the US Attorney firings.

Ref You'll love this one.

* * *

If Gonzo Provides Written Answers To Leahy, Maybe No More Delays In Testimony

Senator Leahy hasn't been given his responses to questions he asked of the Attorney general in January 2007. This is going on four [4] months. Still no written answers.

Yet, Gonzalez is due to testify, hoping to accelerate his hearing, and clean things up.

Not so fast.

* * *

Putting aside Gonzalez' perjury from last year which is still under review, it's not acceptable that the Attorney General has not responded to questions from January 2007.

If any American were to not fully cooperate with the Attorney General or any FBI agents for four months they could be hit with an obstruction of justice charge.

Gonzalez problem is that he's whining that the DNC is not being responsive and delaying the hearings. No, the real problem is the Attorney General was given a choice, selected a date, but wants to change again.

* * *

The problem is the Attorney General. His interest is to have the hearing at its current date, as opposed to having it delayed more.

The Proposal

If the Attorney General does not provide the written answers to the Jan 2007 testimony, there's no sense for the Senate Judiciary to ask questionsexclusively about the US Attorney.

Let’s back up and focus on the US Attorney in the context of the unanswered 2007 questions.

Either Gonzalez provides the responses in writing; or he's going to face two lines of questions at the same time:

A. Why the Attorney general was not responsive to the Senate in January;

B. Why the Attorney General was not providing responses since January;

C. Why the Attorney General is listed in the White House e-mails as having workflows, but there is nothing in the workflows related to the questions.

* * *

I would encourage Senator Leahy to use the subpoena power he has and direct DOJ OPR and the Attorney general to respond to questions about the workflows between January 2007 and April 2007:

___ Why was the Attorney General using work flows to schedule efforts to impalement illegal direct appointments; but the Attorney General was not using work flows to ensure her responded to the Senate?

___ What was on the Calendar of the Attorney general, and who was in charge of the workflows assigning DOJ Staff counsel to respond to the January 2007 questions?

___ Where are the physical task worksheets, time cards, and resource utilization information for the DOJ Staff counsel assigned to conduct these reviews of Senator Lea hay’s questions?

___ What role did the staff assigned to respond to the Senators' questions have in the US Attorney firings?

___ What are the specific time flows, e-mails, and other things related to the staff assigned to the US Attorney firings; and how did these overlap with the staff assigned to respond to the Senator Leahy?

___ Why is the Attorney General arguing that he has "no time" to respond to the Senate’s questions; but the workflows from the open e-mails from DOJ Staff counsel show that the Attorney General did have time to meet with, review, and respond to resignations letters that put this illegal plan into effect?

___ Is there any explanation from the Attorney General why the Senate question shave not been provided in writing; yet the Attorney General apparently does have time to coordinate with the White House counsel and President on issues unrelated to the Department of Justice?

___ What does the Attorney General suggest he is doing with his time if he is not working on the answers to the Senate Judiciary Committee?

___ What type so tasks, other than responding to the Senate, is the Attorney General working on that should be more approximately accomplished by the White House counsel's office?

* * *

Each of the e-mails related to the US Attorney firings is linked with a workflow or DOJ Staff task order. Indirectly it’s possible to show how the work flows under DOJ do or do not trace to each of the DOJ Staff e-mails.

Gonzalez' burden is to show the Senate how the workload dedicated to the White House e-mails and US Attorney firings does or does not compare with the workflow the Attorney general assigned an completed with the Senate responses.

We need to see some reconciliation and a clear story:

A. How does the Attorney General justify the staffing levels provides for the US Attorney firings'

B. What is AG Gonzalez explanation for his involvement with the US Attorney firing discussion, e-mails, work flows, and meetings?

C. How do the workflow required to implement this work compare with the level of work Gonzalez has applied to the Senators questions

* * *

The AG workflows can be linked with specific manning; and DOJ Staff counsel computers can be checked to find out their man-hours, access, and what they were doing.

With a given level of work or administrative output -- that of the US Attorney firings -- we have certain efficiency: For a given meeting or scheduled event, we have a given amount of work, e-mails. This is a credibility and efficiency ratio. Same person and same office should have the same efficiency ratios across tasks. This is AG Gonzalez' problem: they don't match. He's putting in too much work into something that he says he's not involved with; yet relative to a known requirement to respond to the Senate, the President is getting too much assistance on an issue Gonzalez would have us believe he wasn't involved; while the opposite with the Senate: Not enough time or focus on something that he claims he's concerned about. This from the AG records and workflows. His data does not support his testimony and forms the basis to charge him with perjury.

When we take these rations related to the US Attorney firings, and compare those ratios to the workload, work accomplished, and the staffing hours applied to the US Senate questions, we get night and day: Two inconsistent realities which are not supported by the data, the output, the work docuemnted, the e-mails, and how the computer resources have been physically used.

It's not only a bad sign for Gonzalez in re the US Senate; questions, but goes the other way: The same efficiency factors of what Gonzalez would have us believe is "required" to do a job for the Senate should also be what Gonzalez is required to support a meeting.

Going from the Senate ratios to the US Attorney ratios, there's a problem:

A. Gonzalez relative to the work on the US Senate questions has a very low interaction level; but if we compare his interest level to the US Attorney firings, related to the work accomplished, his interest is much higher.

B. Yet, Gonzalez wants us to believe that he's not paying much attention. Fine, then we know he's paying less attention to the Senate, in contravention to his promise t provide answers.'

However, this doesn’t include the required work that must be done – as evidenced by the apparently high efficiency rating on the US Attorney firings. What’s happening is that all the e-mails required t support this work have not been disclosed. A way of evaluating the e-mail responses to the Congress – in terms of completeness; or whether there are other e-mails being retained – is whether the efficiency factors of the workload are consistent. They aren’t. This tells us many things:

A. There are hidden e-mails;
B. The required coordinating to support the US Attorney firings is much higher than Gonzalez is willing to admit;
C. His performance and efficiency with the US Senate is low because he’s not putting work and staff to that;
D. The DOJ Staff work flows do not support Gonzalez assertions about his interest, oversight on either the Senate questions or the US Attorney firings.

This is a very big problem for Gonzalez. His data does not support his assertion that he’s paying attention to the Senate; or that he’s “not involved” with the US Attorney firings.

* * *

Here’s the Deal

Gonzalez wants a hearing quickly to "get his behind him."

If he doesn't provide the written responses, the problem is the hearing focus may not be what he's prepped for.

Gonzalez can be asked questions about the work flows for the January 2007 questions.

If Gonzalez does not provide written responses; then the real questions for the US Attorney firings are going to get delayed, and this is going to last longer. This is something Gonzalez cause for himself by not responding to the questions after January 2007. The US Attorney scandal did not surface until well after the responses to teh Senate might have been resolved.

Gonzalez was doing something else which the Senate needs to understand and review.

Meanwhile, the questions for the US Senate still have to be answered; and we expect cooperating with the e-mail and workflow analysis that will be done in finding our there is a disparity between what the AG says he is doing; vs. what he is getting done; vs. what the AG is actually recoding in his e-mails and other work flows.

Things aren't adding up.

If the AG wants to resolve this issue, we need the written answers to the January 2007 questions. The longer he waits, the worst it's going to get, not just with the senate questions, but believing that eh was or wasn't doing something about he us Attorney firings.