Comments (30)

Th wrote on March 16, 2007 4:23 PM:

"When they made the decision to lie about these seven people to Congress, that's when the trouble started," That is the first part of the scandal, people lied to Congress. The second part is the use of the justice department as just another part of the Republican political machine without regard for the rule of law. Those two things need to be hammered over and over, not whether or not the firings were legal or unprecedented or whatever.

johnnydrama wrote on March 16, 2007 4:23 PM:

It's amazing how many lifelong Republicans have been turned against the party by these jokers.

Arkansan wrote on March 16, 2007 4:25 PM:

Since there almost no philosophical difference between Democrats and Republicans in Arkansas, and Cummins appears to have burned his Republican bridges, he should run for office as a Democrat. The Party could use candidates with the courage of their convictions.

GabrielOak wrote on March 16, 2007 4:29 PM:

I've got a better idea: let the Republicons keep on lying and obstructing justice until the body politic makes THEM disappear.

Jack wrote on March 16, 2007 4:30 PM:

Congress must reactivate the Independent Counsel statue so they can start prosecuting these people for lying to Congress.

J.Goodwin wrote on March 16, 2007 4:53 PM:

So, this John McCain "Tar Baby" thing.

Think it has any traction at all?

Mrs Panstreppon wrote on March 16, 2007 4:56 PM:

Well, this is all very well and good that Mr. Cummins now believes the other seven USAs were not fired for performance reasons.

What we want to know is why they were fired and if any other USAs were on the hit list.

On 3/13/07, Senator Feinstein spoke about the USAs being fired and said "really, the first group to go was this group."

Mr. Cummins says he will "disappear" if the DOJ retracts the statements that the others were fired for deficiencies in performance. Bud, you are not going anywhere until the Senate Judiciary Committee says so.

Robin Boerner wrote on March 16, 2007 5:11 PM:

When you put hubris, arrogance and corruption into the Justice Department's former judicial independence, cover Lady Liberties breasts because you need some couch time and Prozac, and then lie to cover up your illegal, immoral and dictator like ambitions, it makes the public eager to see you eat your young as the Republicans clearly are.

I feel bad for the good US Attorney's that had their careers trashed because they had the honor to stand up for what was right, not what would get them promoted in BushWorld.

We need this entire puss filled boil to be lanced in public hearings. We need all the Patriot Act US Attorney's to be investigated. The fired ones reinstated. Especially Lam. Put her back in charge of the cases she was responsible for bringing charges on.

Why have the other Patriot Act US Attorney's been able to stay out of the press? There are more then eight. Let's find out how and why they were chosen.

Like Alaska's Nelson Cohen who refuses to protect a 100% service connected veterans Civil Rights. Is he following Bush's priorities? I guess Walter Reed answers that question. You can read that story by the link on my name.

What about the other Patriot Act US Attorney's? What legal shennanigan's and mischief are they up to?

If it wasn't for Josh we may never have known.

Charles wrote on March 16, 2007 6:10 PM:

You know, something just occurred to me. These USAs are all Republican appointees. And it seems to me that loyal Republicans would have a priority of rooting out and eliminating corruption within their own party. But Bush is protecting his corrupt cronies. This is just another sign of how far the Bush administration has strayed from its own party.
On the other hand, I find it somewhat astonishing that liberals are leaping to the defense of the fired USAs, who seem to have vaguely conservative leanings. The enemy of my enemy..

daCascadian wrote on March 16, 2007 6:52 PM:

Charles >"...On the other hand, I find it somewhat astonishing that liberals are leaping to the defense of the fired USAs, who seem to have vaguely conservative leanings..."

When you look at it from the perspective of what was appropriate behavior the pieces just fit together. Professionals always respect other professionals no matter the politics.

Professionalism is the foundation.

"Small men follow the letter of the law, great men seek justice" - Buck Rodgers in The 25th Century

Dumbo wrote on March 16, 2007 7:08 PM:

What fools they were, to think they could just slander former US Attorneys for political reasons without getting some serious pushback. They ARE attorneys, after all. Did they really expect them to just go quietly into that good night?

parrot wrote on March 16, 2007 8:28 PM:

I sure hope someone goes to jail for lying to Congress soon. I mean, how many years has it been going on?

theswan wrote on March 16, 2007 8:45 PM:

So, if a retraction given, all is well????? It's hard to believe he would back out at this point for any reason.
I hope that he would rethink his thought process.

New Jersey Guy wrote on March 16, 2007 9:27 PM:

Mr. Cummins, I used to be a registered Republican. I am currently undeclared, but I can say that for the rest of my life, I will NEVER pull the lever for a Republican candidate, from dog catcher to President.

BroD wrote on March 16, 2007 9:57 PM:

Maybe he'll settle for a retraction but I'm holding out for impeachment.

aspTrader wrote on March 16, 2007 10:14 PM:

Cummins:

"When they made the decision to lie about these seven people to Congress, that's when the trouble started," he said.. Cummins added that if the Justice Department were to retract the statements that the others were fired for deficiencies in performance, "I'll disappear."

There is a diary at the link below which argues that the US Attorneys deserved to be fired.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/3/14/25046/7845

A controversial essay indeed. But it seems to me that this Cummins interview makes the point even after the essay had been written, namely: the Cummins remarks demonstrate that he, perhaps along with others, was and is not worthy of the office.

For Cummins, making this issue of justice in the United States a CAUSE he's willing to FIGHT for, is ALL ABOUT HIM and his peers. He makes clear that the larger issue of JUSTICE in the United States is of little consequence to him. He says he'll "disappear" if his personal concern is handled.

Harsh? But isn't THAT precisely what he said? That he'd "disappear" if his personal integrity issues and those of his peers were acknowledged?

Cummins, in his statement, expresses no interest or concern with the larger implications of this scandal for justice in the United States.

Mark wrote on March 16, 2007 11:40 PM:

Cummins, in his statement, expresses no interest or concern with the larger implications of this scandal for justice in the United States.
Posted by: aspTrader

Yeah, that's what grabbed my attention. I have no respect for this guy now, but he does get my thanks for helping publicize this. Hopefully good will come of this, even though Cummins doesn't have the right motivations.

Thank goodness those comments about performance were made that burned their own USA's.

sweetgumroot wrote on March 17, 2007 12:04 AM:

asp Trader and Mark;
Make me three, struck by the shallowness of that statement. To paraphrase, "clear their names and I'll go back to quietly covering for what you're doing." Stinks to me but, credit where it's due, he is standing up.

Geraldine May wrote on March 17, 2007 12:38 AM:

daCascadian: The law and justice conflict goes back to Antigone and more recently to The Crucible. Antigone v. Creon and Rev. Hale v. Rev. Parris.

The Oracle wrote on March 17, 2007 1:09 AM:

The Neo-Con Republicans running the Bush administration decided to "swift boat" some fellow Republicans who just weren't Neo-Con Republican enough, that is, Neo-Con Republican enough, in a partisan sense, that even the Communists or Nazis could learn a few tricks from them.

So, Alberto Gonzales holds a tele-conference, essentially to assure all the remaining Republican-appointed U.S. Attorneys that the Bush administration won't "swift boat" them, or at least not in the same way, if the Neo-Con Republicans decide to fire them for not getting into synchronized lock-goose-step with the hardcord, right-wing, partisan, neo-Nazi or neo-Communist agenda of the Neo-Con Republicans.

It'll be done a whole lot quieter, you see, and with oversight being stripped from Congress and a state's U.S. Senators by some Neo-Con-Nazi-Communist Republican slipping a provision into the Patriot Act reauthorization bill last year, then as long as this criminal provision stands, the Bush administration can continue to try to sneak their unqualified and often criminial pals into U.S. Attorney jobs around the country.

There are a lot of respectable, honest and bursting with integrity Republicans in our great nation. Unfortunately, the Neo-Con Republicans, especially those in the Bush administration, stopped being these type of Republicans who I am proud to count among my friends and honor as fellow American citizens, unlike the Neo-Con Republicans who are scum in any patriotic and loyal American's book.

RadRobin wrote on March 17, 2007 1:57 AM:

Hey Josh, thanks for all the excellent and hardwork you have done on this USA issue.

Personally, I want to review all cases investigated and filed or acted upon in any fashion re voter registrations and voter eligibility BY the remaining USAs -- all of whom must be showing some incredible LOYALTY to the White House/RNC.

A snip from my blog at www.radrobin.com:

We Need to Explore What Makes the Remaining 85 USAs ‘Acceptable’ to the White House and the RNC

They must be doing a lot of things just right. The message is becoming clear that the overriding desire by the White House/RNC is for these political appointees to use their independent law enforcement offices for these purposes:

1. To attack democrats on alleged corruption activities;
2. To allow corrupt republicans to go uninvestigated and unprosecuted thereby enabling them to continue their illegal activities; and,
3. Pursue a state-by-state witchhunt to subvert voters who are likely to vote democrat by challenging their right to vote. ***see cool quiz question at end of blog entry!***.

A very serious investigation needs to be made into what makes the USAs who were not targeted for removal so perfectly acceptable to a White House.
We need a synopsis of every case these remaining 85 USAs have investigated and/or filed since 2002. I feel intuitively that a very clear picture will emerge about the true motivation and essence of this USA firing scandal is all about. No doubt in my mind.

**Pop Quiz: What is the first piece of urgent legislation that George W. Bush, Jr. wrote and presented to Congress?

buzzzzz, that’s right: The 2001 Help America Vote Act, HAVA. He sought this legislation because this kind compassionate conservative never wanted America to have to endure the debacle that was Florida in November and Decemeber 2000. That’s right — Bush wanted to ‘reform’ elections in this country.

The most radical and horrifying aspect of HAVA was REMOVING the registration and voter rolls administration powers from our little county clerk and centralizing it at the state level, and essentially giving a few powerful people the power to determine who would be eligible to vote and who wasn’t.

snip

But the essential PURPOSE from El Operacion Politico (a new name for our govt!) was to CONTROL and MANAGE the voter rolls.

I bet centralizing the lists in one state-run computer (diagnostics on said computer to be performed only by the private manufacturers who are Bush Rangers) makes it awfully easy for, say, a U.S. Attorney to investigate alleged ‘voter fraud.’

Basically, since day 1, the most important agenda item for the White House/RNC has been what I call ELECTION TAMPERING and VOTER DISENFRANCHISEMENT. Period.

Rob LA Ca. wrote on March 17, 2007 5:03 AM:

Robin, I believe you believe that. To bad democrats own corruption as Hollywood owns immorality. You can try and Clintonize the Bush Administration all you want. Bush would have to be in office 50 years to even have enough time to commit the crimes of the Clintons.

"I call ELECTION TAMPERING and VOTER DISENFRANCHISEMENT. Period."

Like the FOUR democrat opperatives that were just sentenced for slashing the tires of GOP vans?
Democrats are Criminal frauds all of them. How is William Jefferson doing these days? $90,000 in the freezer , two in jail pled guilty to bribing him , why is he still a free man? Demcrats are the Party of criminal frauds , aiding and abbeting mean anything to you? Obviously not , happy fishing for Republicans , that's all incompetant rats do.

liz wrote on March 17, 2007 6:15 AM:

Anybody else think the Republican party was HIJACKED and couped...... the neocons now own the scarlet R.... NO MORE R's in elected offices- they lie too much, cheat too many and steal oh MY and give our country to the Mexicans.....
get the traitors out of DC

Anonymous wrote on March 17, 2007 7:47 AM:

Is anyone else curious what rating Fitz got from the WH in his position as US Attorney. I have to know…

Fitzgerald in the 1993 WTC bombing case withheld evidence from the juries

Why the FBI got away with the first WTC bombing http://www.libertyforum.org/

FBI Informant & CIA "Assets" Plotted 1993 WTC Attack, FBI & CIA Also Followed 9-11 Hijackers
Source: Online Journal
Published: February 28, 2007 Author: Jerry Mazza

Fitz, "Would Not Be Appropriate For Me To Testify"
How about under subpoena?...It was not appropriate to leak a CIA operative's name and lie about it either. I would think there comes a time that testifying or not testifying by Fitzgerald is not an OPTION. The time is now

Mary wrote on March 17, 2007 1:51 PM:

Personally, I'm impressed with Cummins and his loyalty to his colleagues and friends. He's one of the stand up guys in this fiasco--not Gonzales.

I'd settle for people in public service with integrity, irrespective of political affiliation.

Mrs Panstreppon wrote on March 17, 2007 5:10 PM:

I'd like to know why Bud Cummmins is not outraged about being lied to about his performance evaluation.

Take a look at the 2/24/05 United States Attorney - Appointment Summary that Kyle Sampson sent to Harriet Miers.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/attorney-firelist/?resultpage=2&

Bud Cummins was told by the DOJ that he was being replaced for political reasons and not performance-related ones. The DOJ has admitted it as much.

Why then is there a strike through his name on a February 2005 evaluation of USAs? A strikethrough, according to Kyle Sampson, indicates "weak US Attorneys who have been ineffectual managers and prosecutors, chafed against Administrative initiatives, etc."

No one in the Bush administration, as far as I know, has even hinted that Bud Cummins was weak or an ineffectual manager and prosecutor or chafed against Administrative initiatives.

In fact, Cummins seems to have been in the know on this issue or at least thought he was in the know. He was told that his "case was completely different from the others, that there were significant performance issues involved in the other decisions, and if I saw, I'd agree that they'd have to go."

The email with the USA Summary was released in the beginning of the week when AG Gonzales apparently still thought the whole thing would blow over as evidenced by his moving Sampson to the DOJ Environment Division.

Did someone at the DOJ think they could head off questions about Carol Lam if the DOJ demonstrated that it had evaluated Lam poorly long before the Cunningham case came up?

What I am getting at is whether someone at the DOJ altered the United States Attorneys - Summary Appointments chart. Did someone put a strike through Bud Cummins' name to make the document appear credible without thinking about the questions that could arise?

I'd like to hear Kyle Sampson's explanation about why Bud Cummins was rated poorly in February 2005.

I'd also like to know why Bud Cummins isn't outraged about either 1)being lied to about his performance evaluation or 2)DOJ documents being altered.

Mrs. Panstreppon wrote on March 17, 2007 5:27 PM:

Bud Cummins: "Now that I've seen the decisions, not only don't I see why they had to go, I see that [the charges of performance issues] are really not true."

Mr. Cummins, are the charges of performance-related issues true in your case? The DOJ thought you were doing a really lousy job in February 2005.

What do you say to that?

RadRobin wrote on March 17, 2007 5:32 PM:

Rob LA CA -- Dude, you scare me. So far, far removed from reality. Though you've gotten lost on your way to LGF, you may as well take a look at the link on the right of this page, called 'the docket'. Sure, Jefferson is there. He's got a lot of company. Stinky stuff. Mostly republicans. Bet you won't look. You can't handle the truth!

drits'n'dravy wrote on March 18, 2007 6:53 PM:

Now the NY Times has just published a front page story saying Leahy intends to subpoena Rove and other WH employees, but that a fight over exec priviledge is expected. How will such a fight be resolved? Do the courts have jurisdiction over this? Do all WH employees have blanket priviledge whenever they want to invoke it? If so, how did the Iran-Contra and Watergate figures get hauled before congress?

Sorry to keep harping on this, but I'm really confused by the legal issues. Anybody with some info out there? Thnx!

Otis wrote on March 19, 2007 12:10 PM:

Cummins, in his statement, expresses no interest or concern with the larger implications of this scandal for justice in the United States.
Posted by: aspTrader

It's my feeling that there have been other USAs in Bud's boat...asked to resign and go quietly, thus escaping fall out with Justice and Bushies. If you look at Sampson's list, there were names removed. Bud was going quietly too. It was only when he had personal knowledge of Congress being misled by DOJ did he know that he had a role in the bigger picture. If Cummins did not have strong convictions about truth and justice coming out, he could have easily kept quiet saying that the timing of his resignation was merely coincidental. Just be glad that there are those like Cummins who are willing to risk their reputations in order for the truth to be known. Remember that Mike Elston made the "shut up" call to Cummins around this time period.