Was Cummins fired as political retribution?
By on Mar 16th, 2007 at 2:17 pm
Was Cummins fired as political retribution?
Yesterday in an interview, ousted U.S. attorney Bud Cummins raised the possibility that the Justice Department may have fired him because he decided to investigate “alleged corruption by Republican officials in Missouri amid a Senate race there that was promising to be a nail-biter.” In Jan. 2006, Cummins began looking into allegations that Gov. Matt Blunt (R) had “rewarded GOP supporters with lucrative contracts.” By June, the Justice Dept. had fired him. “Now I keep asking myself: ‘What about the Blunt deal?’” said Cummins.
UPDATE: In a message to TPMmuckraker, Cummins clarified, “I do not know of any connection whatsoever to the Missouri investigation and my firing. I am not asking myself (or anyone else) about that.”
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Business
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Glenn Beck
Global Warming
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Sports
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Tea Party
Terrorism
Veterans
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
Again the reason doesn’t matter, as we saw when Clinton fired the man investigating Rostenkowski.
March 16th, 2007 at 2:20 pmSo, we now have the Full Employment of U.S. Attorneys Act of 2007, as long as they are investigating any member of the party that controls the White House? Is that REALLY going to be the new standard? Too bad that guy who was fired by Clinton for biting a topless dancer wasn’t investigating any Democrats (maybe Clinton was just jealous?).
March 16th, 2007 at 2:22 pmMore corruption for the trolls to support.
Traitors.
March 16th, 2007 at 2:23 pmPatrick, you need to slow down and try some serious introspection. You are getting further and further out there.
March 16th, 2007 at 2:23 pmOK, let’s start this thread off by not responding to the troll. Killing an investigation into Roy Blunt by firing the prosecutor in charge is obstruction of justice, period.
March 16th, 2007 at 2:23 pmFor the latest news, hearings, legal filings and other essential documents on the Bush DOJ prosecutor firings, see:
March 16th, 2007 at 2:25 pm“The U.S. Attorney Scandal Documents.”
In Jan. 2006, Cummins began looking into allegations that Gov. Matt Blunt (R) had “rewarded GOP supporters with lucrative contracts.â€
What relation is he to Roy Blunt (r) Mo.?
March 16th, 2007 at 2:25 pmWhat relation is he to Roy Blunt (r) Mo.?
Comment by Michael’s hamper…
Father, Son & Holy Cow!
March 16th, 2007 at 2:31 pmYesterday in an interview, ousted U.S. attorney Bud Cummins raised the possibility that the Justice Department may have fired him because he decided to investigate “alleged corruption by Republican officials in Missouri amid a Senate race there that was promising to be a nail-biter.†In Jan. 2006, Cummins began looking into allegations that Gov. Matt Blunt (R) had “rewarded GOP supporters with lucrative contracts.†By June, the Justice Dept. had fired him.
This is what’s at stake here, folks. By stuffing the U.S. Attorney offices with shills who can be reliably counted on to put partisan politics above the law and justice, this administration is insuring that it will never again lose a Presidential race, as it will be able to commit its standard election fraud unimpeded.
In the past, such a conversion of the U.S. attorneys into servile minions of the Republican Party would not have been possible, as the replacements nominated for the position would have to be confirmed by the Senate, providing a vital check on the Executive Branch’s power to appoint U.S. attorneys. Now, that delicate balance has been shattered by the language that was sneaked into the PATRIOT Act renewal by Arlen Specter.
The only remedy for this shocking abuse of power by this administration is mass impeachment. Nothing less has a chance of curing this country of the malignant cancer called neoconservatism.
March 16th, 2007 at 2:32 pmComment by Zimzone #8
DAMN! Zimzone…
now THAT’S FUNNY…
hahahahahahahahahaha!!!!
March 16th, 2007 at 2:35 pmCOVERT.
Both Valerie Wilson and CIA director Michael Hayden told the Congress that Wilson was COVERT.
Another BushNazi TROLL lie, DEMOLISHED.
Of course Cummins was fired for POLITICAL reasons.
With the BushTraitor (TM) group, EVERYTHING is political.
They are such TRAITORS to the USA.
Burn in hell for ETERNITY, TRAITOR Bush.
You BushNazis, too…
God Bless America and the WORLD!
March 16th, 2007 at 2:37 pmUS attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President. When they stop pleasing him, they can take a hike. You libtards can take a hike…and don’t come back.
Clinton fired all of his attorneys. Where was the libby outrage then? This is a desperate move by the Bush haters to counter the progress made in Iraq.
You people are sick.
March 16th, 2007 at 2:38 pmI am very curious how Shumer will explain his actions. He went on about how it isn’t correct to influence and ask the Justice department about on going investigations. Now simply read this and you will realize how much of a hyprocrit Shumer is being:
http://schumer.senate.gov/SchumerWebsite/pressroom/Letters/2005/07.12.05.DOJ%20ltr%20on%20leaks.pdf
March 16th, 2007 at 2:39 pmAgain the reason doesn’t matter, as we saw when Clinton fired the man investigating Rostenkowski.
Comment by Patrick1
“Your honor, I will prove, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that my client, George Bush, is innocent of the crime of OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE because…”
“WAAAAHHHH!!! MOMMY, MOMMY IT’S NOT FAIR!!! CLINTON DID IT TOO. WAAAAHHH!!! IT’S NOT FAIR!â€
Yeah, that should go over real good!
March 16th, 2007 at 2:39 pmFiring the attorneys was LEGAL.
OBSTRUCTING JUSTICE is ILLEGAL.
TRAITOR Bush is a WAR CRIMINAL, LIAR, and a TRAITOR coxucker PUNK.
Burn in hell for ETERNITY, TRAITOR Bush.
You BushNazis, too…
God Bless America and the WORLD!
March 16th, 2007 at 2:41 pmI cannot believe those trolls still do not get the difference between bringing in your own team at the beginning of your term, and later firing members of your own team because they are either a) working too hard at investigating corruption among republicans, or b) not working hard enough at investigating corruptions among democrats.
March 16th, 2007 at 2:43 pmUS attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President. When they stop pleasing him, they can take a hike. You libtards can take a hike…and don’t come back.
Clinton fired all of his attorneys. Where was the libby outrage then? This is a desperate move by the Bush haters to counter the progress made in Iraq.
You people are sick.
Comment by firehead
Your shrillness give away you fear…
C O W A R D
Enlist in the Army and go fight the way that you love so much…
C O W A R D
I dare you…
C O W A R D
C’mon do it….
C O W A R D
I would love to read about an IED blowing your nuts of, that is if you have any…
C O W A R D
March 16th, 2007 at 2:44 pm#12 When a new administration comes into power it is standard practice for all political appointees (in this case the US Attorney’s) to give their resignation to the incoming administration. If the new administration chooses to keep them they will reject the letter of resignation. If not, they are gone. That is what happened with the non-story you are tyring to perpetuate with “clinton did it too.” When Bush came in he accepted the resignation of all of the Clinton appointees, so, by that standard Bush has fired them TWICE!!
The difference, and you will never understand this, is that the 8 fired attorneys (Harriet “Raccoon Lady” Miers wanted to get rid of all 93) were fired in mid course for no reason other than political vindictiveness. Would you find it ironic if you received glowing reviews in your employment and then soon after are fired for poor performance?
Thats what happened here despite everything Rush and Faux Noise are feeding you. And even if Clinton HAD done it, Clinton isn’t President any longer and you and ther rest of your myopic mindset need to learn to accep that.
March 16th, 2007 at 2:45 pmWhile the laws on books made to protect anybody from being fired for
discriminatory reason,it is shocking to see that public general attornies
and prosecutors, who are the defenders of the law ,can be fired at the
pleasure of the president.
March 16th, 2007 at 2:45 pmYo #12. Would you please care to point out the “progress” in Iraq that is being countered?
If you want to read about all this “progress” that is being countered, check out this story for some facts.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/13710030/leaving_iraq_the_grim_truth
March 16th, 2007 at 2:48 pm#17 Everyone involved in this agrees it isn’t a crime. Bush can infact purge US attorney’s anytime he pleases as they do in fact serve at his pleasure. This is a “show Trial” designed to get headlines and more political power. Kinda like the Dems voting yes to extend the Iraq war, it wasn’t that they wanted to, it was just a decision to increase their political power. talk about not caring about your convictions or the troops lives involved. And yes, I did serve my country (in Desert Storm). I was 11B out of Fort Lewis. Did you serve sir?
March 16th, 2007 at 2:49 pmYou people are sick.
Comment by firehead
Ya got nothin’ fireant. Except piss-filled shoes.
March 16th, 2007 at 2:49 pmThats what happened here despite everything Rush and Faux Noise are feeding you. And even if Clinton HAD done it, Clinton isn’t President any longer and you and ther rest of your myopic mindset need to learn to accep that.
Comment by Mike Hunt
There obviously wasn’t anything there with Clinton.
If there was, you can bet your last dollar that the Republicans/Neocons/Zionists would have used that, instead of a trumped up desperate attempt at using a lie about a blowjob to take him down.
March 16th, 2007 at 2:50 pm#19 The reason is that US Attorneys just like the department secretaries are political appointees. They are not civil service so they are not protected by the same laws.
March 16th, 2007 at 2:51 pmWould love to see a comprehensive rundown on the 8 fired U.S. attorneys and the alleged reasons behind each firing.
March 16th, 2007 at 2:51 pmAny comment on the ‘Pleasure of the President’, and what that is? any limit or LEGAL boundries to such pleasure?
March 16th, 2007 at 2:51 pmI’m going to go out on a limb and say, Duh.
March 16th, 2007 at 2:51 pm#21 – Rogerx2
Define “everyone involved.”
March 16th, 2007 at 2:51 pmSo, all you Bush apologists out there, I have a question for you:
At what point does the confines of the concept of “serves at the pleasure of the President”–if the President is corrupt, wants you to do something either illegal or against your professional ethics, and you refuse to go along, HE AINT GONNA BE PLEASED. He’ll fire you and put in someone who will do what he wants. But isnt that what got Nixon in trouble?
March 16th, 2007 at 2:53 pm#17 Everyone involved in this agrees it isn’t a crime. Comment by Roger_Roger — March 16, 2007 @ 2:49 pm
So now you’re speaking with *omniscience*? What, is the *baby-jesus* talking directly to you know, like he does to Bush?
You’re a st*pid lying coward, old man. Retire from here, you just clog up the pipes, like a bloated piece of sh*t.
March 16th, 2007 at 2:54 pmEveryone involved in this agrees it isn’t a crime. Bush can infact purge US attorney’s anytime he pleases as they do in fact serve at his pleasure.
Comment by Roger_Roger
Even to stop corruption investigations directed at some of his cronies?
I think not.
For the record, that’s called OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE.
The President firing an Attorney, in itself may not be a crime, but doing it to OBSTRUCT JUSTICE most certainly is.
March 16th, 2007 at 2:56 pmAgain the reason doesn’t matter, as we saw when Clinton fired the man investigating Rostenkowski.
Comment by Patrick1
That US Attorney was let go with all the others when Clinton came into office. They said that all the attorneys not in trial would be let go. That Attorney was not in trial. He was in the investigation stage. The Clinton admin stated that the new US Attorney would be able to pick it up from there and apparently he did because the new attorney prosecuted Rostenkowski. Doesn’t seem to be politically motivated does it. What are you talking about again?
March 16th, 2007 at 2:57 pm#30 By all appearances the trolls are simply too stupid to understand the words Obstruction Of Justice. Or they are paid to feign stupidity.
March 16th, 2007 at 3:01 pm#31 Look, this was a LEGAL act by Bush. Clinton purging all the attorney’s at the start of his presidency and Bush purging a few in the middle of his presidency makes no difference as both acts are perfectly legal. Are you simply looking to try and score some political points off this? I mean, TP has even started to post stuff that doesn’t even apply and make it seem like it does. Case in point was the Rove info that showed Rove was interested in purging all the US attorney’s. That post was pointless. For starters, they never did purge all the attorney’s. Second, Rove suggesting they purge all the attorney’s has NOTHING to do with Bush firing 8 attorney’s years later. Trying to link those 2 things would be like putting a square through a circle hole. Either way, this topic is boring because we are in fact talking about a perfectly legal act by a US president.
March 16th, 2007 at 3:05 pmEveryone involved in this agrees it isn’t a crime. Bush can infact purge US attorney’s anytime he pleases as they do in fact serve at his pleasure.
Comment by Roger_Roger — March 16, 2007 @ 2:49 pm
Not everyone agrees this isn’t a crime!
He can fire his straff – but he can’t obstruct justice… if the sole pupose for him to firing certain attorneys was to prevent the prosecution of some well connected criminals – he has obstructed justice… he has broken the law!!!
March 16th, 2007 at 3:06 pmBush got rid of these USAs because they weren’t “pleasuring” him? Call Ken Starr!! Start the investigation into sexual harrassment/sexul impropriety/rape/whatever high crime or misdemeanor! Impeach!
March 16th, 2007 at 3:15 pmEveryone involved in this agrees it isn’t a crime.
Comment by Roger_Roger
Yes, I am sure that everyone who engaged in this dirty trick is deceiving themselves into thinking just that, including those who elected them. On the other hand, those of us NOT involved see it for what it is.
March 16th, 2007 at 3:19 pmEither way, this topic is boring because we are in fact talking about a perfectly legal act by a US president.
Comment by Roger_Roger
The act of getting rid of an attorney was never the question. It’s why they did. Not a difficult concept to grasp. If it was done for unethical reasons they should be called on it. If it was done to obstruct justice then thats a whole new set of no-nos. But if uncovering crime and unethical behavior of your elected officials is boring then bye-bye.
March 16th, 2007 at 3:26 pm#31 Look, this was a LEGAL act by Bush. Clinton purging all the attorney’s at the start of his presidency and Bush purging a few in the middle of his presidency makes no difference as both acts are perfectly legal. Are you simply looking to try and score some political points off this?
Comment by Roger_Roger — March 16, 2007 @ 3:05 pm
I think what you meant to say was:
March 16th, 2007 at 3:28 pm
Nixon firing Cox ( who was investigating Watergate) was what finally brought Nixon down, when impeachment was drawn up for Obstruction of Justice among other things.
Ford had to pardon Nixon to keep Nixon from being prosecuted, after Nixon resigned.
This is the same thing, but on a larger and more corrupt scale.
March 16th, 2007 at 3:29 pmPlease pass the ammunition! Got’cha covered, good buddy.
March 16th, 2007 at 3:33 pmI was 11B out of Fort Lewis. Did you serve sir?
Comment by Roger_Roger #21
I did Roger (x2)…
…AND in the 9th Infantry Division in Fort Lewis…
…and I’m ashamed that an intellectual and moral coward like yourself…
…is BETRAYING his country…
…to serve DESERTERS and DEFERMENT KINGS…
…with as much zeal as you’ve been doing…
…may your bloodline rot in hell, AFTER becoming EXTINCT…
…you’re not a soldier/veteran…
…you’re a dangerous cult member…
March 16th, 2007 at 3:40 pm#37 Bush doesn’t need a reason. Whether he had a reason or not doesn’t matter as it’s his legal right either way. Did Clinton have a reason? Who cares as it doesn’t matter as it was legal either way. The idea of holding show trials to figure out the political reasons behind a perfectly legal act is just that, a show trial as any info the find out still doesn’t change that it was a legal act. I am shocked that the Dems didn’t hold off until the 08′ elections with this political stunt. Do they honestly think the average American will remember this story let alone care in 2 months let alone 1 year? Sure, the far extremist on the left will care but the Dems don’t care about them anyways as your vote is already a lock for them. Hell, how many here wouldn’t vote for HIllary if she is the nom? This lady supports and already has plans to extend the war. She also is in favor of attacking Iran if they don’t stop enrichment. All these things many here are very against yet you will mostly show up on election day voting for Hillary anyways, thus you don’t matter. They should be pandering to the middle but this sort of stuff will be lost on most America. Personally, they should get back to trying to sell us on Universal Health Care and the other entitlement programs they want to use to take our money away from us with.
March 16th, 2007 at 4:20 pmLook, this was a LEGAL act by Bush. Clinton purging all the attorney’s at the start of his presidency and Bush purging a few in the middle of his presidency makes no difference as both acts are perfectly legal. Are you simply looking to try and score some political points off this?
Comment by Roger_Roger — March 16, 2007 @ 3:05 pm
1. Lists were being prepared showing which attorneys were Bush loyalists, and which ones were not. Should an attorney’s performance and ethics be the deciding factors in selecting him or her, or should a president also factor in whether or not an attorney will be loyal to him and his party?
2. The administration tells us the firings were due to poor performance. Yet each attorney had positive reviews during their last review. Why hasn’t the administration released information supporing their claims? Answer: because poor performance had nothing to do with it.
3. Many of these firings were of attorney’s who were investigating of crimes by Republicans.
4. Why is there a provision in the Patriot Act to allow the president to appoint new U.S. attorneys by bypassing Senate approval? What does this have to do with securing our country? Evidence shows that members of the administration were interested in taking advantage of this.
5. Just because Clinton did something doesn’t make it right. Nor does it excuse Bush. It’s not that Clinton and Bush had the right to purge the attorneys. It’s WHY the attorneys were purged that is the question.
6. Go back to school and learn proper grammer. “Attorney’s” is possessive, not plural.
March 16th, 2007 at 4:22 pm#12 Comment by firehead — March 16, 2007 @ 2:38 pm
Bush Sr. replaced all of Reagan US Attorney’s at the beginning of his Term, just Like Reagan did after taking over from Carter.
Nothing untoward in what Reagan, Bush Sr., or Clinton did.
Now, Bush 43 put these 8 attorneys into office at the beginning of his term, then fired them in 2005 for various fraudulent reasons, some of which were to obstruct investigations into corrupt GOP congressmen.
March 16th, 2007 at 4:51 pm#42 Comment by Roger_Roger — March 16, 2007 @ 4:20 pm
Lying to Congress and obstructing criminal investigations are illegal.
March 16th, 2007 at 4:52 pmHey Roger! Did you read the letter from Cummins that TP linked to in the update above? Here, let me post part of it for you:
Even Cummins says the administration lied about the firings. Even he says the firings are unprecedented. Yet you have no damn problem with this. So tell us, Roger, why do you think the administration lied?
March 16th, 2007 at 5:27 pmI see the Repuke troll is dragging out the old “Clinton did it too!” talking point.
That talking point won’t fly. Even if Clinton did something wrong, that does NOT justify it when Chimpy does it.
Stop talking about stuff that happened 15 years ago. This is here and now. Chimpy and his cronies are the problem now, not Bill Clinton.
It looks to me like somebody got to Cummins and he backed down. I bet it was Chimpy thugs who threatened to kill him and his family.
March 16th, 2007 at 5:30 pmHey Roger! Chew on this! From the NYT as posted at crooksandliars.com:
March 16th, 2007 at 5:31 pm
Repukes like Roger Dodger are too stupid to understand this scandal.
What Chimpy did was illegal, or highly unethical at the very least.
This wasn’t firing all the old prosecutors to appoint new ones.
This was making a HIT LIST of prosecutors that were hurting Repukes and getting rid of those prosecutors.
Roger Dodger has no moral compass if he doesn’t get it.
March 16th, 2007 at 5:32 pmThe Repukes in here and around the blogosphere are saying that Chimpy and Gonzo did nothing illegal so they did nothing wrong.
It is so obvious from the evidence that they DID do something wrong. They fired US attorneys because the attorneys were prosecuting Repukes. They had a hit list of who to fire and loyalty to Chimpy was a criteria.
This country is in great danger, I think we are headed to a civil war when the Repukes are operating in a Bizarro World that is deliberately seperated from the objective reality the rest of us live in every day.
Anybody who is willing to live in Bizarro World is psychotic and they’re willing to do anything, including making us into soap.
March 16th, 2007 at 5:37 pmI doubt Roger will be back tonight (if ever). Usually when someone asks pointed, specific questions, he ignores them.
March 16th, 2007 at 5:39 pmFunny how the Repukes in here keep spewing the same old tired talking points. Even after they have been completely debunked.
The Repukes are a bunch of Borg drones drinking nanoprobe Koolaid. They are incapable of independent thinking.
How do we get these idiots to wise up? I don’t think it is possible, they are too far gone.
March 16th, 2007 at 5:40 pmWhat’s Roger’s real name? AILES??
March 16th, 2007 at 5:41 pmOh where could Roger be???????
Look what I found on dailykos, from the Albuquerque Tribune:
And, as it happens, this amounts to a little revisionist history, as there were no indications of deficiency in his 2005 job performance review. The Albuquerque Journal’s on board, too, under today’s headline Complaints about Iglesias Expand. But there’s also this interesting tidbit:
March 16th, 2007 at 6:44 pm
POLITICAL RETRIBUTION–Bushland Uber Allies METHOD OF PAYBACK TO ITS OPPONENTS
March 17th, 2007 at 1:07 amDIVINE RETRIBUTION–WHAT AWAITS ALL OF THE NAZI-FASCISTS OF Bushland Uber Allies, WHO WILL SUFFER SUCH HIDEOUS TRAVAIL MY HEAD SPINS JUST THINKING ABOUT WHAT AWAITS THEM-Heh Heh Heh!!!! I LOVE IT!!!!! KINDA LIKE WHAT HAPPENS TO THE DOLT WHO PEES INTO A LIGHT SOCKET OR STICKS HIS DICK INTO A PICKLE SLICER–I PITY DA FOOLS–NOT!!!!!
People! Did you not read the UPDATE above?
In a message to TPMmuckraker, Cummins clarified, “I do not know of any connection whatsoever to the Missouri investigation and my firing.”
Case closed.
March 17th, 2007 at 8:56 amJake!
Did you not read the update and the quotes from the Albuquerque Tribune I posted above?
You think ONE attorney out of 8 that says he knows of no connection between a case he’s investigating and his firing solves the issue? What an idiot.
Why did the administration lie and say all of the firings were for performance issues when all the attorney’s had positive reviews on their PERFORMANCE?
No. The only “performance” issue was that the lawyers who were fired were going after high profile Republicans (and those with ties to Republican politicians — see Jack Abramoff — a no-no with Republicans in the WH and in a majority in Congress) or weren’t investigating Dems fast enough to benefit Repubs.
Can you explain why there is a provision in the Patriot Act that lets Bush appoint US attorneys without Senate approval and what the hell that has to do with national security? Can you explain why the administration wanted to take advantage of it when replacing the fired attorneys? No? Didn’t think so.
March 17th, 2007 at 10:09 amThis is what concerns me:
Cummins,
A former U.S. Attorney makes it clear that the President can legally stack the Department of Justice with only those persons who loyally follow the Party line. The DoJ can legally be the investigatory arm of a political party, sworn to put Party Loyalty and Devotion to the President above the Constitution. And he’s right. After all, who is going to investigate any possible “obstruction of justice” charges? Someone from the Department of Justice.
Impeachment is off the table. A lone Republican has blocked changing the Patriot Act clause that allows Bush to replace the Attorneys and bypass Senate Confirmation. Congress can investigate all it wants, but Congress cannot prosecute criminal charges.
March 17th, 2007 at 10:32 amFrom the Party’s perspective, the security of The Party is National Security. The Party believes it is acting in the Nation’s best interests. Anything that hurts The Party therefore hurts the Nation.
March 17th, 2007 at 10:36 am“Performance” covers quite a lot.
March 17th, 2007 at 10:42 amComment by Briseadh na Faire — March 17, 2007 @ 10:36 am
You got that right.
March 17th, 2007 at 11:19 am“Performance†covers quite a lot.
Comment by Jake — March 17, 2007 @ 10:42 am
Yes, it does.
Poor performance due to ineptitude or corruption on the attorneys’ part or unethical behavior is one thing.
But firing them because they are not moving fast enough in investigating Democrats is a questionable tactic. I know you don’t agree with that, so tough sh*t.
As Cummins says, the administration lied about the performance part. You saying you know more than a U.S. attorney?
March 17th, 2007 at 11:27 am“Performance†covers quite a lot.
Comment by Jake — March 17, 2007 @ 10:42 am
Obviously you can’t answer the other 5 questions I asked. Not surprised.
March 18th, 2007 at 10:15 am