Cummins: Now The Bush Administration Is Lying About Me
Cummins: Now The Bush Administration Is Lying About Me
Bud Cummins is the former U.S. Attorney for Arkansas who was pushed out to make room for Karl Rove protege Tim Griffin.
Interviewed two weeks ago on Fox News Sunday, Cummins said that while he was seriously concerned about the administration’s treatment of the seven other purged prosecutors, he knew why he was fired and said the White House had been honest about it:
In my case, I served at the pleasure of the president. They asked me to leave. I left. And they told the truth almost consistently throughout this about my situation.
So I really don’t think this is as much about me as it is the positions they’ve taken to try and explain the other seven. And that’s where I personally am still very concerned, because I don’t think they’ve been fair to the other seven colleagues at all.
But during his testimony on Thursday, Kyle Sampson suggested that Cummins was also let go for performance-related reasons. During a speech in Arkansas, Cummins was livid:
Cummins objected to the testimony of Kyle Sampson, former chief of staff to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, in Sampson’s appearance Thursday before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Sampson told senators he believed each of the federal prosecutors fired late last year by the Justice Department was replaced because of problems related to his or her performance in office.
“If they’re starting to say that I had performance problems, then I have the same gripe the other seven have, because it’s a lie,” said Cummins, a Republican Bush appointee who was removed as U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Arkansas and replaced by Tim Griffin, former assistant to White House political adviser Karl Rove.
Cummins said if he were to comment further on Sampson’s testimony, “I’d need a censor.”
Cummins also said during his speech that he was “astounded” by Sampson’s suggestion that “political success and success as a prosecutor are one and the same.” In an op-ed today for Salon.com, Cummins writes, “Being credible is like being pregnant — you either are, or you aren’t. … Once you have given the public a reason to believe some of your decisions are improperly motivated, then they are going to question every decision you have made, or will make in the future.”
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
116 Responses to “Cummins: Now The Bush Administration Is Lying About Me”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
Know what will stop all of this? Impeachment back on the table.
The Bush Regime is continuing to behave badly because the consequences of them doing so are NOTHING!
March 31st, 2007 at 12:01 pmOnce you have given the public a reason to believe some of your decisions are improperly motivated, then they are going to question every decision you have made, or will make in the future.â€
That also hold true for lyin’ presidents, and the lackeys who serve them.
March 31st, 2007 at 12:02 pmFrom the link, “[Cummins] acknowledged that U.S. attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president and can be removed for any reason.”
That’s not quite accurate. An “at-will” employee can be removed for good cause, for bad cause, or for no cause. BUT THEY CANNOT BE REMOVED FOR AN ILLEGAL CAUSE.
And if the reason to remove an attorney was to prevent or stop an investigation, that could amount to an illegal cause; obstruction of justice.
March 31st, 2007 at 12:02 pmWell, Cummings is right — including the lying that has made a simple case of proper firings spiral out of control and made to look like they were improper. Its all in the WH bungling. So SAD!
Visit: http://OsiSpeaks.com or http://OsiSpeaks.org
March 31st, 2007 at 12:03 pmGonzales has also handed every defendent in a federal trial a built-in defense; that s/he was set up because of a political agenda by the DoJ, and not because s/he actually broke the law.
Firing prosecutors because of their failure to tow the party line makes every prosecution suspect as a political vendetta. Even the actions and decisions of the ones who were not replaced is suspect. Why weren’t they replaced? They’ve been described as “loyal Bushies,” meaning what? Have they demonstrated faithfulness to Bush, instead of the rule of law?
And what of these recent replacements? Their loyalty to Bush apparently exceeds their loyalty to the Constitution, or they wouldn’t have been given the appointment via a process that bypassed Senate confirmation.
March 31st, 2007 at 12:11 pmComment by KYJurisDoctor — March 31, 2007 @ 12:03 pm
If you hold a Juris Doctor, why are you making an assumption that the firings were proper?
Did you study employment law?
March 31st, 2007 at 12:13 pmMaybe Kyle got confused during his testimoy. Hey, who knows…that wacky drop file that sorta of existed would make me confused too!!!
March 31st, 2007 at 12:15 pmAre there any REAL lawyers still under the BushCo NeoCon tent any more? I rather think not. Seems even the loyal Bushie Toads are now pissed off and speaking out.
HMMMMM!! This is getting quite interesting. Stay tuned!!!
March 31st, 2007 at 12:27 pmIn my case, I served at the pleasure of the president. They asked me to leave. I left. And they told the truth almost consistently throughout this about my situation.
That was your problem right there Buddy. Taking anything this fascist regime says at face value.
March 31st, 2007 at 12:31 pmthese people have taken over our country
they do not care how many of us are killed now, because we have allowed them to pocket billions of dollars for their select group
they do not care if other countries are devastated and their populations destroyed.
they are going to start with iran now. it means more profits to the arms makers that employ these people
congress appears to think this is okay and move as moths infatuated with the lights.
we, the people, lose. and where we could help the other people of the world to stop these acts, we, the people, do not have control of that. nor does our congress, or military. those institutions have been destroyed for a purpose.
it is time we learn what totalitarian rule by one select group is about. now that they have it, there is little hope that they will ever grow a conscience. companies don’t have a conscience, only people allowed to dictate the policy. those companies are the afore mentioned cause of the problems, as are their people.
alas, it is too late when all parties pretend as if to care. you may see evidence of same when no actions are taken. america was.
March 31st, 2007 at 12:32 pmPerhaps Cummins should read this:
http://www.latimes.com/ news/ opinion/ la-oe-kmiec31mar31,0,3822929.story?coll=la-opinion-center
The president’s right to fire . . . when Gonzales appears before the Senate Judiciary Committee on April 17, history, precedent and the Constitution will be on his side.
March 31st, 2007 at 12:39 pmKYJurisDoctor:
Don’t worry about those like Briseadh na Faire who would claim the President’s pardon power is “obstruction of justice” if that would get Impeachment back on the table.
March 31st, 2007 at 12:41 pmIgnore the troll
March 31st, 2007 at 12:44 pmthey are going to start with iran now.
I’m surprised they haven’t bombed them already. Get ready for $5 a gallon gas cause they will attack them, guaranteed. Anybody who doesn’t believe that they are goin to do so…well I like your optimism but we’ve seen this show before, and that didn’t turn out quite so well.
March 31st, 2007 at 12:46 pmThat’s right — ignore history, precedent and the Constitution — if you hate Bush that is.
March 31st, 2007 at 12:47 pm“Bell’s analysis is instructive. His refusal to draft Carter’s desired legislation does not mean the Senate shouldn’t inquire into whether the Bush White House or the Gonzales Justice Department sought to improperly influence a particular case. But it does mean that the Senate has no legitimate basis to object if it turns out the U.S. attorneys were removed because they failed to bring the cases the president or his attorney general sought to give emphasis. The first is corruption and obstruction. The second is political direction.” (emphasis added)
As with the Nixon White House, the Constitution does not protect corruption and objstruction of justice, even when committed by the President. That’s why the founding fathers included Article II, Section 4.
March 31st, 2007 at 12:49 pmJake, are you paid to write “The president’s right to fire…”? Or are you just really, really stupid? I am asking because you have written this a hundred times or more here, while studiously ignoring all documentation refuting your claim of an unlimited right.
March 31st, 2007 at 12:50 pmComment by Jake — March 31, 2007 @ 12:41 pm
Since I have never claimed that, you are using a falacious argument.
If I were using the same tactic, I would tell others to ignore Jake, as he would declare 2+2=5 if that would demonstrate his love for Big Brother and the Party.
March 31st, 2007 at 12:52 pmWelcome to the Republican party Mr. Cummins, where members can be assured they’ll be used and discarded at the whims of their leaders.
They aren’t even compassionate to the conservatives any longer. Now that it’s springtime, the mob-style principles of the Republican party are in full turdblossom.
Wake up and smell the sulfur.
- Tom
March 31st, 2007 at 12:55 pmFor the record, I do not get paid to post here — Douglas W. Kmiec wrote that OpEd piece for the L.A. Times today — I doubt he gets paid for that either but I really don’t know for sure. Anyone (NOT on the “Ignore List”) who has any questions about the history, precedent and the Constitution on Gonzales’s side, please let me know.
March 31st, 2007 at 1:01 pmSecond attempt, this time without the link to the article cited by Jake:
March 31st, 2007 at 1:02 pmKYJurisDoctor — March 31, 2007 @ 12:03 pm
No response???
March 31st, 2007 at 1:05 pmGood choice, KYJurisDoctor — they are not worth your time or effort.
March 31st, 2007 at 1:08 pmJakeASS…have you sworn a personal oath of fealty to DerFueher Bush and therefore must lie on HIS behalf or you get sent to a concentration camp? Yes, it is this blind loyalty to an autocrat and party rather than to The Constitution and the rule of Law that led to the Nazi takeover of Germany….I am sure in those days you, KKKarlRove and the rest of you neofascist would be dressing up in your brownshirts and raising your arm in sieheil salute…you disgust me …but rest assured that WE WILL NEVER permit you and the bushchaney fascist to hijack our rights….you are all headed for a really bad bad fall….count on it !!!
March 31st, 2007 at 1:10 pmAnyone (NOT on the “Ignore Listâ€) who has any questions about the history, precedent and the Constitution on Gonzales’s side, please let me know.
Comment by Jake — March 31, 2007 @ 1:01 pm
So, you can write a hit post on me, then hide back behind your “Ignore List.”
Grow some gonads.
March 31st, 2007 at 1:10 pmOnly a man-boy like Kyle Sampson, a wolverine in a chipmunk suit, with a single low-level criminal trial to his credit, could arrogate to himself authority to decide the careers of US Attorneys.
His testimony was only partly correct (in many parts). He was the coordinator-in-chief of views for Mr. Gonzales and the White House about which USA’s should go. But he had great control over the outcome. Karl’s shop looked at none of the substantive reasons for these firings, only the mileage they could get from their Base.
I suspect Mr. Gonzales has that hang dog look on his face for two reasons. He is disappointed that the WH is not happier, when he did precisely the job it wanted done. He took no great interest in what Sampson was doing because he knew all the decisions would be made in the WH. So, why bother?
March 31st, 2007 at 1:12 pmThird time, now paraphrased from the article linked in 10.
The author makes a distinction between firing for a bad reason, politics, and firing for an illegal reason, corruption and obstruction. The author points out that the Senate has every right to look into whether the Attorneys were fired as a result of corruption and obstruction.
March 31st, 2007 at 1:12 pmNow all 8 are calling foul, and speaking out against Bushco smearing their reputations.
The house better be writing this stuff down for those impeachment papers on Gonzo, Darth Cheney, Rice and Shrub.
*** proud member of the Jake-ass “Ignore List ” Club ***
March 31st, 2007 at 1:13 pmLooks like third time was the charm.
sheesh.
March 31st, 2007 at 1:15 pmFor the record, I have not sworn a personal oath of fealty to DerFueher Bush and I do not lie on HIS behalf — I don’t think Professor Kmiec is lying either — whether I point out such defective items from angryvietnamvet or Briseadh na Faire’s posts to lurkers or those NOT on the “Ignore List” is not intended to be a response, in any manner whatsoever, to said person(s), real or fictional.
March 31st, 2007 at 1:16 pmSince the troll strategy appears to be posting opinions and asserting them as Holy Writ, here are some other opinions.
Gonzo should step down
more opinion
If had questions about history, precedent and the Constitution, the last person I’d ask questions of is a partisan troll.
March 31st, 2007 at 1:19 pmmbbsdphil:
Actually, this thread is about the purportedly-false “substantive reasons” for at least the firing of Cummins — maybe you should (re)read the articles above — but even if the President replaced all 8 U.S. Attorneys for “only the mileage they could get from their Base” that is NOT ILLEGAL!!!
March 31st, 2007 at 1:21 pm#27 — Comment by Jake
Weasel Words, and pure cowardice.
Hide your own attacks behind your “Ignore List”
You are disgusting Jake-ass
March 31st, 2007 at 1:23 pmWhen I was a kid I was warned to watch out for who I play with. Mr Cummins had the wrong pals it seems. They treated him to a date rape and called him a whore afterwards.
Some of the commenters here, p1, jake, should be wary of their friends, not us.
Hi, unbelievable! What have you been doing lately, I missed your posts.
March 31st, 2007 at 1:24 pmMr. Kmiec’s LA Times article entirely misstates the controversy over the firing of US Attorneys.
It is not about whether the President can legislate limits to his own authority to hire and fire or set policy; that’s a red herring. It is about whether the President can do those things for illegal reasons (or for reasons that corrupt the administration of justice, even if legal). It is about whether his Attorney General lied to Congress, and his refusal to cooperate with Congress in finding out if that’s true.
Kyle Sampson made the case for the administration’s critics. In his testimony Thursday, this neophyte who has tried a single criminal case and assisted in a few civil trials, opined that any distinction between a US Attorney’s politics and performance was “artificial”.
That’s this administration’s problem in a nutshell. Heckuva job, Kyle.
March 31st, 2007 at 1:27 pmYou can “corrupt the administration of justice” by legal means?! You’ll have to explain that one a little better. I will agree, however, if Gonzales lied to Congress he should resign.
March 31st, 2007 at 1:30 pmAlso, I think the fact that even a DEMOCRATIC Attorney General recognized that Carter could not unconstitutionally deny himself (and, more imporantly, all future Presidents) the right to replace U.S. Attorneys for PURELY POLITICAL reasons is pretty germane to the controversy– YMMV.
March 31st, 2007 at 1:36 pmI will agree, however, if Gonzales lied to Congress he should resign.
Comment by Jake
Let me correct this for you.
Lying to Congress is illegal, maximum 5 years per count.
If Gonzo lied to Congress he should go to jail.
*** proud member of the Weasel Jake-ass “Ignore List †Club ***
March 31st, 2007 at 1:37 pmLions and tigers and bears, oh my! I think Mr. Rove has made a well-paid career out of doing just that.
Many of us would disagree with him about one thing in particular: not getting caught at it, is not the same thing as not breaking the law.
March 31st, 2007 at 1:38 pmmbbsdphil:
That’s your “better” explanation? Quoting from The Wizard of Oz? How about we back up and see if we can at least agree on definitions:
Illegal = breaking the law, even if you are not caught.
Legal = not breaking the law.
March 31st, 2007 at 1:43 pmSo, it’s perfectly ok with Jake to use the Department of Justice to go after political opponents, turning the Federal Government into an extension of The Party.
Sounds a lot like Hitler’s Germany or Stalinist Russia to me.
From now on out, we must assume that all Federal prosecutions are done solely for political purposes.
Welcome to a totalitarian State, brought to by the likes of Exley, Jake, Hendler, Valient Venus and their ilk.
March 31st, 2007 at 1:53 pmHere’s the question again:
You can “corrupt the administration of justice†by legal means?!
March 31st, 2007 at 1:55 pmWhat President Carter sought by statute could be achieved by a Constitutional Amendment; Federal prosecutors are appointed for a limited term, to expire at the end of the President’s term of office, and are subject to removal by the President during that term for good cause only. They woudl still be subject to the impeachment provisions of Article II Section 4.
March 31st, 2007 at 1:57 pmGood choice, KYJurisDoctor — they are not worth your time or effort.
Comment by Jake — March 31, 2007 @ 1:08 pm
Then clarify, if we are not worth the time and effort - why you live here.
March 31st, 2007 at 2:00 pmThe WH/DOJ system is flawed as a tool of government in that it ignores the substantive performance of US Attorneys. It was effective in using them to promote its electoral prospects, quite possibly to the detriment of the equal application of those laws. Whether that is so is one thing Congress hopes to find out, which is why I think this administration will go to the mattresses before cooperating.
The whole USA process, I think, has been turned into another red herring, a “shiny object”, to distract from Iraq, what Mr. Bush intends to do in Iran, the substantive investigations prosecutors like Ms. Lam were pursuing, etc. I think Mr. Sampson called it running out the clock, in good faith, of course.
March 31st, 2007 at 2:03 pmFor the record, U.S. Attorneys are subject to removal by the President during for good cause, no cause, or even POLITICAL cause: “. . . the Senate has no legitimate basis to object if it turns out the U.S. Attorneys were removed because they failed to bring the cases the President or his Attorney General sought to give emphasis.”
http://www.latimes.com/ news/ opinion/ la-oe-kmiec31mar31,0,3822929.story?coll=la-opinion-center
March 31st, 2007 at 2:03 pmFor the latest news, email archives, hearings, legal filings and other essential documents on the Bush DOJ prosecutor firings, see:
March 31st, 2007 at 2:04 pm“The U.S. Attorney Scandal Documents.”
I count twelve or so comments so far by Jake. That’s a lot of talk for a guy who claims to be so self-confident.
March 31st, 2007 at 2:05 pmThen clarify, if we are not worth the time and effort - why you live here. Comment by unbelievable — March 31, 2007 @ 2:00 pm
That’s an easy one - because his *time* isn’t worth anything - just like his useless st*pid quotes ;)
March 31st, 2007 at 2:06 pmYou can “corrupt the administration of justice†by legal means?!
KYJurisDoctor:
As you can see, they won’t even answer a simple question — which is why they are on my “Ignore List” too — I’m retired with plenty of time to roam back and forth, but at your billing rate, like I said, they are not worth your time or effort.
March 31st, 2007 at 2:08 pmYou can “corrupt the administration of justice†by legal means?!
Certainly. As has been pointed out, it is legal to appoint partisans and party loyalists as Federal Prosecutors and task the Department of Justice with investigating and prosecuting political opponents while refusing to prosecuty Party loyalists.
When the administration of justice is thus politicized, it is also thus corrupted. The scales of Justice will weigh against political enemies and favor cronies. Now, put that together with warrantless wiretaps and other warrantless searches, all “legal” under the Patriot Act and you have a “legal” mechanism for arresting and convicting anyone who expresses dissent.
March 31st, 2007 at 2:08 pmJake quotes an *opinion-piece* as fact!!! BAHAHA, what a complete *idiot*!!!
So Jake, you think the opinion piece of another right wingnut, is any different than yours? You all get your marching orders from central command - of course you’re going to say the same st*pid and ignorant remarks! That’s why you’re rightwingnuts - you can’t think for yourself, dweeb!
March 31st, 2007 at 2:09 pmComment by Perry Logan — March 31, 2007 @ 2:05 pm
Right you are…and for one who continues to ignore the very real issue of whether or not the attorneys were fired as a result of corruption or obstruction of justice.
March 31st, 2007 at 2:11 pmI’m retired with plenty of time to roam back and forth, but at your billing rate, like I said, they are not worth your time or effort. Comment by Jake — March 31, 2007 @ 2:08 pm
A retired 75 year old into PS3 and Cheetos that uses the slang and vocabulary of a 20 something. Yeah, sure Jake. You may be st*pid, be we aren’t - you cowardly little piece of sh*t. Get to Iraq, and put your money where your mouth is, you d*ckw*d!
March 31st, 2007 at 2:11 pmThat’s an easy one - because his *time* isn’t worth anything - just like his useless st*pid quotes ;)
Comment by ValiantVenusGrewFromUranus — March 31, 2007 @ 2:06 pm
LOL… So true.
I’m on the Ignore List without insulting him or asking to be included - so clearly even he believes your explanation :)
March 31st, 2007 at 2:13 pm#43 Comment by Jake
Everyone notice: Jake posts a link to an OPINION to back up his statement, instead of a factual article or link to a law reference.
*** proud member of the Weasel Jake-ass “Ignore List †Club ***
March 31st, 2007 at 2:13 pmAlso, I think the fact that even a DEMOCRATIC Attorney General recognized that Carter could not unconstitutionally deny himself (and, more imporantly, all future Presidents) the right to replace U.S. Attorneys for PURELY POLITICAL reasons is pretty germane to the controversy– YMMV. Comment by Jake — March 31, 2007 @ 1:36 pm
Jake proves he’s st*pid, not just illiterate. I supplied the *Carter* article, and in it, it specifically states that Carter didn’t do what Jake, claims, neither did it establish the *precedent* Jake says it does.
You know Jake, your lives in this world, not the other way round - SON!
March 31st, 2007 at 2:13 pmI’m retired with plenty of time to roam back and forth, but at your billing rate, like I said, they are not worth your time or effort.
Comment by Jake — March 31, 2007 @ 2:08 pm
Isn’t that cowardly to answer my question by addressing it to someone else.
I teach high school. No way you’re more than 23 years old. Retired people coming from the WWII generation have a different culture than Generation Y. You exhibit zero qualities of a WWII person and all the qualities of a self-absorbed, instant gratification Gen Y brat…
You aren’t fooloing anyone.
March 31st, 2007 at 2:16 pmA retired 75 year old into PS3 and Cheetos that uses the slang and vocabulary of a 20 something.
Comment by ValiantVenusGrewFromUranus — March 31, 2007 @ 2:11 pm
Exactly!
March 31st, 2007 at 2:17 pmLet me count the ways:
Appoint lobbyists to key agency posts that regulate those lobbyists’ “former” industries. Hire as agency heads those whose lifelong ambition has been to abolish that agency. “Quiet” dissent by imposing political neophytes to screen position or research papers, or prohibit their publication, because objective facts disagree with policy.
Manage an agency through a politically reliable deputy or acting head, thus avoiding a critical public confirmation process.
Leave key leadership posts vacant or change them frequently, disrupting morale, focus, and the work product of careerists, and eroding the division’s status and ability to fight for limited resources.
Drive out career professionals by giving them nothing to do for a year, by demoting them, by over-reacting and personalizing their professional objections to proposed policy, and intentionally misinterpreting their input as “insubordination”.
Void statutes by “reinterpreting” them through regulations.
Order the ejection of peaceful critics from public assemblies. Order the prosecution of cases against peaceful protesters, knowing that doing so would violate their First Amendment rights, in order to justify the use of hidden, Free Speech Zones that outside the Bubble.
Just for starters.
March 31st, 2007 at 2:23 pmI think Mr. Rove makes an art of corrupting government and the administration of justice through legal means. He avoids challenges when he has a pliant, somnabulant Congress more interested in getting on the K Street dole than in legislating. He hides from courts by invoking “national security”, and by switching charges or courts to avoid successful legal challenges. Those might create precedents that would make clear the administration’s actions have no basis in law whatsoever.
Getting a pliant Congress to enact laws that take away Habeas Corpus and create lawless tribunals may be formally legal, at least until successfully challenged; it is still corrupt.
March 31st, 2007 at 2:42 pmThe LA Times article referred to above demonstrates the absolute moral integrity of Carter’s administration, unequaled by any republican administration in living memory. The issue between Carter and his atty gen., after the crimes of watergate was how to ensure that federal law enforcement would not be corrupted for political purposes. Carter was in favor of prosecutors and justice leaders who could not be fired once appointed and the atty gen thought that the president should retain the ability to correct corruption, should it occur. NEITHER of them dreamed, I would argue, that their concerns would be placed in a newspaper to defend the abuses that Gonzales has perpetrated on the organization at the urging of such a sickeningly criminal president. It is however, typical of the morally bankrupt right to worm their way through their crimes by hiding behind issues such as this. Suddenly Jimmy Carter is the example worth following, after years and years of bashing and slandering from the right. DID Carter fire US attorneys mid-career as they were investigating democrats?? Just shows ta go ya, when a winger can take a little bit of fact, grossly misrepresent it and hijack its purpose, no problem. When there is no fact, just make it up, eg. “Valerie Plame lied” . Pretty weak dude. Imagine Clinton trying to pull this and what the response from Lott, Gingrich et al. would have been. The wingers who exploit Carter’s deep concern for the ethical governing of the nation aren’t fit to be trusted with his nose pickings. They’ve certainly never come close to equaling him.
March 31st, 2007 at 2:45 pmLooks like Cheney and Rove short circuted a very serious problem when they had Carol Lam dismissed.
Via TPM: Cunningham briber Mitchell Wade often bragged about his juice with Vice President Dick Cheney. Now Laura Rozen has more on the Wade-Cheney connection.
– Josh Marshall
Former US Attorney Carol Lam didnt get the DOJ/Rove memo from the RNC mail server: Henceforth Political Corruption cases will be tolerated as long as they only target members of the Democratic Party. Please try to remember that “Just-Us only applies to those of us in the GOP”
The cunningham/wade primer
http://tpmmuckraker.com/cunningham.php
The First Contract
New questions arise concerning Mitchell Wade’s first White House contract — and his connections to the vice president.
http://www.prospect.org/ web/ page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&articleId=12612
March 31st, 2007 at 2:50 pm“Jake” gets paid by the comment…& he needs to pay back that $12,000!
March 31st, 2007 at 2:56 pmBack in 1978 Carter fired David Marston, US Attorney.
He was asked to do this by Democratic Congressman Joshua Eilberg,, Pennsylvania who was being investigated by Marston at the time.
The unusal thing here was that Marston was a Republican US Attorney.
As President Carter recounted it, Eilberg offered no reason and Carter did not ask; the System was at work. Carter thought so little of the matter that days passed before he got around to calling Attorney General Griffin Bell about it.
Carter’s credibility troubles began when he professed to remember none of this, or of Eilberg’s ‘problems’.
Tip O’Neill (house Speaker) described Marston as “a Republican political animal” who took office “with viciousness in his heart and for only one reason—to get Democrats.”
However, GOP Congressman Thomas Evans pointed out that Marston had nailed two Republicans along with several Democrats.
Due to the Carter Administration’s ineptness, a martyr’s image was created for Marston, who was an outright political appointee who hunted headlines as vigorously as he hunted official corruption in both parties.
The Justice Department announced that Bell and Carter were cleared of any charge of obstruction of justice in the affair.
March 31st, 2007 at 3:19 pmWhat amazes me most about all of this is the unfaltering egotism and belief that they are somehow “above the law” and are rubbing it in the faces of the american people. One would think that with all of the mounting evidence the public has which could remove any of them from office, they would be a bit more conciliatory and cooperative. I guess that’s the hallmark of a true sociopath, though: They have absolutely NO CONSCIENCE and NO SOUL. Introspection doesn’t exist in their version of reality. They are pathological in every sense of the word. This country simply can no longer afford to play footsie around this level of overt corruption in the highest offices in this country.
Removal of these liars is an imperative and needs to become the mandate of the american people. Too bad it, as the Congress says: It takes too long and will require too much energy which is needed to begin to “right” this sinking ship called the US - I content that it not only is required that this be done and done as swiftly as possible but that there will be no future for any of us if it is not done immediately.
Remember: Bush tanked every business endeavor he ever touched because of gross ineptitude and mismanagement. He’s succeeding in tanking America before our very eyes. The People must press for impeachment NOW! Time is not on the side of democracy, folks.
March 31st, 2007 at 3:20 pmTP - Why does Jake get to copy, paste and link to an article once:
Comment by Jake — March 31, 2007 @ 12:39 pm
and twice:
Comment by Jake — March 31, 2007 @ 2:03 pm
yet in the intervening time, each time I tried to copy and paste an excerpt in rebuttal it was blocked, and I had to resort to paraphrasing without a link?
Why does Jake rate what seems to be preferential treatment?
March 31st, 2007 at 3:20 pmOn another thread, I saw where GannonGate is getting fired up. How many times did this male prostitute visit the white house at night?
March 31st, 2007 at 3:20 pmBud is a loyal Republican and knows what the rules are. Not bad looking either I might say. All was well until Kyle Sampson added Bud’s name to the list of bad reviews. Now Bud has to protect his career as he did an excellent job and served at the pleasure of the President. Now he is faced with fighting for his career against his own Republican party. Kyle was trying to get out of the lie only to end up lying about Bud Cummins. Now the Republicans are turning on each other as they try to lie their way out of the lie. Bud Cummins did his job will and he was loyal to the Republican party only to have that party stab him in the back. Not all Republicans are like the Bush Administration.
March 31st, 2007 at 3:23 pmKarl Rove had a psychologically damaging childhood; that’s apparent from his level of sadism as an adult. I believe these recent scandals are nothing when compared to the depth of evil which this man has concocted and conducted resulting in irreparable damage to our democracy. As a kid, he was fat and unpopular - a veritable “nerd” - dateless and delusioned which perpetuated a downward spiral personally into the abyss of evil - the “get even” mentality we see so often in horror flicks. Rove is the epitome of the “evil/get even” syndrome and we’re seeing it up close these days. He needs to step down or be taken down by subpoenas, contempt of court, and whatever means possible. After all, he WAS at the bottom of PlameGate and managed to slime himself out scott-free.
March 31st, 2007 at 3:24 pm“Jake†gets paid by the comment…& he needs to pay back that $12,000! — n69n
A lot of talk for a guy who claims to be so self-confident. — Perry Logan
Well, which one is it then guys? Damned if you do, damned if you don’t . . .
March 31st, 2007 at 3:24 pm#66 I did notice earlier in the week what a loyal “Bushie” Bud appeared to be despite the fact that they were screwing him. Perhaps it’s that old S/M in so many Rethugs….”hit me harder!”…But now, let’s see how he’s feeling to have his reputation besmerched on national television - perhaps never to be resurrected due to the lack of trust people will have even when his name is mentioned - how the worm turns when it hits home. Let’s see how loyal a Bushie Bud Commings will be by next week when he realizes he’s been betrayed AND screwed by Bush.
March 31st, 2007 at 3:27 pmGOP Today - A Virtual “feeding frenzy” as they devour their own left and right. Step right up, folks, get some popcorn - for it promises to be a very “bumpy ride”…heh-heh….gotta love sweet justice when she swings her pendulum the other way, dontcha just love it?
March 31st, 2007 at 3:29 pmNow Buddy Boy can see where his “Bushie-ism” has gotten him! He’s been HAD and by the best of them! Perhaps now he’s learned his lesson since it’s bitten him on the rearend?
March 31st, 2007 at 3:30 pmre:Jake
I don’t trust a thing he says. Have you noticed that he is never correct when pinned down? I have. And I’ve read a lot of his posts.
March 31st, 2007 at 3:34 pmI wish people would ignore him. He just wastes a lot of people’s time and space at TP
Good choice, KYJurisDoctor — they are not worth your time or effort.
Comment by Jake — March 31, 2007 @ 1:08 pm
So Jake I guess we can assume that you are KYJurisDoctor. And Briseadh na Faire is on your ignore list. He has to be because he knows so much more about the law than you do.
March 31st, 2007 at 3:46 pmComment by angryvietnamvet — March 31, 2007 @ 1:10 pm
Go get him - glad to be on your team against the Jakes and other trolls.
March 31st, 2007 at 3:47 pmFrom now on out, we must assume that all Federal prosecutions are done solely for political purposes
Comment by Briseadh na Faire — March 31, 2007 @ 1:53 pm
Well I’m no lawyer but seems like a good reason to find every defendant not guilty. Guess we might as well just get rid of the Justice Department. Aren’t we glad Jake cleared it all up for us.
March 31st, 2007 at 3:56 pmWhat President Carter sought by statute could be achieved by a Constitutional Amendment; Federal prosecutors are appointed for a limited term, to expire at the end of the President’s term of office, and are subject to removal by the President during that term for good cause only. They woudl still be subject to the impeachment provisions of Article II Section 4.
Comment by Briseadh na Faire — March 31, 2007 @ 1:57 pm
And wasn’t this so the attorney’s could assume they would work without political pressure throughout that president’s term. Jake still won’t get it though.
March 31st, 2007 at 3:59 pmJust ignore him until he’s sensible. Commenting on distractors is self-destructive and feeds into his/her/its occasional personal attacks. It also derails constructive comment, which is what an AEI Blog Fellowship would be designed to do.
March 31st, 2007 at 4:04 pmDidn’t Clinton appoint Janet Reno who then picked Ken Starr to investigate Clinton. Is that not the way government is supposed to work. I mean Clinton was an attorney. Wouldn’t he have known if he could get rid of Reno and Starr because they serve and the pleasure of the president and he wasn’t pleased anymore.
Jake - why don’t you explain this to somebody not on your little girly-man list.
March 31st, 2007 at 4:10 pmGrow some gonads.
Comment by Briseadh na Faire
March 31st, 2007 at 4:13 pmI think he did have some in his last porno movie. Right Matt er Jake?
Let’s see how loyal a Bushie Bud Commings will be by next week when he realizes he’s been betrayed AND screwed by Bush.
Comment by veritas — March 31, 2007 @ 3:27 pm
Cumming was loyal in typical neocon fashion because nobody said anything negative about him, screw the country. Now Sampson puts a negative spin on his firing and all of a sudden he’s a pit bull, gotta love these self-serving bastards.
March 31st, 2007 at 4:21 pmShane,
It sounds like Cummins is still loyal — he’s just got his panties in a bunch because Sampson tried to make him look bad. Self-serving pitbull.
March 31st, 2007 at 4:30 pmalso perhaps trying to make Sampson look bad, ’cause that would make Gonzo look not quite so bad….
March 31st, 2007 at 4:34 pmSelf-serving pitbull.
Comment by Zooey — March 31, 2007 @ 4:30 pm
So we can agree that they are not pitbulls. They are whiney little puppy dogs.
March 31st, 2007 at 4:40 pm… ankle-biters…
March 31st, 2007 at 4:43 pmThese former US Attorneys were appropriately loyal to the conservative administration that hired them. They seem to have acted honorably and with reasonably objective evaluations of the investigations they launched.
It was appropriate to react privately to their dismissals until the administration showed what I regard as its true colors by blaming them - the “performance reasons” argument - to cover their own possibly illegal and probably corrupt acts. That would have forced any competent lawyer/manager of any political stripe to react forcefully and publicly.
I try to remember that part of Rove’s mastery is to do familiar things - routine staffing changes - in unexpected ways - firing not one but a passle of USA’s, hiring not the occasional lobbyist, but staffing all agencies with lobbyists and political neophytes.
March 31st, 2007 at 4:43 pm81, 82. I’ll disagree on this. My read on it is that Cummins is a career prosecutor. He knows the game, and being replaced for non-performance reasons is part of the game. As I said, one can be fired for good cause, bad cause or no cause, so long as it is not an illegal cause.
In his case, he was terminated for bad cause, to make way for Rove’s man in charge of digging up dirt on Democrats. (Placed in Arkansas — Whitewater, Part II?)
Then Sampson tried to portray it as Cummins being terminated for good cause, that is, for performance-related issues. This paints Cummins in a bad light, and is apparantly false.
If the same thing happened to me, I would have reacted in exactly the same way as Cummins. Professional courtesy mandates that you do not bad-mouth a former employer, even when let go for bad cause. However, I too, would speak out when necessary to protect my good name.
March 31st, 2007 at 4:48 pmBriseadh na Faire,
Oy, fine. Just stab me in the heart, why don’t ya? :-D
March 31st, 2007 at 5:12 pm69 Your so right let’s see how Bud handles being stabbed in the back by his own party. I really think Bud was shocked when he heard Kyle Sampson on national TV. Yes Bud now has to join the rest of the lawyers that were lied on by the Attorney Generals office. As I said there’s trouble in the party big time. No one can trust anyone anymore in the Republican party.
March 31st, 2007 at 5:29 pmRecap of Whitewater
March 31st, 2007 at 5:40 pmPaula Casey was appointed US attorney for Eastern Arkansas when Clinton took office.
However, Casey’s Republican-appointed predecessor, Charles Banks, had refused to pursue the Whitewater matter, reportedly in defiance of pressure from George Bush I administration officials in search of a pre-election issue with which to tar Gov.Clinton.
There was an extensive investigation into Whitewater, initiated shortly after Clinton took office, which eventually led the independent counsel to close the probe without charging the Clintons with any wrongdoing whatsoever.
ABC News sez:
President Bush said Saturday that Alberto Gonzales is “honorable and honest” and has “his full support”, despite contradictory statements about the embattled attorney general’s role in the firing of federal prosecutors.
But five-term Rep. Lee Terry, whose district includes metropolitan Omaha, urged Gonzales to resign, citing Gonzales’ statements about his role in the firing of eight federal prosecutors.
“I trusted him before, but I can’t now,” Terry said.
March 31st, 2007 at 5:57 pmLYING IS A FINE ART(with a CAPITAL “F”—-FART) WHEN IT IS PRACTICED BY Bushland Uber Allies MEMBERS LIKE Alberto VO5 GONZOales—-THEY BELIEVE THEY ARE TELLING THE TRUTH, BUT THEIR SENSE OF VALUES AND MORALS IS SO REPREHENSIBLE THAT WHAT THEY THINK IS THE TRUTH ARE GODDAMNED LIES TO THE AVERAGE JOE ON THE STREET, EXCEPT FOR Joe LIE-berman, OF COURSE—HE IS A “JOE” OF A DIFFERENT COLOR—–BLACK WITH A YELLOW STRIPE DOWN HIS BACK, A COWARDLY SKUNK LIKE THE REST OF HIS BUTT-BUDDIES like Sampson, Goodling, Rove, GONZOales, CHIMPya, Cheney, ET CETERA AD NAUSEUM!!!!!
March 31st, 2007 at 6:06 pmBud, Just goes to show you what allegiance to someone untrustworthy will do. Now you look like a pure psycho….downplaying the firings on national television just last week when you thought it didn’t apply to you…hahahaha! Keep it up and your credibility will be dust by the time you’re done attempting to now double-talk your way out of it. First Bud was “for Bush” before he was “against Bush”….can’t have it both ways, dear old Bud! You’ve been had and betrayed quite handily. Now what do you have to say about those VERY POLITICAL “firings”, huh?
March 31st, 2007 at 6:24 pmHow the song changes when one has been totally and unequivocally “duped”…hahahaha!
March 31st, 2007 at 6:25 pm#86 I agree but you, obviously, did not see the length to which Cummins went to attempt to exonerate Gonzales and Bush along the way. Now he’s crying “foul” because Sampson outed him and added him to the hit list for non-performance of their duties.
Hey….wait a minute….if Bush/Gonzo can fire attorneys for not doing their job, then they, themselves, can be fired for derelection of duty as well…lemesee….how much “negligence” do we have on Bush now? 911, Iraq War, Katrina, Walter Reed, Global Warming, and the list goes on ad infinitum.
March 31st, 2007 at 6:28 pmCry me a river, Republican baby. You went to bed with a nest of rats—now suck it up and say THANK YOU SIR MAY I HAVE ANOTHER!!
Sheesh… what a bunch of whiners.
March 31st, 2007 at 6:39 pmI suspect Mr. Gonzales has that hang dog look on his face for two reasons. He is disappointed that the WH is not happier, when he did precisely the job it wanted done. He took no great interest in what Sampson was doing because he knew all the decisions would be made in the WH. So, why bother?
Comment by mbbsdphil
Someone in the WH is a control freak and micromanager.
March 31st, 2007 at 7:05 pm“Once you have given the public a reason to believe some of your decisions are improperly motivated, then they are going to question every decision you have made, or will make in the future.†Cummins
Could not have said it better myself… but then again the credibility of this administration has been toast for awhile now, hasn’t it?
March 31st, 2007 at 8:12 pmI don’t care what Jake, or any one else says.
You don’t falsly impune a mans character. Period.
And you especiially don’t do it when you’re in power.
What Sampson is now saying about Cummins contradicts what they said about him earlier, and it is reprehensible to just slander him like this.
Does anyone realize that out of the 8 attorneys fired, 4 of them were ranked in the TOP TEN of all federal prosecutors in the country???
The TOP TEN!!!!!
And yet everyones supposed to believe they were fired for “performance reasons”?
Get real.
March 31st, 2007 at 8:58 pmOn a completely superficial note…
Damn! Bud Cummins is HOT!!!! What a stud!
March 31st, 2007 at 9:11 pmActually correction. 3 of them were ranked in the TOP TEN, not 4.
The 3 in the top ten were Carol Lam, David Iglesias and Paul Charlton.
The 4th Daniel Bogden was ranked in the top 1 3rd in the nation.
Also I feel it is important to mention that in Bob Cummins district according to court records Bob Cummins district showed marked increases in prosecutions and convictions in nearly EVERY MAJOR CRIME CATEGORY.
But we’re supposed to believe he was fired for poor performance?
March 31st, 2007 at 9:30 pmPlease, folks! Jake is such a fanatical Bush cultist that it is utterly useless to engage him into any any kind of discussion. He is truly brain-washed. In other words, he is not mentally competent. Why on earth would any of you engage a guy who belongs in a mental institution?
March 31st, 2007 at 9:32 pmAlso we should point out, that in the Carol Lam case, where they claim she was fired for not pursuing immigration cases, COURT RECORDS show that immigration cases made up for largest percentage of cases prosecuted during her tenure.
The LARGEST.
Not the smallest.
The LARGEST.
In other words, she prosecuted more immigration cases, than any other type of case.
Yet the administration claims she wasn’t prosecuting immigration cases.
:|
Boggles the mind.
March 31st, 2007 at 9:32 pm[…] Now The Bush Administration Is Lying About Me Cummins: Now The Bush Administration Is Lying About Me “Bud Cummins is the former U.S. Attorney for Arkansas who was pushed out to make room for […]
March 31st, 2007 at 10:01 pmSampson is a little weasel, and a total clone of Turd Blossom.
I watched his entire testimony. He was clearly intent on taking some of the blame to please his masters but he was totally unwiling to implicate any of them. The fat little turd was plagued by amnesia, incomplete recollections, and the like. As for the records of the attorneys who were on the firing list, he supposedly kept them in his right-hand drawer, but they have now mysteriously disappeared.
That little turd is barely in his thirties, has never tried a case, except for sitting second chair in a civil case, and he was Chief of Staff to McNulty?
And he can’t remember anything?
The way this is going, We the People, will soon have to ship the entire Bush Administration to mental institutions dealing with early onset of Alzheimer’s disease.
March 31st, 2007 at 10:10 pmand he was Chief of Staff to McNulty?
Comment by Devil’s Advocate — March 31, 2007 @ 10:10 pm
He was chief of staff to Alberto Gonzales.
(I wonder if Gonzales signed memos AG AG?)
March 31st, 2007 at 10:16 pmBumpersticker:
“I GAG 4 AG AG”
Just a thought.
What I find amazing is that these newbie hacks in the Justice Department think they will piss off 8 incredibly talented prosecutors, and get away with it. They have thrown down the gauntlet and hope that as usual the American people will just be so amazed at their chutzpah, they won’t complain.
March 31st, 2007 at 10:44 pmBut this is different than any of the other rapes of the system. This one is the real battleground. If they get away with this and tilt the justice in their favor, and if we let it happen, we will never be able to prosecute them for any crimes.
When you factor in the number of times Sampson said “I don’t remember” with some of the things he did say he came across as someone conflicted between accepting his role as the fall guy and actually coming clean. I fully expect others to dispute many of Sampson’s claims.
April 1st, 2007 at 1:29 amGood morning all
We need to fire the eight US Attorneys that Old Bushies put in place as they were not approved by the Senate. The congress need to change the law back to where the Senate has to approve the US Attorneys.
April 1st, 2007 at 8:02 amLaw changed, popins!
April 1st, 2007 at 9:12 am#107 theswan
The law needs to be change back. This item was not discuss before they voted on the Patriot Act II. I don’t care if the law was change. They need to after Arlen Specter and that Tolman guy. This is wrong.
theswan get a life. Don;t call me popins. Got it!!!!!
April 1st, 2007 at 9:31 amtrolls, who obviously don’t understand the issue:
sure, “they serve at the pleasure of the president”. he can fire any of them he wants.
but tony snow said, “don’t be dropping this at the president’s door”. do you get that? THE PRESIDENT DIDN’T DO THE FIRING. this scheme was cooked up by miers and rove and carried out by mid-level hacks at the DOJ.
good prosecutors’ reputations have been slandered. the story from AG has changed from week to week. one of his underlings has taken the 5th. the administration, as usual, has completely bungled the response.
it’s amazing to see you trolls continue to defend these clowns. all they do is embarrass you more and more by the day.
April 1st, 2007 at 10:16 amHe can’t be a Republican…he’s way too good look’n!
April 1st, 2007 at 11:19 pm[…] post by Nico and software by Elliott Back Bookmark […]
April 2nd, 2007 at 4:35 am