Is he saying that it was IMPOSSIBLE for anyone at DoJ to have known about the Arkansas Times story directly or indirectly from other sources? It not only is possible, but that's what Taylor testified under oath to -- danmed if you do, and damned if you don't. Who are Paul Kiel and Alex Koppleman slandering now?

Jake, considering that Taylor can't remember her own breakfast, but can recall details about a two-year old story in a free weekly in another state about someone she slandered as "lazy" -- can you figure why her recollections "under oath" might not necessarily be very credible?

Oh, and by the way -- have you figured out that business about the oath yet? You certainly disappeared pretty darn once it was pointed out how every federal employee takes the *same* oath...

The White House pays an outside contractor/consultant to aggregate news clips and deliver them via e-mail every morning.

Goodling and Sampson were on this e-mail list, as is evidenced by many of the document dumps.

It is entirely believeable that these news clips would contain something from the Arkansas Times.

Remember this Administration we're talking about here folks, they're all about message control. The beast needs to be fed.

Brian:

Our human memory is a funny thing, ain't it? As for the "oath" I think I said I was waiting until someone produced whatever oath Taylor was referring to.

As for the "Maybe Clinton Got Away with It?" thread, here is the link:

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/003655.php

Here are just a few of those CLINTON replacements:

1997: Beverly Martin, Douglas Jones, Thomas Scott, Mary Lou Leary, and Sharon Zealey.

1998: Byron Jones, Denise O’Donnell, Paul Warner, Scott Lasser, Paul Seave, Ellen Curran, Stephen Robinson, Richard Deane Jr., Alejandro Mayorkas, Robert Green, Harry Litman, and Jose Rivera.

1999: Melvin Kahle, Gregory Vega, Thomas Strickland, Donna Bucella, Daniel French, Quenton White, Jackie Williams, Mervyn Mosbacker Jr., and Carl Schnee.

2000: Daniel Webber Jr., Norman Bay, Steven Reed, Ted McBride, and Audrey Fleissig.

How many were replacements for U.S. Attorneys who had "subsequently reconsidered" but were pushed out anyways? How many of those pushed out were iinvestigating Democrats? Enquiring minds want to know . . .

O.K., so now it's a BAD THING to to aggregate news clips and get all the available information?! Simply breathtaking how far the Bush haters will go.

All of the people I just provided replaced U.S. ATTORNEYS that Clinton had already appointed once -- I'm not referring to anyone in the Travel Office at all -- next irrelevant point?

"...O.K., so now it's a BAD THING to to aggregate news clips and get all the available information?..."

Maybe if the Administration spent less time reading podunk Arkansas newspapers for ammunition against critics and more time reading intel provided by the CIA ("Bin Ladin determined to strike in US") or memos provided by the FBI (Gonzales apparently didn't read memos that NSL's were being abused) then maybe, just maybe, Bush might have earned Jake's trust. Now he just has to buy it.

How much are they paying you? Are you aware that you're part of the problem why government is so big?

I'm retired, but I am getting Social Security payments -- is that part of some "conspiracy theory" now too -- quick, how many Jews died on 9/11?!

Register your troll complaints at "trolls4jake" - a public service, troll-dedicated blog at the cafe.

(url in red below - just click "Troll Patrol")

Here is one possible source from the Arkansas Times:

http://www.arktimes.com/Articles/ArticleViewer.aspx?ArticleID=4de2cf32-6347-4db6-90e8-4429a63c6b9c

Of course, right in the Salon article, Cummins admits he was telling Tim Griffin personally that he was considering leaving AND if DoJ had simply asked him to leave so they could give Tim a chance, he would have done so. And, yet another "possible" source for Mr. Taylor knowing that Cummins wanted to leave is always the NSA domestic spying ; )

Jake, you might want to take some meds for your Clinton Derangement Syndrome and check your dictionary, because you keep confusing "replaced" with "fired." Bush & Junta *fired* Cummings. Cummings has *said* so. Clinton -- and please retire your obliviousness when it comes to the difference between the standard turnover between presidencies and sacking USAs for partisan mid-term purposes -- *replaced* USAs when they were promoted to judgeships or to other positions within DoJ.

Maybe you ought to back up your list of names with a little fact checking, but I suspect you're doing this on purpose, because you hate to argue specifics, because they'd reveal you don't have a clue what you're talking about.

And once again, since you don't get it (I'll even use small words that right-wingers can understand): Taylor's. Oath. Is. The. Same. Every. Gov-ern-ment. Em-plo-yee. Takes. See 5 U.S.C. § 3331:

“I, (name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.” This section does not affect other oaths required by law."

And if you need a visual illustration of "purpose of evasion," why don't you go back and check Taylor's "testimony" yesterday.

Jake, my man, you're receiving Social Security? Wouldn't you rather be reaping the proceeds from a 401k that you personally manage over than sucking off the government for welfare like you are doing right now?

Since Cummins SERVES AT THE PLEASURE of the President, he was also "replaced" if you want to argue semantics. As for any of Clinton's replacements above, I don't know that there was any "firings" (as you are using that word) because there was never any investigation then like there is now.

As for the "oath" off-topic issue, I still have not seen what other "oath" she's referring to. I think I made that clear on THAT thread.

I can post multiple times too jake.
Over and over again like its a game - go fuck yourself.

Wheres my delete jakes post button damnit?

FACT CHECK: Bush’s Claims Of ‘Satisfactory Performance’ In Iraq Debunked

bush_hands.jpg Today the White House released its “Initial Benchmark Assessment Report” claiming that the Iraqi government has “shown satisfactory performance so far on 8 of the 18 benchmarks.”

The White House achieved its objective of spinning the media’s analysis. The New York Times reports the document as “finding some progress on political and security goals in Iraq.” The Washington Post says progress “has been mixed.” Similarly, the AP finds “mixed progress.”

According to National Security Network (NSN), however, there’s nothing mixed about the situation in Iraq; that is purely White House report spin. The NSN explained, the “benchmarks claimed as ’satisfactory’ … demonstrate minimal progress, not achievement” and “others have been achieved on the surface, but fail to accomplish the overall purpose of the specific measurement.”

The NSN debunks the White House report’s delusional accounts of “progress” in Iraq. Some highlights:

CLAIM: “The Government of Iraq has made satisfactory progress toward forming a Constitutional Review Committee (CRC) and then completing the constitutional review.”

FACT: “The Committee was originally scheduled to complete its work by May 15. Instead, it delivered a draft that did not address many of the key issues.” One CRC leader recently said, “We have not committed to doing it by September.” [LINK]

CLAIM: “The Government of Iraq has made satisfactory progress toward establishing supporting political, media, economic, and services committees in support of the Baghdad Security Plan.”

FACT: Such public services committees have “had little impact on Baghdad’s population which still lacks access to many basic services like water and electricity.” [LINK]

CLAIM: “The Government of Iraq has made satisfactory progress toward providing three trained and ready Iraqi brigades to support Baghdad operations.”

FACT: According to the Defense Department, “the three brigades that came to Baghdad were understaffed and poorly trained causing a major delay in Baghdad security operations.” Only “one-half to two-thirds” of the promised 330,000 Iraqi security forces have arrived. [LINK]

CLAIM: “The Government of Iraq with substantial Coalition assistance has made satisfactory progress toward reducing sectarian violence…”

FACT: According to the Brookings Institute, “sectarian violence has remained constant despite the ’surge.’” [LINK]

CLAIM: “The Government of Iraq — with substantial Coalition assistance — has made satisfactory progress toward establishing the planned Joint Security Stations in Baghdad.”

FACT: Iraqis living nearby such “Joint Security Stations” say they “feel less safe now, because many of the bases have quickly become magnets for rocket and mortar attacks.” [LINK]

CLAIM: “The Government of Iraq has made satisfactory progress toward ensuring that the rights of minority political parties in the Iraqi legislature are protected.”

FACT: “The Sunnis — one of the largest and most important minority groups — are currently boycotting the government. [LINK]

Indeed, the President’s assessment is all politics and his conduct — not that of Congress — has been the true “prescription for failure” in Iraq.

– Ryan Powers

Digg It!

You remember think progress right jake?

I see Jake has gone into overdrive just as people start catching on and ignoring him. Maybe he's Monica Goodling, but at any rate...a good Bushie all around.

Oh, here I thought that bobh actually asked a question because he wanted me to "Answer it!" My mistake -- won't happen again.

Jake:

If only.

There is a Sampson email to Miers that lists USAs who are planning to retire and those who were currently being forced out. Cummins name was listed under those being forced out. He was NOT listed under those planning to retire. If Taylor is not lying, why wasn't Cummins listed under the retiring category?

This is another example of firing first and trying to think of an acceptable/defensible/legal reason later.

Since there is a deliberately dishonest and repetitive attempt to conflate replacement of US Attorneys with FIRING them, please see TPM back on March 23, 2007.

www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/013212.php

In the last 25 years, the CRS has found only 10 USAttorneys were dismissed other than at the start of the President's term. In 8 of those cases, misconduct was identified by CRS, while the other two occurred in the Bush administration.

"lots of possible reasons."

And we, as well as the House and Senate Committees, would love to hear them. But I fear you are being too kind with your optimism.

For the record, the CRS Report referenced above did NOT include any replacement of a U.S. Attorney if the replacement happened more than four years after the initial appointment -- none of the above replacements were even considered in that Report -- CRS is very clear as to its own limited methodology, in fact:

"This approach likely underestimates the number of U.S. Attorneys who departed office before completion of their four-year terms. A U.S. Attorney would not have been included in the appendix if the individual resigned (of
his or her own initiative or at the President’s request) before completing a four-year
term, was replaced by someone appointed by a district court or the Attorney General,
and the President did not make a nomination to replace the individual until after four
years from the start of the resigned U.S. attorney’s term. If, for example, a U.S.
attorney confirmed in 1993 resigned in 1996, but a nomination to replace that individual was not made until 1998, the data collection method utilized by CRS would not have captured the individual who resigned in 1996."

http://leahy.senate.gov/issues/USAttorneys/ServingLessThan4Years.pdf

Jake - there are not many possible reasons - there is one reason and we want to hear what it was. And if the reason was policital, then that is illegal. If their reason was legal, then why don't they share it with us? We pay our taxes annually. It is not a matter of national security. Why do you think they are willing to go to great links to not tell us why Cummins was fired? Did you see GW this morning - he looked a bit grumpy. Do people with clean consciences get grumpy when they have to fire someone who deserves to be fired?

It is not logical to think that Gonzales had good, legal reasons to fire 9 USAs, but he can't tell us a single one.

Too bad Mr. Marshall and/or Mr. Lilly never bothered to actually read the CRS Report back then, ifthethunderdontgetya ; )

You're welcome, "no name" : )

Me "guessing" and "not being a mind reader" qualifies as CERTAINTY?! Subject to Executive Privilege, they can only answer the questions being asked -- for instance, Sen. Whitehouse (D-RI) wanted to know Taylor's "OPINION" whether Clinton had fired 10% of his U.S. Attorneys -- I mean, what kind of stupid-ass question is that?!

Cummins may have, once or twice even, publicly entertained thoughts of leaving, but the fact of the matter is that he was FIRED as part of a criminal conspiracy hatched in the White House to turn the DOJ into a GOP tool for the purposes of disenfranchising minority voters (using the "voter fraud" red herring) and ignoring Republican criminal activity while maliciously prosecuting Democrats (such as former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman) on trumped-up charges.
The whole question of whether or not Cummins was THINKING of leaving is a non-issue, made crystal clear by rove-bot Sara Taylor's slanderous, snide characterization of Cummins as "lazy," which was "why we got rid of him in the first place."
My guess is that "lazy" REALLY means "unwilling to pursue bullshit voter-fraud cases."

p.s. Just ignore Jake, folks. He's probably just a paid shill for the RNC.

Somebody @ TPM needs to get Bozon Jake's IP address and get his account killed, or TPM needs to find some way to block his address. At least with Usenet newsgroups I can killfile dittoheads, and DU blocks freepers too.

If not, we should stop feeding trolls as others have suggested, just totally ignoring them.

Which I will do from now on, and I hope others do too.

Security code is expert, which Jake D is not.

HarpboyAK

If nothing else, trolls can provide information about the talking points circulating at Fox News, etc. It is gibberish but the reality is, it does factor into the thinking of a substantial segment of the population. That reality can't be ignored. Blocking a troll's IP address won't make that reality go away.

Xenos:

"analysis paralysis"

Good term!

I'm not reading these comments since I see Jake D's name and lots of responses to him. As I've said in two other posts, there is no point in talking to Jake D. He is not interested in facts. I miss the good old pre Jake D. comments when I got new information by reading the comments rather than just the pointless arguing with Jake D.

Janda-
It also prevents them from receiving any more of the tax payers money.

code word "west" as in: "Hey West Wing... you got some 'splaining to do!"

JakeD, summed up: There are all sorts of good excuses for the Justice Department to be organized around the principle of keeping black people from voting.

bobh: "Wheres my delete jakes post button damnit?"

It's not a button. It's called having the self-restraint to ignore him; to not let an obvious troll hijack yet another thread.

You guys are pathetic. We hold almost all the cards now--why are you handing power to Republican trolls?

Two questions:
How many of Clinton's fired US Attorneys were involved in ongoing prosecutions of Democrats?

How many of Clinton's US Attorneys were fired for doing a poor job of supressing Republican votes?

What part of NO don't you posters understand! Jake is playing that well known mind game that the telemarketers et al use. Simple put: keep them talking and eventually you will "convince them". Or at least you will get their focus where you want it. Do not give him an audience. I was in sales for many years. I'm well acquainted with that game. It's intended to change the subject and overcome the objections. This site has some very interesting and insightful posters. Which BTW, is why I chose to follow it. Please take the advice of the troll patrol.

JNagarya: "Her (Taylor's) testimony also included admission that she routinely and often violated the Hatch Act"

Since there was no grant of immunity given Taylor by the HJC, did she give them enough rope to fashion a noose for her? Would such violations would be referred to the DOJ, to be prosecuted by "interim" USA Taylor, or is there some way of bypassing that (like a special prosecutor)? Speaking of which, is there any way to get a special prosecutor appointed without DOJ approval? And if so, why hasn't this happened?
Sorry if these questions seem pretty elementary.

Yes, if they are/were employing a private outside contractor to gather this sort of news, who is that outside contractor? Was it...the RNC? Was it...Mitchell Wade & Co.? Who was it and what were their instructions for the gathering of information and collation to report to the White House on my dime? And if there was no such contractor, who was gathering this information and why in the White House; how and why?

Pointus:

Violations of federal law are prosecuted by U. S. Attorneys -- unless the Attorney General appoints a Special Prosecutor in a specific situation such as the recent prosecution of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby.

The Independent Counsel statute was allowed to expire a couple of years ago because, apparently, it violated the separation of powers doctrine in that the IC was appointed by a panel of judges from the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. Ken Starr was appointed under that scheme.

Separation of Powers would seem to prohibit members of the judicial branch from acting in a sphere reserved under the Constitution to the Executive Branch (prosecution for violations of federal law.)

Believe it or not, Antonin Scalia held to that point in his dissenting opinion in Morrison v. Olson.

I must grudingly agree with most of his reasoning.

First, I must point out an error in stating my next subject "Beverly Martin." I should have said, the Honorable Beverly B. Martin, US District Judge.

The Honorable Beverly B. Martin was appointed by President Clinton for the postion of United States Attorney for the Middle District of Georgia in 1997 to replace the another President Clinton USA appointee, James Lamar Wiggins, when Wiggins decided to run for public office in 1996.

Next up, Douglas Jones.

Well, first of all, I was gone for awhile (some here actually want me to post LESS, not more, you know?). Second, I'm not sure what you are trying to prove. I could provide excellent credentials from biographies of those U.S. Attorneys in the current "scandal" as well.

That's not my point however. My list above simply pointed out there WERE mid-term Clinton replacements too. Because there were NO investigations in the Clinton replacements, I readily admit that all we know are the public stories about "retiring for private practice" (Carol Lam similarly got a much more lucrative job as General Counsel at Quaalcom here in San Diego -- who knows, without the current investigations, we may never have found out anything more either -- you will admit that, for Carol Lam at least, the fact she was able to get a better job does not preclude the alleged monkey-business behind her replacement, right?), "promotions", "deciding to run for office", etc. That's my point.

Back to your specific example, how do we KNOW that no Democrats were being investigated by Wiggins, or some other political consideration, resulted in his seemingly "voluntary" decision to leave? Perhaps he was bribed to leave "voluntarily" with the promise of certain donors supporting his campaign? You do realize that EVERY Bush U.S. Attorney "fired" actually wrote a "voluntary" letter of resignation, right?

Good grief!

well I for one like Jake's comments always better to be challenged than just get the same song slap on the back rah,rah stuff like they do at Fox. That being said, lets get to current events. The question is these atty's fired recently. We have all seen the time and effort expended on the previous history of Clinton's Whitewater stuff, Ancient history more like it. Funny how the GOP hates any investigating they don't control.