Comments (34)

Arkansan wrote on March 16, 2007 3:53 PM:

Please ask Cummins whether Huckabee administration corruption was ever on his radar.

r€nato wrote on March 16, 2007 4:00 PM:

Bud touches on an important distinction lost (perhaps willfully) upon the wingnut apologists for Bush and his criminal regime.

No one is disputing Bush's right to replace USA's. They do indeed serve at his pleasure. If it were the case that his right to replace the USA's were disputed, you would hear people demanding the fired USA's be restored to their positions. I have not heard a single person demand that.

While Bush may have the right to fire the USA's, people - including Democrats in Congress - have every right to investigate why he fired them, and that is exactly what is happening, and there is nothing wrong with that. Particularly because we the American people expect the Department of Justice to dispense fair, impartial enforcement of our laws through these US Attorneys, rather than having them be simply be a wholly-owned subsidiary of the GOP's dirty tricks department.

I'd also like to point out - since certain people have fallen back on that extremely tired canard of crying out "Clinton did it too" - that President Clinton had every right to fire the employees of the White House travel office, but that didn't stop Goopers from asking questions about it and investigating it.

LauraB wrote on March 16, 2007 4:02 PM:

He won't answer such a question if he is a prosecutor (present or former) with integrity.

linda wrote on March 16, 2007 4:08 PM:

i think it was wayne slater on countdown last nite with this hypothesis: rove wanted his buttboy installed in arkansas in anticipation of hillary clinton's presidential campaign. just imagine all the investigations that could be ginned up for 08.

ahem wrote on March 16, 2007 4:10 PM:

"No one is disputing Bush's right to replace USA's. They do indeed serve at his pleasure."

Indeed. Kate O'Beirne unwittingly phrased it well: you can fire USAs for *no* reason, but if you fire them for *bad* reasons, it should be investigated.

MarkusQ wrote on March 16, 2007 4:13 PM:

The headline is misleading, and should probably be rewritten. He didn't say "GOPer Probe Didn't Lead to Firing," he said that he personally doesn't know of any connection between the investigation and his firing. The difference is important, and should be respected.

--MarkusQ

Arkansan wrote on March 16, 2007 4:17 PM:

Laura- You’re absolutely right, it was a foolish question on my part. It is the essence of this scandal after all.

I’d still love to know.

Linda-I have no doubt that Griffin was put in Arkansas to hunt dirt on Hillary, which is absurd because she hasn’t lived here in around fifteen years, in fact she rarely even visits the state. On the other hand, it’s not as if their motive was to pursue real Clinton crimes.

It is possible that in addition to Clinton hunting, the protection of Huckabee was an added bonus to the appointment.

c-b wrote on March 16, 2007 4:23 PM:

"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."

Well, good for you. We *are* asking about that. You are worried about your reputation, and apparently not much else. We are worried about the partisan blending of law enforcement and politics. In my view, your reputation is hurt by your phony and self-serving 'neutrality.'

Mrs Panstreppon wrote on March 16, 2007 4:26 PM:

Mr. Cummins is 100% correctamundo:

"Once the public detects partisanship in one important decision, they will follow the natural inclination to question every decision made, whether there is a connection or not."

Tim Griffin, a Republican operative, was not installed as USA in Arkansas because he likes camping in the Ozarks.

As Greg Palast reported for the BBC in 2004, Griffin was behind a voter suppression campaign which challenged the legitimacy of 70,000 registered Florida voters, most of were black and hispanic living in Democratic districts.

http://www.gregpalast.com/bushs-new-us-attorney-a-criminal/

Tim Griffin is as sleazy as they come and he is joined at the hip with Karl Rove.

I have no doubt that Tim Griffin is serving at the pleasure of the president.

Mrs Panstreppon wrote on March 16, 2007 4:30 PM:

BTW, is the Clinton Library in Tim Griffin's district? Will we hear about construction kickbacks and other "shady" deals involving the library in 2008?

Rod Hoffman wrote on March 16, 2007 4:32 PM:

Ahem,

I am a lawyer and that's pretty much how I advise my clients who ask whether they can fire an 'at will' employee: You can fire them for any reason, or for no reasn, just so long as it's not for a 'bad' reason.

I have thought throughout that the advice is applicable here.

magster wrote on March 16, 2007 4:32 PM:

It's only been two months since the Democrats controlled Congress, and the news cycle has been scandalpalooza ever since. Even if impeachment is not politcally feasible, a wipeout in the '08 election is feasible (provided Bush does not suspend elections under the Patriot Act).

centavo wrote on March 16, 2007 4:34 PM:

c-b: Your post seems a bit harsh to me. I think Cummins established his integrity by speaking out in defense of the other fired USAs; clearly he didn't have to stick his neck out like that and did so only because he couldn't remain silent about something so blatantly wrong.

By the same token, it shows equal integrity to clarify that he has seen or heard nothing that suggests he was targeted because of his prosecutorial work. Doesn't mean that he wasn't, only that he's not evidence of it; and he's obviously not willing to score points off of innuendo. I say "Bravo" for all people of integrity, regardless of political stripe.

Donna

pj wrote on March 16, 2007 4:40 PM:

But many have pointed out the major difference between DOJ and other departments that makes dismissal problematic under other than demonstrable, non-political reasons. I agree that these positions are more akin to judgeships than they are the typical USDA appointees for example. But stressing that their service is at the pleasure of the President, although true, does not give fair weight to that difference.

pj wrote on March 16, 2007 4:49 PM:

And can we put to rest this absurd notion of a firing for "no reason"? No one ever gets fired for no reason. Anyone who disagrees, please cite a documentable instance. A demonstrable, non-political reason (i.e. performance problems) is the only non-"bad" reason other than a change in administration.

InterestedReader wrote on March 16, 2007 4:52 PM:

Re 'Cummins wrote in to TPMm, wanting to make it clear that "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."'

Is there a reason why he cannot find a connection?
Take a look back at your own archives..
http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002684.php

"Update: Bud Cummins and John McKay just corroborated the McClatchy report that Michael Elston, the chief of staff to Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty, communicated a threat to the USAs that if they continued to stir up controversy, more information would come out. Details and video soon. McKay called the call "hugely inappropriate." Bud Cummins has a copy of the email describing the call, which will be released as part of the hearing.
...
Update: Here's a copy of the email that U.S. Attorney Bud Cummins gave to the committee outlining his conversation wtih Michael Elston, the chief of staff to Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty."

pj wrote on March 16, 2007 5:07 PM:

Nothing in the e-mail explicitly raised any connection between Cummins firing and that case though he may have had some inkling about that himself, but he has always held out his firing as distinct from his colleagues.

alex wrote on March 16, 2007 5:34 PM:

These attorneys served at the pleasure of Kevin Simpson, uh, I mean Kyle Sampson. End of story.

cvcobb01 wrote on March 16, 2007 6:36 PM:

Well, the sad truth I take away from all of this is that the underlying wrongdoing of partisan prosecutions would have gone away but for one simple fact: the Bush Administration broke the GOP's 11th commandment to never speak ill of another Republican.

Had they patted these guys on the back instead of attacking them, these USAs might never have revealed the underlying wrongdong that they either participated in, or were asked to participate in and perhaps refused.

It all stinks to high heaven.

c-b wrote on March 16, 2007 8:57 PM:

Donna,

What he is saying is, if the WH broke the law, whatever, not my problem. But if they cover it up by impugning my character, now I have a problem. Everything I've read from him indicates that he's not so much interested in what happened, but in protecting his own reputation. That's fine, he has a right to protect his reputation. But we have a right to know the truth.

Just because he's a victim here doesn't mean he's on the side of the truth. He has his own agenda. And don't assume that because he got fired, he must have been doing something right. He is the first to point out that his firing was *not* for the same reasons as the other AGs.

c-b wrote on March 16, 2007 8:59 PM:

I meant other 'USAs'

pj wrote on March 16, 2007 9:34 PM:

c-b Strongly disagree with your characterization of Cummins. It's pretty clear from his e-mail that he was outraged by what was happening to his colleagues. He recognized he was being used by Bushco to pass along their threats because the "cover story" for his firing was different, but just as political as it turns out, as the other 7. And remember, all 8 were forced to testify. None volunteered. So you would have to say that none of them cared whether the Bushco broke the law.

c-b wrote on March 17, 2007 12:26 AM:

"you would have to say that none of them cared whether the Bushco broke the law."

I don't know. If I was one of them, I wouldn't have volunteered either, knowing that I would be forced. So I would decline to volunteer to avoid retribution, which everyone surely knew would be coming.

And for the other 7, there is at least some evidence that the truth mattered to them (refusals to indict phantom wrongdoing, aggressively investigating actual wrongdoing, etc). I'm not saying Cummins is a bad guy. I'm just saying I haven't seen much proof that he is anything more than a partisan whose looking out for his own self interests. Maybe he is [more than that], but he's got a long way to go in my book to make martyr status.

sassykathy wrote on March 17, 2007 4:23 AM:

We should all be very concerned, I think, with the
attorneys that Rove deemed fit to retain - with these firings they must have either proved to be very good lackeys or they now forewarned that politics and ideology are far more important than job performance.

EH wrote on March 17, 2007 12:00 PM:

sassykathy: There's an unspoken third group outside of your implication: likely there are USA's who didn't need to be forewarned and whose natural inclinations preclude them from being lackeys. A fourth group would be those who by statistics, geography or the behavior of their targets naturally have more Democrats to investigate.

benjoya wrote on March 17, 2007 12:47 PM:

even the idea of firing all USAs (in the middle of a presdential term) stinks. greymail to cover for axing carol lam.

Hector wrote on March 17, 2007 2:04 PM:

It was Judge Spottswood Robinson, writing (I can't recall the case) either for the District Court for the District of Columbia or the US Circuit Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit, who rejected a landlord's contention that his failure to renew a black tenant's lease could not, as a matter of law, be a violation of the tenant's civil rights, as the tenant had claimed (citing racial bias) because the landlord was permitted to refuse to renew the lease for any reason or for no reason. Judge Robinson wrote that Landlord may refuse to renew the lease for any reason or for no reason, but not for this reason. As a lawyer, although far from an expert on this question, I think that Judge Robinson's teaching applies -- at the very least is relevant -- to considerations of the firing of the USA's.

As to Brad Cummins' concern that "it appears that improper political considerations were on the table when some or all of the US Attorneys were fired . . . [and that]this has cost DOJ its credibility. Now, many folks are asking questions they weren't asking before about the motivations behind various prosecutions and policies." -- In addition to embodiment of this effect reported in Pittsburgh on WKDA and noted on Talking Points Memo by "TPM Reader NW", the same effect has been cited in Philadelphia in the matter of the indictment (after a four year investigation) of State Senator Vincent Fumo (D). See, "Firedprosecutorgate: Will a national scandal hit Philly, and help Vince Fumo?", at http://www.attytood.com/2007/03/firedprosecutorgate_will_a_nat_1.html and "Any credibility left at the Justice Department has been obliterated and that has chilling implications for the nation - and Philadelphia. Richard Sprague, attorney for state Sen. Vince Fumo, has served notice that he will use evidence of "politicized federal investigations" as a defense against his client's 250-page, 139-count indictment.Sprague had pointed to a study by two retired professors showing that Democratic political officials were four times more likely than Republicans to be indicted by Bush-appointed federal prosecutors. The study buttresses other evidence that the fired attorneys were targeted because, in the eyes of the Bush administration, they were too hard on Republicans or too easy on Democrats.
So an apparent attempt on the national front to target Democrats could have the unintended consequence of bolstering the defense or otherwise affecting high-profile cases like uber-Democrat Vince Fumo's. For that alone, Gonzales should lose his job.", Phila. Daily News Editorial, at http://www.philly.com/dailynews/opinion/20070314_WHY_ATTORNEY_GENERAL_GONZALES_SHOULD_GO.html

cited

tbhull wrote on March 17, 2007 4:25 PM:

this will most certainly impact federal prosecution. I can hear the closing arguments. "Ladies and gentleman of the jury, this is not about truth and justice. This case is about politics. This case is about the US Attorney [inset name] being a "loyal bushie" (using fingers as quotes as an homage to Dr. Evil). This case is about US Attorney [inset name] cowering to the unjust/immoral edicts of Rove and GWB, all so that US Attorney [inset name] can enjoy being invited to the best cocktail parties in DC at some point in the future."

To think, guilty people may escape convictions and time they deserve. Does this serve national security well? Methinks not.

tamar wrote on March 18, 2007 12:41 AM:

to tbhull -- excellent summing up of one of the consequences of this whole fiasco. I really hadn't considered the fact that a serious result of firing USAs who didn't go along with Bush is that legitimate corruption cases would be undermined. I'm all for getting rid of corrupt politicians no matter which party.

1 Pissed off dem wrote on March 18, 2007 4:05 AM:

I would submot that it was not the invetigations in to democrats. instead I suggest it is the investigations into the RNC contributors

Frank wrote on March 18, 2007 4:09 PM:

The lawyers reading this blog have a gold mine.

tbhull, you summed it up nicely; the damage that has been done to the justice sytem is irreparable. Another "doubt" in the bag of "reasonabe doubts" that a defense lawyer has to defend his client, has been born. Just think,... this all stemmed from a bungling AG, a misfit sycophant lawyer to the president, who stated that he doesn't know....he doesn't know,.... whether his grand parents entered the country legally.

pj wrote on March 19, 2007 2:08 PM:

But keep your eye on the ball. Bushco never really cared about getting convictions in the first place so what does it matter if a jury can be persuaded that politics was involved. The important thing for Bushco is to get the investigation going and an indictment brough down no matter how flimsy the basis at a key point in the run up to an election. To do that on a national scale you need to have all 93 USA's on board the strategy, hence the idea of canning all the USA's. Karl never thinks small. They would have gone with it if they thought for a minute they could get away with it. After all, they got away with the Iraq war.

GB wrote on March 21, 2007 8:49 PM:

The devil is in the details of Cumming's investigation into MO Gov. Matt Blunt, son of Republican Roy Blunt, ally of Tom Delay. To suggest that Blunt's father Roy, Majority Whip in the House of Representatives at the time, did not exert undue influence over the investigation does not pass the smell test. To give everyone an idea of this, USA Graves in N. MO had to resign his office due to a conflict of interest because his brother, US Congressman Graves, has a spouse that could have been a target of the investigation. Furthermore, the E. MO USA Hannaway recused herself because of her close connection to Gov. Blunt. There was no USA in MO that had no conflicts of interest. DoJ had to refer the complaint to an out of state USA. It has been revealed that Gov. Blunt lawyered up for the investigation with a high powered out of state criminal lawyer in Texas that repeatedly contacted Cummings to determine the progress of the investigation. Given the nature and high powered political influence of the Blunts, MO USAs, Texas lawyers (Bush/Delay?) does anyone not understand why Cumming's investigation fizzeled? I have no doubt that had Patrick Fitzgerald been conducting the investigation, the conclusions would have been very different. For more details, see missourifiredup.com

epenisa wrote on January 10, 2008 7:07 AM:

Hi all!
Nice work from your side... have a nice time with yoru blog :)
Bye