Bud Cummins: How Bush's Justice Department has "blown it"

[CatWoman]

March 31, 2007 | In recent weeks, I have been asked continually whether I think any number of specific prosecutions and other activities by the Department of Justice around the country reveal "politicization" of the department by the Bush administration. The answer is: I have no specific information about that. But the question goes to the most important issue highlighted by the controversy over the dismissal of myself and seven other United States attorneys: the credibility of the Department of Justice.

The president had an absolute right to fire us. We served at his pleasure, and that meant we could be dismissed for any reason or for no reason. And we all accepted that fact without complaint. When challenged by Congress, the leaders of the Department of Justice could have refused to explain. Or, they could have explained the truth. But apparently the truth behind some or all of the firings was embarrassing. So, instead, they said it was because of "performance." We didn't accept that, because it wasn't the truth.

In spite of statements and representations to the contrary, there was no credible performance review process prior to the firings -- at least, not using the definition of "performance" known to most people. There is not one document to evidence such a review. The department's leaders did not consult any of the reports or the people that could have provided information relevant to the performance of the U.S. attorneys they fired. In fact, in the case of my seven colleagues, they actually fired some pretty damn good U.S. attorneys -- and knowledgeable people in those attorneys' communities back home know that to be the truth. Nobody seems to believe the department's explanations.

To this day, we don't really know why we were singled out to be fired. I am not sure Department of Justice managers even know at this point. But you can read the newspapers and watch the congressional hearings and easily conclude that some of the motivations were likely ... unattractive. This was hardly this administration's brightest shining moment. It doesn't appear any laws were broken, so it makes it even worse that there is such a reluctance on the administration's part to simply admit the obvious and move on. It hurts their credibility.

http://ww1.salon.com/opinion/feature/2007/03/31/cummins/?source=whitelist

[pat_k]

1. "politicization" is a euphemism for stealing elections

We must confront reality head on. Step 1 is to reject euphemisms like "politicizing the Justice Dept."

The Bush WH is abusing power to steal elections by corrupting the Justice Department and the Judiciary. The actions of their minions speak for themselves and constitute a relentless effort to manipulate votes. Manipulating the outcome of an election is election theft. Period. There is no other word for it.

The U.S. Attorney purge was just the latest in a stream of their blatant efforts to steal elections. You don't have to look far back for others -- efforts like those of their minion R. Alexander Acosta, who played a critical role in stealing elections for Republicans in 2004 while he 'served' as Assistant Attorney General of the Civil Rights Division June 2003 to June 2005.

http://january6th.org/acosta.html

[DCKit]

2. Like the "Healthy Forests Initiative"?

Or "No Child Left Behind"?

Everything they say has the opposite meaning.

[Cha]

3. That's not the only issue that's

hurt their credibility, Bud.

It's not the firings.. it's the serial lying. Why would they tell the truth on this matter when they haven't once in the whole 6 years??