<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xml:base="http://kirkcaraway.com" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
<channel>
 <title>KirkCaraway.com - Fired attorney explains why issue is important - Comments</title>
 <link>http://kirkcaraway.com/31/03/2007/fired_attorney_explains_why_issue_important</link>
 <description>Comments for &quot;Fired attorney explains why issue is important&quot;</description>
 <language>en</language>
<item>
 <title>Fired attorney explains why issue is important</title>
 <link>http://kirkcaraway.com/31/03/2007/fired_attorney_explains_why_issue_important</link>
 <description>&lt;p&gt;Bud Cummins, the U.S. Attorney for Arkansas who was fired to make room for Karl Rove&#039;s deputy, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2007/03/31/cummins/&quot;&gt;explains in a very non-partisan way the damage this action did.&lt;/a&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;p&gt;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 &quot;performance.&quot; We didn&#039;t accept that, because it wasn&#039;t the truth.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;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 &quot;performance&quot; known to most people. There is not one document to evidence such a review. The department&#039;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&#039; communities back home know that to be the truth. Nobody seems to believe the department&#039;s explanations.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;To this day, we don&#039;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&#039;s brightest shining moment. It doesn&#039;t appear any laws were broken, so it makes it even worse that there is such a reluctance on the administration&#039;s part to simply admit the obvious and move on. It hurts their credibility....&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Put simply, the Department of Justice lives on credibility. When a federal prosecutor sends FBI agents to your brother&#039;s house with an arrest warrant, demonstrating an intention to take away years of his liberty, separate him from his family, and take away his property, you and the public at large must have absolute confidence that the sole reason for those actions is that there was substantial evidence to suggest that your brother intentionally committed a federal crime. Everyone must have confidence that the prosecutor exercised his or her vast discretion in a neutral and nonpartisan pursuit of the facts and the law. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;
</description>
 <comments>http://kirkcaraway.com/31/03/2007/fired_attorney_explains_why_issue_important#comments</comments>
 <category domain="http://kirkcaraway.com/tags/u_s_attorneys">U.S. attorneys</category>
 <pubDate>Sat, 31 Mar 2007 07:16:53 -0700</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>kc</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">206 at http://kirkcaraway.com</guid>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>
