Arkansas Blog: From the documents

Previous posts and comments have noted that, in new material released Monday by the Justice Department, internal documents indicate some reluctance to have former U.S. Attorney Bud Cummins testify before Congress because he might answer questions in ways conflicting with various public statements by the Justice Department, plus allow Congress to delve into the reasons why Tim Griffin got the job, his qualifications and whether he was an active participant (duh) in the plan to install him without a confirmation proces. Cummins has begun to be strung out himself by the public controversy, as an Feb. 7 e-mail he sent to Michael Elston of the Justice Department shows.

Select quotes:

* Concerning Griffin's statement that he wouldn't submit to the confirmation process: "I am hearing 'on the streeet' that he is saying he's not even willing to go through the process. If he intends to hold over without nomination and piss everyone off utilizing the now controversial Patriot Act provision, I prefer to stay out of it."

* "Additionally, as predicted, my wife is strongly opposed to me writing on Tim's behalf, so I still have some work to do there before I can write a letter, but I will try to appease her concerns if we decide to go forward. She is understandably tired of all this and blames Tim quite a bit for getting the controversy started that led to all the hearings, etc."

* He said he'd be willing to testify, if desired. "I would only be there to support the notion that I have no hard feelings, that I was likely to leave in 2006 or 2007 anyway, that we serve at the pleasure of the president, and that judges would screw up the interim appointment process. I am sure I could work in something about Tim Griffin's qualifications in a hearing. If I testified I don't think I could screw this up any worse than Tim and the White House have done -- and it might help...DOJ's call."

Scroll down to Page 32 on this PDF for the full Cummins e-mail. And for more unfiltered Cummins, you might want to read this remarkably tough interview on NPR.

Comments

while we wait for more shoes to drop, here's some good news... at least a few Republicans "get it" (yeah it could be a trojan mini-horse but at least they're saying the right things) ....

Four prominent conservative thinkers are set to launch a campaign "to restore checks and balances and civil liberties protections under assault by the Executive Branch," arguing that, "since 9/11, the President has acquired too much power."

Former Georgia Congressman Bob Barr, who led the effort to impeach President Clinton, is one of the organizers of the effort, called the American Freedom Agenda. Others are David Keene of the American Conservative Union, writer and conservative direct mail pioneer Richard Viguerie, and constitutional scholar Bruce Fein, who served in the Reagan administration as associate deputy attorney general.

At a 1 p.m. news conference today at the National Press Club, they will pitch a legislative package "to restore congressional oversight and habeas corpus, end torture and extraordinary rendition, narrow the President's authority to designate 'enemy combatants,' prevent unconstitutional wiretaps, email and mail openings, protect journalists from prosecution under the Espionage Act, and more."

In a statement, the four said the president "has encroached on the power of Congress to make laws, and on the power of the courts to interpret the law - a scenario that the Founding Fathers foresaw and warned against." As a result, they said, "We are issuing this call to Americans of all political and philosophical persuasions to join us in urging Congress to enact The American Freedom Agenda."

"The AFA would roll back the alarming recent concentration of power in the White House and its end runs around due process... The AFA seeks to restore America's tradition of respect for the rule of law and the benefits of dispersed as opposed to concentrated power, to redeem the principle that no man is above the law, and to prevent injustices that undermine national security."

"We are conservative scholars, activists and writers. We do not favor a crippled executive or enfeebled government. In a time of danger, checks and balances make for stronger government because the people will more readily accept a muscular authority if barriers against abuses are strong. If at some future time Congress, in turn, aggrandizes power and invades the executive or judicial domains, we will be equally alert to sound the alarm. But today, the clear and present danger to conservative philosophy is the White House."

Posted by: muleboy303 | March 20, 2007 11:27 AM