Gonzales & The White House: The Plot Thickens

By: Andrew Cohen
Topics: Field Notes

(CBS)

Lawyer Andrew Cohen analyzes legal affairs for CBS News and CBSNews.com.

Are you surprised by today's front-page news that the White House was "deeply involved" in the firing of federal prosecutors and that Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales appears to have obediently complied with a request by the President to get rid of U.S. Attorneys who had come under criticism from Republican politicians? You shouldn't be.

This sorry episode is just the latest in a long string of developments wherein the Justice Department, under Gonzales' leadership, is unwilling or unable to exercise any sort of independence from the White House. This morning I spoke with Stanley Kutler, an eminent legal historian at the University of Wisconsin at Madison. He told me that today's news "typifies" a long-running problem that has tainted many an attorney general during the course of the nation's history. When an attorney general is politically or personally beholden to a President, Kutler told me, and when the Justice Department is run from out of the White House, you've got trouble.

We've indeed got trouble. Few attorneys general in recent history have been more beholden to their President than Gonzales is to President George W. Bush. In fact, two years ago, when asked by the Academy of Achievement to list his role models, Gonzales listed his mother, his father, and the President as the three people to whom he owed the most. This would be more charming if the Attorney General had during the past two years stood up to his hero-- on domestic surveillance, on Guantanamo Bay, on protecting good federal prosecutors—instead of simply defending or justifying White House policies and practices.

White hot heat is on Gonzales-- and rightfully so. And the fact that his chief of staff, Kyle Sampson, may have fallen on his sword and resigned should not deflect those flames from the Attorney General. The job requires him both to be a member of the President's cabinet and to serve as the nation's top lawyer—to implement administration policies but also offer first allegiance to the Constitution and the rule of law. He has by all accounts done a great job with half of that job description—he's been one of the most loyal members of the current administration. But it is long past time he showed any propensity for fulfilling the other half of his duties.

Let me leave it to another grand legal historian, Stanley Katz, of Princeton University, to sum it up where we are, or ought to be, on all of this. Professor Katz told me this morning: "It is not fair to say that we all are agreed upon what the ideal Attorney General should be. But it is fair to say that Gonzales falls short of any ideal I can think of." This from a guy who can name attorneys general in American history like the rest of us can name members of our family.

12 Comments Have Your Say
Email Story Send to a Friend
Share This Tell Your Friends
Tweet This Tweet This
More Share It

Add a Comment

See all 12 Comments


by bricko March 14, 2007 9:52 PM EDT: Utter nonsense:

Michael Isikoff reported in the March 24, 1993, Washington Post, Reno's press conference had called for the "immediate resignation of all U.S. attorneys so they can be replaced by Clinton appointees." Reno denied that the abrupt action would harm the federal government's case against Rep. Dan Rostenkowski (D-Ill.), insisting that an interim prosecutor could just as ably handle the case.

Isikoff's colleague at the Post, Dan Balz, reported on March 23, 1993, that the Reno/Clinton move was an abrupt forced resignation, adding that Republicans noted that previous administrations gradually eased out old U.S. attorneys with their replacements in a case-by-case fashion.; Reply to this comment


by cbsisaliar March 14, 2007 6:31 PM EDT: The people at CBS who SHOULD BE FIRED are KATIE COURIC and ANDREW COHEN. Those 2 should take a year of ethics classes 8hrs/day, 7days/week. A certain B. Clinton and J. Reno fired 93 U.S.attorneys, mainly to delay the prosecution of Dan Rostenkowsky and other democrats. No mention of that in the Couric and Cohen reports. CBS and the other networks face ever smaller audiences, but aren't smart enough to see why. The networks are utterly committed to the election of democrats and utterly not committed to telling the truth. Some day the history books will regard the present-day networks with utter contempt. And Couric's name will figure prominently.; Reply to this comment


by dan2098 March 13, 2007 8:53 PM EDT: "...today%u2019s news 'typifies' a long-running problem that has tainted many an attorney general during the course of the nation%u2019s history."

Whether one is worse than the other is beside the point, and I am sure we could debate that all day. Maybe it is simply time for a change. Maybe it is time for the position of Attorney General to be an elected position.; Reply to this comment


by noloyalisti March 13, 2007 6:02 PM EDT: Yes, politicians of both parties are inherently crooked in the current big money capitalist imperalistic US of A. However, this current crop of politicians with close ties to the Bush crime family take the cake for absolute disdain for freedom and democracy. How anyone could defend these criminal is beyond me. The sooner they resign or are impeached the safer we will be.; Reply to this comment


by magoomba2 March 13, 2007 3:50 PM EDT: Nothing could be more effective in protecting and covering up CORRUPT dealings than making sure that these criminal offenses are NEVER PROSECUTED in the FIRST PLACE.

Hence, the White House 'gang' wants to have place their 'own' in every Attorney General's office. Bush admin actually wanted to remove and control ALL 93 of them!
It is much more efficient for the criminals in office to do this rather than to try to buy judges, and still face the public's scrutiny when cases are brought to court.

This shuffling of prosecutors has been done before, but never to the extent that the bush regime is attempting!

It is an inherent WEAKNESS in our judicial system that Congress should address immediately. It should not be in the hands of the executive branch to select the AG's, YET it MUST remain possible to remove AG's too, because so many are already corrupt. I think that the people of each district should be able to ELECT them in 2 year intervals, or at least Congress should select them.
Appointing, hiring and firing of such important posts is simply unacceptable.; Reply to this comment


by amandaspf March 13, 2007 3:29 PM EDT: I love these good and decent folks who excuse inappriate/illegal behaviour just because someone on the other side did it before. How are we ever going to have a good and just government if we don't object every time it happens, by whomever? Stand up and be decent voters. Two wrongs do not make a right.; Reply to this comment


by mangust13 March 13, 2007 3:17 PM EDT: '...Janet Reno fired the AGs within days of her confirmation. Not well into Clinton's second term. No cherry-picking was involved. As is the case here...'

So, what that means? Firing everybody "within days" somehow is good. "cherry-picking" - somehow bad? Maybe SOME cherrys have to be out of the basket? More likely, than ALL cherries are bad. Don't you think?; Reply to this comment


by mangust13 March 13, 2007 3:14 PM EDT: Dear Lawyer Andrew Cohen

Do you have recollection How, when and how many were fired by Bill Clintons White house?
Do you have recollections?; Reply to this comment


by ardri6-2009 March 13, 2007 3:13 PM EDT: Janet Reno fired the AGs within days of her confirmation. Not well into Clinton's second term. No cherry-picking was involved. As is the case here.; Reply to this comment


by deltaking11 March 13, 2007 3:09 PM EDT: Newspapers and other media used to be the first draft of history. Now they are simply the score cards of the enemy.

It is very easy to find activist educators who spin a non story into a story. The fact is that all United States attorneys are political appointees. Many of the Clinton appointees have outlived their usefulness.

A basic course in Political Science should be required for any broadcast journalist who hypes this story.; Reply to this comment