Gonzales & The White House: Cohen Responds

By: Andrew Cohen
Topics: Field Notes

There's been a lot of response to yesterday's post on Attorney General Gonzales and the firings at the Justice Department.

As always, thank you for taking the time to read my post and to write a response. The more dialogue and discussion and debate we have on this topic the better. It is true that Janet Reno, as her predecessors before her had done, asked for the resignations of U.S. Attorneys. This is standard operating procedure designed to allow the President to have in place his own federal prosecutors. What is different about this current episode is that a Republican White House sought to replace Republican-appointed federal prosecutors mid-stream who were by all accounts doing precisely what they had been asked to do. We now know, from last week's testimony, why in some cases this was so and the answers we got make it clear that the reasons were not high-minded or lofty.

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 ikez78 March 15, 2007 3:21 AM EDT: Andrew,
Thanks for letting us know that CBS stills holds one standard for your buddy liberal Democrats and another for conservatives, who you loathe. Clears up quite a bit.

And Greg,
You are full of ***. Did you even read the old stories from the New York Times and elsewhere about the Reno firings? Apparently not. You guys need to just report the *** news and stop trying to create phony scandals and controversies. No wonder your ratings are in the gutter; Reply to this comment


by dan2098 March 14, 2007 10:17 PM EDT: "...thank you for taking the time to read my post and to write a response."

No, thank YOU for keeping this one going and taking further input. I love watching the banter back and forth with each side taking its shot at the other. Can we all agree that the whole idea of political appointees do not work well, and can we try to come up with some criteria other than political motivation to secure and retain qualified attorneys general? Clearly this (and other things) needs to be taken out of the President's hands.; Reply to this comment


by rhs648 March 14, 2007 7:09 PM EDT: "The fact is, that neither the Democrats nor the press would have cared - no one cared back in '93 when Clinton fired all 93 attorneys - except that this is just another way for liberals to attack our President.

Liberals always want to change the rules depending on whether or not they are in power."

Posted by One_American

This is a very astute observation.; Reply to this comment


by bernieb14 March 14, 2007 6:17 PM EDT: THE LAW STATES:

United States Attorneys are subject to removal at the will of the President. See Parsons v. United States, 167 U.S. 314 (1897).

3-2.120 Appointment

United States Attorneys are appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate for a four-year term. See 28 U.S.C. Sec. 541. Upon expiration of this term, the United States Attorney continues to perform the duties of the office until a successor is confirmed. United States Attorneys are subject to removal at the will of the President. See Parsons v. United States, 167 U.S. 314 (1897).

What is there to dispute, the Law?; Reply to this comment


by usawatchman March 14, 2007 5:59 PM EDT: BOTH ARE CORRUPT
THIS ADMINISTRATION (and Clinton's too..) Justice Departments
(DEMOCRATS and REPUBLICAN)
(THEY VACATION TOGETHER...give me a Break)
and
THE US COURTS ARE CORRUPT...!
THEY ARE USED TO COVER UP GOVERNMENT CRIMES..!

YOU ALL THINK THE STOCK MARKET IS
SAFE BECAUSE IT IS PATROLLED BY THE SEC...

I heard CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS,
of the UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT
call my case before his / our court

A DOG (A case no one want to hear)

That is right... when the people are before the
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT
the LAST PLACE a government gives a people a chance for justice..
and
a case where the government employees COMMITTED CRIMES
in order to gain the upper hand in the COURT ROOM..

They didn't see any VALUE of such a case
So they called it a DOG and
went on to more important matters

Watch this COURT,
WATCH what this Court thought was more important

than CORRECTING a CORRUPT GOVERNMENT,

and IT'S COURTS

UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT
James B. Veasaw v. Cari M. Domingues,et al.
No: 05-1467

Securities and Exchange Commission was giving away and/or selling Govt. jobs,
and Government employees commit CRIMES against the people,
Government employees (SEC DOL EEOC) commit CRIMES
in order to GAIN the upper hand in the Court room
Perjury, mail/wire fraud, conspiracy, obstruction of justice,; Reply to this comment


by one_american March 14, 2007 5:51 PM EDT: GregKandra:

Worth investigating?

Why bother with the investigation; the press has already reached it's pre-determined verdict!

Spare us the excuses for liberal press attacks.; Reply to this comment


by axsym911 March 14, 2007 5:42 PM EDT: OK let me git this straight . . . Clinto fires ALL 93 attorney's and you don't find that objectionable or suspect . . but Whoa nelly let Bush fire 8 and all hell breaks loose.
You just added to my massive database of liberal hypocrisyand jsut plain intellectual mediocrity.; Reply to this comment


by rhs648 March 14, 2007 4:45 PM EDT: Some congressman are calling for Attorney General Gonzales to resign. When is the last time Congress called for the resignation of Congressman who have abused their positions, taken bribes, or been involved in selling favors. Let congress clean-up its own act first. Remember Congressman Jeffers. He is still a Congressman.; Reply to this comment


by gregkandra March 14, 2007 4:36 PM EDT: It's important to remember that what happened at the Justice Department on December 7th of last year is unprecedented. Officials from past administrations of both parties can not recall such a raft of firings in the middle of a Presidential term ever happening before. That alone makes it noteworthy, and worth investigating.

Greg Kandra
Editor, "Couric & Co."; Reply to this comment


by one_american March 14, 2007 2:59 PM EDT: The fact is, that neither the Democrats nor the press would have cared - no one cared back in '93 when Clinton fired all 93 attorneys - except that this is just another way for liberals to attack our President.

Liberals always want to change the rules depending on whether or not they are in power.; Reply to this comment