Gonzales & The White House: Cohen Responds
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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?
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,
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.
You just added to my massive database of liberal hypocrisyand jsut plain intellectual mediocrity.
Greg Kandra
Editor, "Couric & Co."
Liberals always want to change the rules depending on whether or not they are in power.
- by gunluvr_69 March 14, 2007 1:05 PM EDT
- You liberals are all the same, this was not a crime.
- Reply to this comment
See all 12 CommentsI looked into this story and there is no indication that Clinton's *** was involved!!
How can this be a crime then huh? Dumb liberals!