The DOJ Scandal Becomes Clearer

Truthmatters

Diamond Member
Joined
May 10, 2007
Messages
80,182
Reaction score
2,265
Points
1,283
http://tinyurl.com/2alm6v
There seemed to be a concern with vote fraud the the DOJ but the fraud they were trying to prosicute was determined a non issue by studies into its effect and prevelance on elections.

There was another funny thing about the cases they pushed for , they only involved Democrats and they were trying to get them pushed up to effect the elections.

These people are not supporting democracy.

They were attempting to twart democracy.

I think there is something all Americans can agree on reguardless of their leanings, We all want to have the people be able to decide our elections not scheeming politicans and political cronnies.
 

Gunny

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2004
Messages
44,689
Reaction score
6,852
Points
198
Location
The Republic of Texas
The fact remains that this is a NON-issue. The attorneys are political appointees who serve at the President's pleasure. Why some people just cannot grasp that fact/concept is pretty amazing.
 

Care4all

Warrior Princess
Joined
Mar 24, 2007
Messages
56,777
Reaction score
15,170
Points
2,220
Location
Maine
The fact remains that this is a NON-issue. The attorneys are political appointees who serve at the President's pleasure. Why some people just cannot grasp that fact/concept is pretty amazing.
we know clear and well that the attorney generals get picked by the president....

but THIS HAS NOTHING to do with serving at his pleasure(being appointed by him), and those that just TRY to pass it off as ''just that'' are being partisan hacks(trying to deflect from the real issues involved) or being intentionally ignorant on the issue imo!
 

RetiredGySgt

Diamond Member
Joined
May 6, 2007
Messages
47,980
Reaction score
10,026
Points
2,040
Location
North Carolina
ALL 93 Federal Attorneys ALSO serve at the pleasure of the President. I suggest you brush up on your grasp of the law.
 

Gunny

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2004
Messages
44,689
Reaction score
6,852
Points
198
Location
The Republic of Texas
we know clear and well that the attorney generals get picked by the president....

but THIS HAS NOTHING to do with serving at his pleasure(being appointed by him), and those that just TRY to pass it off as ''just that'' are being partisan hacks(trying to deflect from the real issues involved) or being intentionally ignorant on the issue imo!
You would be incorrect. Those who are trying to invent an accusation out of nothing would be the "partisan hacks."

But feel free to show me WHICH President exactly in US history had to justify to a witch hunt his hiring/firing of US attorneys prior to this latest attmpt at sifting through the kitty litter looking for sand.
 

Care4all

Warrior Princess
Joined
Mar 24, 2007
Messages
56,777
Reaction score
15,170
Points
2,220
Location
Maine
ALL 93 Federal Attorneys ALSO serve at the pleasure of the President. I suggest you brush up on your grasp of the law.
that ALSO is a partisan statement and what YOU ARE BEING TOLD to say by your party or your blogs....

do some research on your own, all presidents replace the attorney generals from the previous presidency when they come on board, especially if there is a change in party.

president bush did as well, in fact these 8 were ones that replaced the clinton appointees in those districts when bush fired them.

so what?

this has nothing to do with the tea in china...

i would suggest that you read more than the sites you are comfortable with and you will find the facts that we know so far....

i can't believe you and gunny are still barking up that tree...

tonight, we've got the 4th resignation of another justice dept employee involved in this fiasco....

and you all keep mentioning ''the 93'' as if IT HAD SOMETHING TO DO WITH THIS SITUATION.... Shakes head! :(

do some homework, on your own.... stop being minions, thoughtless minions.

and yes, that sounds mean, but this is not my intention....

i can post legitimate links to all that is going on here but you all would just continue your own way or reject them, so why should i do the work for you? only to be rejected?

so, i think you need to research it yourself, on your own, and without going to the RNC, GOP, or affliates or the DNC and their affiliates....

then, you won't be mouthing off that gibberish about clinton 93 and ''the attorney generals serve at the pleasure of the president crapola''..........

andrew johnson was impeached because he fired one of his appointees for goodness sakes...and the congress did not agree with the firing...


the attorney generals SERVE US, the American people , IN THE AMERICAN JUSTICE SYSTEM, at the pleasure of the president.... they are INDEPENDENT PROSECUTORS once they are appointed and do not prosecute cases according to the president, but according to the LAW....

care
 

Care4all

Warrior Princess
Joined
Mar 24, 2007
Messages
56,777
Reaction score
15,170
Points
2,220
Location
Maine
You would be incorrect. Those who are trying to invent an accusation out of nothing would be the "partisan hacks."

But feel free to show me WHICH President exactly in US history had to justify to a witch hunt his hiring/firing of US attorneys prior to this latest attmpt at sifting through the kitty litter looking for sand.
tonight, we've got the fourth resignation from the attorney general's office/justice dept that are involved in this case, we've got those involved pleading the 5th so they won't incriminate themselves, and you have 5 others involved refusing to testify under oath or to even testify in public, with the president saying he won't allow any record of the meeting...and 5 million emails missing along with the ''people's'' work being done on an email system of the RNC....? pleaseeeeeeeeeeeee, any normal human being's curiosity and willingness to get to the bottom of this....is normal!

i don't think it is merely partisan hackery....and you guys shouldn't either....something ain't right and stinks like old fish....

both republicans in office and dems have asked for gonzalez's resignation....

this is NOT just a partisan thing.

care
 

Gunny

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2004
Messages
44,689
Reaction score
6,852
Points
198
Location
The Republic of Texas
that ALSO is a partisan statement and what YOU ARE BEING TOLD to say by your party or your blogs....

do some research on your own, all presidents replace the attorney generals from the previous presidency when they come on board, especially if there is a change in party.

president bush did as well, in fact these 8 were ones that replaced the clinton appointees in those districts when bush fired them.

so what?

this has nothing to do with the tea in china...

i would suggest that you read more than the sites you are comfortable with and you will find the facts that we know so far....

i can't believe you and gunny are still barking up that tree...

tonight, we've got the 4th resignation of another justice dept employee involved in this fiasco....

and you all keep mentioning ''the 93'' as if IT HAD SOMETHING TO DO WITH THIS SITUATION.... Shakes head! :(

do some homework, on your own.... stop being minions, thoughtless minions.

and yes, that sounds mean, but this is not my intention....

i can post legitimate links to all that is going on here but you all would just continue your own way or reject them, so why should i do the work for you? only to be rejected?

so, i think you need to research it yourself, on your own, and without going to the RNC, GOP, or affliates or the DNC and their affiliates....

then, you won't be mouthing off that gibberish about clinton 93 and ''the attorney generals serve at the pleasure of the president..........

andrew johnson was impeached because he fired one of his appointees for goodness sakes...


the attorney generals SERVE US, IN THE AMERICAN JUSTICE SYSTEM, at the pleasure of the president.... they are INDEPENDENT PROSECUTORS once they are appointed and do not prosecute cases according to the president, but according to the LAW....

care
"that ALSO is a partisan statement and what YOU ARE BEING TOLD to say by your party or your blogs...."

Horseshit. You need to give this line a rest. If anyone appears to be steeped in quoting the partisan handbook, it's YOU.

Regardless all your smoke and mirrors, you are incorrect. Let me quote you, and fix your errors....

"B]the attorney generals serve [/B]us, in the American Justice System, at the pleasure of the president.... they are independent prosecutors once they are appointed and do not prosecute cases according to the president, but according to the LAW...."

Where hiring and firing is concerned, the bloded protions ar the only pertinent ones. What those attorneys do once appointed is irrelevant to the discussion.
 

Care4all

Warrior Princess
Joined
Mar 24, 2007
Messages
56,777
Reaction score
15,170
Points
2,220
Location
Maine
"that ALSO is a partisan statement and what YOU ARE BEING TOLD to say by your party or your blogs...."

Horseshit. You need to give this line a rest. If anyone appears to be steeped in quoting the partisan handbook, it's YOU.

Regardless all your smoke and mirrors, you are incorrect. Let me quote you, and fix your errors....

"B]the attorney generals serve [/B]us, in the American Justice System, at the pleasure of the president.... they are independent prosecutors once they are appointed and do not prosecute cases according to the president, but according to the LAW...."

Where hiring and firing is concerned, the bloded protions ar the only pertinent ones. What those attorneys do once appointed is irrelevant to the discussion.
They can not be fired for "not prosecuting a partisan case" or for investigating and prosecuting a case against corrupt republicans, that is breaking the law, it is obstruction of justice.

The Attorney Generals "serve at the pleasure of the president", which means that they are appointed by the president and are confirmed by the consent of the senate....the senate can and has rejected presidential appointees....so not all that are picked to "serve at the pleasure of the president" are confirmed.

But the Attorney Generals do not serve the president in the manner that it seems you are implying? They are totally independent prosecutors and do not work case by case at the pleasur of the president?

They serve, at the pleasure of the President, the American people and the American Justice system.


And what about the 4 that have had to resign?

And what about the pleading of the 5th so not to incriminate oneself in a CRIME?

And what about the emails missing?

And what about the people's work being hidden and done on the rnc email system vs the gvt email system as required regarding these prosecutor firings?

YOU NEVER ADDRESS the issues here....

I do not go to any DNC sites, to any dem blogs to any dem sites PERIOD to get any of my information on any issue.... I am a main stream media gal all the way....

please do some reading, even a person that was mentally impaired imo, would think that something is amiss here and it is perfectly legitimate to investigate it and figure out what it is....
 

Bullypulpit

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 7, 2004
Messages
5,849
Reaction score
382
Points
48
Location
Columbus, OH
The fact remains that this is a NON-issue. The attorneys are political appointees who serve at the President's pleasure. Why some people just cannot grasp that fact/concept is pretty amazing.
Nobody disputes that these attorneys "serve at the President's pleasure", Gunny. What is at issue, however, is the manner in which these dismissals were handled, replacing competent and highly rated REPUBLICAN US attorney's who were DOING THEIR JOBS in a fair and impartial manner with party hacks who were valued more for their loyalty to President and Party than competence and loyalty to the Constitution. Then there was the fact that the new USA's were brought in under that now repealed provision of the PATRIOT Act which allowed the DOJ to fill USA vacancies indefinitely with personnel who did not have to go through the Senate confirmation process.

Now add into the mix the fact that there were concerted efforts to pressure some of attorneys who were replaced into dropping legitimate investigations against Republicans and bringing shaky/unfounded indictments against Democrats in their districts, Carol Lam and David Iglesias being cases in point. This brings up not only the specter of obstructing a criminal investigation, but tampering with teh very fabric of the Constitution itself. It was, after all, Karl Rove's stated goal of one party rule in America and subverting the DOJ to this process was but the first step.

But bye-the-bye, Bush will never throw pobrecito Alberto under the bus. A- He doesn't want an honest broker in the position of USAG, can't have them co-operating with any investigations. B - Alberto knows where the bodies are buried and just which closets the skeletons are in
 

Care4all

Warrior Princess
Joined
Mar 24, 2007
Messages
56,777
Reaction score
15,170
Points
2,220
Location
Maine
Nobody disputes that these attorneys "serve at the President's pleasure", Gunny. What is at issue, however, is the manner in which these dismissals were handled, replacing competent and highly rated REPUBLICAN US attorney's who were DOING THEIR JOBS in a fair and impartial manner with party hacks who were valued more for their loyalty to President and Party than competence and loyalty to the Constitution. Then there was the fact that the new USA's were brought in under that now repealed provision of the PATRIOT Act which allowed the DOJ to fill USA vacancies indefinitely with personnel who did not have to go through the Senate confirmation process.

Now add into the mix the fact that there were concerted efforts to pressure some of attorneys who were replaced into dropping legitimate investigations against Republicans and bringing shaky/unfounded indictments against Democrats in their districts, Carol Lam and David Iglesias being cases in point. This brings up not only the specter of obstructing a criminal investigation, but tampering with teh very fabric of the Constitution itself. It was, after all, Karl Rove's stated goal of one party rule in America and subverting the DOJ to this process was but the first step.

But bye-the-bye, Bush will never throw pobrecito Alberto under the bus. A- He doesn't want an honest broker in the position of USAG, can't have them co-operating with any investigations. B - Alberto knows where the bodies are buried and just which closets the skeletons are in
Thank you! but I bet he does not come back to this thread or does not do any research to find out more and I bet ya that the next time this is brought up he wil say the same old thing, that the attorney generals serve at the pleasure of the president....

he does not care, he has made his choice to believe what he wants....regardless of whether is contains the whole truth in it....

a month from now we wil be having the same discussion with him...

If and when people get charged with obstruction of justice, he will still be saying the same thing, what about the 93 clinton fired and the ag's serve at the pleasure of the president....? :(

Sadly, I've met the "type"....... :(

Care
 

Gunny

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2004
Messages
44,689
Reaction score
6,852
Points
198
Location
The Republic of Texas
tonight, we've got the fourth resignation from the attorney general's office/justice dept that are involved in this case, we've got those involved pleading the 5th so they won't incriminate themselves, and you have 5 others involved refusing to testify under oath or to even testify in public, with the president saying he won't allow any record of the meeting...and 5 million emails missing along with the ''people's'' work being done on an email system of the RNC....? pleaseeeeeeeeeeeee, any normal human being's curiosity and willingness to get to the bottom of this....is normal!

i don't think it is merely partisan hackery....and you guys shouldn't either....something ain't right and stinks like old fish....

both republicans in office and dems have asked for gonzalez's resignation....

this is NOT just a partisan thing.

care
Perhaps both Republicans and Democrats don't like Gonzalez. Can't say I care for him myself. So? Completely irrelevant to the President's -- Democrat OR Republican -- right to hire and fire US attorneys as he sees fit.
 

Gunny

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2004
Messages
44,689
Reaction score
6,852
Points
198
Location
The Republic of Texas
They can not be fired for "not prosecuting a partisan case" or for investigating and prosecuting a case against corrupt republicans, that is breaking the law, it is obstruction of justice.

They can be fired for "whatever." What is so hard about understanding THAT?

The Attorney Generals "serve at the pleasure of the president", which means that they are appointed by the president and are confirmed by the consent of the senate....the senate can and has rejected presidential appointees....so not all that are picked to "serve at the pleasure of the president" are confirmed.

But the Attorney Generals do not serve the president in the manner that it seems you are implying? They are totally independent prosecutors and do not work case by case at the pleasur of the president?

They serve, at the pleasure of the President, the American people and the American Justice system.


And what about the 4 that have had to resign?

And what about the pleading of the 5th so not to incriminate oneself in a CRIME?

And what about the emails missing?

And what about the people's work being hidden and done on the rnc email system vs the gvt email system as required regarding these prosecutor firings?

YOU NEVER ADDRESS the issues here....

I do not go to any DNC sites, to any dem blogs to any dem sites PERIOD to get any of my information on any issue.... I am a main stream media gal all the way....

please do some reading, even a person that was mentally impaired imo, would think that something is amiss here and it is perfectly legitimate to investigate it and figure out what it is....
"At the pleasure of the President" appears to boggle your mind into incomprehension.

I ALWAYS address the issues. Just another one of your stock, handbook responses. What I'm NOT willing to accept is that "at the pleasure of the President" is caveated by "unless it's a Republican President and Dem's want to conduct another witchhunt."

There IS NO issue to address. You're just trying to invent one.
 

Gunny

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2004
Messages
44,689
Reaction score
6,852
Points
198
Location
The Republic of Texas
Nobody disputes that these attorneys "serve at the President's pleasure", Gunny. What is at issue, however, is the manner in which these dismissals were handled, replacing competent and highly rated REPUBLICAN US attorney's who were DOING THEIR JOBS in a fair and impartial manner with party hacks who were valued more for their loyalty to President and Party than competence and loyalty to the Constitution. Then there was the fact that the new USA's were brought in under that now repealed provision of the PATRIOT Act which allowed the DOJ to fill USA vacancies indefinitely with personnel who did not have to go through the Senate confirmation process.

Now add into the mix the fact that there were concerted efforts to pressure some of attorneys who were replaced into dropping legitimate investigations against Republicans and bringing shaky/unfounded indictments against Democrats in their districts, Carol Lam and David Iglesias being cases in point. This brings up not only the specter of obstructing a criminal investigation, but tampering with teh very fabric of the Constitution itself. It was, after all, Karl Rove's stated goal of one party rule in America and subverting the DOJ to this process was but the first step.

But bye-the-bye, Bush will never throw pobrecito Alberto under the bus. A- He doesn't want an honest broker in the position of USAG, can't have them co-operating with any investigations. B - Alberto knows where the bodies are buried and just which closets the skeletons are in
All of which means WHAT? The fact that the President can hire and fire them at his whim ends any further discussion. What you're basically saying is he can hire and fire and whim unless you disagree with his reasons for dong so.

The reasons are irrelevant.

And as I stated before, Democrats need to be careful what precedents they are setting. What goes around comes around, and I for one am sick of this stupid little game of one-upsmanship. It's just been getting uglier and uglier while the consequence has been our government not governing choosing instead to play stupid little games on MY -- and your -- dime.
 

RetiredGySgt

Diamond Member
Joined
May 6, 2007
Messages
47,980
Reaction score
10,026
Points
2,040
Location
North Carolina
The law is clear. The President can fire any Federal Attorney for ANY reason he wants.

Now I will agree that the portion of the new law that allowed indefinate appointment without consent of Congress had to go, and it has. But that has nothing to do with the issue here.

The only role Congress plays is in creating new laws and the Senate must approve the Presidents appointments. Once appointed the prosecutor serves at the whim of the President.
 

Care4all

Warrior Princess
Joined
Mar 24, 2007
Messages
56,777
Reaction score
15,170
Points
2,220
Location
Maine
The law is clear. The President can fire any Federal Attorney for ANY reason he wants.

Now I will agree that the portion of the new law that allowed indefinate appointment without consent of Congress had to go, and it has. But that has nothing to do with the issue here.

The only role Congress plays is in creating new laws and the Senate must approve the Presidents appointments. Once appointed the prosecutor serves at the whim of the President.

what does ''whim'' of the president mean, in your opinion? please give examples.

i agree the president appoints them and can let them go.
 

Care4all

Warrior Princess
Joined
Mar 24, 2007
Messages
56,777
Reaction score
15,170
Points
2,220
Location
Maine
our justice system is a separate BRANCH of our government, it IS NOT A TOY to be played with at the president's whim.... he is not king....try oh try to remember that....

and never has been! those medling were impeached.... until now,,,,
 

Diuretic

Permanently confused
Joined
Apr 26, 2006
Messages
12,653
Reaction score
1,410
Points
48
Location
South Australia est 1836
Hmmm he more I read about Bush the more I wonder if you really did get rid of the monarch in your War of Independence. Is he that powerful? Can he do all those things with impunity? Can no-one stop him doing whatever he wishes? Can he simply ignore legislation passed by a democratically elected Congress by the use of "signing statements"? Are these good things?
 

red states rule

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
16,011
Reaction score
573
Points
48
our justice system is a separate BRANCH of our government, it IS NOT A TOY to be played with at the president's whim.... he is not king....try oh try to remember that....

and never has been! those medling were impeached.... until now,,,,
Nets Ignored Clinton Firing 93 U.S. Attorneys,
Fret Over Bush's 8

The broadcast network evening newscasts, which didn't care in 1993 about the Clinton administration's decision to ask for the resignation of all 93 U.S. attorneys, went apoplectic Tuesday night in leading with the "controversy," fed by the media, over the Bush administration for replacing eight U.S. attorneys in late 2006 -- nearly two years after rejecting the idea of following the Clinton policy of replacing all the attorneys. Anchor Charles Gibson promised that ABC would "look at all the angles tonight," but he skipped the Clinton comparison. Gibson teased: "New controversy at the White House after a string of U.S. attorneys is fired under questionable circumstances. There are calls for the Attorney General to resign."

CBS's Katie Couric declared that "the uproar is growing tonight over the firing of eight federal prosecutors by the Justice Department" and fill-in NBC anchor Campbell Brown teased: "The Attorney General and the firestorm tonight over the controversial dismissal of several federal prosecutors. Was it political punishment?" Brown soon asserted that "it's a story that has been brewing for weeks and it exploded today" -- an explosion fueled by the news media.

ABC's World News, the CBS Evening News and the NBC Nightly News on March 13 led with and ran multiple stories on the controversy, which were clearly propelled, in part, by attacks by Senate Democrats who demanded the resignation of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. But Justice Department clumsiness, which provided hooks for those Democratic attacks, does not absolve the news media of the responsibility for putting the replacement of U.S. attorneys into greater context for viewers so they would understand how Bush's predecessor removed every one (actually all but one as Brit Hume explained, see #2 below) so that Clinton, as is being charged in the current case, could replace them with attorneys more favorable to the administration's agenda.

[This item was posted Tuesday night on the MRC's blog, NewsBusters.org: newsbusters.org ]

Unlike ABC, CBS and NBC watchers, cable viewers got a hint of context as Steve Centanni, on FNC's Special Report with Brit Hume, pointed out how "the White House acknowledged there were talks in 2005, just after the President won his second term, about terminating all 93 U.S. attorneys just as President Clinton unceremoniously did 1993 after he won the White House." The point made it onto CNN's The Situation Room -- barely -- thanks to guest Terry Jeffries who raised it during the 4pm EDT hour of the program.

(Tuesday's Good Morning America ran a full story from Pierre Thomas framed around the Democratic attacks on Bush and Gonzales, with analysis from George Stephanopoulos. For a details, including a transcript of the story by Thomas, check Scott Whitlock's NewsBusters posting: newsbusters.org )

Last week, on the same day as the Libby verdict, Katie Couric introduced a full March 6 CBS Evening News story by Sharyl Attkisson, who failed to remind viewers of Clinton's wholesale firings: "Another big story in Washington tonight also involves federal prosecutors, or at least former prosecutors. Eight U.S. attorneys were axed by the Bush administration last year, and some Democrats say the firings were politically motivated. Today some of those ex-prosecutors told Congress about the pressure they felt from top Republicans."

Back in 1993, the networks weren't so interested in Clinton's maneuver. The April 1993 edition of the MRC's MediaWatch newsletter recounted:

Attorney General Janet Reno fired all 93 U.S. attorneys, a very unusual practice. Republicans charged the Clintonites made the move to take U.S. Attorney Jay Stephens off the House Post Office investigation of Ways and Means Chairman Dan Rostenkowski. The network response: ABC and CBS never mentioned it. CNN's World News and NBC Nightly News provided brief mentions, with only NBC noting the Rosty angle. Only NBC's Garrick Utley kept the old outrage, declaring in a March 27 "Final Thoughts" comment: "Every new President likes to say 'Under me, it's not going to be politics as usual.' At the Justice Department, it looks as if it still is."

http://www.mediaresearch.org/cyberalerts/2007/cyb20070314.asp#1
 

red states rule

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
16,011
Reaction score
573
Points
48
Hmmm he more I read about Bush the more I wonder if you really did get rid of the monarch in your War of Independence. Is he that powerful? Can he do all those things with impunity? Can no-one stop him doing whatever he wishes? Can he simply ignore legislation passed by a democratically elected Congress by the use of "signing statements"? Are these good things?
CBS Legal Expert Cites Democratic Donors
In Swipes at AG Gonzales

CBS legal analyst Andrew Cohen took Tuesday to the "Couric & Co." blog to blast Attorney General Alberto Gonzales as a Bush toadie, then turned to law scholars with a history of donating to liberal Democratic candidates to back up his claims. Cohen wished Gonzales "stood up to his hero" -- President Bush -- "on domestic surveillance, on Guantanamo Bay, on protecting good federal prosecutors -- instead of simply defending or justifying White House policies and practices."

Cohen charged:

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.

END of Excerpt

For Cohen's March 13 Couric & Co. blog: www.cbsnews.com

[This item is adapted from an article, by NewsBusters Managing Editor Ken Shepherd, which was posted Tuesday night on the blog: newsbusters.org ]

So, in essence, Cohen asserted that Gonzales has no independent thought on his own because Gonzales failed to act how Cohen thinks he should have. That is, Gonzales is at fault for doing his job: crafting and implementing the president's legal strategy for the war on terror.

Not content to leave his gripe with Gonzales as a matter of personal opinion, Cohen brought in two ostensibly politically neutral legal experts to lend credence to his attack on the attorney general's performance in office: Stanley Kutler of the University of Wisconsin and Stanley Katz of Princeton University.

Cohen was particularly enamored with Katz, quoting him as he closed his blog post:

"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.

END of Excerpt

So what's the problem? Both Katz ($4,650) and Kutler ($4,950) are heavy donors to liberal Democrats.

According to OpenSecrets.org, Kutler has frequently contributed to the campaigns of liberal Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) and gave $500 to the John Kerry campaign. Katz frequently gave money to liberal Rep. Rush Holt (D-N.J.) and former Sen. Paul Sarbanes (D-Md.), as well as the Democratic National Committee.

http://www.mediaresearch.org/cyberalerts/2007/cyb20070314.asp#1
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top