You just had to mention that Comey "would be perfect" didnt't you. Now all of us who regularly read this blog are going to have to endure the trollish posts of the poster formerly known as chiaramente, who will undoubtedly subject us to his/her anti-Comey, go hang with your friends at Lockheed-Martin, Comey is the biggest liar and crook the world has to offer, drivel.

Brace yourselves. You've been warned.

I think that you revealed the answer unintentionally.

"'The best combination is someone whom the President respects,' says Philip Heymann, Harvard Law professor and former deputy attorney general, 'but is willing to be independent.'"

No truly independant and qualified candidate can have the confidence af a president who believes himself supreme. The checks and balances of the constitution are lost on President Bush.

since the "media" did such a poor job on the Wilson/Plame affair, I think you owe the American people an honest attempt to find out what actually happened at DOJ regardless to where it leads.

Thank God it will be only a "caretaker" role for whoever is appointed.

Andrew, is this heat or light?

I would like to nominate myself because ever since I was a kid I have watched Perry Mason, LA Law, Judge Judy (not very often) and Boston Legal. I also remember when Jimmy Stewart was a juror who acquitted a guy whom everybody else wanted to convict.

The only problem is that I do not like working weekends or after 5:00pm. If I can get a good after noon nap then I can work like a trojan.

Robert James -

It wasn't Jimmy Stewart, it was Henry Fonda in Twelve Angry Men.

Andrew - I think we're going to be disappointed in the appointment. Cheney will never appoint anyone truly independent to be rubber-stamped by Bush.

"But of course he won't get the job because he's ticked off the president. Ditto Patrick J. Fitzgerald, the marvelous special prosecutor. Maybe in the next administration, right?"

Tom Heffelfinger, former Fed Prosecutor for Minneapolis? Of course, he was on the short list for firing before stepping down. Given this admin's propensity for promoting people beyond their abilities, perhaps Heff's successor Rachel Paulose will get the nod.

We know what lies ahead. We will be treated to yet another display of Bush's famous audacity. Another can-you-top-this episode of colossal arrogance.

Bush will nominate some Urin-- er Unitary Executive knucklewalker, perhaps even David Addington himself, because his entire shtick for the last six years is to remind us over and over what a tough liddle monkey he is. Bush will never be cooperative if there's an opportunity to be combative.

Over 500 days of this to go.

Gosh, John Q. Public, you must have been thinking about this post, yes? (smile)

Thank you, Jon. And I want to say ONE MORE THING to those silly "Comey lovers" out there:

James Comey is an EMBELLISHER, MISLEADER AND EXAGGERATOR, (just like so many of those prosecutors who apparently took his cue and worked for him in the USAOs!-yeah, that's right!) AND THE AMERICAN TAXPAYER CLEARLY DOES NOT NEED ANY MORE POLITICAL THEATRE, OR WANNABEE DRAMATISTS AT THE DOJ, get it?

When you're the nation's top lawyer, you need to be NO-NONSENSE, LOW KEY, CREDIBLE, NO POLITICAL JOCKEY-and right now, DOJ has got that-Paul Clements and Craig Morford-no-nonsense, lawyer's lawyers types who will go about their business quietly, very competently, in a no-nonsense fashion, doing the work of the people, and who, most importantly, are NOT political hacks who like to call attention to themselves, BUT REAL LAWYERS-A DIMENSION OF DIFFERENCE FROM GONZALES, THAT PATHETIC POLITICAL HACK MCNULTY, AND THE KNOW-NOTHING CHERTOFF PROTEGEE ALICE FISHER.

In other words, Comey got way too much political baggage-and he's a drama king to boot-just exactly what DOJ does NOT NEED right now.

P.S. And Cohen, I'd hardly call Comey a "hero" -you notice the thunderous silence from him since his infamous congressional recital, yes? There's a reason for that-he's gotta keep his job at Lockheed-Martin, and I KNOW those folks aren't happy with him now!

Well John Q. you certainly did warn us.

I'd say the Comey-fanatic qualifies as "heat"

Want to bet we get a truly horrendus person in a recess appointment?

Robert James, from what you said, don't worry, you're qualified.

Hey, I'm not a Republican, but I heard my buddy Chris Cox is mentioned. I haven't kept up with all his positions over the years,but I can vouch that at least for a long time, he had integrity. Many I thought I knew changed strangely in the last decade, so I'm not sure where he stands now.

I don't know enough about the facts of this matter, but some of the chiaroscuro "Comey-fanatic" has said before has made sense.

If the president MUST "respect" the appointee as a precondition (don't mean merely a Republican), I'd say any choice is futile.

Why should the Admin be in any hurry at all to replace Clement?

If the respect of the president is a pre-condition, there is only one logical recess apointment choice out there--Cheney's boy, David S. Addington, who has spent six years trying to inflate executive power beyond the reach of both Congress and credulity.

First of all, I'm not "chiaro" anything. Secondly, people overlook the facts all the time, in favor of what they want to see, and that is inexcusable. The fact is, the Judiciary Committee had already approved the hospital visit by Gonzales/Card, so it wasn't Gonzales' idea at all to go there-contrary to Comey's overly dramatic testimony to the contrary-Comey's personal animus for Gonzales was what drove him to declaim in the manner he did, -you don't go into theatrics like that and NOT have a personal agenda for doing so, but it was really all for nought. Moreover, Comey's testimony was inconsistent, as you would expect from one who is driven by personal animus.

So simply because he walks tall, and looks oh so whitebread-don't be deceived by all that - he's the one who signed off on that domestic wiretapping program, so he's one of them, make no mistake about that! But thankfully, he cooked his own goose- nobody had to do it for him, and he is now persona non grata-he'll be lucky to hold onto his multi-million dollar salary at Lockheed, 'cuz those folks want to be IN with the USG, not OUT-and Comey put them on the wroooong side-not good for a military defense contractor!

"The fact is, the Judiciary Committee had already approved the hospital visit by Gonzales/Card"

First I've heard that little nugget. Got a link or backing info?

Broadus A. Spivey of Austin Texas is the only Attorney in the United States of America that could and should be The Attorney General. We can trust that toleration of politics would not be accepted as the order of the day in the Department of Justice. He is the Past President of Texas Bar with enough wisdom to handle the elected politicians

Hear, hear for Broadus Spivey!

What a great idea. But seriously, why do you think GWB would even consider Broadus? A first class trial lawyer who is willing to make a hard call is hardly what this Admin wants.

Broadus and I were co-counsel on a case years ago and he taught me something about x-exam that I will never forget.

Here is something to think about: all those 130+ "christian" lawyers from Regents were Ashcroft hires, were they not? I think that Gonzales' tolerance of third or fourth rate kids all through the hierarchy when he himself was a Harvard Law alum is telling.

Perhaps I have gratuitously insulted some of the Regents kids, but most of them [just like GWB,who applied but was rejected] could not have been accepted at Texas, or at any of the other top 25 law schools in America. I know, some great lawyers have been so-so law students - look at Jamail; but I do not think any of the Regents kids even had trial experience. Of course, neither did Alberto.

Is Lionel Hutz available?

"You'll be getting more than just a lawyer, Mr. Simpson. You'll also be getting this exquisite faux pearl necklace, a $99 value, as our gift to you."

To: "I'm not "chiaro" anything." Whoever you are.

Talk about personal animus! What have you got against James Comey, the only person in this whole ugly affair who acted with honor?

"The fact is, the Judiciary Committee had already approved the hospital visit by Gonzales/Card, so it wasn't Gonzales' idea at all to go there . . ." Who ever said it was Gonzales' idea? Gonzales has never had an idea, he is just Bush/Cheney's lickspittle - never more, never less. And members of the Judiciary Committee said that they did NOT approve Gonzales going to see Ashcroft. Do you know anything different? Were you in the Committee meeting? It seems that there are two totally different versions of what went on, like everything else these days.

"Comey's overly dramatic testimony to the contrary-Comey's personal animus for Gonzales was what drove him to declaim in the manner he did." Who doesn't have personal animus for Gonzales? And what theatrics? I found him very controlled, under the circumstances. At least he didn't answer every question with "I don't recall."

"Comey's testimony was inconsistent, as you would expect from one who is driven by personal animus." Point out one inconsistency.

Yes, he does walk tall, and he does tell the truth and he has a snowball's chance in hell of getting nominated by Bush/Cheney. But the Judiciary Committee would approve him in a heartbeat.

"But thankfully, he cooked his own goose- nobody had to do it for him, and he is now persona non grata-he'll be lucky to hold onto his multi-million dollar salary at Lockheed, 'cuz those folks want to be IN with the USG, not OUT-and Comey put them on the wroooong side-not good for a military defense contractor!" Oh, so he should have ignored a subpoena or lied outright or claimed to not recall to please his current war-profiteering employers? Is that what you're saying? Isn't that called perjury? Isn't that what this is all about?

Personally, I have a great deal of admiration for James Comey because (1) he stood up to Gonzales and Card; (2) he refused to sign off on the WH's intelligence "activities" which he believed to be unconstitutional; (3) he threatened to resign rather be used. However, he will never be nominated by Dumbya because (a) he is honest; (b) he has integrity; and (3) he is 6'8" or 6'9" and GWB is just a wunky lil ol' pipsqueak! Imagine how that would look in a photo op. Georgie would have to stand on a box.

Get a good nights sleep and be assured it won't be anyone who will uphold the constitution. Maybe some goat roper from down Texas way. Better yet, maybe an unemployed football player from Atlanta. That way, we could legally keep Abu Graib and Guantanamo Base and make sure no one in the White house is charged with illegal acts.

"The White House should pick an attorney general who can bridge the gulf between Republicans and Democrats."

Yes, but the Moron-in-Chief is too much of a petulant brat to see it that way. He'll nominate yet another incompetent crony to the position. The Moron-in-Chief is too insecure to nominate anyone that will not lick his boots and wipe his butt on demand.

I wonder what Chertoff's "gut" is telling him about this? He's Another dull tool in Bush's box.Bush bases his choices on how ill-fit ,incompetent and dangerous the candidate will be for the particular position.He loves to put the foxes in the hen house, doesn't he?

yes...just what we need....another friggin lawyer! there's a class of individuals detached from self-interest and steppeed in leadership skills!

David Addington...that hits the nail on the head. The confirmation hearing will be a slugfest. Turn off the light and bring the heat.

Oh..oh...oh. John Cornyn.

DemoChristian is wrong about Bush's lack of respect for the checks and balances in the Constitution. He does nothing without the advice and consent of the Legislative Branch, represented by Vice President Cheney.

I nominate a potted plant--something mild and uncontroversial, like a fern. It would certainly do as much good and less harm than Alberto Gonzo!

Yes, Joe De Verite, the potted plant is likely to be the choice, to avoid the long knives of the Senate. Addington would just have them get out the sharpening steels.

But, to me, it seems anyone willing to take on this job with just a few months to go is someone promised a judgeship or some other relatively permanent position for the longer term. So, I hope Congress understands this is likely to be a relatively bulletproof candidate who will withstand the short-term criticism for a long-term position. And that's dangerous.

If Silberman is nominated, the first thing he should be asked is, if he still believes that we need a National Identity Card System.

He tried to get the Attorney General to buy off on that when he was Deputy Attorney General in 1975.

Call my cynical, but I think KKKarl Rove (still advising from the shadows) will have Bush'it nominate someone semi-plausible, but who's guaranteed to outrage Democrats. Bush will nominate the equivalent of a ham sandwich. Because it's all about politics, not getting the job done.

If Dems actually REJECT a nominee -- the horror, diagreeing with the king's choice in a time of perpetual war! -- then they can be accused of do-nothingism. And President Cheney will then have an excuse to slide in someone horrid as a recess appointment. And if the Dems accept someone nasty, as they did with Alito and Roberts because they didn't want to seem like, well, an OPPOSITION party, then Bush has succeeded in getting a nasty AG. It's a win for the fascists either way!

By that standard, Chertoff is the perfect choice. So what if he mismanaged FEMA/Katrina and Heimat Security? So what if he's a partisan hack? So what if he looks like Skeletor? Chertoff's a good political foil. And divisive politics is all that matters with this mob.

P.S. to those of you who wonder about the motivation of this Chiaramente-who-denies-he's-Chiaramente. My gaydar tells me there's some unresolved sexual imbroglio behind the animus. Phrases like "political baggage" and "drama king" strike me as code for "he's queer." (Interesting too that Chia spells the word "theatre" in the British fashion, not American, FWIW.) Past things he's posted make me think it's personal, not just political. Any of you regular Cohen readers get that vibe? What about it, Chia-pet?

My bet is a recess appointment. I can't believe the 'decider' will change his spots now.

The WH will nominate the most outrageous person they can think of, the Judiciary Committee will flip, reject said nominee; repeat procedure twice; WH will nominate the person they had in mind all along, even though said nominee is a totally inappropriate hack, and the JC will okay them out of weariness. This is the way it always works. Do you think that the WH was serious about Harriet Miers on the Supreme Court?

The above scenario allows the WH to win no matter what. When the JC adamantly rejects candidates 1, 2 and possibly 3, they are vilified as being obstructive and partisan in not allowing the WH to have competent(!) people of the presidink's choice in an vital cabinet position. He rails about how they drove poor honest, competent, honorable blah blah blah Fredo from office with their partisan blah blah blah. Congress caves, as they do so gracelessly. And Chimpie gets some slavishly loyal, anti-Constitution, incompetent zealot in the position who will obey Cheney's every whim. Good-bye Bill of Rights; good-bye dissent; maybe even good-bye elections. What a deal!

Want to bet we get a truly horrendus person in a recess appointment?
---

The horror . . . the horror . . . yeah, I'm in.

"The White House should pick an attorney general who can bridge the gulf between Republicans and Democrats."

Huh? I thought the Attorney General upheld the Constitution and the laws of the land. I don't see "bridging the gulf between Republicans and Democrats" in the AG job description.

Probably the author means, "someone who is just barely, by a hair's breadth, less than a complete criminal and psychopath who won't completely embarrass the Republicans and can be forced upon the Democrats with threats of endless wrangling (for which Democrats can be easily blamed)."

Thinly disguised H0Po shilling for CheneyInc and whoever Dickster might nominate. Nice work, we almost didn't catch it. Quail for you!

Bukko, I don't want to speculate much about motives of Ch-man, as long as he is reasonably civil and backs up his claims (which the last fair question when someone asked for a source, he didn't answer, so if he wants to convince people of his contrarian claims, which is fine, he needs to give the support, otherwise what else does he expect to be seen as than an outsider who repeats the same issue without supporting it) but I think that he has seen many of the DOJ at work is strongly indicated. I think to say most likely where would be to divulge too much, and infringe on his private life.

(yeah I know, among other Anglicisms, but "drama" in that usage is, for worse, practically everyday speech at least in Cal)

If the Dem's are concerned with not looking like an opposition party,I hope not.If not in these circumstances, I don't know what credibility they expect. Unity for its own sake, only on the Republican side?

very minorly, what he said was accurate, "chiaro" isn't "chiara", and theoretically possible some acolyte repeats his style and issues--but enough of personal speculation

Unrelatedly, I think Bhutto's idea to share with the general is a good idea(what happened to his government all of a sudden in a matter of 2 months?) but am not sure offhand what Sharif's role is going top be. At first glance, he doesn't seem to support Musharraf but seems to be taking M's giving up power as a green light for his own ascendancy. That won't be helpful.

Speaking of homo, why should Feingold be so concerned about prying into his private life in the event of a campaign? It's all good, come on down!

(don't know anything conclusively definite though, just various circumstantial suggestive things)

Chris Fox, the only difference between "heat" and "light" is that you can "see" the latter but you can only "feel" the former and only with extreme amounts can you "feel" the "light"

What appears to be needed is some "gamma" radiation to knock the "neutrons" out of the "nucleus"! "ARF" "ARF"

I nominate a chihuahua.
Good post, Bukko.

I have a good idea. Take the post of Attorney General out of the President's Cabinet and make it a part of the Judicial branch. Let the members of the Supreme Court select a person who would make judgements solely on the legal/Constitutional merits of the case. And would not be suject to political pressure from either the President or the Congress.
It will never happen but it would be an interesting way of doing things.

Of course, Cohen only sees a liberal appointee as "a bridge" between Republicans and Democrats, but I don't see how a bridge between Republicans and Democrats can ever be constructed unless Republicans adopt the GayLiberal Agenda on social issues and national defense.

George W. Bush won Elections 2000 and 2004 by highlighting THE DIFFERENCES between Republicans and Democrats, and those differences just as pronounced, perhaps even moreso, in 2008. Let's fight it out with an AG nominee who will clearly be loyal to the President, national defense, and traditional social values.

It's a fight worth fighting, win or lose, so the Republicans can't really lose.

Litmus Test - AG's Willingness to Prosecute The White House.

Gonzales has been Bush's shield from the law since his early days in public office in Texas; that should never be part of AG's job description.

Very serious crimes have been perpetrated out of the White House whose details have been shared with the House and Senate Judiciary committees, other selected Senators and Congressmen, The Washington Post, and even the DoJ; all of them are keeping the truth from the people.

The DoJ was the first to be informed.

The crimes are spelled out in an article titled "The crimes behind the criminal wars"; if you want to google that. The link to the article is the following
http://www.muckrakerreport.com/id406.html

Any AG should be willing to investigate such crimes instead of the present practice, which is hiding it in what they call an investigative file; such files are not accessible to the people or the media.

Bridging the gulf?

Isn't that what Senator Craig was doing, tapping his foot in the toilet stall of that Airport Men's Room?

Trying to bridge the "gulf" between the GOP and Gay Liberals?

Surely, our esteemed pundit isn't advocating for Senator Craig to be Attorney General? Or is he?

Dunno, the contemporary Republicans DO seem to adopt a "gay" and feminist postmodern agenda on social issues--look at all the pretexts and rationales used to sell the recent armed conflicts, academic post 70's Jewish feminists or their blind disciples joining up to serve in the military "for the experience", 80's multicultural ideologies and assumptions of those now in the military, the assumptions and agendas in CORPORATE (isn't some left wing thing, much of the CORPORATE sector embraces it) marketing etc..

A lot, maybe not all previously radically leftist assumptions, have now become "trained" as social norms; even the collectivists who think they oppose such "radical leftism" and claim to uphold "traditional social values" actually subscribe to the EXACT SAME ASSUMPTIONS, sometimes in even more of a hard line way.

If the Democrats don't want to "look like an opposition party" now, what use are they? If not in these circumstances, when would they be trusted to do so?

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.