Page 10 of 20 FirstFirst ... 89101112 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 100 of 194

Thread: Karl Rove Subpoenaed By John Conyers: 'Time To Talk'

  1. #91
    Professor
    WillRockwell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    07-10-10 @ 09:48 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,950

    Re: Karl Rove Subpoenaed By John Conyers: 'Time To Talk'

    Quote Originally Posted by Moon View Post
    Who cares if he did or not? As far as I know, that's not a requirement to advise the President. If I'm wrong, then I eagerly await your links proving that I am.

    This is amusing. You don't care who in the White House decides what US attorneys to fire, and who to hire in their place. It could be Karl Rove, it could be the pastry chef. Tell you what, let the adults sort this out, and we'll explain it to you later.

  2. #92
    Guru
    Binary_Digit's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Last Seen
    12-02-17 @ 04:34 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    3,539

    Re: Karl Rove Subpoenaed By John Conyers: 'Time To Talk'

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    The president can hire or fire any attorney he wants.
    The President is not allowed to obstruct justice. I wish you would address that instead of just repeating "at the pleasure of the president" 1000 more times.

    Quote Originally Posted by Moon View Post
    Baseless accusations by disgruntled former political appointees should never be enough to initiate an investigation. It's a waste of our time and money.
    I wish you would read before replying. I addressed that already, in the very quote you're responding to. Please make an effort to fully understand what you're replying to, ok?

    Quote Originally Posted by Moon View Post
    There is no due process for political appointees. The serve at the pleasure of the President, period. It's not a matter of guilt or innocence, it's a matter of political expediency and the wishes of the Executive branch.
    Due process, pleasure of the President, all bull**** red herrings. The President is not allowed to obstruct justice. Period.

  3. #93
    Passionate
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Last Seen
    03-07-11 @ 04:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    15,675

    Re: Karl Rove Subpoenaed By John Conyers: 'Time To Talk'

    Quote Originally Posted by Binary_Digit View Post
    The President is not allowed to obstruct justice. I wish you would address that instead of just repeating "at the pleasure of the president" 1000 more times.


    I wish you would read before replying. I addressed that already, in the very quote you're responding to. Please make an effort to fully understand what you're replying to, ok?


    Due process, pleasure of the President, all bull**** red herrings. The President is not allowed to obstruct justice. Period.
    I believe the only absolute power the president has is his/her ability to pardon.

  4. #94
    Tavern Bartender
    Pussy Grabbin' Beaver
    Middleground's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Canada's Capital
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:44 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    22,455
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Karl Rove Subpoenaed By John Conyers: 'Time To Talk'

    Quote Originally Posted by Moon View Post
    There are no restrictions as to when a political appointee can be shown the door.

    So you're cool with political appointee being fired for not being crooked.

    Sad.
    No men are anywhere, and Im allowed to go in, because Im the owner of the pageant and therefore Im inspecting it, Trump said... Is everyone OK? You know, theyre standing there with no clothes. Is everybody OK? And you see these incredible looking women, and so I sort of get away with things like that.

  5. #95
    Tavern Bartender
    Pussy Grabbin' Beaver
    Middleground's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Canada's Capital
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:44 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    22,455
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Karl Rove Subpoenaed By John Conyers: 'Time To Talk'

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    Do you really want to go through this all again? We argued about this for 200 posts before and you had less than no evidence. He was convicted by a jury of his peers for committing a crime. The fact that you claim that other people haven't been convicted doesn't change anything.
    He was. And if a kangaroo court is okay with you, then I can see why this doesn't bother you.


    Again, I pointed out to you in another thread that this was incorrect. Carter did the same thing as Bush did, except in that case it was to fire a US attorney who was trying to investigate a Dem Congressman who was actually corrupt. Even then, there was absolutely no investigation of the DoJ because apparently back then people understood the concept of "The Pleasure of the President."
    Once before--and only one isolated attorney--and it seems by what I read on Wiki that those involved were punished. Justice can be served afterall! So let's see what can happen in this instance where nine--yes, nine!--were fired for what seems to be no reason other than political. Something smells, and Rove would serve the public well be trying giving his side of the story. Possible corruption like this--at such a high level-- is scary and should be thoroughly investigated, IMO.


    Moon, this is for you:

    Dismissal of U.S. Attorneys under previous administrations
    By tradition, U.S. Attorneys are replaced only at the start of a new White House administration. U.S. Attorneys hold a "political" office, and therefore they are considered to "serve at the pleasure of the President." At the beginning of a new presidential administration, it is traditional for all 93 U.S. Attorneys to submit a letter of resignation. When a new President is from a different political party, almost all of the resignations will be eventually accepted.[157] The attorneys are then replaced by new political appointees, typically from the new President's party.[158][159][158]

    A Department of Justice list noted that "in 1981, Reagan's first year in office, 71 of 93 districts had new U.S. attorneys. In 1993, Clinton's first year, 80 of 93 districts had new U.S. attorneys." Similarly, a Senate study noted that "Reagan replaced 89 of the 93 U.S. attorneys in his first two years in office. President Clinton had 89 new U.S. attorneys in his first two years, and President Bush had 88 new U.S. attorneys in his first two years."[160]

    In contrast to the 2006 dismissals, Presidents rarely dismiss U.S. attorneys they appoint.[158][159] Kyle Sampson, Chief of Staff at the Department of Justice, noted in a January 9, 2006, e-mail to Harriet Miers: "In recent memory, during the Reagan and Clinton Administrations, Presidents Reagan and Clinton did not seek to remove and replace U.S. Attorneys they had appointed, but instead permitted such U.S. Attorneys to serve indefinitely under the holdover provision" (underlining original).[161] There is no precedent for a President to dismiss several U.S attorneys at one time while in the middle period of the presidential term in office.[162][163]

    The few examples of forced dismissals available are based on misconduct. The Congressional Research Service investigated the precedent of dismissing U.S. Attorneys over the 25 years 1981-2006 and identified 54 attorneys who did not serve their full 4-year term. Of these, only two were documented involuntary dismissals: William Kennedy in 1982 and J. William Petro in 1984. Both were Reagan appointees. Kennedy was dismissed for "for asserting that the CIA had pressured DOJ to pressure him not to pursue a case," and Petro was dismissed for "disclosing information about an indictment."[164] [165] However, all of the U.S. Attorneys dismissed in 2006 were in office longer than four years, and appointments lasting into a President's second term were beyond the scope of the study.[166][167] Before 1981, President Carter replaced U.S. Attorney David Marston at the request of Democratic Representative Joshua Eilberg. Marston had been investigating corruption charges against Eilberg and Daniel Flood, another Democratic Representative.[168] The probe continued after the attorney was replaced, however, and Eilberg lost his 1978 reelection bid. Eilberg was eventually sentenced to five years probation and a $10,000 fine,[169][168] and Flood was censured for bribery by 96th United States Congress.[170]

    Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    No men are anywhere, and Im allowed to go in, because Im the owner of the pageant and therefore Im inspecting it, Trump said... Is everyone OK? You know, theyre standing there with no clothes. Is everybody OK? And you see these incredible looking women, and so I sort of get away with things like that.

  6. #96
    Tavern Bartender
    Constitutionalist
    American's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:51 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    76,305

    Re: Karl Rove Subpoenaed By John Conyers: 'Time To Talk'

    Democrats on a witch hunt, what's new? The Huffington Report, is this what we call highly reputable? Nothing has changed. The double standard still exists, can you say Timothy F. Geithner.
    Last edited by American; 01-30-09 at 12:30 PM.
    "He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
    "Fly-over" country voted, and The Donald is now POTUS.

  7. #97
    Guru
    ADK_Forever's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Last Seen
    05-07-11 @ 09:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    3,706

    Re: Karl Rove Subpoenaed By John Conyers: 'Time To Talk'

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    Because Conyers is a partisan douchebag?
    Name calling? Is that your failed attempt at trying to discredit Rep. John Conyers of Michigan, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, just because you disagree with him?

    I suspect Conyers will show you just how effective a "douche bag" can be at exposing "one" of Bush's criminal cronies and bringing the hammer of justice down on the head of "Bush's brain".

    You do realize that even in your world where all of this is true, none of it is in any way illegal, right?
    The "reasons" for those firings can most assuredly be considered "illegal". US attorneys are supposed to be non-partisan in their actions. Rove directed the conspiracy that those attorneys be fired because they were not for hire to do Bush and Rove's dirty politics. THAT is illegal! Do you realize that these were Bush's appointed US Attorneys?

    These guys deserve medals. They stood up to Bush and were actually doing very good jobs. They were fired solely because they wouldn't illegally go after Democrats in tightly contested elections. You know, in typical Rovian politics they were trying to "cheat"! This is how BushCo rewarded integrity. I guess it's not a surprise since integrity is not a quality he, or any of his admin, could identify.

    A few items Congress is interested in:
    (from: Conyers, Sanchez Seek Rove's RNC Emails )

    The letter goes into detail about the Wisconsin case in which a state employee was prosecuted by a Bush-appointed U.S. Attorney on a timeline that coincided with a tight gubernatorial race between incumbent Jim Doyle, a Democrat, and Congressman Mark Green, a Republican with close ties to the Bush White House. The employee, who was charged with steering a contract to a Doyle campaign donor was convicted and jailed. Republicans made the case a prime feature of their fall campaign against Doyle.

    This month, a federal appeals court panel, on which the majority of judges were Republican appointees, threw the conviction out and ordered the jailed woman freed from federal prison. One of the federal judges referred to the evidence against the state employee as "beyond thin" and the panel repeatedly questioned how and why the U.S. Attorney, Steven Biskupic, brought the case.

    No one was particularly surprised that the RNC's initial response to various congressional requests was to suggest that at least some of the emails in question had gone missing. But, just as Senate Judiciary Committee chair Patrick Leahy isn't buying the claim by White House aides that they have lost emails the Senate committee has sought, House committee chairs are not backing off.
    from: Democrats Subpoena Rove, Testing Their Clout and Obama - WSJ.com
    For more than a year, the Bush administration blocked congressional demands for testimony from Mr. Rove and other Bush aides. The White House's assertion of executive privilege prompted the aides to refuse even to show up for a hearing. A judge last year, in a limited ruling, said the privilege didn't protect the aides from having to appear, even if they refused to answer questions.

    Robert Luskin, Mr. Rove's attorney, said Mr. Rove recently received a renewed privilege assertion from President Bush, before the president left office. Mr. Luskin said he would consult with Mr. Obama's White House counsel to determine the Obama administration's stance.

    There is some dispute in legal circles over whether a president's executive privilege claim continues to be in force after he leaves office if his successor doesn't enforce it.
    And from: TPMMuckraker | Talking Points Memo | Report Shows White House Engineered U.S. Attorney Firings
    Now that the dust has settled on the U.S. attorney firings report, released Monday morning by the Department of Justice's Office of the Inspector General, we thought it was worth taking some time to lay out what it tells us.

    Almost since the scandal broke early last year, there have been clear signs that the plan to fire U.S. attorneys as a means of advancing the Bush administration's political goals was being driven by the White House. That impression has been strengthened as top current and former White House officials, including Karl Rove and Harriet Miers, have consistently stonewalled efforts to look into the matter.

    The OIG investigation was no exception. As the report notes, Miers, Rove and several other Whte House officials refused to talk to investigators, and the White House wouldn't provide internal emails or documents relating to the firings. Perhaps the most crucial of the documents denied to OIG was a memo, written in March 2007, which contained the results of an internal White House investigation into the firings, conducted by associate White House counsel Michael Scudder. Scudder had interviewed top DOJ and White House officials, including Rove, and had compiled a timeline that "appeared to contain information we had not obtained elsewhere in our investigation," according to the OIG report.

    Still, a close examination of the report makes clear that, although on a day-to-day basis the plan was put into effect by mid-level DOJ political appointees -- enabled by a shocking lack of oversight from top department officials, principally former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales -- the impetus for the move came straight from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Many of the individual pieces of information have been previously reported, as DOJ provided emails and internal documents to Congress for its 2007 investigation. But the OIG report provides a far clearer sense of the longer-term trajectory of the plan, and the consistent interest in it from Miers and Rove, than we've yet been offered.
    This should prove interesting. Rove WILL appear. I suspect Obama will not support Bush's EO on Rove. If Rove doesn't show, or doesn't talk, I suspect he's headed to jail.

    And if "the brain" tries to use his "absolute immunity" defense, it will get very entertaining.

    Couldn't happen to a nicer guy.

    Isn't it ironic that Rove now has to depend on Obama to defend Bush's executive order that protects Rove from being questioned? Doncha just love irony?

    One by one Bush's thugs will fall until we get to King George himself. That will be a day that America's honor and status in the world will be elevated one more step.

    Ain't it interesting when Repubs spend over $70 million looking into a failed land deal in a failed attempt to get Clinton they referred to it as an "investigation". But, when Dems begin to look into real crimes committed by the president's administration they call it a "witch hunt"! They surely live in Alice's Wonderland.
    Thank You Barack Obama for Restoring Honor To The Presidency.
    President Obama will rank as one of our greatest presidents!

  8. #98
    Professor
    WillRockwell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    07-10-10 @ 09:48 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,950

    Re: Karl Rove Subpoenaed By John Conyers: 'Time To Talk'

    Quote Originally Posted by American View Post
    Democrats on a witch hunt, what's new? The Huffington Report, is this what we call highly reputable? Nothing has changed. The double standard still exists, can you say Timothy F. Geithner.
    If David Axelrod supervised the firing of every US Attorney and personally selected their replacements, you would not question how that job was in his purview or what his motives were? I think you would.

  9. #99
    Professor

    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Last Seen
    02-13-09 @ 05:15 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    1,942

    Re: Karl Rove Subpoenaed By John Conyers: 'Time To Talk'

    Quote Originally Posted by Binary_Digit View Post
    The President is not allowed to obstruct justice. I wish you would address that instead of just repeating "at the pleasure of the president" 1000 more times.
    You kinda have to first establish that the dismissal of those attorneys constituted an obstruction before asserting it as a fact.

    Good luck!

    Due process, pleasure of the President, all bull**** red herrings. The President is not allowed to obstruct justice. Period.
    What was obstructed?

  10. #100
    Professor

    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Last Seen
    02-13-09 @ 05:15 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    1,942

    Re: Karl Rove Subpoenaed By John Conyers: 'Time To Talk'

    Quote Originally Posted by Middleground View Post
    So you're cool with political appointee being fired for not being crooked.

    Sad.

    No, what's sad is how easy it is for you to deliberately misrepresent what other posters post.

Page 10 of 20 FirstFirst ... 89101112 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •