- Joined
- Mar 11, 2006
- Messages
- 96,105
- Reaction score
- 33,447
- Location
- SE Virginia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Is that like lying before a Federal judge?Kyle Sampson.
Is that like lying before a Federal judge?Kyle Sampson.
Kyle Sampson.
1. Link?
2. How exactly does subpoenaing Karl Rove address that issue?
lolwut?
1) I work at Wendy's, not Burger King. **** "flamebroiling."
2) Please explain to me what the differences are, I'd genuinely love to hear this.
3) I don't even know what you're trying to say.
Okay.
1) my bad
2) your boss can fire you for using or not using your position for political gains.
3) sure you do
... the president can fire any US attorney at any time for whatever reason, no matter what.
Then why was Rove subpoena'd?
Because Conyers is a grandstanding fool who believes he's relevant.
I think the correct answer is that Rove was using the president's prerogative to choose US attorneys to build a nationwide network designed to further the Bush political agenda by controlling the legal system in all 50 states through attorneys hand picked by Rove. Whatever your political viewpoint, this was a blatant attempt to subvert American democracy, and Rove needs to answer for it.
No it wasn't, and no he doesn't. The US attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President and can be dismissed at any time. Clinton dismissed all 93 US attorneys, which was his right to do as President. You may disagree with it, but it's nothing more sinister than the President exercising the power granted to him.
No it wasn't, and no he doesn't. The US attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President and can be dismissed at any time. Clinton dismissed all 93 US attorneys, which was his right to do as President. You may disagree with it, but it's nothing more sinister than the President exercising the power granted to him.
You are correct that the president can dismiss attorneys. The issue is that Karl Rove was the one choosing who to dismiss and who to hire to replace them, with Bush rubber stamping his choices. The possibly "sinister" part is this: why would Karl Rove be deciding on the choices for US attorneys?
Ah, the conspiracy theory angle. :rofl
It really doesn't matter where the idea originated. If you think the President has the time to personally review and vet all the people in his administration, well, that's just plain silly. That's what he has advisors for.
They served the executive branch, and the head of that branch decided he wanted to replace them. It really is that simple.
Please, please, please stop it with the Clinton attorneys! In Bush's first term, he dismissed most of Clinton's. That's not out of the ordinary, nor it is a relevant part of THIS discussion.
THe 9 that were fired in the second term all claim they were let go because of political reasons. That is a whole different ball game.
Since when did Karl Rove work in the Justice Department?
Ah, the conspiracy theory angle. :rofl
It really doesn't matter where the idea originated. If you think the President has the time to personally review and vet all the people in his administration, well, that's just plain silly. That's what he has advisors for.
They served the executive branch, and the head of that branch decided he wanted to replace them. It really is that simple.
Naw, just a hypothesis. Innocent until proven guilty. All we're asking for is a legitimate investigation to put the matter to rest. And we believe an investigation is in order because there is reason to suspect they were fired solely for political reasons.Ah, the conspiracy theory angle. :rofl
And that's like, against the law, is it not?All of the attorneys you just mentioned were dismissed for political reasons.
From what I understand, Rove's fingerprints are all over this one. He seriously needs to answer to this.
A Democrat governor sat in jail for over seven months for being "convicted" of something that politicians do every day, yet nobody blinks. According to witnesses, he was framed. From what I understand, Rove's fingerprints are all over this one. He seriously needs to answer to this.
Don't you think there should be something to investigate before the investigation is started? It would suck if the cops started investigating you for child rape, wouldn't it?Naw, just a hypothesis. Innocent until proven guilty. All we're asking for is a legitimate investigation to put the matter to rest. And we believe an investigation is in order because there is reason to suspect they were fired solely for political reasons.
Like, no.And that's like, against the law, is it not?
All of the attorneys you just mentioned were dismissed for political reasons. That's part and parcel of being a political appointee. It's quite amusing that you only care about the ones Bush fired, though.
That day is coming soon. :mrgreen:
Once again--and let me make it clear--is the following. The initial dismissals of US attorneys when a new President comes in is normal. Carter did it. Reagan did it. HW Bush did it. Clinton did it. Dubya did it.
It's NOT an issue, and not relevant to this discussion.
Weren't you the one just having a conniption over the topic straying? What does this have to do with President Bush legally firing some US attorneys?
The dismissal of political appointees at any time during an administration is normal and completely legal.