• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

aps said:
Amazing. So you have minimal facts and choose not to educate yourself. Why are you even in this thread? Don't answer that--it's a rhetorical question. I have zero respect for that kind of small-mindedness.
Click to expand...

LMAO.

Start slinging the insults when someone doesn't agree with your tiny view of the leftist world, huh? That would rate as small-minded in my book.
 
WillRockwell said:
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.
Click to expand...

If the decision is made by the President, the no, it doesn't matter where the idea originated. I hope you aren't including yourself in the group of adults, since you seem to have little idea how political appointments work, but I certainly won't try to persuade you to not participate here, as you've tried to do to me.
 
Binary_Digit said:
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.
Click to expand...

Someone else resorting to insults when their arguments fail. Seems to be the pattern here.

I understood completely what your argument was. Just because you say it wasn't because they fired attorneys were disgruntled, doesn't make it true.
 
Middleground said:
So you're cool with political appointee being fired for not being crooked.

Sad.
Click to expand...

Sad? That's how the system works. There is no guarantee of employment for political appointees. What's sad is that you don't seem to understand that little fact.
 
WillRockwell said:
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.
Click to expand...

Not if the President signed off on it. That's within his power as President.
 
Moon said:
LMAO.

Start slinging the insults when someone doesn't agree with your tiny view of the leftist world, huh? That would rate as small-minded in my book.
Click to expand...

LOL Whatever, Moon. The fact that you have no shame in your unwillingness to truly read up on the facts is shocking to me. I will no longer respond to your posts.
 
aps said:
LOL Whatever, Moon. The fact that you have no shame in your unwillingness to truly read up on the facts is shocking to me. I will no longer respond to your posts.
Click to expand...

The only fact that matters is that political appointees serve at the pleasure of the President. Everything else is just wishful dreaming.

Sorry you won't be responding anymore, but that's your choice. Maybe you'd just be more comfortable posting with folks that see the world the same as you.
 
Binary_Digit said:
So is the blatant and obvious REFUSAL TO READ what has already been posted several times. It's like arguing with a couple of goddamn phone booths.
Click to expand...
Dana is a foaming Bush hater through and through, he's okay on other topic, but when it comes to anything Bush I don't believe his ****. :roll:
 
JMak said:
Did you even read what I was responding to? I am responding to posters claiming that there's a reasonable basis to conclude that a crime may have been committed to asserting matter of factly that a crime was committed. I simply asked what crime?

And you present to me, "the Bush Administration's politicization of the Department of Justice" as the "crime" that might have been committed?

Read first, then mash the submit button.



I see, so the alleged politicization of an investigation is the "crime" in question? :rofl



Uh, either you're lying or you're ignorant. Republicans didn't go after Clinton. His own AG approved not only the initial appointment of the IC but also every subsequent expansion of that investigation. Clitnon was not gone after because of some reasonable suspicion, but because he lied under oath.



I wasn't arguing the validity of any links. I was simply asking what was the "crime" being alleged and you took great offense apparently.

I characterized your question/comment, "It doesn't order the Executive branch to flaunt the law, does it?" as rhetorical nonsense, which it is. The links you provided don't support or even attempt to support your rhetorical nonsense.

Maybe you have a hard time keeping things in order. I'll help if you ask nicely.
Click to expand...

We can start with jury tampering, involving 2 jurors on the Siegelman panel, which is a felony. Since a Republican prosecutor's own sworn statement under oath puts Rove smack dab in the middle of the case, it is only reasonable that Rove be compelled to testify about what he knows. Rove will either testify, or he will be prosecuted. Bush's prosecutors are no longer going to be in office, and you can be sure that whoever the case is handed over to is going to prosecute according to the merits of a contempt charge, and not quash it because of political affiliation. Simply, Rove will either testify, or Rove will go to jail. It's his choice.

A 5 part series on the Siegelman case, and also political prosecutions in Mississippi, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania, is here.

We now return you to Jmak's insults, name calling, no linkies to back up his BS, and general partisan hackery.
 
Last edited:
Moon said:
LMAO.

Start slinging the insults when someone doesn't agree with your tiny view of the leftist world, huh? That would rate as small-minded in my book.
Click to expand...

Actually, quite a few links have been presented by a number of members of this forum, and I can understand how they can become exasperated when you and the other Bushnevik supporters don't bother to read them, but spew out nothing more than talking points which don't refute the information in the links they provided. This is not the Rush Limbaugh show. This is a debate forum. Got a link that contains pertinent information in the way of hard facts? Then post it. Crap or get off the pot and watch the discussion from the peanut gallery.
 
Last edited:
failboatknowsfailure.jpg
 
Last edited:
danarhea said:
We can start with jury tampering, involving 2 jurors on the Siegelman panel, which is a felony. Since a Republican prosecutor's own sworn statement under oath puts Rove smack dab in the middle of the case, it is only reasonable that Rove be compelled to testify about what he knows. Rove will either testify, or he will be prosecuted. Bush's prosecutors are no longer going to be in office, and you can be sure that whoever the case is handed over to is going to prosecute according to the merits of a contempt charge, and not quash it because of political affiliation. Simply, Rove will either testify, or Rove will go to jail. It's his choice.

A 5 part series on the Siegelman case, and also political prosecutions in Mississippi, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania, is here.

We now return you to Jmak's insults, name calling, no linkies to back up his BS, and general partisan hackery.
Click to expand...

Good lord, your sources defy credibility and require the willing suspension of disbelief.

Here's my prediction; it is the same one I made about Tom DeLay who was also falsely accused and tried in the court of public opinion by mentally challenged minions who have a complete disregard for the truth, honesty or the facts; Rove will NEVER be successfully prosecuted for any crimes.

By the way, anyone want to guess how the Tom DeLay case turned out? Seems the media lost interest once he was forced out of office; which was the Democrats and liberals goal anyway. Due process and winning elections the old fashioned way don’t seem to matter to them anymore.

Carry on. :roll:
 
Truth Detector said:
Good lord, your sources defy credibility and require the willing suspension of disbelief.

Here's my prediction; it is the same one I made about Tom DeLay who was also falsely accused and tried in the court of public opinion by mentally challenged minions who have a complete disregard for the truth, honesty or the facts; Rove will NEVER be successfully prosecuted for any crimes.

By the way, anyone want to guess how the Tom DeLay case turned out? Seems the media lost interest once he was forced out of office; which was the Democrats and liberals goal anyway. Due process and winning elections the old fashioned way don’t seem to matter to them anymore.

Carry on. :roll:
Click to expand...

Actually, I used that source in order to have a little good-natured fun with you. I absolutely knew that, instead of addressing the issue itself, you would be dishonest enough to attack the source instead, since that is what you always do. So I decided to expose your dishonesty here and, at the same time, make a little fun of you, at your expense, of course. So I posted the Raw Story article, knowing exactly what your response would be. Then I would spring the trap. Consider the trap sprung. All the information in the Raw Story article is also available in about 1,000 other places, including main stream media. :mrgreen:

Here ya' go. This is a copy of the actual synopsis of the testimony of Dana Jill Simpson before the House Judiciary Committee, prepared by the Committee's staff itself. Simpson is the lifelong Republican prosecutor who worked on the campaigns of Reagan, Bush's father, and Bush himself, who felt that she needed to come forward and spill the beans about what was going on.

I know, I know, you are going to say that it is a bunch of BS because this particular copy of the report is being hosted on the New York Times web site, which is really Pravda, that the Prosecutor, Simpson, is really a New York times reporter masquerading as a prosecutor, that super secret agents of Raw Story have infiltrated the New York Times, and have now recruited Barack Obama into their legions of ultra evil and not very nice guys. After that, I am sure you will come up with nice conspiracy theories about kangaroos sitting on toadstools, that plot the overthrow of the US government by means of a secret army of tuna fish, and hush puppies spilling the beans about corruption at dog shows controlled by the Liberal establishment elites, who communicate with each other through brain implants, and plot to overthrow Obama, who is really an illegal alien from the planet Headbanger.

I can't wait to hear what you will spew next.

OR

You could provide some linkies and argue whether or not you feel Rove should be compelled to testify.

It's your choice. Personally, I hope you continue to post in this thread the same way you are already doing. That way, I can get some more LULZ at your expense. :mrgreen:
 
Last edited:
danarhea said:
Actually, I used that source in order to have a little good-natured fun with you. I absolutely knew that, instead of addressing the issue itself, you would be dishonest enough to attack the source instead, so I decided to expose your dishonesty here and, at the same time, make a little fun of you, at your expense, of course. So I posted the Raw Story article, knowing exactly what your response would be. Then I would spring the trap. Consider the trap sprung. All the information in the Raw Story article is also available in about 1,000 other places, including main stream media. :mrgreen:

Here ya' go. This is a copy of the actual synopsis of the testimony of Dana Jill Simpson before the House Judiciary Committee, prepared by the Committee's staff itself. Simpson is the lifelong Republican prosecutor who worked on the campaigns of Reagan, Bush's father, and Bush himself, who felt that she needed to come forward and spill the beans about what was going on.

I know, I know, you are going to say that it is a bunch of BS because this particular copy of the report is being hosted on the New York Times web site, which is really Pravda, that the Prosecutor, Simpson, is really a New York times reporter masquerading as a prosecutor, that super secret agents of Raw Story have infiltrated the New York Times, and have now recruited Barack Obama into their legions of ultra evil and not very nice guys. After that, I am sure you will come up with nice conspiracy theories about kangaroos sitting on toadstools, that plot the overthrow of the US government by means of a secret army of tuna fish, and hush puppies spilling the beans about corruption at dog shows controlled by the Liberal establishment elites, who communicate with each other through brain implants, and plot to overthrow Obama, who is really an illegal alien from the planet Headbanger.

I can't wait to hear what you will spew next.

OR

You could provide some linkies and argue whether or not you feel Rove should be compelled to testify.

It's your choice. Personally, I hope you continue to post in this thread the same way you are already doing. That way, I can get some more LULZ at your expense. :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

Empty your PM box. ;)
 
aps said:
Come on, NYU. If this is such a partisan issue, please tell me why the Justice Department's IG's office recommended further investigation into what happened at the Justice Department in hiring and firing employees and why Mukasey then appointed a special prosector? Are they partisan douchebags as well?
Click to expand...

RightinNYC said:
Simon W. Moon said:
I'm just saying if it were so cut and dry simple, the DoJ would not have recommended further investigation
Click to expand...

The investigation was started by the Congress. The DoJ followed along by conducting its own investigation, as that's what Inspector General offices traditionally do (whether or not they believe the charges will be substantiated).
Click to expand...

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...nted-u-s-attorney-firings.html#post1057749782

American said:
Are you saying the Conyers is getting uppity?
Click to expand...
 
aps said:
I see you ignored the second point Middleground made.
Click to expand...

Because it was factually inaccurate.

Binary_Digit said:
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.
Click to expand...

Explain how doing something that the president is expressly entitled to do "obstructed justice" within the meaning of the law.


Middleground said:
He was. And if a kangaroo court is okay with you, then I can see why this doesn't bother you.
Click to expand...

I'm not interested in having this debate over again.

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.
Click to expand...

So you were lying when you said it had never happened before? Because I pointed that out to you months ago, so I don't know why else you would now be trying to claim it never happened.

ADK_Forever said:
Name calling? :doh 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? :roll:

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".
Click to expand...

Oh noes!

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!
Click to expand...

Show me the law.

Do you realize that these were Bush's appointed US Attorneys?
Click to expand...

Wait, seriously? Holy ****, that changes everything.

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.
Click to expand...

You really have no idea what you're talking about, do you? Show me where that's the case.

Slippery Slope said:
Actually, I believe you are wrong. The president cannot fire any US attorney at any time for whatever reason, no matter what. I believe this is the crux of the problem right?
Click to expand...

Uh, no. That's not true.

28 U.S.C. § 541:

(a) The President shall appoint, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, a United States attorney for each judicial district.

(b) Each United States attorney shall be appointed for a term of four years. On the expiration of his term, a United States attorney shall continue to perform the duties of his office until his successor is appointed and qualifies.

(c) Each United States attorney is subject to removal by the President.
Click to expand...
 
danarhea said:
Actually, quite a few links have been presented by a number of members of this forum, and I can understand how they can become exasperated when you and the other Bushnevik supporters don't bother to read them, but spew out nothing more than talking points which don't refute the information in the links they provided. This is not the Rush Limbaugh show. This is a debate forum. Got a link that contains pertinent information in the way of hard facts? Then post it. Crap or get off the pot and watch the discussion from the peanut gallery.
Click to expand...

More insults. Is that your strategy whenever you're discussing issues with someone who doesn't agree with you? My position is that the President can hire and fire political appointees whenever he wishes, and for whatever reason. I'm not sure how that makes me a "Bushnevik", but I guess that makes sense in your limited view of the world. If Obama did the same thing, I'd be making the exact same argument, and since we'd be on the same side of the issue, I guess we'd be best friends, huh?

To me, this is an issue of Congress trying to blur the line of separation of powers. The President does not serve at the pleasure of Congress, regardless of what fools like Conyers believes. Whenever Congress tries to do anything to usurp the power of the Executive, the Executive has every right and responsibility to thwart those efforts. The DoJ has investigated the issue, and could find nothing criminal, though the IG didn't like the internal department process. So what?
 
Moon said:
More insults. Is that your strategy whenever you're discussing issues with someone who doesn't agree with you? My position is that the President can hire and fire political appointees whenever he wishes, and for whatever reason. I'm not sure how that makes me a "Bushnevik", but I guess that makes sense in your limited view of the world. If Obama did the same thing, I'd be making the exact same argument, and since we'd be on the same side of the issue, I guess we'd be best friends, huh?

To me, this is an issue of Congress trying to blur the line of separation of powers. The President does not serve at the pleasure of Congress, regardless of what fools like Conyers believes. Whenever Congress tries to do anything to usurp the power of the Executive, the Executive has every right and responsibility to thwart those efforts. The DoJ has investigated the issue, and could find nothing criminal, though the IG didn't like the internal department process. So what?
Click to expand...
Dana is a Bushbasher, he just can't help it. He gets completely unnerved when it comes to Bush. I don't understand it either, because he's pretty reasonable otherwise.
 
American said:
Dana is a Bushbasher, he just can't help it. He gets completely unnerved when it comes to Bush. I don't understand it either, because he's pretty reasonable otherwise.
Click to expand...

I've seen the phenomenon on other boards, and I don't understand it either. Oh well.
 
danarhea said:
Actually, I used that source in order to have a little good-natured fun with you. I absolutely knew that, instead of addressing the issue itself, you would be dishonest enough to attack the source instead, since that is what you always do. So I decided to expose your dishonesty here and, at the same time, make a little fun of you, at your expense, of course. So I posted the Raw Story article, knowing exactly what your response would be. Then I would spring the trap. Consider the trap sprung. All the information in the Raw Story article is also available in about 1,000 other places, including main stream media. :mrgreen:

Here ya' go. This is a copy of the actual synopsis of the testimony of Dana Jill Simpson before the House Judiciary Committee, prepared by the Committee's staff itself. Simpson is the lifelong Republican prosecutor who worked on the campaigns of Reagan, Bush's father, and Bush himself, who felt that she needed to come forward and spill the beans about what was going on.

I know, I know, you are going to say that it is a bunch of BS because this particular copy of the report is being hosted on the New York Times web site, which is really Pravda, that the Prosecutor, Simpson, is really a New York times reporter masquerading as a prosecutor, that super secret agents of Raw Story have infiltrated the New York Times, and have now recruited Barack Obama into their legions of ultra evil and not very nice guys. After that, I am sure you will come up with nice conspiracy theories about kangaroos sitting on toadstools, that plot the overthrow of the US government by means of a secret army of tuna fish, and hush puppies spilling the beans about corruption at dog shows controlled by the Liberal establishment elites, who communicate with each other through brain implants, and plot to overthrow Obama, who is really an illegal alien from the planet Headbanger.

I can't wait to hear what you will spew next.

OR

You could provide some linkies and argue whether or not you feel Rove should be compelled to testify.

It's your choice. Personally, I hope you continue to post in this thread the same way you are already doing. That way, I can get some more LULZ at your expense. :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

Have you ever watched a John Conyers hearing? Trap? The only trap I see here is the one between your ears where nothing gets in and nothing gets out. :rofl

John Conyers is one of the BIGGEST MORONS on Capital Hill. He has the intellect of a three year old and the intelligence of a moonbat. The notion that this is anything more than the typical lunatic process we saw when Conyers had his witnesses for Bush's war crimes hearing is laughable.

The premise of the claims is also lunatic; that the process was politicized. No chit Sherlock, everything in this process is a political one. Can I have a great big naive DUH!!
 
Truth Detector said:
Have you ever watched a John Conyers hearing? Trap? The only trap I see here is the one between your ears where nothing gets in and nothing gets out. :rofl

John Conyers is one of the BIGGEST MORONS on Capital Hill. He has the intellect of a three year old and the intelligence of a moonbat. The notion that this is anything more than the typical lunatic process we saw when Conyers had his witnesses for Bush's war crimes hearing is laughable.

The premise of the claims is also lunatic; that the process was politicized. No chit Sherlock, everything in this process is a political one. Can I have a great big naive DUH!!
Click to expand...

In that case, you have just called a lifelong Republican prosecutor who also worked for Ronald Reagan, Bush's father, and Bush himself, a liar. Shame on you. :mrgreen:
 
I'm not sure what the issue is, if there even is one.

Rove, at the direction of the President, exercised his plenary authority to appoint or dismiss US attorneys. Correct?

There is no probative evidence that would suggest a crime has been committed. Correct?

Common law maintains that trials and investigations be predicated upon some form of probative evidence. Correct?

So, what are we even talking about?
 
Truth Detector said:
Have you ever watched a John Conyers hearing? Trap? The only trap I see here is the one between your ears where nothing gets in and nothing gets out. :rofl

John Conyers is one of the BIGGEST MORONS on Capital Hill. He has the intellect of a three year old and the intelligence of a moonbat. The notion that this is anything more than the typical lunatic process we saw when Conyers had his witnesses for Bush's war crimes hearing is laughable.

The premise of the claims is also lunatic; that the process was politicized. No chit Sherlock, everything in this process is a political one. Can I have a great big naive DUH!!
Click to expand...

Wow, what a convincing argument! Thanks for showing me the light and proving that indeed, Rove is completely innocent! *applause!*
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom