• 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'

Not familiar with the "pleasuring the President" exception to a validly issued subpoena....must have something to do with that "responsible for nothing....accountable to no one" philosophy of the last decade.

That's because you don't bother to understand how the system works. You just listen to whatever media talking head feeds you at night.

Secondly, the Attorney General, all political appointees, such as U.S. Attorneys, serve at the pleasure of the President of the United States.
Transcript of Media Availability with Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales (03-13-07)

It means he can hire and fire em at will. That's why, in the end, this is a NON-ISSUE.

Hell Clinton dumped every AG from Bush when he took office. Bush got rid of less. Welcome to Washington. I think Bush's mistake is he didn't just fire every last one of Clinton's AG's and replace em all. That gave the Dems a cause to rally their gullible masses to.
 
Serving "at the pleasure of the President" is not a blank check that involves firing them to stop investigations on Republican corruption or because they refuse to dug up dirt on Democrats where none exists. He can fire them because the sky is blue, that's fine, but if he fires them in order to stop an investigation then that is obstruction of justice!
 
Serving "at the pleasure of the President" is not a blank check that involves firing them to stop investigations on Republican corruption or because they refuse to dug up dirt on Democrats where none exists. He can fire them because the sky is blue, that's fine, but if he fires them in order to stop an investigation then that is obstruction of justice!
The perverse joke in all this is... these are political appointments. Clinton fired the whole bunch. It is all about nothing but the Democrats producing another Stalinist show trial.

(PS> You folks are concerned about steriods in sports, but can't get the gumption to look into Fannie and Freddie? How about some real hearings with teeth?)

As everyone once knew but has tried to forget, Mr. Hubbell was a former partner of Mrs. Clinton at the Rose Law Firm in Little Rock who later went to jail for mail fraud and tax evasion. He was also Bill and Hillary Clinton's choice as Associate Attorney General in the Justice Department when Janet Reno, his nominal superior, simultaneously fired all 93 U.S. Attorneys in March 1993. Ms. Reno--or Mr. Hubbell--gave them 10 days to move out of their offices.
Featured Article - WSJ.com
 
I like that this is how the Marxist/Stalinists define "Change".
"Change has come to Washington..." John Conyers.

Let the libs launch their war against the Bush administration. Trying to take out their political opposition is the only one they have interest in waging and staying true to.

"Change".

It will be both interesting and fun to watch the Stalinists try to criminalize political decisions and decision makers. That is their definition of "hope".

"Hope".

My bet is the Marxist/Stalinists will end up with the egg on their faces.

And the enemies of the world watch this with amusement, cheering the Stalinists on.

That is the "Unite" element. Tie their goals to those of America's enemies.

"Unite".
Obviously you have no idea about Stalin, communism, socialism, I dare say you don't understand democracy either. If someone commits an act that may be illegal, it's supposed to be looked into. Nixon was wrong, when the president does it, it CAN be illegal.
 
The perverse joke in all this is... these are political appointments. Clinton fired the whole bunch. It is all about nothing but the Democrats producing another Stalinist show trial.

(PS> You folks are concerned about steriods in sports, but can't get the gumption to look into Fannie and Freddie? How about some real hearings with teeth?)

Featured Article - WSJ.com

zimmer, these arguments have been made already.

Intestingly, the issue was serious enough for Mukasey to order an independent investigation. Do you want to call his move a "Stalinist show trial"?

Investigating the Firing of Nine U.S. Attorneys: A federal investigation into the firings of nine U.S. attorneys in 2006 by the Bush administration has determined that the firings were "unsystematic and arbitrary, with little oversight by the attorney general, the deputy attorney general, or any other senior department official." Despite the fact that the Justice Department's inspector general and the Office of Professional Responsibility produced a 358-page report, they conclude that more investigation is needed because key witnesses such as Karl Rove and Harriet Miers refused to be interviewed. The report recommended that Attorney General Michael Mukasey appoint a special counsel to determine any criminality. Mukasey followed through on Monday by naming Nora Dannehy, the acting U.S. attorney in Connecticut, to continue the inquiry.

Hot Docs: Investigating the Firing of U.S. Attorneys, Poll on Bailout, Campaign Whoppers - US News and World Report
 
Good try.

Actions speak for themselves.

If you use Marxist economic ideas, you are a? Marxist.

If you use Stalinist tactics with your political opponents, you are a? Stalinist.
Why would you care one iota about what happens to those in the Bush admin? It's not like they were ever on your side, unless you still support their brand of republicanism... Are you still a Bushy? One of the 23%?
 
What do you see as a set back?
I see this as a benefit to the Republicans.
I encourage the likes of Conyers to immerse themselves in this endeavor.
Go for it.
Just do it.

I think it's a moronic Stalinist move that will backfire.
Were you this rabid when republicans were witch hunting Clinton?
 
The perverse joke in all this is... these are political appointments. Clinton fired the whole bunch. It is all about nothing but the Democrats producing another Stalinist show trial.

(PS> You folks are concerned about steriods in sports, but can't get the gumption to look into Fannie and Freddie? How about some real hearings with teeth?)

Featured Article - WSJ.com
BFD that's what they always do. Bush fired almost all of Clinton's appointees and nobody cares because that's what they always do. This is different, and here's why:

1. These attorneys were Bush's own appointees, not Clinton's.
2. Some of them strongly believe that they were fired only because they refused to dig up criminal dirt on Democrats where none existed.
3. Some of them strongly believe that they were fired only because they refused to call off criminal investigations on Republicans.
4. The administration gave conflicting reasons why they were fired.

Now, if that doesn't convince you that at least an investigation is in order, then your bull**** detector is in serious need of calibration my friend.
 
Last edited:
BFD that's what they always do. Bush fired almost all of Clinton's appointees and nobody cares because that's what they always do. This is different, and here's why:

1. These attorneys were Bush's own appointees, not Clinton's.
2. Some of them strongly believe that they were fired only because they refused to dig up criminal dirt on Democrats where none existed.
3. Some of them strongly believe that they were fired only because they refused to call off criminal investigations on Republicans.
4. The administration gave conflicting reasons why they were fired.

Now, if that doesn't convince you that at least an investigation is in order, then your bull**** detector is in serious need of calibration my friend.

Great response. Short and sweet. Don't forget that Mukasey appointed a special prosecutor to look into this. Yeah, this is such a NON-issue. :roll:
 
Speaking of witch hunts, I wonder how Don Siegleman is doing?
 
BFD that's what they always do. Bush fired almost all of Clinton's appointees and nobody cares because that's what they always do. This is different, and here's why:

1. These attorneys were Bush's own appointees, not Clinton's.
2. Some of them strongly believe that they were fired only because they refused to dig up criminal dirt on Democrats where none existed.
3. Some of them strongly believe that they were fired only because they refused to call off criminal investigations on Republicans.
4. The administration gave conflicting reasons why they were fired.

Now, if that doesn't convince you that at least an investigation is in order, then your bull**** detector is in serious need of calibration my friend.

This has already been talked to death in a dozen other threads, but for what it's worth:

1) So? It's neither unprecedented nor a big deal.
2-3) So? If I ever get fired, I'll probably also think my boss is an incompetent ****head who fired me because I wouldn't do the dumb **** he wanted me to do .
4) So? They don't need a reason or an excuse.
 
Speaking of witch hunts, I wonder how Don Siegleman is doing?

I thought of you last semester - The professor for my Criminal Prosecution and Defense class had represented Paul Minor, and we talked a bit about the Siegelman case. Interesting stuff. :2wave:
 
Why would you care one iota about what happens to those in the Bush admin? It's not like they were ever on your side, unless you still support their brand of republicanism...

Right, anyone who ever served in the Bush Administration was an evil person who adhered to a particular "brand of republicanism."
 
This has already been talked to death in a dozen other threads, but for what it's worth:

1) So? It's neither unprecedented nor a big deal.
2-3) So? If I ever get fired, I'll probably also think my boss is an incompetent ****head who fired me because I wouldn't do the dumb **** he wanted me to do .
4) So? They don't need a reason or an excuse.
Apparently you misunderstand the difference between your job at burger king and how and why a president can fire people.
 
Apparently you misunderstand the difference between your job at burger king and how and why a president can fire people.

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.

Anyone who didn't resign after Bush's first term. yup.

Okay.
 
Good try.

Actions speak for themselves.

If you use Marxist economic ideas, you are a? Marxist.

If you use Stalinist tactics with your political opponents, you are a? Stalinist.

I am doubting you are understanding the difference. Please, Mr. Realist enlighten me:

What are Marxist economic ideas, in your opinion?

Tell me please, the real-world example of Marxism in use. Also tell me what the examples end-game strategy is (their idea of Utopia). And I will tell you why you're wrong.

Finally, Why are you using the term Stalinist? There is nothing that even resembles how Stalin Purged his country of Political Adversaries. We are not taking them out back and shooting them in the head. Stop using these exaggerated -isms, especially because you are proving time and time again that you do not understand them.

I want you to make me eat my words.

...has a third different ideology.
Don't lie to me!
We all know he was liberal scum.

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.

Ew. Fast-food.
 
Now why doesn't this surprise me? LOL I guess I'd be stinging if my party were suffering set-backs as well.

No, I'm consistent. I don't like it when Republicans waste the taxpayer's time and money with bull**** like this. Conyers is a fool.
 
Conyers uses his committee to practice witch hunts against political/ideological opponents. He's a disgrace.

Rove is merely a punching bag for loser lefties who over this entire time have proven absolutely nothing but that they are good at lying then believing themselves.

Been 8 years of these routines and in that time they have proven not a single one of their claims.
If after 8 years of that your still getting all excited or actually believe these people then you're and idiot and are easily led like a fool.

Most people just roll their eyes laugh and dismiss these people.
..

As for the "real Communism" BS..Communism sucks and virtually nobody who plays that game has a damn clue what its like living under the ideology they glorify by buying T-shirts with a murderers face on them...
 
Last edited:
This has already been talked to death in a dozen other threads, but for what it's worth:

1) So? It's neither unprecedented nor a big deal.
2-3) So? If I ever get fired, I'll probably also think my boss is an incompetent ****head who fired me because I wouldn't do the dumb **** he wanted me to do .
4) So? They don't need a reason or an excuse.

Lying before Congress is a crime. Just FYI.
 
No, I'm consistent. I don't like it when Republicans waste the taxpayer's time and money with bull**** like this. Conyers is a fool.

I appreciate your honesty.
 
Back
Top Bottom