• 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'

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...

Who has a problem with merely arguing about whether Axelrod should have been performing such a duty? I don't see anyone here with such a problem.

Instead, we have rhetorical gasbags like you arguing that the President and Rove are guilty of obstructing justice.

Yet, amazingly, you won't or can't explain how...
 
ADK_Forever said:
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?
Click to expand...

What is illegal?

How is it illegal for Rove, serving at the will of the President, directs the President's appointed DoJ staff to dismiss a US Attorney?

Specifics, please.
 
ADK_Forever said:
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. :lol:

Couldn't happen to a nicer guy. :mrgreen:

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? :lol:

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.
Click to expand...

Rove has been directed NOT to appear. Bush Lawyer Directs Rove Not to Talk to Congress | Newsweek Politics | Newsweek.com

This is what doesn't make sense to me. Why isn't Rove showing up and then claiming he won't answer the questions due to executive privilege. This business of not showing up at all is just plain ridiculous.

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Congress can force White House aides to testify under subpoena, a U.S. District Court ruled Thursday, rejecting Bush administration claims of immunity.

The House Judiciary Committee has been seeking to force former White House Counsel Harriet Miers to testify before Congress about the firing of nine U.S. attorneys in 2006. The White House has been resisting, claiming she cannot be compelled to appear.

But the White House position "is without any support in case law," Judge John D. Bates wrote in a 93-page opinion released Thursday.

He said the notion that "Miers is absolutely immune from compelled congressional process" is "unprecedented."

But, Bates added, the ruling does not mean that Miers and Joshua Bolten, the White House chief of staff from whom House Democrats have demanded White House documents, could not assert executive privilege during congressional testimony.

White House aides not immune from subpoenas, judge says - CNN.com
Click to expand...

A judge has addressed the issue already. Why Rove and Miers (and/or their attorneys) think they are above reproach is beyond me.
 
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...
Rove didn't personally hire and fire attorneys. Where to hear this stuff, DailyKOS?
 
JMak said:
Who has a problem with merely arguing about whether Axelrod should have been performing such a duty? I don't see anyone here with such a problem.

Instead, we have rhetorical gasbags like you arguing that the President and Rove are guilty of obstructing justice.

Yet, amazingly, you won't or can't explain how...
Click to expand...

I mentioned the name of Axelrod because he holds the same job that Karl Rove had when Rove was advising on the hiring and firing of US attorneys. But seeing as how you have already descended into name calling, I assume you have run up against the limits of your argument. Have a nice weekend.:2wave:
 
Last edited:
JMak said:
You kinda have to first establish that the dismissal of those attorneys constituted an obstruction before asserting it as a fact.
Click to expand...
Which is the whole ****ing point of this investigation! You know, the one you have erroneously label as a witch hunt. Jesus is it really that hard to understand??

Binary_Digit said:
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
Click to expand...

Binary_Digit said:
Serving at the pleasure of the president is not a blank check to obstruct justice and use the Justice Department as a political weapon. Again, they should be innocent until proven guilty, but surely you can see that there is reasonable grounds for an investigation?
Click to expand...

JMak said:
Instead, we have rhetorical gasbags like you arguing that the President and Rove are guilty of obstructing justice.

Yet, amazingly, you won't or can't explain how...
Click to expand...
I personally have explained it twice in this thread already. See post 33 and 76. You seem to have a problem with selective reading. Don't pretend the explanation doesn't exist simply because it's more convenient for you to ignore it.
 
Binary_Digit said:
Which is the whole ****ing point of this investigation! You know, the one you have erroneously label as a witch hunt. Jesus is it really that hard to understand??






I personally have explained it twice in this thread already. See post 33 and 76. You seem to have a problem with selective reading. Don't pretend the explanation doesn't exist simply because it's more convenient for you to ignore it.
Click to expand...

This is for JMak:

aps said:
I found the report. Yippee!

For anyone interested in learning more facts about the firing of the 9 US Attorneys, I highly recommend reading this. It's fascinating.

http://www.usdoj.gov/oig/special/s0809a/final.pdf
Click to expand...

Once you read the report, I'll give your discussion in this thread probative value.
 
Binary_Digit said:
Which is the whole ****ing point of this investigation! You know, the one you have erroneously label as a witch hunt. Jesus is it really that hard to understand??
Click to expand...

Hmmm, how to address this...

You quoted a response that I posted to someone, you, who was arguing that Bush is guilty of obstructing justice. Your rhetorical point that a President is not allowed to obstruct justice is as close as one can get to explicitly saying he did obstruct justice. I was merely pointing out that before you can assert as much as fact you have to establish it. I was chiding you because you essentially argued that he had, in fact, obstructed justice.

And, no, I haven't characterized it as a "witch hunt."

I personally have explained it twice in this thread already. See post 33 and 76. You seem to have a problem with selective reading. Don't pretend the explanation doesn't exist simply because it's more convenient for you to ignore it.
Click to expand...

If you're so hard for an investigation why are you strongly iplying that he had obstructed justice?
 
Middleground said:
Did you read the whole darn thing, aps?
Click to expand...

Not the background stuff. I printed it out and read it to and from work (a 30-minute commute on subway). It's incredibly disturbing, and Mukasey would not have been able to say, "Oh, it's no big deal." He HAD to order an investigation.
 
aps said:
Rove has been directed NOT to appear. Bush Lawyer Directs Rove Not to Talk to Congress | Newsweek Politics | Newsweek.com

This is what doesn't make sense to me. Why isn't Rove showing up and then claiming he won't answer the questions due to executive privilege. This business of not showing up at all is just plain ridiculous.

A judge has addressed the issue already. Why Rove and Miers (and/or their attorneys) think they are above reproach is beyond me.
Click to expand...

That's not how this is supposed to work. If, and that's a big "IF", Bush's EO holds water and Rove has this mysterious "absolute immunity", he has to show up and then say he has this immunity.

I hope he doesn't show. Then Conyers can have him picked up and tossed in the klink. That's "if" the Dems have the kayunas to follow through. Then I'll get a real pix of Bush's brains behind bars! :lol:

We shall see what we shall see.
 
ADK_Forever said:
That's not how this is supposed to work. If, and that's a big "IF", Bush's EO holds water and Rove has this mysterious "absolute immunity", he has to show up and then say he has this immunity.

I hope he doesn't show. Then Conyers can have him picked up and tossed in the klink. That's "if" the Dems have the kayunas to follow through. Then I'll get a real pix of Bush's brains behind bars! :lol:

We shall see what we shall see.
Click to expand...

I do too (hope they have him arrested)! I would be okay if he SHOWED up and then claimed immunity. As the judge said based on the prior subpeona--this refusal to even appear is unprecedented. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Boy, isn't it great to have Bush/Rove out of office? I sleep better at night. ;)
 
MrVicchio said:
They serve at the pleasure of the President, non-issue, non-scandal but hey, it excites the frothing masses of people like you that still think Joe Wilson has credibility.
Click to expand...

Your argument "The pleasure of the president" only goes so far, and IMHO, you have taken it a bit out of context. If Rove broke the law, then he should be held accountable for it. Your argument smacks of Nixon's argument "If the president does it, then it's not illegal". And we all know how far Nixon got with that argument, don't we?

How will the courts make this determination, though, should they decide not to laugh Rove's lawyers out of the chamber? Let me bring up an extreme case. Assume that Karl Rove murdered another White House staffer in the middle of the night. Did he break the law? That's a no-brainer. Obviously he did, and he would go to prison for it. What the courts need to determine is how serious of an offense needs to be committed before it becomes a crime. When that line of thought is pursued, it becomes just as obvious that, when someone serves at the pleasure of the president, he is not above the law. Whether it is laws against murder or laws against jaywalking, laws are meant to be obeyed. Serving at the pleasure of the president does not entitle one to break the law, any more than any other American would entitled to. If Rove committed a crime, then, just like you and me, he should be held responsible.

One more thing - The Presidential Oath of office requires that the president, along with his staffers, ENFORCE the law and UPHOLD THE CONSITUTION of the Unisted States of America. It doesn't order the Executive branch to flaunt the law, does it?
 
Last edited:
JMak said:
Hmmm, how to address this...

You quoted a response that I posted to someone, you, who was arguing that Bush is guilty of obstructing justice. Your rhetorical point that a President is not allowed to obstruct justice is as close as one can get to explicitly saying he did obstruct justice. I was merely pointing out that before you can assert as much as fact you have to establish it. I was chiding you because you essentially argued that he had, in fact, obstructed justice.

And, no, I haven't characterized it as a "witch hunt."
Click to expand...
Well, I'm sorry I accused you specifically of labeling the investigation as a "witch hunt," because you didn't use that exact phrase. But you HAVE been arguing that it's a pointless waste of taxpayer money right? So what's the difference?

And you should see that it's impossible to produce any quote by me asserting obstruction of justice as a fact. I've been consistently saying that they should be innocent until proven guilty, but that there are reasonable grounds to have an investigation. So if you think I've been asserting it as fact, then you may have me confused with another poster.

JMak said:
If you're so hard for an investigation why are you strongly iplying that he had obstructed justice?
Click to expand...
If I ever implied that then I didn't mean to (but I'd like to see which of my posts you're misinterpreting). I have held the same extremely simple position throughout this entire discussion: A crime may have been committed, therefore this investigation is legitimate and should continue to the end.
 
Binary_Digit said:
Well, I'm sorry I accused you specifically of labeling the investigation as a "witch hunt," because you didn't use that exact phrase. But you HAVE been arguing that it's a pointless waste of taxpayer money right? So what's the difference?

And you should see that it's impossible to produce any quote by me asserting obstruction of justice as a fact. I've been consistently saying that they should be innocent until proven guilty, but that there are reasonable grounds to have an investigation. So if you think I've been asserting it as fact, then you may have me confused with another poster.


If I ever implied that then I didn't mean to (but I'd like to see which of my posts you're misinterpreting). I have held the same extremely simple position throughout this entire discussion: A crime may have been committed, therefore this investigation is legitimate and should continue to the end.
Click to expand...
I labled it a witch hunt, because they're going after Rove. He wasn't a main player in this thing, it was DoJ officials and Mary Myers office that was most involved. Trying to tie one attorney in Arkansas to Rove is as lame as it gets. I'm sure he was calling Gonzales daily to make sure he got the job, probably foaming over the phone about it. Yeah!
 
danarhea said:
Your argument "The pleasure of the president" only goes so far, and IMHO, you have taken it a bit out of context. If Rove broke the law, then he should be held accountable for it.
Click to expand...

What crime or offense is Rove even alleged to have committed that warrants investigation?

Serving at the pleasure of the president does not entitle one to break the law, any more than any other American is not entitled. If Rove committed a crime, then, just like you and me, he should be held responsible.
Click to expand...

No one is arguing that such an entitlement exists, are they? You kinda holding up a strawman here. Citing the President's plenary authority to supervise and direct the Executive branch is not an argument that his appointments may break the law.

What crime is Rove alleged to have committed?

Or is this investigation simply a fishing trip to see if something, anything at all, can be dug up?

One more thing - The Presidential Oath of office requires that the president, along with his staffers, ENFORCE the law and UPHOLD THE CONSITUTION of the Unisted States of America. It doesn't order the Executive branch to flaunt the law, does it?
Click to expand...

Oh, please. Your rhetorical nonsense is just that...nonsense.
 
Binary_Digit said:
Well, I'm sorry I accused you specifically of labeling the investigation as a "witch hunt," because you didn't use that exact phrase. But you HAVE been arguing that it's a pointless waste of taxpayer money right? So what's the difference?
Click to expand...

No, I have not argued that, either.

And you should see that it's impossible to produce any quote by me asserting obstruction of justice as a fact.
Click to expand...

That's why I said it was an implication.

I
've been consistently saying that they should be innocent until proven guilty, but that there are reasonable grounds to have an investigation. So if you think I've been asserting it as fact, then you may have me confused with another poster.
Click to expand...

What are these reasonable grounds?

If I ever implied that then I didn't mean to (but I'd like to see which of my posts you're misinterpreting).
Click to expand...

Fair enough.

The offending quote: "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."

That, to me, suggested that you were arguing that the President had, in fact, obstructed justice because you were plainly stating that a President could not do so. While else state except to imply that a President had obstructed justice?

I have held the same extremely simple position throughout this entire discussion: A crime may have been committed, therefore this investigation is legitimate and should continue to the end.
Click to expand...

A "crime" may have been committed? What "crime"? How do you conclude that such "crime" may have been committed?
 
RightinNYC said:
1) apology accepted
2) You do know that there are far more restrictions on hiring and firing in the private sector than there are in executive appointments, right? As in, the president can fire any US attorney at any time for whatever reason, no matter what.
3) I think I see what you mean to be saying, but I just don't understand how it supports your argument
Click to expand...
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?
 
PeteEU said:
Not in the eyes of a right winger.. anyone that does not agree with the right = marxist, stalinist, homosexual communist liberal muslim terrorist lover!
Click to expand...

Not in the eyes of a LEFT winger.. anyone that does not agree with the LEFT = Hitler, Gestapo, Constitution bashing, homo-hating terrorist basher!

I had no idea how easy it is to troll; you illustrate it so well. :2wave:
 
JMak said:
What crime or offense is Rove even alleged to have committed that warrants investigation?



No one is arguing that such an entitlement exists, are they? You kinda holding up a strawman here. Citing the President's plenary authority to supervise and direct the Executive branch is not an argument that his appointments may break the law.

What crime is Rove alleged to have committed?

Or is this investigation simply a fishing trip to see if something, anything at all, can be dug up?



Oh, please. Your rhetorical nonsense is just that...nonsense.
Click to expand...

Oh, blogga please!! He who smelt it dealt it, bub!!

First, for the record, here is a copy of the subpoena itself.

Doesn't say much, except that it commands Rove to testify. Testify about what? That is answered by this article written by Conyers staffers.

Monday, January 26, 2009

Conyers Subpoenas Karl Rove: "It's Time to Talk"


(Washington, D.C.) --- Today, House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, Jr. issued a subpoena to Karl Rove requiring him to testify regarding his role in the Bush Administration's politicization of the Department of Justice, including the US Attorney firings and the prosecution of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman. The subpoena was issued pursuant to authority granted in H.R. 5 (111th Congress), and calls for Mr. Rove to appear at deposition on Monday, February 2, 2009. Mr. Rove has previously refused to appear in response to a Judiciary Committee subpoena, claiming that even former presidential advisers cannot be compelled to testify before Congress. That "absolute immunity" position was supported by then-President Bush, but it has been rejected by U.S. District Judge John Bates and President Obama has previously dismissed the claim as "completely misguided."


"I have said many times that I will carry this investigation forward to its conclusion, whether in Congress or in court, and today's action is an important step along the way," said Mr. Conyers. Noting that the change in administration may impact the legal arguments available to Mr. Rove in this long-running dispute, Mr. Conyers added "Change has come to Washington, and I hope Karl Rove is ready for it. After two years of stonewalling, it's time for him to talk."


A copy of the subpoena is attached.
Click to expand...
So, what is the Siegelman case all about? it is about the political witch hunt, disguised as a criminal case, to get rid of the governor of Alabama. So, what are the facts in this case? Also, note in the preceding quote that a court of law has already determined that Rove's argument regarding executive privilege does not hold water.



1) Don Siegelman was freed from prison by the 11th District Court of Appeals:

The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the former governor had raised “substantial questions of fact and law” in challenging his conviction.
Click to expand...
2) A long time Republican lawyer, under oath, testified that Karl Rove was behind the prosecution of Siegelman, and went after him for political reasons only.


3) So, how does Rove himself tie into this?


Canary reassured others on the conference call — who also included Riley's son, Rob, and Terry Butts, another Riley lawyer and former justice of the Alabama supreme court — that he had the help of a powerful pal in Washington. Canary said "not to worry — that he had already gotten it worked out with Karl and Karl had spoken with the Department of Justice and the Department of Justice was already pursuing Don Siegelman," the Simpson affidavit says.
Click to expand...
This was testified to under oath.

Now we come to a concept known as reasonable suspicion. Just as a police officer has a right to kick down your door if he reasonably believes you are inside smoking crack, Congress has just as much of a right to ferret out the details of a possible crime, given evidence and testimony to support that a crime was committed. Once more, it is known as reasonable suspicion. It's the same reason that Republicans had a right to go after Bill Clinton. Why would you support that and not this? Ah, I KNOW why. Rove has an R by his name, and Clinton has a D.

The hypocrisy is so thick in here you can cut it with a knife.

Now you accused me of posting rhetorical nonsense, so I have just posted a lot of accurate links. What are YOU going to post? More of your rhetorical nonsense? Like I said at the beginning of this post, he who smelt it dealt it. Please go outside, as it really, really stinks in here right now. :mrgreen:
 
Last edited:
danarhea said:
The hypocrisy is so thick in here you can cut it with a knife.
Click to expand...
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.
 
zimmer said:
Sorry you folks failed to see the clear connect, so let me help you grasp the association.

Marxists for their socialist ideas for "managing the economy". I'm waiting for them to issue it under ""The Five Year Plan."
Click to expand...
This is how it was done with all of Pres. Bush's proposals; every one of them was projected out 5-years to illustrate and magnify the costs. In the meanwhile a trillion dollar "stimulus" made up of huge porkulus is treated as if it was peanuts, and the media asks virtually no questions. Incurious, eh...

Stalinist for trying to criminalize political decisions by their opponents. And trying to silence free speech; fairness doctrine.
Click to expand...
And every executive order by Pres. Bush was touted as a criminal act; He declassified a part of the PDB and Bush, Cheney and Libby were charged with revealing out secrets.

Capiche?

I figured socialist scholars like youz guyz would have had it all figured out in a jiffy.
Click to expand...

But all of this, including how the MSM so willingly goes along with it is that it is in vogue to criminalize being a Republican, so that no one will want to go there.
 
Last edited:
danarhea said:
Oh, blogga please!! He who smelt it dealt it, bub!!

First, for the record, here is a copy of the subpoena itself.

Doesn't say much, except that it commands Rove to testify. Testify about what? That is answered by this article written by Conyers staffers.
Click to expand...

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.

So, what is the Siegelman case all about? it is about the political witch hunt, disguised as a criminal case, to get rid of the governor of Alabama. So, what are the facts in this case? Also, note in the preceding quote that a court of law has already determined that Rove's argument regarding executive privilege does not hold water.
Click to expand...

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

It's the same reason that Republicans had a right to go after Bill Clinton. Why would you support that and not this? Ah, I KNOW why. Rove has an R by his name, and Clinton has a D.
Click to expand...

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.

Now you accused me of posting rhetorical nonsense, so I have just posted a lot of accurate links. What are YOU going to post? More of your rhetorical nonsense? Like I said at the beginning of this post, he who smelt it dealt it. Please go outside, as it really, really stinks in here right now. :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom