Thread: Rove deposed — over eight hour period — in US Attorney firings

Originally Posted by Oftencold

Since Truth Detector magnificently provided the link,m i'll address the final part of your comments.

It is known by everyone in Congress, and the are doing exactly what I suggested in my earlier post: they are attempting to perform extra-constitutional jurisprudence.

This is what the dominant Party has sunk to, and the descent shows no signs of slowing.

Do you really think FACTS and the TRUTH matter to Libruls?

The TRUTH, that you and I apparently understand, is that this is not about trying to ensure the integrity of our constitution, but rather to abuse the constitutional authority given to congress for purely political partisan purposes.

This new LOW in American politics is the standard by which we should all judge Democrats on; after winning an election, they attempt to impugn their opponents with impeachment hearings on Bush and now witch hunts over fabricated claims against the Executive branch.

We should all be deeply concerned and frightened by this, but instead we see people cheering it. This is the level of ignorance America is gradually sinking to and we can thank our educational institutions and "drive-by" media for this.

Originally Posted by Binary_Digit

From the memo:

http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-s...emo_072407.pdf

"Firing a U.S. Attorney in order to impede or obstruct a pending criminal case, or a pending criminal investigation, could constitute an obstruction of justice. (snip) If Mr. Iglesias or another prosecutor was fired in retaliation for failing to bring vote fraud cases that lacked a reasonable legal or factual basis, the firing could also violate the criminal Hatch Act prohibition on retaliation contained in 18 USC 606. (snip) To the extent a prosecutor was fired in order to bring in a more compliant individual to pursue politically advantageous cases, such misconduct could possibly violate the prohibitions on obstructing government proceedings contained in 18 USC 1505 and 18 USC 1512(c)(2)."

"Concerns about the apparently political nature of these firings are only heightened by the emerging allegations that some U.S. Attorneys who were retained by the Department - the so-called "loyal Bushies" - may have selectively prosecuted Democrats. Bringing the force of the federal criminal justice apparatus to bear on an individual based in any way on that person's political affiliation is a clear abuse of the prosecutorial function, and may well violate the person's civil rights.

"Evidence that such wrongdoing may have occurred includes a recent academic study finding that federal prosecutors during the Bush Administration have indicted Democratic officeholders far more frequently than their Republican counterparts. The study's authors found that of the 375 cases they identified, 10 involved independents, 67 involved Republicans, and 298 involved Democrats, and noted that local Democrats were seven times as likely as Republicans to be subject to criminal charges from the Department of Justice."

Another vast pile of nonsensical bile; and here's your first clue as to the lack of credibility of this commentary:

the so-called "loyal Bushies"

Some key words to notice as well:

If Mr. Iglesias.....

....the firing could.....

.....could possibly violate.....

...may have occurred.....

Let me interpret the above in simpler terms so that you can not be under any delusions. What the above represents are conjecture, hypothesis and speculation. Nothing contained in the above constitutes anything that could even be illogically construed as evidence.

But here is the best part and the most damning of their evidence:

The study's authors found that of the 375 cases they identified, 10 involved independents, 67 involved Republicans, and 298 involved Democrats, and noted that local Democrats were seven times as likely as Republicans to be subject to criminal charges from the Department of Justice."

So what we can conclude from this is that the studies authors SECULATE NOT that the Democrats are more prone to corruption; oh no, this speculates that this MUST mean there is a Republican BIAS.

Yet the charges are that these people let go were because they would NOT prosecute Democrats and instead refused the political efforts to cajole them into partisan prosecutions.

Now I would love to see a similar study done under Democrat Presidents; let’s start with Clintons. I would be willing to bet Democrats still outnumber Republicans in corruption charges.

Yes folks, you just cannot fabricate the level ignorance it takes to be part of the Democrat leadership these days, or the media for that matter.

Originally Posted by Redress

You are aware that John Conyers != Monica Conyers, aren't you? Kind unfair to blame him for her problems.

Do you know who your wife is?

Originally Posted by akyron

Do you know who your wife is?

I am not married, and your question is irrelevant. Monica Conyers held an office of her own in Detroit. John Conyers holds an office in Washington. To the best of my knowledge, John Conyers is not implicated in his wife's scandal. Therefore, your initial comment was totally illogical.

Originally Posted by hazlnut

Wow--the first reply is an Ad Hominem attack on Coyner's wife no less. -- You make no attempt whatsoever to deal with the original post and review the nature of the case against Rove.

BTW -- That little disclaimer at the end doesn't negate the fallacy.



We need to post the most often used fallacies on the main page--it would save a lot of time if people would stop with this type of lameness.

Originally Posted by Akyron

if Rove can be proven guilty of something then prosecute to the max too. .

I think its lame you did not actually read my post before knee jerk bitching.
I fully advocated prosecuting Rove to the max if he could be proven guilty of wrongdoing.

You do not find it the least bit ironic the man issuing subpoenas is married to a convicted 2nd degree felon?

Advice of her congressman husband is to 'be quiet and shut up'

Detroit Councilwoman Pleads Guilty To Felony Bribery and She is Still On The Council

"Next to the time Conyers derided Ken Cockrel as “Shrek” during a council meeting, perhaps the other outburst that spurred the most fury was when Conyers, in an argument with Kenyatta near Kenyatta’s office, made fun of his hearing aid, rumors that he had cancer and his lack of a college degree."


A real charming pair those two.

Another buried news story about his guy.....
Rep. John Conyers Drops ACORN Investigation

"Is the radical leftist group ACORN squelching voices that dare to criticize it?

That's the distinct impression House Judiciary Committee chairman John Conyers (D-Michigan) left last week when he told the Washington Times that he wasn't proceeding with an investigation of ACORN because "the powers that be decided against it.""



There is so much smoke around this guy that if he isnt on fire he is oil soaked wood.

Originally Posted by Redress

I am not married, and your question is irrelevant. Monica Conyers held an office of her own in Detroit. John Conyers holds an office in Washington. To the best of my knowledge, John Conyers is not implicated in his wife's scandal. Therefore, your initial comment was totally illogical.

I dont really need his wife to imply he is crooked. His own scandals do that perfectly well.


Pelosi Quietly Whitewashes Conyers Scandals


John Conyer’s Ex-Staffer Renews Charges

"A Holland-area woman is reviving charges of unethical conduct against U.S. Rep. John Conyers as the Detroit Democrat prepares to ascend to the chairmanship of the House Judiciary Committee.

Deanna Maher, retired chief of staff for Conyers’ Downriver Region office near Detroit, alleges Conyers required her to work on political campaigns and to baby-sit for his children while on the government payroll, both violations of House ethics rules.

Conyers has, in the past, denied the allegations.

Maher, who lives in Park Township and has longtime connections to West Michigan, said Conyers is not fit to hold the important post.

"He’s coming up for election for heading the Judiciary. I do believe the country needs better," she said."




Former Conyers aides press ethics complaints

"Two former aides to Rep. John Conyers have alleged that he repeatedly violated House ethics rules.

Deanna Maher, a former deputy chief of staff in Conyers’s Detroit office, and Sydney Rooks, a former legal counsel in the district office, provided evidence for the allegations by sharing numerous letters, memorandums and copies of e-mails, handwritten notes and expense reports with The Hill.

In letters sent separately by each woman to the House ethics committee, the FBI and the U.S. attorney’s office, they allege that Conyers demanded that aides work on several local and state campaigns and forced them to baby-sit and chauffeur his children. They also charge that some aides illegally used Conyers’s congressional offices to enrich themselves.

Maher decided she could no longer work for Conyers in such an unethical environment and quit in May 2005. Rooks had left Conyers years earlier; she was a full-time staffer working in the office for him from 1997 to 1999. Before leaving, Conyers placed her on paid administrative leave for several months and stopped paying her in April 2000.

“I could not tolerate any longer being involved with continual unethical, if not criminal, practices which were accepted as ‘business as usual,’” Maher wrote in a letter to the ethics panel dated Jan. 13, 2006."


Incoming Judiciary Committee Chair Admits Breaking Ethics Rules

"They quietly released a public statement, perfectly timed to minimize coverage in the press, that simply says Conyers ought to refrain from breaking ethics rules and laws in the future.

That’s not even a slap on the wrist. And this for the man who will soon be Chairman of the House Committee that has jurisdiction over the civil and criminal justice system.

And how about incoming House Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi who promised to drain the swamp of corruption in Congress?"



Oh well at least he wasnt molesting underage pages like that last guy or running a gay whorehouse out of his house or dumb enough to stash the wifes illicit cash in his freezer. Conyers was just treating the staff like his personal slaves.

Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar

Well, actually, what's important is whether or not any crime was committed.

Oh, wait, the President can haul off and dismiss any US attorney at anytime, because they serve at his pleasure.

No crime committed.

Rove can't be guilty.

Uhh those standards only apply to slick willie sir......

Originally Posted by akyron

I dont really need his wife to imply he is crooked. His own scandals do that perfectly well.

Then why did you do so? By the way, you listed 2 allegations of scandal, and your last link provides links to prove it's point that do not work. I won't even mention the humor factor of using blogs to show evidence of anything. Well, yes I will, all of your sources for scandal are blogs.

Originally Posted by Redress

Then why did you do so? By the way, you listed 2 allegations of scandal, and your last link provides links to prove it's point that do not work. I won't even mention the humor factor of using blogs to show evidence of anything. Well, yes I will, all of your sources for scandal are blogs.

works just fine.

John Conyers (D-Mich.) “accepted responsibility” for breaking House Ethics rules (and possibly some laws) for requiring “his official staffers to work on campaigns, babysit his children, and run personal errands.”

So what does the House Ethics Committee do to punish him? They quietly released a public statement, perfectly timed to minimize coverage in the press, that simply says Conyers ought to refrain from breaking ethics rules and laws in the future.

That’s not even a slap on the wrist. And this for the man who will soon be Chairman of the House Committee that has jurisdiction over the civil and criminal justice system.

And how about incoming House Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi who promised to drain the swamp of corruption in Congress?

Originally Posted by Redress

Then why did you do so? By the way, you listed 2 allegations of scandal, and your last link provides links to prove it's point that do not work. I won't even mention the humor factor of using blogs to show evidence of anything. Well, yes I will, all of your sources for scandal are blogs.

The wife is a perfectly valid point and I was just being nice.
He issued legal advice to her as soon as she got caught "SHUT UP"...good advice. More husbands should treat their wives that way....


I agree with you it is funny that this guy is investigating anyone.

The blogs stories come from the washington times the grand rapids free press and the detroit newspaper if that makes you feel any better. ( I doubt it).
It was a convenient consolidation for me since I am leaving in 9 mins.

And once again prosecute Rove as far as you legally can.