• 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!

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

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?

Not the link you provided, the link within the blog you linked to.
 
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....:shock:

That is good legal advice, whether she is guilty or innocent. From what I know of the scandal(living here in Michigan, I have heard a fair bit on it), most likely she is guilty.


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

Needless to say, that is nothing even remotely close to what I said. Making up stuff now?

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.

Let's be complete why don't we. The first story comes from a Washington Times editorial. The second does come from the GR Press(which I read daily), but the link to the actual article, surprise, does not work. The third comes from a The Hill article, but once again, surprise, the link does not work. This must be a left wing liberal media conspiracy to hide the TRUTH about John Conyers.
 
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.

:roll:

I would suggest you do some research before spouting off of a bunch of BS. For example, please read this report from the Department of Justice. It recommended that an investigation be done. See page 356 to 358 of the report. http://www.usdoj.gov/oig/special/s0809a/final.pdf
Can you believe how many pages this report is for a non-crime? Sometimes, Scarecrow, the crime isn't the action that occurred, but the cover-up. Please check out what happened to Nixon with Watergate. :2wave:
 
I would suggest you do some research before spouting off of a bunch of BS. For example, please read this report from the Department of Justice. It recommended that an investigation be done. See page 356 to 358 of the report. http://www.usdoj.gov/oig/special/s0809a/final.pdf
Can you believe how many pages this report is for a non-crime? Sometimes, Scarecrow, the crime isn't the action that occurred, but the cover-up. Please check out what happened to Nixon with Watergate. :2wave:
If Clinton had never been impeached, we wouldn't be discussing this issue. The Democrats will never forgive the Republicans for impeaching the greatest president in history (after Obama of course), and getting away with it.
 
What criminal case?
See page 13-16 of the memo I linked:

http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/documents/contempt_memo_072407.pdf

Show me evidence that Iglesias was fired for failing to bring vote fraud cases for Republican benefit.
Same as above:

http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/documents/contempt_memo_072407.pdf

These are accusations of obstruction of justice which I have yet to see evidence for, that's a crime but firing more democrats than republicans in and of itself isn't a crime.
Of course it's not a crime, but it's suspicious when the ratio is as lop-sided as this is.

And I've yet to see evidence for these secret agreements between the AG's who were hired to replace those who were fired.
I don't think I've heard about this.

"They Identified"?

A) Who is "they".

B) What is the actual total of firings?
If you read the memo you'll see that it is footnoted with sources.

The Political Profiling of Elected Democratic Officials: When Rhetorical Vision Participation Runs Amok

:rofl In other words, Democrats are seven times more likely to be corrupt than their counterparts.
In your world, I'm sure all of that and more is "true" about Democrats.

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"
The memo is quoting the Office of the Attorney General, which was quoting an email by Kyle Sampson (Alberto Gonzoles' Chief of Staff and Counselor). Here's the relevant part of Sampson's email:

"as an operational matter, we would like to replace 15-20 percent of the current U.S. Attorneys – the underperforming ones. (This is a rough guess; we might want to consider doing performance evaluations after Judge [Gonzales] comes on board.) The vast majority of U.S. Attorneys, 80-85 percent, I would guess, are doing a great job, are loyal Bushies, etc., etc."

Howz that foot taste TD? :2wave:

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.
No **** Sherlock. This is not a trial, it's an investigation. A trial is the only thing that can determine with any certainty that laws were broken. The investigators would be out of place if they made any absolute claims of illegal activity.

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.
That's because the notion that Democrats are 7 times more prone to corruption than Republicans is such a ridiculous claim on its face that only a mouth foaming partyist could entertain even the remote possibility with a straight face.

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. :rofl
So why don't you go and find one then?
 
If Clinton had never been impeached, we wouldn't be discussing this issue. The Democrats will never forgive the Republicans for impeaching the greatest president in history (after Obama of course), and getting away with it.

This investigation done by the Department of Justice occurred during Bush's presidency. It was conducted by both the Office of the Inspector General and the Office of Professional Responsibiliy. Both of these offices are headed by Bush appointees.

The Attorney General, Michael Mukasey, then referred this case to a special prosector. Mukasey is a Bush appointee, as you well know.

So how does this relate to Clinton? Are you saying that the Department of Justice with Mukasey have conspired to get revenge on the Republicans for impeaching Clinton? If so, please elaborate as to how you came up with this conclusion. This would be a fascinating read!
 
What baffles me is that even with:
(1) the number of people who resigned (including Alberto Gonzales);
(2) the number of people who admitted to unethical behavior;
(3) the number of people who refused to speak to Congress about totally legal activity;
(4) the fact that two offices within the Department of Justice found that an investigation was warranted; and
(5) the fact that Mukasey (a Bush appointee) then ordered a special prosecutor to investigate the issue

that some (I'm not saying all) on the right swear that nothing was done improperly.

Okaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay. I am embarrassed for you.
 
This investigation done by the Department of Justice occurred during Bush's presidency. It was conducted by both the Office of the Inspector General and the Office of Professional Responsibiliy. Both of these offices are headed by Bush appointees.

The Attorney General, Michael Mukasey, then referred this case to a special prosector. Mukasey is a Bush appointee, as you well know.

So how does this relate to Clinton? Are you saying that the Department of Justice with Mukasey have conspired to get revenge on the Republicans for impeaching Clinton? If so, please elaborate as to how you came up with this conclusion. This would be a fascinating read!

Bump.

Hello, American? :waiting:

;)
 
Bump.

Hello, American? :waiting:

;)
Democrats in Congress wouldn't be as rabid today, if the Clinton impeachment hadn't occurred.
 
Democrats in Congress wouldn't be as rabid today, if the Clinton impeachment hadn't occurred.

I honestly don't see it, but I could see how you could make that argument. Your point is about the Congress investigating this issue as opposed to the findings made by Bush's Department of Justice.

Thanks for getting back to me. :)
 
I honestly don't see it, but I could see how you could make that argument. Your point is about the Congress investigating this issue as opposed to the findings made by Bush's Department of Justice.

Thanks for getting back to me. :)
Oh I've suspected a "get even" mentality in Congress ever since they gained control under Bush.
 
Oh I've suspected a "get even" mentality in Congress ever since they gained control under Bush.

But I think that's more about taking control with a president whose policies they don't like versus about getting even for the Clinton thing.

I would guess that the Dems in Congress blamed Clinton for the Republicans taking over the Congress.
 
Do you really think FACTS and the TRUTH matter to Libruls? :2wave:

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.

Hey, TRUTH Detector --

you want to back that up with something. Why are the claims fabricated? Because Sean Hannity told you they were?:roll::roll::roll::roll:

How come my Bull**** alarm goes off every time I read one of your posts? Huh, TRUTH Detector?

You see a lot, Doctor. But are you strong enough to point that high-powered perception at yourself? What about it? Why don't you - why don't you look at yourself and write down what you see? Or maybe you're afraid to.

In other words, point the ol' Truth Detector at your own posts BEFORE hitting submit reply.

Your name 'Truth Detector' is almost as ironic as 'Fair and Balanced.'
 
That is good legal advice, whether she is guilty or innocent. From what I know of the scandal(living here in Michigan, I have heard a fair bit on it), most likely she is guilty..

I dont see another reason right now why she would not be since she already pled guilty.




This must be a left wing liberal media conspiracy to hide the TRUTH about John Conyers.

Well it was buried pretty far but my mad research skillz uncovered it as an official statement of the house ethics committee

Like any good politician he took responsibility of his actions...after getting caught of course.

Fun site. I had no idea five members of the house were arrested protesting the Sudan Embassy. Lots of fun stuff buried in there.


My original point stands. This guy has no business investigating anyone until he cleans up his own house.

x3 If wrongdoing can be pinned on Rove then prosecute him to the fullest extent of the law.

I want all those corrupt yahoos cleaned out.
 
Last edited:
I dont see another reason right now why she would not be since she already pled guilty.

See, I was right. And as a law and order democrat, I hope she gets slammed hard over this. I have no patients with corruption in any politician.

Well it was buried pretty far but my mad research skillz uncovered it as an official statement of the house ethics committee

Like any good politician he took responsibility of his actions...after getting caught of course.

Fun site. I had no idea five members of the house were arrested protesting the Sudan Embassy. Lots of fun stuff buried in there.


My original point stands. This guy has no business investigating anyone until he cleans up his own house.

x3 If wrongdoing can be pinned on Rove then prosecute him to the fullest extent of the law.

I want all those corrupt yahoos cleaned out.

PDF's you cannot cut and paste from suck FYI, but thank you for actually finding the information.

From reading it, a republican led investigation of him found nothing more serious than a "lack of clarity", which he promptly worked to fix. No one says he has done anything but totally cooperate with the investigation, in fact he is praised for his cooperation. From my reading of this, he is not a criminal, but made some mistakes.
 
I would suggest you do some research before spouting off of a bunch of BS. For example, please read this report from the Department of Justice. It recommended that an investigation be done. See page 356 to 358 of the report. http://www.usdoj.gov/oig/special/s0809a/final.pdf

"While Presidential Appointees can be fired for any reason or for no reason..." thanks for that.

Provide one single solitary scrap of evidence for even tacit agreements between the White House and the hired AG's replacing the fired AG's, until then you all are just blowing smoke.
 
Last edited:
"While Presidential Appointees can be fired for any reason or for no reason..." thanks for that.

Provide one single solitary scrap of evidence for even tacit agreements between the White House and the hired AG's replacing the fired AG's, until then you all are just blowing smoke.

Okay. If that's what you believe, I really don't care. This is currently being investigated by a special prosecutor after an incredibly thorough investigation by two offices at the Department of Justice. But that seems to mean nothing to you. *yawn*
 
Calling me hyperpartisian does not make it so. I feel it is just as hyperpartisian to start a thread about Karl Rove and imply that Obama will be guilty of doing the same thing when there hasn't even been a hint of such a thing. Has the president been trying to hide his activities behind the false claim of executive privilage?

I don't see that at all GD and quite frankly I'm glad for the message of transparency that this is sending out to Obama and to all future administrations. As Dana said, no president is king.

This is a good thing.

:cool:
 
Hey, TRUTH Detector --

you want to back that up with something. Why are the claims fabricated? Because Sean Hannity told you they were?:roll::roll::roll::roll:

How come my Bull**** alarm goes off every time I read one of your posts? Huh, TRUTH Detector?



In other words, point the ol' Truth Detector at your own posts BEFORE hitting submit reply.

Your name 'Truth Detector' is almost as ironic as 'Fair and Balanced.'
Your response, while juvenile, is at least irrelevant with undertones of vacuity.
 
Your response, while juvenile, is at least irrelevant with undertones of vacuity.

Lemme get this straight -- It is 'irrelevant' to ask someone to back up their claims with some facts??

So, we should all just post any bull**** we want and not worry about the pesky little things called facts...:roll::roll::roll:

Is that what you're saying?

And BTW -- calling out someone out in a sarcastic manner is not half as juvenile as overusing a thesaurus to pass yourself off as smarter than you really are.:2razz:
 
I am glad that somebody sees my point. Evidently, the hyperpartisans can't, or maybe they just don't want to.

How can you say that that first post was not partisan, and how can you think it would not be responded to as it did when you put that last little dig in there at the end?

It was a fine and informative post right up until that point.
 
Okay. If that's what you believe, I really don't care. This is currently being investigated by a special prosecutor after an incredibly thorough investigation by two offices at the Department of Justice. But that seems to mean nothing to you. *yawn*

And here I was just thinking our economies in the ****ter, the Dems have been in control of the government for the last 3 years and are spending us into oblivion, what we NEED is another Ken Starr. Can we have a little more bread and a little less circuses please? Oh never mind I forgot it's for our own good. Feed them partisan retribution!
 
Back
Top Bottom