• 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'

RightinNYC said:
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.
Click to expand...

1) my bad
2) your boss can fire you for using or not using your position for political gains.
3) sure you do
 
Slippery Slope said:
1) my bad
2) your boss can fire you for using or not using your position for political gains.
3) sure you do
Click to expand...

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
 
Moon said:
Because Conyers is a grandstanding fool who believes he's relevant.
Click to expand...

I think the correct answer is that Rove was using the president's prerogative to choose US attorneys to build a nationwide network designed to further the Bush political agenda by controlling the legal system in all 50 states through attorneys hand picked by Rove. Whatever your political viewpoint, this was a blatant attempt to subvert American democracy, and Rove needs to answer for it.
 
WillRockwell said:
I think the correct answer is that Rove was using the president's prerogative to choose US attorneys to build a nationwide network designed to further the Bush political agenda by controlling the legal system in all 50 states through attorneys hand picked by Rove. Whatever your political viewpoint, this was a blatant attempt to subvert American democracy, and Rove needs to answer for it.
Click to expand...

No it wasn't, and no he doesn't. The US attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President and can be dismissed at any time. Clinton dismissed all 93 US attorneys, which was his right to do as President. You may disagree with it, but it's nothing more sinister than the President exercising the power granted to him.
 
Moon said:
No it wasn't, and no he doesn't. The US attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President and can be dismissed at any time. Clinton dismissed all 93 US attorneys, which was his right to do as President. You may disagree with it, but it's nothing more sinister than the President exercising the power granted to him.
Click to expand...

You are correct that the president can dismiss attorneys. The issue is that Karl Rove was the one choosing who to dismiss and who to hire to replace them, with Bush rubber stamping his choices. The possibly "sinister" part is this: why would Karl Rove be deciding on the choices for US attorneys?
 
Moon said:
No it wasn't, and no he doesn't. The US attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President and can be dismissed at any time. Clinton dismissed all 93 US attorneys, which was his right to do as President. You may disagree with it, but it's nothing more sinister than the President exercising the power granted to him.
Click to expand...

Please, please, please stop it with the Clinton attorneys! In Bush's first term, he dismissed most of Clinton's. That's not out of the ordinary, nor it is a relevant part of THIS discussion.

THe 9 that were fired in the second term all claim they were let go because of political reasons. That is a whole different ball game.
 
WillRockwell said:
You are correct that the president can dismiss attorneys. The issue is that Karl Rove was the one choosing who to dismiss and who to hire to replace them, with Bush rubber stamping his choices. The possibly "sinister" part is this: why would Karl Rove be deciding on the choices for US attorneys?
Click to expand...

Ah, the conspiracy theory angle. :rofl

It really doesn't matter where the idea originated. If you think the President has the time to personally review and vet all the people in his administration, well, that's just plain silly. That's what he has advisors for.

They served the executive branch, and the head of that branch decided he wanted to replace them. It really is that simple.
 
Moon said:
Ah, the conspiracy theory angle. :rofl

It really doesn't matter where the idea originated. If you think the President has the time to personally review and vet all the people in his administration, well, that's just plain silly. That's what he has advisors for.

They served the executive branch, and the head of that branch decided he wanted to replace them. It really is that simple.
Click to expand...

Since when did Karl Rove work in the Justice Department?
 
Middleground said:
Please, please, please stop it with the Clinton attorneys! In Bush's first term, he dismissed most of Clinton's. That's not out of the ordinary, nor it is a relevant part of THIS discussion.

THe 9 that were fired in the second term all claim they were let go because of political reasons. That is a whole different ball game.
Click to expand...

All of the attorneys you just mentioned were dismissed for political reasons. That's part and parcel of being a political appointee. It's quite amusing that you only care about the ones Bush fired, though.
 
WillRockwell said:
Since when did Karl Rove work in the Justice Department?
Click to expand...

Who cares if he did or not? As far as I know, that's not a requirement to advise the President. If I'm wrong, then I eagerly await your links proving that I am.
 
Moon said:
Ah, the conspiracy theory angle. :rofl

It really doesn't matter where the idea originated. If you think the President has the time to personally review and vet all the people in his administration, well, that's just plain silly. That's what he has advisors for.

They served the executive branch, and the head of that branch decided he wanted to replace them. It really is that simple.
Click to expand...

A Democrat governor sat in jail for over seven months for being "convicted" of something that politicians do every day, yet nobody blinks. According to witnesses, he was framed. From what I understand, Rove's fingerprints are all over this one. He seriously needs to answer to this.
 
Moon said:
Ah, the conspiracy theory angle. :rofl
Click to expand...
Naw, just a hypothesis. 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 because there is reason to suspect they were fired solely for political reasons.

Moon said:
All of the attorneys you just mentioned were dismissed for political reasons.
Click to expand...
And that's like, against the law, is it not?
 
Middleground said:
A Democrat governor sat in jail for over seven months for being "convicted" of something that politicians do every day, yet nobody blinks. According to witnesses, he was framed. From what I understand, Rove's fingerprints are all over this one. He seriously needs to answer to this.
Click to expand...

Weren't you the one just having a conniption over the topic straying? What does this have to do with President Bush legally firing some US attorneys?
 
Binary_Digit said:
Naw, just a hypothesis. 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 because there is reason to suspect they were fired solely for political reasons.
Click to expand...
Don't you think there should be something to investigate before the investigation is started? It would suck if the cops started investigating you for child rape, wouldn't it?


Binary_Digit said:
And that's like, against the law, is it not?
Click to expand...
Like, no.
 
Moon said:
All of the attorneys you just mentioned were dismissed for political reasons. That's part and parcel of being a political appointee. It's quite amusing that you only care about the ones Bush fired, though.
Click to expand...


Once again--and let me make it clear--is the following. The initial dismissals of US attorneys when a new President comes in is normal. Carter did it. Reagan did it. HW Bush did it. Clinton did it. Dubya did it.

It's NOT an issue, and not relevant to this discussion.
 
Middleground said:
Once again--and let me make it clear--is the following. The initial dismissals of US attorneys when a new President comes in is normal. Carter did it. Reagan did it. HW Bush did it. Clinton did it. Dubya did it.

It's NOT an issue, and not relevant to this discussion.
Click to expand...

The dismissal of political appointees at any time during an administration is normal and completely legal.
 
Moon said:
Weren't you the one just having a conniption over the topic straying? What does this have to do with President Bush legally firing some US attorneys?
Click to expand...


It's all connected from what I understand.

According to witness testimonial, Rove made sure that:
a) There was a willing prosecutor (who happened to be the wife of the campaign manager of Seigleman's opponent)
b) A judge willing to see the case (it was turned down twice before, if I remember correctly).
 
Moon said:
The dismissal of political appointees at any time during an administration is normal and completely legal.
Click to expand...

1st term, yes. 2nd term, no.

It's happened a few times in other administrations, but none for reasons that are potentially of a political nature (i.e. not willing to witch hunt Democrats, being lenient on Republicans).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom