• 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

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,602
Reaction score
26,256
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
It took quite a while, but it finally happened. The wheels of justice finally caught up with Karl Rove in the matter of the politically motivated firing of US attorneys, and he testified before a Congressional subcommittee.

Former Bush White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove was deposed by lawyers for the House Judiciary Committee, Judiciary Chairman John Conyers (D-MI) said in an interview Tuesday.


Rove’s deposition took place over a period of some eight and a half hours, beginning at 10 a.m. and ending around 6:30 p.m, ET — and the lawyers took several breaks, Conyers said.


Whether Rove is innocent or guilty is not important here. That will be for the courts to determine, IF Rove is indicted for anything. If he is not indicted and convicted, then he is considered innocent. The important point here is that the concept of the unitary presidency has just absorbed a fatal blow. Presidents and their staff ARE subject to Congressional subpoenas, and when called to testify, must do so. The president is not a king, and those who work for him are not royalty who have the right to disobey lawful orders, unlike any other American. Keep that in mind, President Obama.

Article is here.
 
Last edited:
It took quite a while, but it finally happened. The wheels of justice finally caught up with Karl Rove in the matter of the politically motivated firing of US attorneys, and he testified before a Congressional subcommittee.

Whether Rove is innocent or guilty is not important here. That will be for the courts to determine, IF Rove is indicted for anything. If he is not indicted and convicted, then he is considered innocent. The important point here is that the concept of the unitary presidency has just absorbed a fatal blow. Presidents and their staff ARE subject to Congressional subpoenas, and when called to testify, must do so. The president is not a king, and those who work for him are not royalty who have the right to disobey lawful orders, unlike any other American. Keep that in mind, President Obama.

Article is here.



John Conyers (D-MI) is issuing subpoenas.. Well thats just fantastic. The irony is just staggering.

Wife of Judiciary Chairman Conyers Pleads Guilty to Bribery


"After initially opposing a sludge contract with Synagro, Mrs. Conyers, after accepting a bribe, became the deciding vote in the city council on a resolution to approve the contract.

Mrs. Conyers faces up to 5 year in prison, three years supervised release and/or a $250,000 fine."

I wonder if he is going to use the Jefferson defense when his supoenas arrive.

i.e. " My bribes did not interfere with my congressional duty".
:lol:


Oh and if Rove can be proven guilty of something then prosecute to the max too.
 
Last edited:
It took quite a while, but it finally happened. The wheels of justice finally caught up with Karl Rove in the matter of the politically motivated firing of US attorneys, and he testified before a Congressional subcommittee.




Whether Rove is innocent or guilty is not important here. That will be for the courts to determine, IF Rove is indicted for anything. If he is not indicted and convicted, then he is considered innocent. The important point here is that the concept of the unitary presidency has just absorbed a fatal blow. Presidents and their staff ARE subject to Congressional subpoenas, and when called to testify, must do so. The president is not a king, and those who work for him are not royalty who have the right to disobey lawful orders, unlike any other American. Keep that in mind, President Obama.

Article is here.

"Keep that in mind President Obama"

Is this thread about Karl Rove finally being forced to testify or is it about President Obama possibly doing something wrong?
 
"Keep that in mind President Obama"

Is this thread about Karl Rove finally being forced to testify or is it about President Obama possibly doing something wrong?

It's about the Executive branch being held accountable. Obama promised transparency and he has done quite the opposite. What Rove is going through will, in all likelihood, happen to Emmanuel.
 
It's about the Executive branch being held accountable. Obama promised transparency and he has done quite the opposite. What Rove is going through will, in all likelihood, happen to Emmanuel.

So do you feel that the executive branch of the Bush administration has been held accountable for the consequences of their actions.

What does Karl Rove being forced to testify have to do with Emmanuel?

Has the Obama Administration been attempting to sheild anybody for anything what so ever?
 
It's about the Executive branch being held accountable. Obama promised transparency and he has done quite the opposite. What Rove is going through will, in all likelihood, happen to Emmanuel.

I am glad that somebody sees my point. Evidently, the hyperpartisans can't, or maybe they just don't want to.
 
John Conyers (D-MI) is issuing subpoenas.. Well thats just fantastic. The irony is just staggering.

Wife of Judiciary Chairman Conyers Pleads Guilty to Bribery


"After initially opposing a sludge contract with Synagro, Mrs. Conyers, after accepting a bribe, became the deciding vote in the city council on a resolution to approve the contract.

Mrs. Conyers faces up to 5 year in prison, three years supervised release and/or a $250,000 fine."

I wonder if he is going to use the Jefferson defense when his supoenas arrive.

i.e. " My bribes did not interfere with my congressional duty".
:lol:


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

You are aware that John Conyers != Monica Conyers, aren't you? Kind unfair to blame him for her problems.
 
Rove has been hiding behind the claim that he is protected by executive privilage and didn't have to testify or even appear before congress when issued a subponea. Obama or anybody in his administration has not even given the hint of doing such a thing.

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?

So are we supposed to talk about possible future actions of President Obama which hasn't even occured yet and may never will?

Or are we supposed to talk about Karl Rove and his attempts to hide behind executive privilage in order to keep from testifying in front of congress?
 
Last edited:
Nope, it's not at matter for the Courts at all, unless you want to perform extra-constitutional jurisprudence (see: lynching, kangaroo court, crime,) as the attorneys all served at the president's pleasure and could have been legally dismissed on the advice of a fortune cookie.
 
You are aware that John Conyers != Monica Conyers, aren't you? Kind unfair to blame him for her problems.

Dude, just don't. It's not even worth the words. He's probably not even aware that the Earth is round and that it revolves around the Sun. He probably thinks that's blasphemous.
 
I also beleive that is what seperates the American Presidential System from Royals.I am an unadulterated supporter of capitalism could care less about mooching royal families.That means whoever pays the check is the one politicians and their staffs as well must be responsible to and since that be me,the American Taxpayer any staff member of the executive must answer the subpoena of congress.Those refusing to do so will be handcuffed and taken straight away to jail and stay there.

The firing of US Attorneys for political shortcomings is against the law.
It is no different than if you fire someone for being black or fat or bald.It is a pretty serious matter to me if that is why they were to be fired.I am in Nevada btw.Corruption here is off the hook.We need more honest Attorneys and less politicos.

To find truth you have to get staffers to come forward about nonsense that went on or is going on.Look at the laws in most states whistleblowers are at a huge disadvantage legally.So few do.Subpoenas provide the cover to testify because you have no choice.

Did the Supreme Court rule on this or did Rove suddenly have a change of heart?
 
Last edited:
It's about the Executive branch being held accountable. Obama promised transparency and he has done quite the opposite. What Rove is going through will, in all likelihood, happen to Emmanuel.

What has Emanuel been accused of doing that is outside the executive's power?
 
What has Emanuel been accused of doing that is outside the executive's power?

It's early on in Obama's Presidency - give it time.
 
It's early on in Obama's Presidency - give it time.

LOL Okay. I thought there was something out there already and I did not know about it.

I personally don't like Emanuel--never have.
 
So do you feel that the executive branch of the Bush administration has been held accountable for the consequences of their actions.

What does Karl Rove being forced to testify have to do with Emmanuel?

Has the Obama Administration been attempting to sheild anybody for anything what so ever?
Scared ****less that Obama is going down the same road? Hehehe, sweat it out bubba. :mrgreen:
 
John Conyers (D-MI) is issuing subpoenas.. Well thats just fantastic. The irony is just staggering.

Wife of Judiciary Chairman Conyers Pleads Guilty to Bribery


"After initially opposing a sludge contract with Synagro, Mrs. Conyers, after accepting a bribe, became the deciding vote in the city council on a resolution to approve the contract.

Mrs. Conyers faces up to 5 year in prison, three years supervised release and/or a $250,000 fine."

I wonder if he is going to use the Jefferson defense when his supoenas arrive.

i.e. " My bribes did not interfere with my congressional duty".
:lol:


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

I started a thread about Mrs Conyers last week, so please feel free to add your 2 cents there.
 
I wonder if this means that there could/will be an investigation into the DoJ for dropping the charges on voter intimidation and Eric Holder, as the head honcho at justice be held accountable?
 
Nope, it's not at matter for the Courts at all, unless you want to perform extra-constitutional jurisprudence (see: lynching, kangaroo court, crime,) as the attorneys all served at the president's pleasure and could have been legally dismissed on the advice of a fortune cookie.

I have heard people saying this before.

Would you provide a link to supporting evidence?

Or is this known by all, and just being ignored?
 
Whether Rove is innocent or guilty is not important here.

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:
 
It took quite a while, but it finally happened. The wheels of justice finally caught up with Karl Rove in the matter of the politically motivated firing of US attorneys, and he testified before a Congressional subcommittee.

Whether Rove is innocent or guilty is not important here. That will be for the courts to determine, IF Rove is indicted for anything. If he is not indicted and convicted, then he is considered innocent. The important point here is that the concept of the unitary presidency has just absorbed a fatal blow. Presidents and their staff ARE subject to Congressional subpoenas, and when called to testify, must do so. The president is not a king, and those who work for him are not royalty who have the right to disobey lawful orders, unlike any other American. Keep that in mind, President Obama.

Article is here.

Do you see any irony in your remarks here; "The wheels of justice finally caught up with Karl Rove" and "Whether Rove is innocent or guilty is not important here"

What wheels of justice could we be talking about? What is happening here is the John Conyers circus of which the entire premise of this partisan political public display in these Congressional hearings is to savage and impugn political opponents. There is no intent to find any criminal complicity but rather an effort to drag political opponents through the court of public opinion with the help of a drive-by media that has willingly removed any pretence for their political preferences.

Unfortunately, the Constitution is the thing that is being abused here in that Rove served at the will of the President and constitutionally does not answer to Congress. In addition, Attorney Generals serve at the will of the President and can be dismissed at ANY time. Unfortunately for Bush, he didn't follow precedent and fire ALL of them, just a select few which then turned this into a political circus where farcical claims were made which cannot be proved and which in the end will be shown as pure political partisan hackery.

I am surprised by anyone who thinks such which hunts are "good" for the nation. It is a frightening precedent we see Democrats engaging in where after victory; the victors spend every waking moment holding hearings intended to impugn their opponents for purely partisan political purposes.

This partisan hackery along with the damage being inflicted on our economy by a party that suggests that “change” means turning this nation into a 3rd world country; one without morals, without regard for private property rights and one who engages in the act of class warfare by pandering to the ignorant masses in an effort to amass political power to their own party.
 
I have heard people saying this before.

Would you provide a link to supporting evidence?

Or is this known by all, and just being ignored?

FACT; the appointment of US Attorneys in and of itself is political. When Presidents come into office, they can remove old ones and appoint new ones at their pleasure. There is nothing that suggests that they HAVE to be a-political and the notion that this is NOT a political process requires the willful suspension of disbelief.

Now whether or not anyone likes the reasons behind the removal of a few politically motivated US attorneys, the FACT remains that they are POLITICAL appointees and only serve the term of the President who appointed them. Other than some changes done to the Patriot Act renewal, that is the REALITY.

United States Attorneys are appointed by, and serve at the discretion of, the President of the United States, with advice and consent of the United States Senate.
The United States Department of Justice - United States Attorneys' Office

How U.S. Attorneys are Appointed
U.S. Attorneys are appointed by the President of the United States for four year terms. Their appointments must be confirmed by a majority vote of the U.S. Senate.

By law, U.S. Attorneys are subject to removal from their posts by the President of the United States.

While most U.S. Attorneys serve full four-year terms, usually corresponding to the terms of the president who appointed them, mid-term vacancies do occur.


About the United States Attorneys
 
It took quite a while, but it finally happened. The wheels of justice finally caught up with Karl Rove in the matter of the politically motivated firing of US attorneys, and he testified before a Congressional subcommittee.




Whether Rove is innocent or guilty is not important here. That will be for the courts to determine, IF Rove is indicted for anything. If he is not indicted and convicted, then he is considered innocent. The important point here is that the concept of the unitary presidency has just absorbed a fatal blow. Presidents and their staff ARE subject to Congressional subpoenas, and when called to testify, must do so. The president is not a king, and those who work for him are not royalty who have the right to disobey lawful orders, unlike any other American. Keep that in mind, President Obama.

Article is here.

Federal Attorneys serve at the discretion of the POTUS case closed the decisions of your kangaroo courts will be overturned by the SCOTUS when and if the time comes.
 
Back
Top Bottom