• 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

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.

I don't think Danahrea is taking a side. He's only saying that he's glad that someone isn't getting away with being above the law.
 
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?

Um do you know how the Executive branch of the Federal Government works? The POTUS can hire or fire anyone within the Executive Branch and Federal Attorneys are a part of the Executive Branch. Think of it like a business where the POTUS is the chairmen of the board.
 
I don't think Danahrea is taking a side. He's only saying that he's glad that someone isn't getting away with being above the law.

What law? Federal Attorneys serve at the discretion of the POTUS. The only law that I see being violated here is the separation of powers.
 
What law? Federal Attorneys serve at the discretion of the POTUS. The only law that I see being violated here is the separation of powers.

I agree that Rove didn't do a damn thing wrong. Therefore, after this dog-n-pony show is over, he'll be left alone, until the Libbos find some other silly reason to dipose him.
 
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.

has he done the opposite because you haven't done your homework and are believing what you are told? I think so. Of all the presidents I have lived through, he is the most forthright and open president I have ever witnessed. Just because you don't like him doesn't mean he isn't being as transparent as his office allows.
 
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:

Although it is true that attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president, when they are dismissed because they are selectively prosecuting some, and turning a blind eye to others, based on political party membership, the line from legality to criminal conduct is crossed, and that is what the Congressional hearings are all about - Was a crime committed by anybody in Bush's cabinet, or on his staff, in regard to politically motivated prosecutions, and the fired attorneys' refusal to engage in them?

To make such a sweeping generalization by itself, without consideration of the circumstances involved, is highly unethical, if not downright dishonest.
 
Last edited:
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.

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.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/us-po...estigating-supporter-breaks-law-doing-so.html

:2wave:
 
has he done the opposite because you haven't done your homework and are believing what you are told? I think so. Of all the presidents I have lived through, he is the most forthright and open president I have ever witnessed. Just because you don't like him doesn't mean he isn't being as transparent as his office allows.

Wait a second. He has done the opposite because I haven't done my homework? Where is the transparency with the czars? Why is he refusing to release the list of WH visitors? Why is he shoving bills through Congress and not allowing enough time for them to read them? Why is he signing bills before giving the public time to read them first (as he promised in his campaign)? More transparent my ass!

And for full disclosure, I don't think McCain would be much different and I didn't like McCain either. But the difference is that Obama ran on a platform of transparency and he is failing miserably.
 
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.

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.

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting).

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.
 
What law?
From the memo:

http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/documents/contempt_memo_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."
 
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."

Good lord, I would have thought it would have been more balanced than that. :shock: I wonder if they have numbers for other Presidencies?
 
Although it is true that attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president, when they are dismissed because they are selectively prosecuting some, and turning a blind eye to others, based on political party membership, the line from legality to criminal conduct is crossed, and that is what the Congressional hearings are all about - Was a crime committed by anybody in Bush's cabinet, or on his staff, in regard to politically motivated prosecutions, and the fired attorneys' refusal to engage in them?

To make such a sweeping generalization by itself, without consideration of the circumstances involved, is highly unethical, if not downright dishonest.

lol if this were the case then why wouldn't he have just fired all of the Federal Attorneys at the beginning and just hired all new loyal sycophants? And sometimes the POTUS should fire federal attorneys that won't go after people and/or are going after people for political reasons which is the inverse of what you suggested and happens a lot more often. Has William Jefferson been prosecuted yet?
 
Last edited:
From the memo:

http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/documents/contempt_memo_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)

What criminal case?

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)

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

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)."

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. And I've yet to see evidence for these secret agreements between the AG's who were hired to replace those who were fired.

"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."

"They Identified"?

A) Who is "they".

B) What is the actual total of firings?
 
"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."

:rofl In other words, Democrats are seven times more likely to be corrupt than their counterparts.

Thank you for that clarification.
 
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?
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.
 
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? :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.
 
From the memo:

http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/documents/contempt_memo_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. :rofl

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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.


Akyron said:
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.
 
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."

:rofl


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.
 
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:

Uhh those standards only apply to slick willie sir......
 
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.
 
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?
 
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....:shock:


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.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom