Lawmaker: Rove involved in U.S. attorney firing

[nodoginnafight]

I understand Rove has vowed to spend the rest of his life searching the person who REALLY lied under oath about his role in the firings.

...... it's interesting to see how people react when, in the middle of an argument, they realize they are wrong. I see you opt for vulgar name-calling.

 

[Dr.House]

Noticing your stupidity has made me realize I should now probably suffix my posts with "(that was an opinion for any lib too dumb to realize)"... To be honest, I have found you're really not worth the effort, so you will just have to go on wondering if it was a fact or opinion on your own...

Here's my words in context, since shit4brains likes to snip out bits and peices like a liberal media reporter...


Context proves you to be a lying idiot, shit4brains...

Your childish games are so amatuer...

(Bold added by me - yes that bold that clearly documents he said I was not worth the effort. The fact that he later tried to claim he said something else is just one more obvious lie.)

It's become obvious that the English language is not one of your strengths, shit4brains... The context I provided shows I quite clearly referenced the suffix mentioned in the prior sentence (bolded because you're obviously too dumb to see it)... Shit4brains likes to play word games, but has failed miserably here...

Back to school, shit4brains...

 

[nodoginnafight]

I don't think your making much headway on this "rehabilitate my battered reputation" campaign. But feel free to keep embarassing yourself even more in the laughable attempt.

Ok, I think this guy is sufficiently dispatched.

Anyone else wanna talk about why prosecuting someone for lying under oath was all well and good when it was Clinton and NOT when it is Rove?

 

[Liability]

I don't think your making much headway on this "rehabilitate my battered reputation" campaign. But feel free to keep embarassing yourself even more in the laughable attempt.

Ok, I think this guy is sufficiently dispatched.

Anyone else wanna talk about why prosecuting someone for lying under oath was all well and good when it was Clinton and NOT when it is Rove?

Newsflash:

Everyone sensible is laughing AT you nobrainsinthedebate.

Your username is clearly dishonest. For someone with allegedly no dog in the fight, you seem awfully vested in the fight.

Your arguments are terribly flawed.

The refutations have undercut what little vestige you might have once had of any hope of acquiring even a hint of credibility.

Clinton lied in a COURT proceeding. And it's not a question. He did lie and it was in a Court proceeding and under oath. It MIGHT have evaded amounting to perjury only by the fortuitous quirk that his lie was arguably not "material" to that Court dispute.

Mr. Rove has not even been demonstrated to have lied.

Next?

 

[nodoginnafight]

A document dump this week from the House Judiciary Committee’s long-running probe into the 2006 firing of nine U.S. attorneys has exposed a stark disagreement in the stories told by former White House aide Karl Rove and former Rep. Heather Wilson (R-N.M.).


Rove says Wilson pushed the White House to fire New Mexico’s then-U.S. attorney, David Iglesias, before the Nov. 2006 election because he wasn’t moving fast enough on a corruption case involving New Mexico Democrats.


Wilson said she did no such thing, insisting that she only spoke to Rove once about Iglesias, and that was following the 2006 election at a White House breakfast.


The ex-lawmaker also said she never mentioned a New Mexico courthouse corruption investigation in her discussion with Rove, a statement that is at odds with the testimony Rove provided to the House Judiciary Committee.



Read more: Karl Rove testimony contradicts former Rep. Heather Wilson's - John Bresnahan and Josh Gerstein - POLITICO.com


Your failure to justify selective prosecution is very telling ....

NEXT

 

[nodoginnafight]

Amazing to me that folks who obviously are so poorly versed in the particulars of this case - want to make people they believe they are qualified to declare the outcome of the investigation that is still under way.

 

[Liability]

A document dump this week from the House Judiciary Committee’s long-running probe into the 2006 firing of nine U.S. attorneys has exposed a stark disagreement in the stories told by former White House aide Karl Rove and former Rep. Heather Wilson (R-N.M.).


Rove says Wilson pushed the White House to fire New Mexico’s then-U.S. attorney, David Iglesias, before the Nov. 2006 election because he wasn’t moving fast enough on a corruption case involving New Mexico Democrats.


Wilson said she did no such thing, insisting that she only spoke to Rove once about Iglesias, and that was following the 2006 election at a White House breakfast.


The ex-lawmaker also said she never mentioned a New Mexico courthouse corruption investigation in her discussion with Rove, a statement that is at odds with the testimony Rove provided to the House Judiciary Committee.



Read more: Karl Rove testimony contradicts former Rep. Heather Wilson's - John Bresnahan and Josh Gerstein - POLITICO.com


Your failure to justify selective prosecution is very telling ....

NEXT

Why would I wish to justify selective prosecution? I am opposed to selective prosecution.

Secondly, any disagreement between Mr. Rove and Rep. Wilson's "recollections" do NOT necessarily and automatically qualify as grounds for a prosecution in ANY EVENT.

Thirdly, if a prosecution were to be based on the differences in their respective recollections, why would it be Mr. Rove who gets the short end of that stick? Why not prosecute Rep. Wilson for lying?

What's that you say? There's no proof that she is the one who's recollection is faulty? Oh. Ok. Then what evidence is there that it was Mr. Rove who suffered the faulty recollection?

And is there not a difference in your universe between a faulty memory and a deliberate lie? Wouldn't the latter be the thing that is needed for a prosecution for perjury or lying to Congress?

I see you stand EVER at the ready to offer your PREJUDGMENT AGAINST Mr. Rove. I elect, instead, to accord him the presumption of innocence at this juncture. Thankfully, in doing that, the law takes my side.

Next?

 

[Liability]

Amazing to me that folks who obviously are so poorly versed in the particulars of this case - want to make people they believe they are qualified to declare the outcome of the investigation that is still under way.

I agree. You really should therefore heed your own advice and refrain from such arrogant prejudgment.

 

[nodoginnafight]

I agree. You really should therefore heed your own advice and refrain from such arrogant prejudgment.

The difference being I am familiar with the case .....


well, it's been humorous gentleman, but I gotta go. Now you're free to lie, be hypocritical, be vulgar, and be obtuse without anyone to call you on it.

I'm guessing you really need the break.

 

[Liability]

I agree. You really should therefore heed your own advice and refrain from such arrogant prejudgment.

The difference being I am familiar with the case .....


well, it's been humorous gentleman, but I gotta go. Now you're free to lie, be hypocritical, be vulgar, and be obtuse without anyone to call you on it.

I'm guessing you really need the break.

Evidently, no. You are either NOT "familiar" with the case, or you are substituting your presuppositions for facts, or you are merely lying outright.

Again, as I asked you just yesterday, feel obligated to point out even ONE "lie" uttered by Mr. Rove relative to this non-story.

Your paltry and typically failed effort to deflect is noted, but remains unsophisticated and unpersuasive.

When (if) you return, let's just leave this one HANGING OUT like a big fat pitch for you to whiff at (again):

feel obligated to point out even ONE "lie" uttered by Mr. Rove relative to this non-story.

I'm confident that -- once again -- you will prove yourself to be NOT even remotely up to the task.

 

[Dr.House]

Amazing to me that folks who obviously are so poorly versed in the particulars of this case - want to make people they believe they are qualified to declare the outcome of the investigation that is still under way.

I agree. You really should therefore heed your own advice and refrain from such arrogant prejudgment.

lol - he's a legend in his own mind...


"well versed in the case" translates to "he read an opinion piece about it on PMSNBC and some liberal blogs"...

This guy is a laugh riot...

 

[skookerasbil]

Amazing to me that folks who obviously are so poorly versed in the particulars of this case - want to make people they believe they are qualified to declare the outcome of the investigation that is still under way.

as Ive said..........NOBODY CARES s0n!!! Its a big yawn for everybody except the k00ks..........

 

[Xenophon]

Why do so many people have a problem with the Constitution? The President didn't need Congress' approval or anybody else, when he fired the Attorney Generals. Clinton did the same thing. If I remember right, he fired them all. I don't remember the self-professed left crying out in the dark of night about it.

This is a tired and worn out partisan gotcha game. The only people drooling over this scenario are the political whores in Washington, and the partisan hacks who agree with the empty rhetoric.

perhaps you don't understand the ethical constraints involved. while a president can fire a US Attorney for almost any reason, he CAN'T fire them for not acting as the enforcement arm of a political party.

does that help?

It would help if it was true, but its not.

Once again, a POTUS can fire them FOR ANY REASON OR NO REASON.

 

[garyd]

No perjury involved.

 

[Liability]

No perjury involved.

We can start with a smaller premise.

If "perjury" is a lie under oath where the "lie" is about a "material" issue in the proceeding, then at the VERY VERY LEAST, a "lie" is a required condition for any rational "perjury" charge.

So, until and unless one of these Rove-hating lib kooks can point out an actual lie (not just a statement made by Mr. Rove with which they disagree or about which some other person offered some contradiction), then it seems fair to simply say:

There is no LIE involved.

If they want to CLAIM that Mr. Rove "lied," the burden is entirely on them to prove it up.

WHAT did he lie about supposedly?

How do they intend to establish that Mr. Rove's version of that event (or incident or thing) is the inentionally false account?

 

[garyd]

Well said.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

lawmaker: Rove involved in u.s. Attorney firing - more politics- msnbc.com

washington - former white house political adviser karl rove was deeply involved in the firing of a u.s. Attorney in new mexico, according to white house e-mails and transcripts of closed-door testimony released tuesday.

The house judiciary committee released more than 5,400 pages of white house and republican national committee e-mails, along with transcripts of closed-door testimony by rove and former white house counsel harriet miers.

The documents show that staffers in rove's office were actively seeking to have u.s. Attorney david iglesias removed. In one e-mail in 2005, rove aide scott jennings sent an e-mail to another rove aide, saying, "i would really like to move forward with getting rid of nm us atty."

woooooooooooooooopty fricken doooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!