Lawmaker: Rove involved in U.S. attorney firing

[Liability]

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."

So? The President can and does receive advice from any adviser he chooses. Rove did not fire anyone, The President did so, as is his power, FURTHER all the Attorneys concerned had already served the 4 year term and were replaced for his second term. You dumb asses may want to actually read the law and the policy and the facts on who serves and who fires them.

A President could fire the Federal prosecutors cause he had a bad dream, or he hiccuped once to many times, or, well for ANY reason. And the tired old claim that he fired these people for a specific case is simply not borne out by the reality of the office they hold, or the facts in these particular cases. You see numbnuts, the staffs of these Prosecutors are NOT appointed. They are hired by the Justice Department and do not serve at the pleasure of the President, what does that mean? Well retard, that means that all case files and decisions are instantly available to any NEW appointee, safe guarded by a permanent staff unaffected by political appointments.

If you don't stop with all this use of logic, facts and rationality, the Obama Administration might find a special place for you in a Re-Education Camp.

 

[HUGGY]

Jesus Christ is this the latest liberal fad ? Going to message boards claiming to be indepenent or centrist when you're actually a loony left moonbat ? ............

Jesus H. Christ on a pogo stick. Is this the latest neo con refuge? Defending Karl and Dick has become so passe yet so now.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Lawmaker: Rove involved in U.S. attorney firing - More politics- msnbc.com

So? The President can and does receive advice from any adviser he chooses. Rove did not fire anyone, The President did so, as is his power, FURTHER all the Attorneys concerned had already served the 4 year term and were replaced for his second term. You dumb asses may want to actually read the law and the policy and the facts on who serves and who fires them.

A President could fire the Federal prosecutors cause he had a bad dream, or he hiccuped once to many times, or, well for ANY reason. And the tired old claim that he fired these people for a specific case is simply not borne out by the reality of the office they hold, or the facts in these particular cases. You see numbnuts, the staffs of these Prosecutors are NOT appointed. They are hired by the Justice Department and do not serve at the pleasure of the President, what does that mean? Well retard, that means that all case files and decisions are instantly available to any NEW appointee, safe guarded by a permanent staff unaffected by political appointments.

If you don't stop with all this use of logic, facts and rationality, the Obama Administration might find a special place for you in a Re-Education Camp.

So does this mean that you do not favor enforcing laws regardless of political affiliation? If Rove committed perjury, should he face consequences?

You see th issue right now doesn't hinge on whether the firings were proper - it hinges on whether Rove lied - under oath - about his role. Kinda like the Clinton thing didn't hinge on whether he has sex with lewinsky, it hinged on whether or not he lied about it under oath.

Your post seems to indicate that you think either A) Clinton should not have been prosecuted for perjury or B) you think the only people who should be prosecuted for perjury are people you disagree with.

 

[Dr.House]

How about we just stop the stupid, partisan "Gotcha" politics?

Or do the libs want to hold off on that until after Barry's administration is out of office?

We have a shitload of problems to solve now and this stupid shit serves no real value to the American people...

 

[nodoginnafight]

How about we just stop the stupid, partisan "Gotcha" politics?
Or do the libs want to hold off on that until after Barry's administration is out of office? We have a shitload of problems to solve now and this stupid shit serves no real value to the American people...

I don't think we should ever suspend the enforcement of law. No matter WHO is guilty. But Dr.House I appereciate your pulling up this old post that you offered during the Clinton impeachment hearing ........

I would suggest that advocating turning a blind eye to perjury NOW, aftering favoring prosecution of Clinton is partisan.

 

[Liability]

* * * *


So does this mean that you do not favor enforcing laws regardless of political affiliation? If Rove committed perjury, should he face consequences?

You see th issue right now doesn't hinge on whether the firings were proper - it hinges on whether Rove lied - under oath - about his role. Kinda like the Clinton thing didn't hinge on whether he has sex with lewinsky, it hinged on whether or not he lied about it under oath.

Your post seems to indicate that you think either A) Clinton should not have been prosecuted for perjury or B) you think the only people who should be prosecuted for perjury are people you disagree with.

IF he committed perjury? IF?

Show me.

The issue hinges exclusively on whether the firings were proper. And until the day comes (and I doubt it ever will) where YOU can demonstrate ANY rational basis to worry about Mr. Rove having lied under oath, then that whole side-show is of no importance or significance whatsoever.

Disgraced and impeached former President Clinton, to my knowledge, did not commit perjury. He did, however, lie under oath. There IS a difference, you know.

Anyone who lies under oath on a material fact may properly get prosecuted for perjury.

Many times, however, such prosecutions are rightly seen as too petty to take-on.

That kind of prosecutorial discretion has its place, too.

 

[nodoginnafight]

IF he committed perjury? IF? Show me.

I believe the special prosecutor is reviewing the documents now - I'd prefer for the proper legal authority to have their look-see and make their determinations, adjudications as the law prescribes. The testimony and emails that were produced during the congressional hearings certainly appear to contradict his sworn testimony, but that's up to the prosecutor first and then, if the prosecutor decides, the judge/jury.

Disgraced and impeached former President Clinton, to my knowledge, did not commit perjury. He did, however, lie under oath. There IS a difference, you know.

Yes, I understand the legal distinction but in common useage I interchange - my apologies.

(worth noting that "disgraced" former president left office with the second highest exit approval rating of any president since they began recording those things. That runs contrary to my own personal disapproval of him, but apparently a remarkable number of people disagree with me on that one.

But we'll have to wait and see what the prosecutor decides.

I hope that whatever decisions are reached are reached because of legal considerations, not political considerations and I support enforcing laws regardless of party affiliation. I'm disappointed that those positions provoke such anger, but that's life I guess.

 

[Dr.House]

I don't think we should ever suspend the enforcement of law. No matter WHO is guilty. But Dr.House I appereciate your pulling up this old post that you offered during the Clinton impeachment hearing ........

I would suggest that advocating turning a blind eye to perjury NOW, aftering favoring prosecution of Clinton is partisan.

Well, at least we know that you're of the "..bu, bu, but what about Clinton." partisan hackery philosophy...

What law has Rove broken? At this point you are only presuming guilt using a PMSNBC article which says that Rove was "deeply involved in attorney firings"... Are you ready to go to trial with this damning evidence, counselor?

 

[Lonestar_logic]

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."

You can read all the transcripts here.

Worth Noting :: Karl Rove

 

[nodoginnafight]

What law has Rove broken? At this point you are only presuming guilt using a PMSNBC article which says that Rove was "deeply involved in attorney firings"... Are you ready to go to trial with this damning evidence, counselor?

actually as I understand the legal process on this as it stands now is that the special prosecutor is reviewing Rove's emails that contradict his sworn testimony, so it's obstruction of justice, perjury, making false statements

has nothing to do with his role in the firings - it has everything thing to do with (at this point) whether or not he lied under oath about it.
Same thing they nailed Clinton for. (And deservedly so imho)

So no one is taking anything to court yet. That's yet to be determined if the prosecutor feels there is a case to be made. I have no idea if he has broken any laws - that's what courts decide, not me.

Again, I wonder why some folks feel the need to try to demean and insult someone because they advocate enforcing laws regardless of political affiliation.

 

[nodoginnafight]

oh and as I understand it the prosecutor is examining more evidence than the hearings included.

a congressional hearing - imho - is just a political event, not a legal one. The only possible drawbacks are if he lied under oath.

That's my understanding

 

[Lonestar_logic]

I welcome the release of my House Judiciary Committee interviews and accompanying documents. They show politics played no role in the Bush Administration’s removal of U.S. Attorneys, that I never sought to influence the conduct of any prosecution, and that I played no role in deciding which US attorneys were retained and which replaced.

The transcript’s release follows two years of false accusations and partisan innuendoes made by Governor Siegelman and Judiciary Committee Democrats. These have proved utterly groundless.

Rather than relying on partisans selectively quoting testimony or excerpting email messages, I urge anyone interested to review the documents in their entirety. They speak for themselves. - Karl Rove-

Worth Noting :: Karl Rove

 

[Dr.House]

actually as I understand the legal process on this as it stands now is that the special prosecutor is reviewing Rove's emails that contradict his sworn testimony, so it's obstruction of justice, perjury, making false statements.

There has been no evidence presented that anything released is in contradiction to any testimony given under oath...

If you have any, please share it with the class...

What you are doing now is presuming guilt... Thankfully, our legal system works differently...

 

[Liability]

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."

You can read all the transcripts here.

Worth Noting :: Karl Rove

That was a cool "Worth Noting" link.

Click on the pdf for what Mr. Rove said in his "interview" before Congress and what do you immediately NOT observe?

Speaking for me, I see NO "oath or affirmation."

It would be a fascinating effort, then, to lodge some kind of perjury charge against Mr. Rove considering that his little interview conversation does not appear to be dishonest in the first place and, even if it were untuthful, it isn't (it seems) sworn testimony.

The Democrat Parody smear-merchants are gonna have to reach much deeper.

EDIT:

Actually, reading a bit deeper into it, I find that Mr. Rove does provide his statements under terms and conditions that WOULD make intentionally false statements subject to criminal prosecution.

 

[Liability]

oh and as I understand it the prosecutor is examining more evidence than the hearings included.

a congressional hearing - imho - is just a political event, not a legal one. The only possible drawbacks are if he lied under oath.

That's my understanding

When did he TESTIFY under OATH to Congress exactly?

Linky?

 

[Lonestar_logic]

That doesn't apply here, its exactly what it looks like, a fishing expedition. Bush would have to testify about what they said and wanted and he never will.

What are you saying - that perjury doesn't apply here? Why not? He made false statements under oath and that has been confirmed by his own emails.

What has Bush got to do with it?

Don't you believe in enforcing the law? Or do you only believe in enforcing the law when one of your political opponents is at fault?

You have the emails and you have the transcripts.(link in previous thread) Now point out where Rove lied.

 

[nodoginnafight]

There has been no evidence presented that anything released is in contradiction to any testimony given under oath... If you have any, please share it with the class... What you are doing now is presuming guilt... Thankfully, our legal system works differently...

If you can find a single one of my posts that presumes guilt, I would be very happy for you to show it to me so I can apologize to all.

The prosecutor has the evidence and is reviewing it. (I apologize if she has not made all that available to you, but I'm afraid I have little influence in correcting that.) She will determine if she feels she has a case to pursue and if so, a judge and/or jury will decide the issue. As it should be.

My posts have called enforcing the law without political consideration.

I don't know why that prompts you to so mischarecterize me and my positions. Perhaps you could explain yourself ........

 

[HUGGY]

That doesn't apply here, its exactly what it looks like, a fishing expedition. Bush would have to testify about what they said and wanted and he never will.

What are you saying - that perjury doesn't apply here? Why not? He made false statements under oath and that has been confirmed by his own emails.

What has Bush got to do with it?

Don't you believe in enforcing the law? Or do you only believe in enforcing the law when one of your political opponents is at fault?

You have the emails and you have the transcripts.(link in previous thread) Now point out where Rove lied.

Rove sent out a push pole in North Carolina asking if you would vote for John McCain in the 2000 presidential primary if you knew he fathered a black baby and that his wife was addicted to pain killers.

This fact can easily be refferenced. How would you catagorise that action?

Rove is a sack of liquid shit. Why has no one killed him?

 

[Dr.House]

That doesn't apply here, its exactly what it looks like, a fishing expedition. Bush would have to testify about what they said and wanted and he never will.

What are you saying - that perjury doesn't apply here? Why not? He made false statements under oath and that has been confirmed by his own emails.

What has Bush got to do with it?

Don't you believe in enforcing the law? Or do you only believe in enforcing the law when one of your political opponents is at fault?

The bolded part, IMHO, presumes guilt... You are jumping to conclusions on what you preceive to be facts, not actual facts...

 

[nodoginnafight]

He made false statements under oath and that has been confirmed by his own emails.

Excellent catch thank you very much - that posts DOES presume guilt and I apologize. It is not my intention to try the guy on message boards. There are those a lot more qualified to do the job if it is indeed necessary.

I Apologize to all.