Lawmaker: Rove involved in U.S. attorney firing

[Liability]

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 ........

Perhaps you should re-read your own words. YOU have already stated that the e-mails DO contradict what Mr. Rove said in that "interview." That is an allegation you just made.

WHAT contradictions do you seem to believe you have spotted?

Perhaps you could explain yourself ........

 

[Liability]

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?

MAybe it's like the time they used the straws to suck the brains out of your pinhead and left nothing inside but the vacuum that now exists

and yet you live anyway ...

 

[Xenophon]

So what? If you break the law, you deserve the consequences. And it doesn't matter (to me) if there is a D or an R behind your name.

This is your sticking point.

No 'law' was broken.

 

[nodoginnafight]

I think that if you advocated an investigation (and prosecution if meritted) of Bill Clinton's false statements, then you really have no choice but to hold Rove to the same standard.

Your arguments to the contrary sound EXACTLY like the pro-Clinton arguments. I rejected them and I reject yours.

 

[nodoginnafight]

No 'law' was broken.

That's not your call.
Are you suggesting we replace our judicial system with message board posters? Of course not. If no law has been broken, then I trust our criminal justice system to make the right call. They don't get it 100% of the time, but their batting average is a whole lot better than message boards.

 

[Xenophon]

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 sound desperate to convict Rove of something, anything...

Only Bush had the authority to fire the attorneys, it doesn't matter what 'emails' or 'testimony' or any other bit of minutia is brought up here, no 'crime' was committed, ergo any 'testimony' is pointless.

That is why this never went anywhere.

 

[nodoginnafight]

You sound desperate to convict Rove of something, anything...

Only Bush had the authority to fire the attorneys, it doesn't matter what 'emails' or 'testimony' or any other bit of minutia is brought up here, no 'crime' was committed, ergo any 'testimony' is pointless.

That is why this never went anywhere.

You sound desperate to aquit Rove.
You are exactly right about one thing. I made a previous post that presumed guilt. I have apologized for that.
But it is not up to you to determine innocence either. Are you man or woman enough to own up and apologize for THAT?
And the special prosecutor who is from Connecticut I believe, has the evidence and who will determine where it goes at this point.

 

[Xenophon]

That's not your call.
Are you suggesting we replace our judicial system with message board posters? Of course not. If no law has been broken, then I trust our criminal justice system to make the right call. They don't get it 100% of the time, but their batting average is a whole lot better than message boards.

You seem desperate.

Its not a 'call' its a fact, only Chimpy could fire the attorneys.

Since the LAW is very clear that he can use ANY reason, there cannot be an underlying crime.

It was bad enough when they did this to Clinton, and now its Bush, is this the new trend, spend money and time trying to 'catch' the previous administrations and stick them in jail because they wern't liked by the current administrations?

 

[Lonestar_logic]

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?

I take that as a "no I can't find where he lied" answer.

Why has no one killed him?
Because you're too much of a coward to kiill anyone.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Don't rake me over the coals for having previously presumed guilt if you are just going to turn around and presume innoce.
That's hypocritical.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Its not a 'call' its a fact, only Chimpy could fire the attorneys.

Since the LAW is very clear that he can use ANY reason, there cannot be an underlying crime.

Lying under oath / obstruction is what the prosecutor is reviewing now. Are you actually reading previous posts because saying this same line over and over is not going to make the false statement/obstruction/perjury issues disappear.

For Rove's sake, I hope he has someone much better to argue his case.

 

[Xenophon]

You sound desperate to convict Rove of something, anything...

Only Bush had the authority to fire the attorneys, it doesn't matter what 'emails' or 'testimony' or any other bit of minutia is brought up here, no 'crime' was committed, ergo any 'testimony' is pointless.

That is why this never went anywhere.

You sound desperate to aquit Rove.
You are exactly right about one thing. I made a previous post that presumed guilt. I have apologized for that.
But it is not up to you to determine innocence either. Are you man or woman enough to own up and apologize for THAT?
And the special prosecutor who is from Connecticut I believe, has the evidence and who will determine where it goes at this point.

I find the attempts to jail the previous admins by the current admins to be extremly distateful.

Since I personally find every government of the USA in my lifetime to have been dishonest and to have not carried out the duties of their offices as intended I see no point in trying to jail a chief of staff for doing what they all do, try to remove people they don't like from postions of power.

Since said removal of the attorneys in this case is 100% to the letter of the law, any time or effort expended here is a wste of time.

I'd much rather see why Rumsfeld investigated for ignoring Jay Gardner's report on Iraq made in the days after the invasion, and why l Paul Brenner was made imperial overlord, which lead to years of strife, confusion and death in Iraq.

THAT would be worth looking into.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Don't rake me over the coals for having previously presumed guilt if you are just going to turn around and presume innoce.
That's hypocritical.

INNOCENCE, PRESUMPTION OF - The indictment or formal charge against any person is not evidence of guilt. Indeed, the person is presumed by the law to be innocent. The law does not require a person to prove his innocence or produce any evidence at all. The Government has the burden of proving a person guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and if it fails to do so the person is (so far as the law is concerned) not guilty.

And Rove hasn't even been indicted.

 

[nodoginnafight]

since a lot of you folks seem to have missed the allegations Rove is facing, here's a summary:

Washington Post: Karl Rove Mischaracterized His Role in Attorney Firings
Posted: 07/30/09Filed Under:Bush Administration, House, Republicans, Crime 89 Comments + Join the discussion »TEXT SIZE:AAAPRINT SHARE When the dust settled after the Bush administration's firing of U.S. attorneys in 2006 that resulted eventually in Attorney General Alberto Gonzales resigning, Karl Rove painted his own role as a middleman who just passed messages along. Now, Rove is delivering testimony on the firings behind closed doors to the House Judiciary Committee, after a protracted legal battle over whether he would need to testify at all. And The Washington Post reports that Rove's role was greater than he previously suggested, according to emails it obtained and interviews with key participants.

Says the Post:

In an hour-long interview with The Post and The New York Times this month, Rove described himself as a 'conduit' of grievances from lawmakers and others about the performance of home-state prosecutors.The interview was conducted on the condition that it not be released until Rove's House testimony concluded. He said he did not recall several events in the timeline because of his busy job and asserted that he had done nothing to influence criminal cases, an allegation by Democrats that has dogged him for years. (Robert) Luskin, Rove's attorney, asserted that "there was never any point where Karl was trying to get a particular prosecution advanced or retarded."
But the Post account says that emails from that period show a more involved role for Rove in the firings, particularly in Arkansas, where Attorney General Bud Cummings was eventually replaced with a former protege of Rove's, Timothy Griffin.

The Post quotes an email from Rove to White House political affairs director Sara Taylor from Feb. 11, 2005: "Give him (Griffin) options. Keep pushing for Justice and let him decide. I want him on the team." The New York Times also reports that another email from Rove to Taylor, sent just two weeks after the first, says again about Griffin, "Hire him."

Information from Rove's private hearings is not set to be released until after the Judiciary Committee wraps up, but, congressional testimony is not the only ongoing effect from the U.S. attorney firings. Special prosecutor Nora Dannehy -- appointed last year to look into the firings -- is still investigating whether any charges should be filed.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Its not a 'call' its a fact, only Chimpy could fire the attorneys.

Since the LAW is very clear that he can use ANY reason, there cannot be an underlying crime.

Lying under oath / obstruction is what the prosecutor is reviewing now. Are you actually reading previous posts because saying this same line over and over is not going to make the false statement/obstruction/perjury issues disappear.

For Rove's sake, I hope he has someone much better to argue his case.

You can not LIE about a NON Crime. Further you may want to actually read the law, one can NOT base an investigation on catching perjury. No actual crime was committed so nothing he said matters at all.

What happened to Libby was also against the law.

 

[Dr.House]

But it is not up to you to determine innocence either.

In this country, all are presumed innocent unless proved guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt...

I find your knowledge of our legal system to be pretty piss poor...

 

[Dr.House]

Don't rake me over the coals for having previously presumed guilt if you are just going to turn around and presume innoce.
That's hypocritical.

You should try to at least learn our legal system... Perhaps you were absent when they discussed "innocent until proved guilty" in class...

 

[Dr.House]

since a lot of you folks seem to have missed the allegations Rove is facing

That and a token will get you on the subway....

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

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.

 

[nodoginnafight]

You can not LIE about a NON Crime.

Really
Then perhaps you could explain the grounds for Clinton's impeachment?