Lawmaker: Rove involved in U.S. attorney firing

[nodoginnafight]

Well, all's wel now that the unions, AIG, Goldman Sachs and Rahm Emanuel are running things.
No worries.

Good point, but I think that's better than having Bush, Rove, Cheney, and Halliburton calling the shots.

 

[jillian]

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?

 

[G.T.]

I read that already - 3 days from now....

This is intriguing stuff to me, really. It can also drive you banannas, though. If time travel is possible, I only feel like forward will be possible because I doubt that the past is still happening. I just feel like what's done is done.

But if past time travel were true, two things I've heard:

#1. Where are the time traveler's from the future, now, when we've cracked the "code?"

Or two, I've also heard that "until" it's possible, there will be noone coming from the "future" because the time-line we're on is true to its own advancement. stuff.

 

[nodoginnafight]

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?

But no matter where you stand on the "were the firings correct" doesn't change the fact that lying under oath is a crime.
Instead of trying to defend the firings (moot point in terms of the legal troubles Rove is facing right now) I'd like to hear someone defend Rove's right to lie under oath because THAT is what he may be facing prosecution for now.

The evidence seems pretty clear to me right now that he did - but I thought the same thing in the O.J. Simpson murder trial.
So who knows .......

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Saying that the number of people who self identify with a particular party is connected to the TYPE of people, or the deomographics of the people who are identifying with that party is obviously not true

Could you possibly make less sense?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Good point, but I think that's better than having Bush, Rove, Cheney, and Halliburton calling the shots.

Soooo, just how long have you been a brain dead fucktard??

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Time for NoBraininafight to change the foil in his hat.

 

[Dr.House]

The evidence seems pretty clear to me right now that he did

What evidence?

Links would be appreciated...

 

[nodoginnafight]

The evidence seems pretty clear to me right now that he didQUOTE]

What evidence?

Links would be appreciated...

I thought I wasn't worth your time hypocrite?
Links already provided in THIS thread

 

[nodoginnafight]

Saying that the number of people who self identify with a particular party is connected to the TYPE of people, or the deomographics of the people who are identifying with that party is obviously not true

Could you possibly make less sense?

Is it surprising to me that a person who tries to substitute vulgarities for valid arguments couldn't follow along?
Nope.

 

[Dr.House]

I thought I wasn't worth your time hypocrite?

No, I said adding the "opinion" suffix is not worth my time, shit4brains...

You really have comprehension issues...

Links already provided in THIS thread

Nothing you have posted is evidence that Rove committed crime... (That is a FACT)

Epic Fail...

 

[nodoginnafight]

I thought I wasn't worth your time hypocrite?

No, I said adding the "opinion" suffix is not worth my time, shit4brains...

You really have comprehension issues...

Links already provided in THIS thread

Nothing you have posted is evidence that Rove committed crime... (That is a FACT)

Epic Fail...

That call will be made by someone far less hypocritical than you.
Oh, and you are lying yet again.
you said:

To be honest, I have found you're really not worth the effort

If you want to keep digging yourself deeper - be my guest - I'm getting a kick out watching a dishonest, vulgar hypocrite twist in the wind.

 

[Liability]

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

^ conveniently ignored...

Sorry for the delay - lot's of folks taking lots of shot. I had to ration my time. But My position is that the presuption of innocence doesn't include a presumption of aquittal. It sets a legal standard for prosecution.

Actually, the presumption of innocence DOES pretty much include a "presumption of acquittal" IF the GUBMINT cannot overcome the presumption of innocence by evidence amounting to proof beyond a reasonable doubt. If the GUBMINT brings criminal charges against a person and offers no evidence in support of that set of charges, then as to each count, the verdict MUST be NOT GUILTY. OR, if the GUBMINT brings criminal charges against a person and offers no SUFFICIENT evidence in support of that set of charges, then as to each count, the verdict MUST be NOT GUILTY.

 

[nodoginnafight]

^ conveniently ignored...

Sorry for the delay - lot's of folks taking lots of shot. I had to ration my time. But My position is that the presuption of innocence doesn't include a presumption of aquittal. It sets a legal standard for prosecution.

Actually, the presumption of innocence DOES pretty much include a "presumption of acquittal" IF the GUBMINT cannot overcome the presumption of innocence by evidence amounting to proof beyond a reasonable doubt. If the GUBMINT brings criminal charges against a person and offers no evidence in support of that set of charges, then as to each count, the verdict MUST be NOT GUILTY. OR, if the GUBMINT brings criminal charges against a person and offers no SUFFICIENT evidence in support of that set of charges, then as to each count, the verdict MUST be NOT GUILTY.

I appreciate you're attempt to bail this guy out - God knows he needs some help. But we're past that part right now. He claims the "He committed no crime" statement was just a expression of his opinion and not an attempt make a definitive statement about guilt or innocence.

 

[Dr.House]

If you want to keep digging yourself deeper - be my guest - I'm getting a kick out watching a dishonest, vulgar hypocrite twist in the wind.

Context is verything...

Another concept you fail at understanding...

I understand why you play these word games... You can't back up the shit you said about Rove and now you're down to playing stupid word games...

Where is your evidence of Rove's guilt? You have NOT provided it as you say you have...

Please do so or admit that you can't...

 

[nodoginnafight]

If you want to keep digging yourself deeper - be my guest - I'm getting a kick out watching a dishonest, vulgar hypocrite twist in the wind.

Context is verything...

Another concept you fail at understanding...

I understand why you play these word games... You can't back up the shit you said about Rove and now you're down to playing stupid word games...

Where is your evidence of Rove's guilt? You have NOT provided it as you say you have...

Please do so or admit that you can't...

I already have - the fact that you denounce it means absolutely nothing to me - I doubt you even read it. Doesn't matter to me one way or another.

You've been caught lying, being hypocritical, being vulgar, and apparently now you're trying to add obtuse .....

feel free - in the United States of America you are free to dig yourself in as deep as you'd like. Please feel free to exercise that right even more.

 

[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.

 

[Liability]

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?

Not quite correct. The President can fire them for ANY reason or for no reason at all.

That is NOT the same thing as "a president can fire a US Attorney for almost any reason". There is no "almost" involved. The authority is absolute and unconstrained by ANYTHING whatsoever.

He can fire a female US Attorney because he (a President) is a sexist pig and doesn't like female prosecutors. He can fire one because the US Attorney is white and the President is a racist pig. He can fire one becuase somebody said that the US Attorney in question farted in Church. HE can fire one for no stated reason. He can fire one for no actual reason whatsoever. He can fire one for a nefarious reason.

It might be that if he fires one for a nefarious reason the President could, theoretically, be investigated for engaging in something sinister underlying the firing. Accordingly, if he fires a white US Attorney because he (the President) is a racist, the President could be "investigated" for some alleged violation of anti-discrimination laws. But that has no bearing on whether he can fire the US Attorney in the first place. He can.

 

[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...

 

[nodoginnafight]

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.)