House Subpoenas Rove

[JimH52]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080522/ap_on_go_co/rove_subpoena

 

[rayboyusmc]

Good. Now if he doesn't appear they issue an "inherent contempt" charge. Then he can be picked up and put in jail until he decides to talk.

Why is it that none of these Bush folks can be asked to be sworn in and speak under oath? What are they afraid of?

I will come and talk, but you can't swear me in and you can't record what I say. What a crock of crap.

Are they concerned that they might Clinton themselves if sworn in?

When Bush appeared before them, he brought unka Dick with him. They set the same bullshit conditions.

 

[jillian]

Well, they know what *they* did to Clinton and what they used it for.

 

[nibor]

Good. Now if he doesn't appear they issue an "inherent contempt" charge. Then he can be picked up and put in jail until he decides to talk.

Why is it that none of these Bush folks can be asked to be sworn in and speak under oath? What are they afraid of?

I will come and talk, but you can't swear me in and you can't record what I say. What a crock of crap.

Are they concerned that they might Clinton themselves if sworn in?

When Bush appeared before them, he brought unka Dick with him. They set the same bullshit conditions.

Better watch this.....................http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/327.html

 

[maneal]

Ok, so why won't the Democratic Leadership let this go? The President has the privilege of hiring and firing in this area.

The Democrats NEVER mention why Former President William J. Clinton (D) fired all 93 US Attorney's in March of 1993. No reason was given, other than the Former President wanted new ones.

However, when President George Bush (R) fired 9 US Attorney's for the same reasons given, all of a sudden there is wrong-doing. Dems want hearings. Dems want justice. The "Blame George Bush" crowd is beating a dead horse here. There is no reason the Democrats need to know any more information. The President was unhappy with those people, and DID HIS JOB by firing people and getting new ones.

Now, about Gov. Don Siegelman. He was corrupt. The affidavits given on what Rove said about this issue have more holes in them than swiss cheese. There are quotes like "I was misquoted" or "You took it the wrong way" or "He may or may not have said that." Siegelman was found to be corrupt. The Investigation into his corruption was launched in 1999 by the Clinton Administration anyway. Why do we keep going back to this stuff?

If you cant figure out why congress's approval ratings are some of the lowest in history, here is one of the reasons why..... unwarrented investigations into nothing to make Republicans look guilty of nothing....

Sad, really.

 

[jillian]

What's sad is that you can't understand the difference between every president asking for the resignations of all attorneys general upon coming into office... and firing specific attorneys general because they won't use their job to advance the purposes of a political party's electoral agenda.

That's why.

 

[mattskramer]

Good luck. The Bush administration has been ridiculously secretive.

Bottom line: If you have done nothing illegal or unethical, then you have nothing to worry about.

 

[maneal]

What's sad is that you can't understand the difference between every president asking for the resignations of all attorneys general upon coming into office... and firing specific attorneys general because they won't use their job to advance the purposes of a political party's electoral agenda.

That's why.

Why did Mr. Clinton wait until March? He found that the Attorney's Bush Sr and Regan appointed were not to his liking.

There is no issue here. I don't ask why Clinton fired them. I don't ask why President Bush fired them. They are all part of the President's administration and it is the President's job to make sure those people are doing their jobs according to Constitutional or Lawful guidelines.

The Democratic Run Congress is out to investigate nothing and waste a lot of money and time. The Administration is doing the nation a favor by telling them no, they are saving money and time that the Dem's would waste otherwise.

There is nothing to hide here. The only reason this is an issue is because Democrats said something, unlike when Clinton fired them, there was silence.

Neither of them did anything wrong in this situation.

 

[Gunny]

Why did Mr. Clinton wait until March? He found that the Attorney's Bush Sr and Regan appointed were not to his liking.

There is no issue here. I don't ask why Clinton fired them. I don't ask why President Bush fired them. They are all part of the President's administration and it is the President's job to make sure those people are doing their jobs according to Constitutional or Lawful guidelines.

The Democratic Run Congress is out to investigate nothing and waste a lot of money and time. The Administration is doing the nation a favor by telling them no, they are saving money and time that the Dem's would waste otherwise.

There is nothing to hide here. The only reason this is an issue is because Democrats said something, unlike when Clinton fired them, there was silence.

Neither of them did anything wrong in this situation.

In layman's terms, it's just more partisan witchhunting. It really doesn't matter what anyone before Bush did. All that matters is slinging crap against the wall in hopes something will stick.

I wouldn't care if Congress held me in contempt of Congress. At least they'd have gotten something right for once.

 

[Larkinn]

The difference is firing US attorneys for prosecuting Republicans and not for prosecuting Democrats. They serve at "the pleasure of the president", but its not acceptable for the president to direct them who to prosecute based on the political affiliation of the individual under investigation.

By the way Maneal, you got some of your facts wrong.

Clinton didn't fire the US attorneys. They resigned, as they always do, at the beginning of a presidents term. Firing them in the middle of the term for SPECIFIC decisions is unprecedented.

Also, Clinton didn't keep the attorney's because it is tradition to get new ones at the beginning of each new administration.

Bush fired people HE himself had hired. And why? Its obviously NOT the same as Clinton's reasons. In fact Bush gave a series of reasons that were contradictory. That and a series of administration officials ended up resigning over the incident.

Maneal, you said its the president's responsibility to make sure they are doing their job? Tell me how they were failing at their job. Many of them had stellar job performance records. How exactly were they failing?

Saying that this was the same as Clinton's US attorneys is pure ignorance.

 

[maneal]

The difference is firing US attorneys for prosecuting Republicans and not for prosecuting Democrats. They serve at "the pleasure of the president", but its not acceptable for the president to direct them who to prosecute based on the political affiliation of the individual under investigation.

By the way Maneal, you got some of your facts wrong.

Clinton didn't fire the US attorneys. They resigned, as they always do, at the beginning of a presidents term. Firing them in the middle of the term for SPECIFIC decisions is unprecedented.

Also, Clinton didn't keep the attorney's because it is tradition to get new ones at the beginning of each new administration.

Bush fired people HE himself had hired. And why? Its obviously NOT the same as Clinton's reasons. In fact Bush gave a series of reasons that were contradictory. That and a series of administration officials ended up resigning over the incident.

Maneal, you said its the president's responsibility to make sure they are doing their job? Tell me how they were failing at their job. Many of them had stellar job performance records. How exactly were they failing?

Saying that this was the same as Clinton's US attorneys is pure ignorance.

I would have to say some of this is incorrect.

Yes, Bush did hire the Attorneys that were fired. They were not doing their job properly. Bush's fault for hiring them in the first place.

However, Clinton FIRED all of the attorneys. Here are the FACTS. Clinton fired them in March 2003, 3 months into his first term. The resignations occur the day or days earlier than the new President taking office. Since the resignations were given long before the dismissal, it shows that the Attorneys were told to stay put, making their resignations void. Then 3 months later, he asks them to leave. That means he FIRED them, or ASKED them to resign then (which is the same as firing when it is a forced resignation).

The timetable and common sense proves my original point.

 

[jillian]

I would have to say some of this is incorrect.

Yes, Bush did hire the Attorneys that were fired. They were not doing their job properly. Bush's fault for hiring them in the first place.

However, Clinton FIRED all of the attorneys. Here are the FACTS. Clinton fired them in March 2003, 3 months into his first term. The resignations occur the day or days earlier than the new President taking office. Since the resignations were given long before the dismissal, it shows that the Attorneys were told to stay put, making their resignations void. Then 3 months later, he asks them to leave. That means he FIRED them, or ASKED them to resign then (which is the same as firing when it is a forced resignation).

The timetable and common sense proves my original point.

Are you being intentionally obtuse? Or are you really not understanding what happened here?

 

[maneal]

To answer your intolerant comment, I understand exactly what went on here. NEITHER Bush or Clinton are at fault for anything here. There is just a double standard being placed here for no reason.

This is a non-issue, and the Democrats will keep attempting to make this an issue to see if they can get a bump up with the electorate.

 

[jillian]

To answer your intolerant comment, I understand exactly what went on here. NEITHER Bush or Clinton are at fault for anything here. There is just a double standard being placed here for no reason.

This is a non-issue, and the Democrats will keep attempting to make this an issue to see if they can get a bump up with the electorate.

Again, if you think that, you don't understand what happened. I'm not quite sure why I need to be "tolerant" of that.

 

[maneal]

Because your explanation is incorrect. You are just looking for a way to blame Bush. The 'Blame George Bush' Crowd......

 

[jillian]

Because your explanation is incorrect. You are just looking for a way to blame Bush. The 'Blame George Bush' Crowd......

You don't really want to argue this one with me. It is unacceptable for attorneys general to be used for purposes of prosecuting one's political opponents and it is more unacceptable for them to be fired for refusing to do so with sufficient vigor.

 

[maneal]

These people serve at the pleasure of the President. If they are not doing their job sufficient to what the President believes, then he has the CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to fire them. He is the President.

Let's get off this....

 

[jillian]

These people serve at the pleasure of the President. If they are not doing their job sufficient to what the President believes, then he has the CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to fire them. He is the President.

Let's get off this....

when you start figuring out that what occurred was a violation of every possible ethical constraint.

so you stop apologizing for these losers. or admit you don't understand what happened.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

when you start figuring out that what occurred was a violation of every possible ethical constraint.

so you stop apologizing for these losers. or admit you don't understand what happened.

Absolutely wrong, EACH of the fired Attorneys had already served their term and did not have to be continued, at the Presidents pleasure. The left is still trying to make something out of nothing.

The President could wake up tomorrow and his dog could tell him to fire 8 more Attorneys, and guess what? It would STILL be legal. No matter what cases they were working on.