What's new
US Message Board 🦅 Political Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Karl Rove issued subpoena

JeffWartman

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 13, 2006
Messages
1,309
Reaction score
102
Points
48
Location
Suburban Chicago
I would really like to see him testify.

Leahy issues subpoena for Rove
By Klaus Marre
July 26, 2007

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) Thursday issued a subpoena for top White House adviser Karl Rove to compel him to testify about the firing of several U.S. attorneys.
“The evidence shows that senior White House political operatives were focused on the political impact of federal prosecutions and whether federal prosecutors were doing enough to bring partisan voter fraud and corruption cases,” Leahy said. “It is obvious that the reasons given for the firings of these prosecutors were contrived as part of a cover-up and that the stonewalling by the White House is part and parcel of that same effort.”


Leahy issued the subpoenas, one to Rove and one to White House aide Scott Jennings, after consulting with Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), the committeeÂ’s ranking member.

“The Bush-Cheney White House continues to place great strains on our constitutional system of checks and balances,” Leahy added. “Not since the darkest days of the Nixon administration have we seen efforts to corrupt federal law enforcement for partisan political gain and such efforts to avoid accountability.”

Full Story: http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/leahy-issues-subpoena-for-rove-2007-07-26.html
 

manu1959

Left Coast Isolationist
Joined
Oct 28, 2004
Messages
13,761
Reaction score
1,651
Points
48
Location
california
he will just invoke 5th amendment rights....

i really do not understand why it is more important to lay blame than slove problems......

oh yea solving problems...like education, health care, social security, national security, illegal imigration, poverty, urban decay, outsourcing....would take work and creativity......

easier to be a critic....
 
OP
JeffWartman

JeffWartman

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 13, 2006
Messages
1,309
Reaction score
102
Points
48
Location
Suburban Chicago
he will just invoke 5th amendment rights....

So what?

i really do not understand why it is more important to lay blame than slove problems......

Um, well, this is trying to solve something. It's trying to solve the culture of corruption in Washington. And that culture is bi-partisan.

oh yea solving problems...like education, health care, social security, national security, illegal imigration, poverty, urban decay, outsourcing....would take work and creativity......

This subpoena is a valid power of Congress.

easier to be a critic....

If someone is accused of breaking the law, there should be oversight, no?

I'm not saying he committed a crime yet. I'm just saying oversight is valid.
 

manu1959

Left Coast Isolationist
Joined
Oct 28, 2004
Messages
13,761
Reaction score
1,651
Points
48
Location
california
So what?

Um, well, this is trying to solve something. It's trying to solve the culture of corruption in Washington. And that culture is bi-partisan.

This subpoena is a valid power of Congress.

If someone is accused of breaking the law, there should be oversight, no?

I'm not saying he committed a crime yet. I'm just saying oversight is valid.

so what? that's what....
washington just became corrupted...holy shit alert the media....
yes it is and so is the 5th....
oversight is valid....in both directions

but i think there are more pressing issues than this....our govt is doing what my staff does when faced with a crisis...blaming others and lining up the pencils on their desk....
 
OP
JeffWartman

JeffWartman

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 13, 2006
Messages
1,309
Reaction score
102
Points
48
Location
Suburban Chicago
so what? that's what....
?
washington just became corrupted...holy shit alert the media....
I didn't say Washington just because corrupted, so I'm not sure what you're referring to
yes it is and so is the 5th....
Doesn't mean you just give up oversight
oversight is valid....in both directions
Of course it is, I never said otherwise, so I'm not sure what you're referring to
but i think there are more pressing issues than this....our govt is doing what my staff does when faced with a crisis...blaming others and lining up the pencils on their desk....
They're following through on one of their valid functions, so I'm not sure what you're referring to
 

Eightball

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2004
Messages
1,359
Reaction score
252
Points
48
This still boils down to GWB's right to hire and especially fire these attorneys. Clinton did, why can't GWB?
 

Diuretic

Permanently confused
Joined
Apr 26, 2006
Messages
12,653
Reaction score
1,410
Points
48
Location
South Australia est 1836
This still boils down to GWB's right to hire and especially fire these attorneys. Clinton did, why can't GWB?

I suppose it might lead to an examination of that right to hire and fire and to replace with partisan appointees (being careful not to take a partisan position here). Perhaps the right should be removed and some sort of civil service appointment process be put in place to avoid any temptation for an administration to appoint its own people and thereby politicise positions that shouldn't be subject to politicisation. The justice system surely should be free from politics. But if the situation is ignored it will never be improved.
 

dilloduck

Diamond Member
Joined
May 8, 2004
Messages
53,240
Reaction score
5,795
Points
1,850
Location
Austin, TX
I suppose it might lead to an examination of that right to hire and fire and to replace with partisan appointees (being careful not to take a partisan position here). Perhaps the right should be removed and some sort of civil service appointment process be put in place to avoid any temptation for an administration to appoint its own people and thereby politicise positions that shouldn't be subject to politicisation. The justice system surely should be free from politics. But if the situation is ignored it will never be improved.

awesome spin---Issue a subpoena because " It might lead to an examination------" :rofl:
 

Paulie

Diamond Member
Joined
May 19, 2007
Messages
40,769
Reaction score
6,372
Points
1,830
And the witch hunt continues .....

Was it just a witch hunt during Clinton as well? Or was that different, because he actually TESTIFIED, thus actually committing the crime of perjury?

OR...

Would it not matter WHAT he testified to, like many of you feel about Libby...?

It would just be a political rail-roading perpetrated by Liberal Democrats, right?
 

dilloduck

Diamond Member
Joined
May 8, 2004
Messages
53,240
Reaction score
5,795
Points
1,850
Location
Austin, TX
Was it just a witch hunt during Clinton as well? Or was that different, because he actually TESTIFIED, thus actually committing the crime of perjury?

OR...

Would it not matter WHAT he testified to, like many of you feel about Libby...?

It would just be a political rail-roading perpetrated by Liberal Democrats, right?

yes it was and evidence (a blue stained dress) led them to several witches and a big warlock.
 

heretic

An Individual
Joined
Jun 10, 2007
Messages
30
Reaction score
2
Points
1
i really do not understand why it is more important to lay blame than slove problems......

oh yea solving problems...like education, health care, social security, national security, illegal imigration, poverty, urban decay, outsourcing....would take work and creativity......

"That's not important right now, son. What's important is figuring out whose fault this is."

Unfortunately you get more political points for the effort applied by saying the other guy is "bad" than actually coming up with a solution. Solutions are always subject to criticism from the other side of the debate were as it's much harder to deny a politician is incompetent.
 

Larkinn

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2007
Messages
5,598
Reaction score
174
Points
48
This still boils down to GWB's right to hire and especially fire these attorneys. Clinton did, why can't GWB?

Because Clinton did it to all of them all at once. It wasn't because of specific decisions they made that Clinton disagreed with, it was clearing the slate for his people to come in. Not that what Clinton did was admirable, it wasn't, but I think that Bush took it a lot farther. When you fire US attorneys not because of their ideology , but because they won't act as complete pawns of thecurrent administration, that is attempting to gain even more direct control for the executive.
 

Larkinn

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2007
Messages
5,598
Reaction score
174
Points
48
Oh yes...the other difference. Clinton didn't lie about it.
 

manu1959

Left Coast Isolationist
Joined
Oct 28, 2004
Messages
13,761
Reaction score
1,651
Points
48
Location
california
Oh yes...the other difference. Clinton didn't lie about it.

doesn't matter.....president can fire his staff for any reason they want....then lie about it if they want....who cares
 

Truthmatters

Diamond Member
Joined
May 10, 2007
Messages
80,182
Reaction score
2,265
Points
1,283
Heres the difference ,he can change them as he wishes but he cannot change them to obstruct justice.


Bush and Gonzo are pulling every trick in the book to keep from allowing the congress to look at the evidence which would show if they did obstruct justice.

Clinton and Bush both fired and rehired the attorneys upon coming into office.

That is standard for all presidents to do.

Bush then fired his own hires because they were not prosicuting what he wanted them to prosicute and then LIED and said it was because they stank.

Their performance reports show they didnt stink.

They lied and sullied the reputations of the attorneys.

Some they fired were investigating R wrong doing.

Some who were fired refused to falsely investigate Dems.

THESE are all facts.
 

Gunny

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2004
Messages
44,689
Reaction score
6,854
Points
198
Location
The Republic of Texas
Heres the difference ,he can change them as he wishes but he cannot change them to obstruct justice.


Bush and Gonzo are pulling every trick in the book to keep from allowing the congress to look at the evidence which would show if they did obstruct justice.

Clinton and Bush both fired and rehired the attorneys upon coming into office.

That is standard for all presidents to do.

Bush then fired his own hires because they were not prosicuting what he wanted them to prosicute and then LIED and said it was because they stank.

Their performance reports show they didnt stink.

They lied and sullied the reputations of the attorneys.

Some they fired were investigating R wrong doing.

Some who were fired refused to falsely investigate Dems.

THESE are all facts.

He can hire and fire them as he sees fit. I can't wait for a Dem Prez to doteh same thing and hear you left-wingkooks talking out the other side of your asses.
 

Truthmatters

Diamond Member
Joined
May 10, 2007
Messages
80,182
Reaction score
2,265
Points
1,283
NO ONE has ever done this before, it is unprecidented.

If anyone ever does this agian I will protest just as loud.

You on the other hand are willing to dismiss anything this cabal does no matter how reprehensible.
 

Truthmatters

Diamond Member
Joined
May 10, 2007
Messages
80,182
Reaction score
2,265
Points
1,283
not Even The President Is Allowed To Obstruct Justice
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$145.00
Goal
$350.00

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top