Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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 committees 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.
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....
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....
I didn't say Washington just because corrupted, so I'm not sure what you're referring towashington just became corrupted...holy shit alert the media....
Doesn't mean you just give up oversightyes it is and so is the 5th....
Of course it is, I never said otherwise, so I'm not sure what you're referring tooversight is valid....in both directions
They're following through on one of their valid functions, so I'm not sure what you're referring tobut 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....
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.
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?
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......
awesome spin---Issue a subpoena because " It might lead to an examination------"
This still boils down to GWB's right to hire and especially fire these attorneys. Clinton did, why can't GWB?
Oh yes...the other difference. Clinton didn't lie about it.
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.
