Lawmaker: Rove involved in U.S. attorney firing

[VaYank5150]

Lawmaker: Rove involved in U.S. attorney firing - More politics- msnbc.com

WASHINGTON - Former White House political adviser Karl Rove was deeply involved in the firing of a U.S. attorney in New Mexico, according to White House e-mails and transcripts of closed-door testimony released Tuesday.

The House Judiciary Committee released more than 5,400 pages of White House and Republican National Committee e-mails, along with transcripts of closed-door testimony by Rove and former White House Counsel Harriet Miers.

The documents show that staffers in Rove's office were actively seeking to have U.S. Attorney David Iglesias removed. In one e-mail in 2005, Rove aide Scott Jennings sent an e-mail to another Rove aide, saying, "I would really like to move forward with getting rid of NM US ATTY."

 

[VaYank5150]

DICK will be next Neo-cons!

 

[skookerasbil]

 

[skookerasbil]

DICK will be next Neo-cons!

fail.........only teh 21%er's are discussing this. Nobody else.

 

[VaYank5150]

fail.........only teh 21%er's are discussing this. Nobody else.

That's what you WERE saying about Rove...

 

[driveby]

Jesus Christ is this the latest liberal fad ? Going to message boards claiming to be indepenent or centrist when you're actually a loony left moonbat ? ............

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Lawmaker: Rove involved in U.S. attorney firing - More politics- msnbc.com

WASHINGTON - Former White House political adviser Karl Rove was deeply involved in the firing of a U.S. attorney in New Mexico, according to White House e-mails and transcripts of closed-door testimony released Tuesday.

The House Judiciary Committee released more than 5,400 pages of White House and Republican National Committee e-mails, along with transcripts of closed-door testimony by Rove and former White House Counsel Harriet Miers.

The documents show that staffers in Rove's office were actively seeking to have U.S. Attorney David Iglesias removed. In one e-mail in 2005, Rove aide Scott Jennings sent an e-mail to another Rove aide, saying, "I would really like to move forward with getting rid of NM US ATTY."

So? The President can and does receive advice from any adviser he chooses. Rove did not fire anyone, The President did so, as is his power, FURTHER all the Attorneys concerned had already served the 4 year term and were replaced for his second term. You dumb asses may want to actually read the law and the policy and the facts on who serves and who fires them.

A President could fire the Federal prosecutors cause he had a bad dream, or he hiccuped once to many times, or, well for ANY reason. And the tired old claim that he fired these people for a specific case is simply not borne out by the reality of the office they hold, or the facts in these particular cases. You see numbnuts, the staffs of these Prosecutors are NOT appointed. They are hired by the Justice Department and do not serve at the pleasure of the President, what does that mean? Well retard, that means that all case files and decisions are instantly available to any NEW appointee, safe guarded by a permanent staff unaffected by political appointments.

 

[garyd]

Well done gunny. This is little mroe than a pathetic attempt to distract the maddened crowd form the fact that increasingly any dem who wants to be reelected in 2010 better find something to do other than vote for Obama's worthless health care bill the impetus for which is generated entirely by fear mongering.

The current system works just fine for 80 to 90% of the populace. So in order to help the other 10-20% we are going to screw the 80-90% and the left things we should all just line up and bend over. How ever loving charming.

 

[nodoginnafight]

I think Rove's lies were writ large during these hearing. It remains to be seen if the special prosecutor in charge of the case will press criminal charges.

In this case, as in so many others, it's the lying about it that brings you down.

 

[Xenophon]

Jesus Christ is this the latest liberal fad ? Going to message boards claiming to be indepenent or centrist when you're actually a loony left moonbat ? ............

Its not a fad, its actually very common.

This is one of those 'who cares' stories, a lot of people are 'out to get' Rove so it matters to them.

The fact is, Chimpola could fire any of the attorneys he wanted for any reason, it didn't matter if someone else was egging him on to do it.

Only Bush had the authority.

That is why this is a 'who cares' deal, both sides always want to chop guys they believe aern't with the program.

 

[nodoginnafight]

The fact is, Chimpola could fire any of the attorneys he wanted for any reason, it didn't matter if someone else was egging him on to do it.

but lying about it under oath IS against the law.
So like I said, it's the lying that ultimately brings folks down.
What was it that Clinton was charged with?
If perjury is a legitmate charge against Clinton (and I believe it was) then it is certainly appropriate to apply the same standard to others.

If any of these "it's-no-big-deal" folks can honestly say, they argued the same thing during Clinton's impeachment proceedings, I'll listen very carefully to what you have to say because your are credibile.

If not .........

 

[VaYank5150]

In this case, as in so many others, it's the lying about it that brings you down.

Which is precisely what turned America against Bush/Cheney and eventually the GOP. Will the GOP learn their lesson by 2012?

 

[Big Black Dog]

Lawmaker: Rove involved in U.S. attorney firing - More politics- msnbc.com

WASHINGTON - Former White House political adviser Karl Rove was deeply involved in the firing of a U.S. attorney in New Mexico, according to White House e-mails and transcripts of closed-door testimony released Tuesday.

The House Judiciary Committee released more than 5,400 pages of White House and Republican National Committee e-mails, along with transcripts of closed-door testimony by Rove and former White House Counsel Harriet Miers.

The documents show that staffers in Rove's office were actively seeking to have U.S. Attorney David Iglesias removed. In one e-mail in 2005, Rove aide Scott Jennings sent an e-mail to another Rove aide, saying, "I would really like to move forward with getting rid of NM US ATTY."

I think this is funny! Wonder why the liberals aren't having very much to say about the U.S. Attorneys Clinton fired when he took over the White House? Do you think Clinton woke up one morning and said it was a good day to fire some people? Nope. One of his staffers most likely put the bug in his ear. Proabably the same way Rove put the bug in Bush's ear. Suddenly what's good for the goose is no longer good for the gander? Or how about the folks down in the travel office Hillary Clinton got fired because she didn't like the way they did their job? I guess it's easier and more fun for the liberals to throw rocks at Rove's glass house instead of Clinton's. Liiberals always make me laugh because they are like a pit bull. Once they latch on to something they don't let it go. Trouble is, they never latch on to their own stupid breed.

 

[nodoginnafight]

In this case, as in so many others, it's the lying about it that brings you down.

Which is precisely what turned America against Bush/Cheney and eventually the GOP. Will the GOP learn their lesson by 2012?

I agree, but to be absolutely fair it also caused a lot of headaches for Clinton, Nixon, LBJ and a whole host of others. I'm not trying to argue that it is more prevelant on one side of the aisle or the other.

My argument is that if it is a big deal for members of one party, then it's a big deal for the other side too.

Trying to argue against that premise is, imho, a sure sign of a hyper-partisan zealot who is willing to sacrfice principles for "the good of the party." And I NEVER trust those folks.

 

[Xenophon]

but lying about it under oath IS against the law.
So like I said, it's the lying that ultimately brings folks down.
What was it that Clinton was charged with?
If perjury is a legitmate charge against Clinton (and I believe it was) then it is certainly appropriate to apply the same standard to others.

If any of these "it's-no-big-deal" folks can honestly say, they argued the same thing during Clinton's impeachment proceedings, I'll listen very carefully to what you have to say because your are credibile.

If not .........

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.

 

[nodoginnafight]

The fact is, Chimpola could fire any of the attorneys he wanted for any reason, it didn't matter if someone else was egging him on to do it.

but lying about it under oath IS against the law.
So like I said, it's the lying that ultimately brings folks down.
What was it that Clinton was charged with?
If perjury is a legitmate charge against Clinton (and I believe it was) then it is certainly appropriate to apply the same standard to others.

If any of these "it's-no-big-deal" folks can honestly say, they argued the same thing during Clinton's impeachment proceedings, I'll listen very carefully to what you have to say because your are credibile.

If not .........

was posted previous to:

I think this is funny! Wonder why the liberals aren't having very much to say about the U.S. Attorneys Clinton fired when he took over the White House? Do you think Clinton woke up one morning and said it was a good day to fire some people? Nope. One of his staffers most likely put the bug in his ear. Proabably the same way Rove put the bug in Bush's ear. Suddenly what's good for the goose is no longer good for the gander? Or how about the folks down in the travel office Hillary Clinton got fired because she didn't like the way they did their job? I guess it's easier and more fun for the liberals to throw rocks at Rove's glass house instead of Clinton's. Liiberals always make me laugh because they are like a pit bull. Once they latch on to something they don't let it go. Trouble is, they never latch on to their own stupid breed.

I think that pretty much derails the argument that this is a partisan witch-hunt (for MY part anyway)
I have no doubt that there are some folks who want Rove prosecuted because he was their political opponent. I have no doubt some folks wanted to prosecute Clinton because he was THEIR political opponent.

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.

 

[nodoginnafight]

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?

 

[Big Black Dog]

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.

The way I understand it all is simply this. The President can hire and fire U.S. Attorneys at will because they serve at the "Pleasure of the President". I guess an extreme example would be that if one of the U.S. Attorneys had red hair and the President didn't like people with red hair he could replace that person. It would be within his right to do that. So, regardless of why, or how, or when and where the President fired these U.S. Attorneys, what's the big deal? Hasn't this baloney gone on for long enough? Don't the people who are pushing this issue have anything better to do with their time?

 

[nodoginnafight]

The way I understand it all is simply this. The President can hire and fire U.S. Attorneys at will because they serve at the "Pleasure of the President". I guess an extreme example would be that if one of the U.S. Attorneys had red hair and the President didn't like people with red hair he could replace that person. It would be within his right to do that. So, regardless of why, or how, or when and where the President fired these U.S. Attorneys, what's the big deal? Hasn't this baloney gone on for long enough? Don't the people who are pushing this issue have anything better to do with their time?

And Bill Clinton wasn't accused of breaking the law when he had sex with Monica Lewinsky either? (I personally think a good sexual harassment case could be made, but no one tried) but what he was busted for was lying under oath about it.

Same thing Rove is facing.

Again, do you think Perjury is a crime and do you think it should be enforced regardless of political affiliation?

 

[nodoginnafight]

The silence is deafening. Am I to interpret that silence to mean that posters here can agree that laws should be enforced without regard to political affiliation?

And that if Rove is guilty of perjury, that it is reasonable to expect him to face consequences for the crime?