• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Rove agrees to be deposed under oath after three subpoenas

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,602
Reaction score
26,256
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Better late than never. Karl Rove has finally agreed to testify under oath under threat of perjury. So has Harriet Meiers.

This is important in that Congress has finally stripped away the veneer of President Bush's claims that Rove and Meiers were immune because of executive privilege. Now we will get to see how ugly it is beneath that veneer.

Nobody is above the law - Not even a president, whether present or former.

Article is here.
 

Honestly, I do not think anything will come of all of this. Perhaps a few new laws to protect federal prosecutors, but I seriously doubt anyone will serve jail-time for these firings. Were they removed for political reasons? Of course, but no one expects any different.
 


I agree that **** all with happen. I'm that jaded. No doubt both Meiers and Rove's testimony (BTW, private, not public) will be riddled with "I don't recalls." The thing that might snag Rove is the whole Seigleman thing. At least that what gives me a shread of hope.
 
The idea of a political hack injecting himself into the Department of Justice gives me the creeps. How would Republicans feel if they learned James Carville was picking US attorneys?
 
WillRockwell said:
The idea of a political hack injecting himself into the Department of Justice gives me the creeps. How would Republicans feel if they learned James Carville was picking US attorneys?
Click to expand...
You really need to stop kidding yourself and just change your political lean to 'Liberal'. You are about as centrist as Navy Pride is.
 
I've always wondered why the investigation that actually had a driving force behind it is into one of the single lamest scandals that the nation has faced since a President was taken to court over a hummer. If I had to rank things that the Bush Administration should be investigated for, a bunch of lawyers getting fired would barely make it into the top hundred
 

This never was about the attorneys being fired. If it were, these blowhards in Congress would still be investigating all the U.S. attorneys fired by the Clinton administration.

This is about 'going after' Karl Rove. That's what it was always about. Poor Alberto Gonzales was just a stooge in a much greater political theater.

The saddest part of this whole episode is that it continues. Political theater between Democrats and Republican holding office is one thing. For politicians to go after 'former' officials of a previous administration, now out of power, is another thing altogether. Which is why the idea of a 'truth commission' is so fundamentally disturbing. There's really no precedent for it that I'm aware of it. The American people voted in November and the Democrats won. Their Great Satan, Bush, is back in Texas. Yet it seems they have more enthusiasm in pursuing Bush, Rove, Cheney and other 'former' officials than they have in pursuing Obama Bin Ladin. Go figure.

:2wave:
 

QFT.

You'd think the imbeciles heading up this witch hunt would want no part of Rove.

It'll be fun watching Rove dismantle their investigation to nothing more than a bunch of harumphs harumphs that'll conclude with an early Sunday morning press conference.
 
Why are you worried or jaded, you don't have to live under our laws?
 

Funny how different people see the same info in a completely different way.

From what I know of this story, I feel it's highly important to get at the truth. Otherwise the Pres from here on out can call whatever shots he/she wants without having to answer to no one, most importantly, not "we the people."
 

This isn't about "a bunch of lawyers getting fired", it's about a political hack being given permission to subvert the federal legal system of the United States. As described in Wikipedia," the US Atty.'s office is the chief prosecutor for the United States in criminal law cases, and represents the United States in civil law cases as either the defendant or plaintiff, as appropriate".

Karl Rove allegedly replaced these attorneys based not on their performance, but on their willingness to set aside their neutrality and pursue cases which were strictly political. Many questions must be answered, including why did the attorney general cede the decision-making regarding the assignment of US attorneys to a political operative, and did the president ask him to do this?

Far from being a “fishing expedition”, the investigation into the firing of US attorneys is a very serious matter, with implications that affect the very core of our democratic system. The erosion of the justice system affects both Republicans and Democrats, and all Americans. If the law has been compromised in this case, we must learn how it happened and ensure it doesn't happen again.
 

Next step:

Up against the wall!
 

You realize that U.S. attorneys are political appointees and serve at the leisure of the President. In layman's terms... the President and/or his political operatives can fire them at will.

What the Democrats are 'investigating' is not whether these attorneys were illegally fired. They are 'investigating' whether they can set someone up for perjury. That was the charge liberals were foaming over after the testimony of former AG Alberto Gonzales... perjury. That's what they hope to do to Rove. Not show that he illegally fired anyone... but trip him up in testimony and then throw a perjury charge at him.

You know, kind of like what happened to Bill Clinton. We couldn't get him for rape or sexual abuse or adultery. But he got caught red-handed lying about it!

:2wave:
 

None of that matters.
The President made the decision, a decision that he was allowed to make.
He made it.

This is nothing more than a political witch hunt.
 
I love it when people quote Wikipedia, it almost invalidates their point right off the bat.

This is a witch hunt and nothing more. Were these same people just as upset at Clinton when he did this? This is a waste of taxpayer money. The attorneys served at the pleasure of the President, it's just that simple.
 
P/N said:
This is a witch hunt and nothing more. Were these same people just as upset at Clinton when he did this? This is a waste of taxpayer money. The attorneys served at the pleasure of the President, it's just that simple.
Click to expand...

I think there is a method to their madness. They need a distraction from the outrageous spending spree they've been on... and seem determined to continue on.

:shock:
 
I don't know why anyone is getting excited over this, his entire testimony is going to be "I don't recall".
 

When did Clinton fire the US attorneys that he himself appointed? Please point this out, as I don't remember it happening.
 
Grateful Heart said:
You realize that U.S. attorneys are political appointees and serve at the leisure of the President. In layman's terms... the President and/or his political operatives can fire them at will.
Click to expand...

Obviously not.


Wrong again.

You know, kind of like what happened to Bill Clinton. We couldn't get him for rape or sexual abuse or adultery. But he got caught red-handed lying about it!
Click to expand...

After what , 4 years?, and $70 million the Repukes couldn't get him on Whitewater or Paula Jones. They nailed him for lying out a bj.

Way to spend the country's $$ and waste a lot of people's time.

:2wave:
 
Grateful Heart said:
You realize that U.S. attorneys are political appointees and serve at the leisure of the President.
Click to expand...

It's "pleasure" of the president, not ""leisure":roll:
and no, the US attorneys are not political appointees, they are federal prosecutors. It's a little different than being appointed ambassador to Tahiti.
 
ADK_Forever said:
After what , 4 years?, and $70 million the Repukes couldn't get him on Whitewater or Paula Jones. They nailed him for lying out a bj.

Way to spend the country's $$ and waste a lot of people's time.

:2wave:
Click to expand...

Well, it's not clear from your post... are you for or against wasting the country's $$ trying to nail Rove with a perjury charge?

 
WillRockwell said:
It's "pleasure" of the president, not ""leisure":roll:
Click to expand...

I love nitpickers! :2wave:

and no, the US attorneys are not political appointees, they are federal prosecutors. It's a little different than being appointed ambassador to Tahiti.
Click to expand...

You should stick with nitpicking...

U.S. DoJ

Appointed by the President = Political Appointee

Are you going to argue otherwise? Or save us all the time?

 
Last edited:
Clinton's 'political appointees' at Justice...

NRO ONLINE

:spin:
 
WillRockwell said:
When did Clinton fire the US attorneys that he himself appointed? Please point this out, as I don't remember it happening.
Click to expand...
So now it's not OK to fire people you hire? What lame point are you trying to make here?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…