White House Offers to Let Investigators Interview Rove

[jfuh]

The White House offered this afternoon to make the political strategist Karl Rove and the former counsel Harriet E. Miers available for private interviews — but not sworn testimony — before Congressional investigators looking into the firing of United States attorneys.
The White House counsel Fred Fielding announced the offer after a visit to Capitol Hill today, which continued to be preoccupied with the future of Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, even as Mr. Gonzales won new expressions of support from the administration.
Mr. Fielding proposed that Mr. Rove and Ms. Miers be interviewed by members of the Senate and House judiciary committees at the same time, and that the interviews be limited to the events surrounding the dismissal of the federal prosecutors.
Democratic senators were in no mood to accept the White House offer, especially after the Senate voted by an overwhelming 94- to-2 margin today to revoke the authority it granted the Bush administration last year to name federal prosecutors without Senate confirmation.

Maybe this is just some technical legal bable thing. Can anyone with legal knowledge tell me just what the point of giving a testimony but then emphasize it not sworn? To me, it sounds like bullshit.



source

 

[Gibberish]

Maybe this is just some technical legal bable thing. Can anyone with legal knowledge tell me just what the point of giving a testimony but then emphasize it not sworn? To me, it sounds like bullshit.

Bush is basically saying: "You can interview Rove but it has to be in private, the interview cannot be recorded in anyway, and he should be allowed to lie without consequence."

The interviewer could get a more realistic interview from the bum down the street.

 

[26 X World Champs]

Maybe this is just some technical legal bable thing. Can anyone with legal knowledge tell me just what the point of giving a testimony but then emphasize it not sworn? To me, it sounds like bullshit.



source

It's pathetic! The "offer" was to have them "interviewed" in private, not under oath and even more pathetically, no transcripts! In other words no record of anything they say and they can never be held accountable.

It's incredible to me that they still have the balls to circumvent justice, again. Without question this administration has cemented itself in history as the worst, by far, ever.

 

[Adrian]

It's incredible to me that they still have the balls to circumvent justice, again. Without question this administration has cemented itself in history as the worst, by far, ever.

It does make one yearn for President Harrison.

 

[dottedmint]

It's incredible to me that they still have the balls to circumvent justice, again.

How exactly are they "circumvent[ing] justice"?

There is ZERO reason for Rove or anyone in the administration to testify under oath or in private.

Bush fired (what was it?) 8 attorneys.

There are claims that their firings were politically motivated.

If they were or not it doesn't matter.

The President has the authority to fire ANY attorney for ANY reason...even if they are political reasons.

Bush fired 8 attorneys.

Clinton fired over 90 attorneys.

Are you going to tell me that Clintons firings were NOT political?

 

[CurrentAffairs]

Libs will continue to invent and smear until someone, anyone (it doesn't matter) is put in jail. It is the democrat way! Meanwhile, no solutions, no ideas - just an all out blitz to regain power.

 

[Binary_Digit]

Libs will continue to invent and smear until someone, anyone (it doesn't matter) is put in jail. It is the democrat way! Meanwhile, no solutions, no ideas - just an all out blitz to regain power.

And you're a partisan sheeple if you think republicans aren't the same. It's not the democrat way, it's the American politics way, and sheeple who can't turn a critical eye on their own party are the reason they continue to get away with it.

 

[CurrentAffairs]

The President has the authority to fire ANY attorney for ANY reason...even if they are political reasons.

Bush fired 8 attorneys.

Clinton fired over 90 attorneys.

Are you going to tell me that Clintons firings were NOT political?

Allow me to reply as any liberal will.

"This isn't about Clinton. No, no, anything that ever happened in the past - especially in a liberal administration - is off limits. Any real comparison is out of bounds. Nevermind that Clinton did the exact same thing to 90+ attorneys. That isn't relevent here."

:roll:

 

[Gibberish]

Allow me to reply as any liberal will.

"This isn't about Clinton. No, no, anything that ever happened in the past - especially in a liberal administration - is off limits. Any real comparison is out of bounds. Nevermind that Clinton did the exact same thing to 90+ attorneys. That isn't relevent here."

:roll:

I personally could care less about the firing.

What I found the most troubling is Bush making sure Rove is allowed to lie if needed and is not put on record on anyway. How suspicious does that look?

 

[jfuh]

And you're a partisan sheeple if you think republicans aren't the same. It's not the democrat way, it's the American politics way, and sheeple who can't turn a critical eye on their own party are the reason they continue to get away with it.

Don't feed the troll.

 

[CurrentAffairs]

Don't feed the troll.

Tell me what is trolling, jfuh? The opposite opinion of yours is not always trolling, sonny. I will discuss this topic, whether you attack or not. Take your personal attacks and stuff it!

 

[Binary_Digit]

Allow me to reply as any liberal will.

"This isn't about Clinton. No, no, anything that ever happened in the past - especially in a liberal administration - is off limits. Any real comparison is out of bounds. Nevermind that Clinton did the exact same thing to 90+ attorneys. That isn't relevent here."

:roll:

Well personally, if I were old enough at the time to be following politics, I would have supported any republican investigation as to why Clinton did that. Just because the President is allowed to do something doesn't mean his doing so should not be double-checked by Congress.

Sure Bush hasn't necessarily broken any law here, but if it turns out he fired them because they wouldn't reinterpret the Constitution into something it's not, then I'd like to know that and I'd be thankful that it was investigated.

 

[MSgt]

Moderator's Warning:

Put the fire out before it starts.

 

[CurrentAffairs]

Moderator's Warning:

Put the fire out before it starts.

Gunny, with all due respect, jfuh has already started the fire (see post #10). I would prefer you direct the warning in a more specific manner. Thanks.

 

[MSgt]

Gunny, with all due respect, jfuh has already started the fire (see post #10). I would prefer you direct the warning in a more specific manner. Thanks.

OK. I will....

Jfuh accused you of being a troll.

CurrentAffairs replied to Jfuh by referring to him as "sonny" and then telling him to shove it. (I can only assume this meant the buttocks hole from where doo doo falls).

My guidance to all is to NOT respond in this manner.

 

[CurrentAffairs]

OK. I will....

Jfuh accused you of being a troll.

CurrentAffairs replied to Jfuh by referring to him as "sonny" and then telling him to shove it. (I can only assume this meant the buttocks hole).

My guidance to all is to NOT respond in this manner.

So anyone can incite in the manner in which he did, but no one should stand up for themselves when he does? If you can tell me how this makes sense, I'm all ears.

 

[MSgt]

It's incredible to me that they still have the balls to circumvent justice, again. Without question this administration has cemented itself in history as the worst, by far, ever.

What's even more incredible is that if it is true about every "illegality" of the Bush administration we constantly hear from our left, what does this say about the Democratic Party that hasn't been able to do a thing about it?

All it took for the Republican Party to get Clinton was a blue dress and a little white lie most men would say in and out of court.

Either the accusations are mostly exaggerated and baseless according to our laws, Bush is just that good a politician, or the Democratic Party is inept.

 

[CurrentAffairs]

Either the accusations are mostly exaggerated and baseless according to our laws, Bush is just that good a politician, or the Democratic Party is inept.

I vote for all three!

 

[MSgt]

So anyone can incite in the manner in which he did, but no one should stand up for themselves when he does? If you can tell me how this makes sense, I'm all ears.

*Sigh. I will give you an example of such a case:



Jfuh - Why are you still trolling about, troll?

GySgt - I'm not a troll. You're a troll for calling me a troll, troll.

Jfuh - Screw you, you warmongering, jarhead, Bush-ite, moron (but secretly I love you).

GySgt - REPORTS POST.

It's that simple. You may defend yourself all day. I do it plenty. I have many a critic, because I can be very bold and unpolitically correct in my posts about the world we live in and enough disagree. And I can return the abrasive comments and condescention back where it comes from (even starting it at times - guilty) without crossing that line. But you cannot throw yourself into that gutter and expect to be kept clean while others are "disciplined."

 

[aps]

Bush fired 8 attorneys.

Clinton fired over 90 attorneys.

Are you going to tell me that Clintons firings were NOT political?

I really cannot stand it when people point the finger and say, "But Clinton did it too." Two wrongs don't make a right. This is not to say that what Clinton did was wrong. CLINTON DIDN'T LIE ABOUT WHY HE FIRED ALL 93 US ATTORNEYS.

With Clinton, he didn't pick and choose who he fired--he fired them all at the same time. In Bush's case, he chose a select few and claimed that the firings were performance based, when almost all of them had positive performance reviews. Gonzales told Congress that NONE of them were being removed for political purposes.

Yes, these US Attorneys can be fired for no cause or for political purposes. Had they admitted that they were being fired for political purposes, then they wouldn't be in the mess they are in now. Essentially, they lied UNDER OATH. When people fail to tell the truth, it means they have something to hide. The Democrats have every right to investigate this.

 

[Maximus Zeebra]

Maybe this is just some technical legal bable thing. Can anyone with legal knowledge tell me just what the point of giving a testimony but then emphasize it not sworn? To me, it sounds like bullshit.



source

So, what are they afraid might come out if they have to go under oaths? Dont we all know that Rove has formed the Bush policies with the help of Chaney and Rumsfeld and the rest of the "tyrants, forces of evils and evil doers" in the Bush government.

 

[MSgt]

So, what are they afraid might come out if they have to go under oaths?

(And then the spiral....)​

Dont we all know that Rove has formed the Bush policies with the help of Chaney and Rumsfeld and the rest of the "tyrants, forces of evils and evil doers" in the Bush government.

See? you were fine until you got into the unnecessary "I hate Bush" rage and you let the bashing flow like the Dark Side of the Force.

The Bush administration has always been like a secret society that fends off outsiders that question the time of day. They have always circled the wagons and pointed outboard. Do they have something to hide? Possibly. Possibly they are just being defensive about being told what to do (we've seen that before).

 

[Maximus Zeebra]

See? you were fine until you got into the unnecessary "I hate Bush" rage and you let the bashing flow like the Dark Side of the Force.

The Bush administration has always been like a secret society that fends off outsiders that question the time of day. They have always circled the wagons and pointed outboard. Do they have something to hide? Possibly. Possibly they are just being defensive about being told what to do (we've seen that before).

Its not bashing, I and many others hate Bush, now where is the free speech on this forum? Can you not say your opinion without getting hazzled as being anti-American or bashing?

I am just wondering why they dont want them under oath, i find it strange and naturally i will start asking questions. But according to your principle, asking questions about US government activities is bashing. Asking other people opinion about the US government as long as they dont just include the optional answers "I love it" and "i love it very much" is by you considered bashing.

its not.

 

[Maximus Zeebra]

See? you were fine until you got into the unnecessary "I hate Bush" rage and you let the bashing flow like the Dark Side of the Force.

The Bush administration has always been like a secret society that fends off outsiders that question the time of day. They have always circled the wagons and pointed outboard. Do they have something to hide? Possibly. Possibly they are just being defensive about being told what to do (we've seen that before).

Btw, I was kind of exhaggerating as well. Didnt you notice my fine use of Bush phrases in there?

 

[aps]

Its not bashing, I and many others hate Bush, now where is the free speech on this forum? Can you not say your opinion without getting hazzled as being anti-American or bashing?

I am just wondering why they dont want them under oath, i find it strange and naturally i will start asking questions. But according to your principle, asking questions about US government activities is bashing. Asking other people opinion about the US government as long as they dont just include the optional answers "I love it" and "i love it very much" is by you considered bashing.

its not.

I am sure GySgt can explain himself, but I understood what he was saying. The part of your post that he said was "bashing" was where you essentially showed your dislike of this administration by making a statement without stating it more objectively and with evidence to substantiate your allegation. JMO

I agree with you--it seems very strange that Bush would not allow Rove and Miers to testify under oath. At first, I thought the Democrats should wait to hear what Rove and Miers had to say before issuing subpeonas; however, this whole thing started based upon Congress being lied to. So the Democrats should be demanding that testimony be under oath.