Lawmakers vote to hold Bolten and Rove in contempt »
Posted By ProudBlueTexan 1 year, 10 months ago in NewsWASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Senate Judiciary Committee voted on Thursday to hold two top aides to President George W. Bush in contempt of Congress for refusing to cooperate in its probe of fired federal prosecutors.
Read Full Story at news.yahoo.com »
586 Views Share Story 61 Comments Report
Who Also Submitted:
Other Related Articles:
Why not submit a story?
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentShowing 220 of 231 Comments (view all)
-
Neutral
tkyrchncs1 year, 10 months ago
-
Neutral
mcgrievysr1 year, 10 months ago
-
-
sailrComment removed: Retracted by user
-
Neutral
injest1 year, 10 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"the president may ultimately prevail since"
Ultimately the President will prevail because there is NO possibility the president did anything wrong when he REPLACED POLITICALLY US attorneys.
The President, any President can replace any or all US attorneys at any time without cause.
The last press replaced all US attorneys at the start of his 1st term and 30 more through out both terms.
And yes the 30 he replaced were also US attorneys he had appointed to their
Reply-
Neutral
sinophil491 year, 10 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
injest - Sigh! Why are you beating that dead horse?
1) I do not know if it was LEGAL to fire US attorneys for a political advantage, but even most cons agree that there was political motivation behind the firings. Gonzales has not given a single, solid, alternative reason for those firings.
2) At the START of his term Clinton asked for the resignation of 93 US attorneys in order to install attorneys that he wanted. JUST LIKE REAGAN DID AT THE START OF HIS TERMS.
Through Clinton's 8 years of office, I know of only one firing midterm. That was an attorney who lost a big case, then got in a drunken bar fight and got arrested.
Three attorneys that did not get fired were Robert Fiske, Kenneth Starr, and Robert Ray. Janet Reno had the authority to fire any of them at any time. Clinton never asked her to invoke that power.
3) I remember reading somewhere that the controversy about Bush's was so objectionable that the DOJ Office of the Inspector General and the Office of
Reply
-
-
Neutral
Blackacereturn1 year, 10 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
This is the start of things to come, I think all we need is to get one person who are willing to talk and this entire house of cards will come crashing down!
They are more criminals in this whitehouse than all others combine. These people should all be in jail!
Reply -
-
-
Neutral
dandt16121 year, 10 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Good! Now I'd like to see some justice done. But I'm sure that Bush and his gang will do all they can to protect these thugs.
Wow, one more year of this affliction in the white house. I pray our country can take it. God only knows what this bunch of crooks have up their sleeves. I hope that someday everyone in this administration pays for what they have done to this country.
Reply -
Neutral
Endoscopy1 year, 10 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Seems to me these kind of things happened under Clinton and a few other presidents. It amounts to a lot of noise signifying nothing. They are under presidential privilege and it takes courts to remove that. Won't work since the people in question can be fired for having the wrong colored eyes.
This whole mess is just trumped up nonsense to try and embarrass the president and give nut jobs something to talk about.
Reply-
Neutral
tkyrchncs1 year, 10 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
It'll be fun to see how far executive privilege can cover. Try to embarrass the president? How could anyone do a better job of that than he's done himself? We'd just like to keep him from embarrassing the entire nation further. And we'd like some honest answers. But we'll no doubt have to wait for another administration to get any of those.
Reply -
Neutral
MntnWllm1 year, 10 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
trumped up nonsense?
Only in the parallel of the govt needing to use tax evasion as a tool to convict Al Capone.
In addition: I would like for this President to be embarassed even fractionally as much as he has embarassed we his constituency.
Reply -
Neutral
mcgrievysr1 year, 10 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Endoscopy----"This whole mess is just trumped up nonsense to try and embarrass the president and give nut jobs something to talk about"
First of all, nothing embarrasses this president. He has no conscience. If this is just "to give nut jobs something to talk about", then you've taken the bait. However, this goes far deeper and is much more serious than you are obviously capable of comprehending.
Reply -
-
Neutral
injest1 year, 10 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"They are under presidential privilege and it takes courts to remove that. Won't work since the people in question can be fired for having the wrong colored eyes"
I doubt the surrender monkeys will take it to court (but I hope they do) because they would then be obligated to explain what possible crime might have occurred.
Since the answered to what possible crime might have occurred is NONE.
Reply -
-
-
Neutral
1-2-Oscar1 year, 10 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Step 1--The Senate Judiciary Committee, seeking to make political hay from the firing of US Attorneys, subpoenas records and individuals from the White House.
Step 2--The President refuses to turn over records, citing "Executive Privilege," as has every President since the House of Representatives demanded G. Washington's records of the negotiations leading to Jay's Treaty. The President's staff members also refuse to testify.
Step 3--Thinking that there may STILL some political advantage to be gained, Sen. Leahy and the Democratic majority on the Committee issue Contempt Citations against two of the President's most high-profile staff members.
Step 4--The federal courts, ruling as they have always ruled in such cases, throw out the contempt charges.
Result--Nothing has changed except that more of my money has been wasted by posturing politicians.
Reply-
Neutral
MonkeyBiz1 year, 10 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You are claiming to read minds now? "...seeking to make political hay..." "Thinking that there may STILL some political advantage..." You are attributing thoughts and motives to people you probably don't even know to fit your preconceived notions.
"...ruling as they have always ruled in such cases, throw out the contempt charges." Can you cite a single case like this one where Congressional contempt charges were thrown out? Do you not remember Watergate and the restrictions placed on executive privilege? The constitution specifically grants congress the power "To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme court." That means only the Supreme Court has more power in criminal matters. Only the Supreme Court can throw out a congressional citation.
Obstruction of justice is a serious crime, even if the perpetrator has an office in the White House.
Reply -
AtheismIsRealityComment removed: Retracted by user4 Replies
-
Neutral
donald511 year, 10 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Oscar, impacting national security has been the only accepted rationale for presidential advisors not to testify... not Dumya or Rove's politically oriented lies! What a failed moral compass to compare the two on your part! No scrupples once again demonstrated by you, another Bush sycophant!
Isn't it great to see these Bush fools come on this forum and make fools of themselves?
Reply -
-
-
-
Neutral
donald511 year, 10 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
..only thing is he probably didn't fire them... Rove did in consult with Gonzo... a justice department that stonewalls every complaint of contractor fraud and abuse out of Iraq and writes a torture memo in violation of the Geneva Conventions... needs to be investigated and realigned with American ideals and the Rule of law!
Reply -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
Endoscopy1 year, 10 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
And the Demoshrills who have been unrelenting in their hatred of Bush starting when he legitimately won the election in 2000 are still just as full of hot air as ever.
7 years of that kind of hatred will make anybody a bit warped. 9/11 brought a short reprieve but it began again. Anything he does is for evil and criminal purposes and anybody who works for the administration is evil and criminal. That is pretty warped.
I differentiate between Demoshrills and Democrats.
Reply
-
-
Neutral
Klarissa1 year, 10 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
What the dems are really worried about is:
"Republicans retained two House seats in special elections Tuesday, including a hotly contested Ohio race".
The dems might want to stop wasting their time on people who will be out of office soon, and concentrate on finding someone they can support. I don't see that Hill/Bill or Obama are great favorites.
Reply-
Neutral
jrmunro1 year, 10 months ago
-
-
Neutral
david_nwpa1 year, 10 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
If Rove and the other White House lackeys do not serve time for their role in the scandals ranging from the Energy fix in Cheney's office, to Plamegate, to the Enron energy theft scandal, to Iraq, then Bush would have no one even remotely close to pardoning at the last minute of his term.
Once Cheney and Bush leave office, who will be left to pardon them?
Reply -
-
-
-
sailrComment removed: Retracted by user
-
-
-
baddad59Comment removed: Retracted by user
-
-
Neutral
hyperbola1 year, 10 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Seems that we need to re-do certain interpretations of our constitution.
There is NOTHING in the constitution that says the president has executive privilege to keep secrets from Congress. There is no good reason, beyond corruption, to have any such executive privilege. Americans should be entitled to know completely and fully what the president does. DO AWAY with executive privilege.
There is NOTHING in the constitution that says the president should be able to use federal prosecutors for political witch hunts. There is nothing that says the president should be able to fire those who do not kowtow to the political witchhunts. Lets replace the system of appointments with one in which the president may suggest prosecutors, but Congress appoints them and they need not be from those suggested by the president.
Reply -
-
Neutral
Ruggaboo1 year, 10 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
John Bolten is the kind of stand up man, pandering milk toast, libertine bitches can only dream of becoming. He stood tall at the UN and called out the corrupt, beleagured criminals at it's helm. He called them on their assualt on guns and pathetic stance against terrorism and Iran.
In todays, greasy little leftist peabrain, nothing is worth fighting for except a Godless, third-world communal America.
Is it any wonder this crappy site got washed off the frontpage into the dustbin of internet creeps and crackpots...
much like the daily Kossack kat-turds, ScareAmerica and MoveOn.lame???
Hey...your intense self loathing and hatred for all things American is again showing like some tattered old slip on grandma's vericose legs.
Reply-
Neutral
Natureboy1 year, 10 months ago
-
Neutral
IanFraigun1 year, 10 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I don't care who he is or what he did. That is not the point.
You are served to testify before congress it is the same as being called to testify in a court of law. You have an obligation to testify or face the punishment.
There is little difference between 'contempt of congress' for not complying and 'contempt of court' for not complying.
You want to be a citizen of this society you have some obligations. Among those is to appear and testify in congress or in court when called.
That is the bottom line to all of this. Those two were called to testify before congress and did not do so and congress, like a court, can hold them in contempt with the appropriate punishment.
Notice I said nothing about the underlying investigative inquiry as that is not in the least relevent to the contempt citation.
Reply
-
-
-
-
Add a Comment
Sign In With Your Propeller Account
Please keep your comments relevant to this story.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.