Rove, Miers to testify in prosecutor firings »
Posted By STONERS 11 months, 1 week ago in Political NewsFormer top Bush aides Karl Rove and Harriet Miers agreed Wednesday to testify before Congress under oath about the firings of U.S. attorneys, a controversy involving allegations of political interference that grew into a constitutional standoff between two branches of government.
Read Full Story at news.yahoo.com »
538 Views Share Story 105 Comments Report
Submitted By:
STONERS
Welcome to my profile...I've started a ""STONERS Daily News Group"" Please stop by and have a look and join if you like it ...
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentComments So Far: 105 (view all)
-
95%
Spadecaller11 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Having them testify behind closed doors without pictures does not rest well with me. Apparently, they do not want Americans to become more annoyed when they refuse to answer the questions. When they insist that "they do not recall".
Reply
Is this just pretense and appeasement or is it a sincere investigation? I have serious doubts. Is this the first step in "making it go away."-
FrauBlucherComment removed: Retracted by user
-
capecoralMComment removed: Retracted by user25 Replies
-
-
-
-
-
54%
slate11 months, 1 week ago
-
FrauBlucherComment removed: Retracted by user7 Replies
-
-
PsychoHosebeastComment removed: Spammer, Abusive2 Replies
-
donald51Comment removed: Hard Banned
-
-
-
FrauBlucherComment removed: Retracted by user1 Reply
-
FrauBlucherComment removed: Retracted by user
-
86%
Poulenc11 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Don't y'all think that Karl and Harriet make a wonderful Repub Bonnie and Clyde-like duo?
Reply
Unfortunately, it doesn't seem likely that the law will catch up with them. If they've agreed to testify, you know they've been assured that nothing putative can come of it. -
PsychoHosebeastComment removed: Spammer, Abusive1 Reply
-
-
-
PsychoHosebeastComment removed: Spammer, Abusive2 Replies
-
100%
epiphannyy11 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Actually, it HASN'T been done before......that is the point. Trying to force judges to "play ball" with the executive branch is in direct violation of the spirit of separated powers in our government. That is, perhaps, the biggest violation Bush and his administration committed during his time in office. He did more to expand the power of the executive, while diminishing the power of the judicial and legislative branches than ANY previous executive to hold office. Even Lincoln, who declared war on his own people and suspended habeus corpus, etc, didn't come close to the level of erasing the limits of the executive as Bush and his administration did.
Reply
Was it "illegal" by the literal sense? I think that has yet to be officially determined. But it was in contravention to everything we, as Americans, hold tight to as ethical in preserving what the founders tried so hard to set in stone. So I disagree that it is a waste of time or tax money to pursue this. To the contrary...it's one of the most worthwhile efforts toward justice that I have seen take place on the hill since the Nixon resignation...with the only exception perhaps being the CIA leak case that was unfortunately nullified by Bush's decision to commute Scooter Libby's sentence. Many (most) of the witch hunts are a waste of time and energy (who is having sexual relations with whom, for example), but this is a necessary first step in finally holding the vandals of our Constitution accountable. Frankly, I hope it is simply the first in a long line.
-
-
-
PsychoHosebeastComment removed: Spammer, Abusive
-
-
-
80%
Poulenc11 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Yes, Wes, what's a little torture between friends. So to speak.
Reply
I mean, let's practice what we would be appalled to have happen to us. A sort of inverse Golden Rule.
Righties often complain about liberals' so-called moral relativity. Now you've provided an example that's the very definition of the thing. -
29%
BB6411 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
So congress is getting Rove to testify on something that happened over 4 years concerning appointments to the DoJ? Those are at will positions. When Clinton and Obama took over, everyone got the ax. Why are we wasting time? Is this a political shot at Rove because they don't like him? What a waste of tax payer funds. I suppose after they're done wasting money here, we'll go back to baseball-gate.
Reply
Why are we not having hearings on the collapse of the banking industry? Where are the subpoenas? Where the indictments? Where are the very public arrests with the media waiting outside of offices? We the taxpayers spent $700 billion and were never fully informed why so many checks and balances failed. Could it be that bribes, I mean financial incentives were made? This is clearly a huge story with ties to the highest levels of our government. Why isn't the Committee holding hearings? Could it be the money trail leads to the following members?
Christopher Dodd, Chairman, Connecticut
Tim Johnson, South Dakota
Jack Reed, Rhode Island
Chuck Schumer, New York
Evan Bayh, Indiana
Robert Menendez, New Jersey
Daniel Akaka, Hawaii
Sherrod Brown, Ohio
Jon Tester, Montana
Mark Warner, Virginia
Jeff Merkley, Oregon
Herb Kohl, Wisconsin
Michael Bennet, Colorado
I think we now know why there hasn't been and won't be any hearings until the DNC loses it's stranglehold on Washington. Show me the money...-
25%
Klarissa11 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
This testimony thing is part of the Democrat plan. They have a list of items they will bring up and send to the media every time they have a problem.
Reply
on Real Clear Polotics:
like on February 24 Obama's approval rating was 62.5%.
On March 4 it was 59.8 percent
How will Obama react when it is less than 50%? -
86%
fsev4111 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Once again BB you've got your facts screwed up. Remember now, this thread is about the US Attorneys that were fired mid-term in the Bush Admin. The accusation was that they were fired for political reasons. Those two points are reasonably easy to remember.
Reply
Now, in youe third sentence you say When Clinton and OBama took over everyone got the ax. I'll give you that Clinton fired all of the attorneys as was common practice. Now where you go wrong is OBama did NOT fire the US Attorneys. A number of the resigned, as is common. OBama asked those that hadn't resigned immediately to stay on the job at least until more serious issues were resolved and further evaluation of their performance could be completed. Patrick Fitzgerald, the Republican US Attorney in Northern Illinois has all but been promised he will be retaining his position (Senator Durbin and OBama have both praised him) and his biggest case right now is Blagojevich, a Democrat.
And in case you weren't aware Fitzgerald was one of those originally slated to be fired because he sent George Ryan, a Republican, to jail.Rove allegedly wanted him fired because of his pursuit of the Valerie Plame truth but found out it was too politically dangerous to can him at that time.
-
-
-
-
-
100%
Spadecaller11 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I would like to contribute more on this story, however I am tied up at the moment...
Reply
http://www.freewebs.com/spadecaller/march5thpicduj... -
TcarosComment removed: Hard Banned
-
100%
sinophil4911 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I am one Democrat who does not think Bill Clinton is perfect. I like his fiscal, economic, tax, civil rights records a lot. Balancing the budgets twice and decreasing the national debt are, looking at all the other presidents post-WWII, monumental achievements.
Reply
However, I do agree that his sexual affairs and his firing of the 93 federal prosecutors are blotches on his otherwise outstanding record.
Having said that, I ask whether the sins of one administration justify another administration's committing the same sins?
Of course not.
Clinton has earned the opprobrium of history for his misdeeds. He suffered the humiliation of impeachment proceedings. He was hampered the last 2 years of his terms by the impeachment and the scandals.
Conservatives rightly held a high standard of behavior for Clinton, our president, to judge him by. Certainly some or most of their condemnation of these acts are just and appropriate.
As much as we should hold high standards for Clinton, we all should hold high standards for all other presidents, including George Walker Bush. Those high standards should also be held for those in his administration. Bush set the standard; his subordinates should follow.
By holding all public officials to high standards, we hope to continually engender good government, good behavior, good policies, and good laws. That leads to an ever-strengthening Republic.
So if Clinton was wrong in firing his federal prosecutors, so too are Bush, Rove, Cheney, Miers, and Gonzales wrong in firing these prosecutors.
By extension of these high standards, Bush should have been more truthful, unbiased, and clear-thinking in his pre-war analysis of the WMD evidence, ALL OF WHICH have proven to be false, fabricated, or misinterpreted.
I come to the conclusion that, although Clinton has done wrong, by the same standards I hold Clinton to, Bush and his administration have done far greater harm and deserve greater opprobrium and condemnation.-
Neutral
bruhaha11 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"However, I do agree that his sexual affairs and his firing of the 93 federal prosecutors are blotches on his otherwise outstanding record."
Reply
Let me put this again....it is pretty much tradition that all federal prosecutors get replaced at the start of a new administration. Comparing the 93 prosecutors Clinton replaced at the start of his administration to the firing of select prosecutors half way through the Bush administration, most of whom had exemplary performance reviews, is like comparing apples to oranges.
-
-
TcarosComment removed: Hard Banned
More News
Politics Daily
GOP Filibuster Stops Obama Nominee, With Ben Nelson and Blanche Lincoln's Help
Robert Gibbs Gets Hands-On About Mocking Sarah Palin
Transcript of News Conference by President Obama
Former Virginia Gov. Douglas Wilder Calls for White House Staff Shake-Up
Americans Say There's Enough Blame to Go Around for Partisanship
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.