Karl Rove Subpoenaed - Again

[Formaldehyde]

I see you didn't answer my question.

And I see you didn't answer mine. So what else is new? You can't talk facts with those who don't know what the word means.

 

[BSmith1068]

Heh, since when is 'truth' found on those biased websites anyway?

I mean, thats funny right there, I dont care who you are.

Are you disputing the information in the article, or just the source?

 

[Formaldehyde]

Are you kidding? He's never read a complete article in his life. He doesn't have to. He already knows everything.

 

[Miles Teg]

Can we stop arguing over the "truth" and stick to the facts? The only guy Clinton fired was friendly to him, and was replaced by Ken Starr, who was anything but.

 

[I'm Cleo!]

Nobody in the Bush administration will be prosecuted because the current administration will not want to set the precedent where it could happen to them as well. They're all in cahoots.

Now this might be the truth. The Washington establishment has to maintain the framework whereby powerful political figures are beyond the reach of the law.

Cleo

 

[Death_Machine]

Now this might be the truth. The Washington establishment has to maintain the framework whereby powerful political figures are beyond the reach of the law.
Cleo

This is part of the reason that I was dumbfounded that so many folks were duped by Obama. It really makes very little difference if he or McCain won.

 

[Miles Teg]

That's not what you said during the election...

 

[RedRalph]

Nobody in the Bush administration will be prosecuted because the current administration will not want to set the precedent where it could happen to them as well. They're all in cahoots.

Actually, I think this is pretty accurate

 

[BSmith1068]

Looks like Rove and Miers will testify after all… Any bets on how many times they plead the 5th?

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/04/congress.justice/index.html

Spoiler :

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Former White House political adviser Karl Rove and counsel Harriet Miers have agreed to face questions from Congress about allegations of improper political influence in the Justice Department, the House Judiciary Committee announced Wednesday.

Both will give depositions to investigators from the committee, and claims of privilege will be "significantly limited," according to a statement from the committee.

Rove and Miers had been resisting congressional subpoenas about the matter since the House Judiciary Committee began trying to force Miers to testify in 2006. The Bush White House resisted, claiming she could not be compelled to appear. But a federal judge in Washington ruled that the former Bush administration officials had no grounds to invoke executive privilege in the case.

The committee, led by Rep. John Conyers, D-Michigan, has been investigating claims that Rove and his White House allies fired U.S. attorneys for political reasons and prosecuted officials whom they saw as opponents. Conyers called the agreement "a victory for the separation of powers and congressional oversight."

"It is also a vindication of the search for truth," Conyers said in a statement accompanying the announcement. "I am determined to have it known whether U.S. attorneys in the Department of Justice were fired for political reasons, and if so, by whom."

The controversy stems from the 2006 firings of the top federal prosecutors in nine U.S. cities, some of whom were singled out because they were considered insufficiently "loyal Bushies," according to one e-mail from a former Justice Department official uncovered in the probe.

U.S. attorneys are political appointees who serve at the pleasure of the president. But the Justice Department's description of the firings as "performance-related" once the shake-up became public triggered an outcry from the fired lawyers and led to allegations of political influence on Justice Department hiring decisions and cases.

In September, the department's internal watchdog found the process behind the firings "fundamentally flawed" and sharply criticized top Justice officials, including former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. Its report called for an outside probe to examine potential charges, and Gonzales' successor, Michael Mukasey, appointed a special prosecutor to investigate the case.

The Bush White House insisted the firings of the nine U.S. attorneys were legal. But Democrats said the central questions behind the dismissals -- who decided the prosecutors should be ousted and why -- remain unanswered.

Rove was former President Bush's top political adviser for most of his two terms, and Miers was the top White House legal adviser from 2005 until early 2007. They had been resisting congressional subpoenas in the investigation, citing executive privilege.

Rob Saliterman, a spokesman for the former president, issued a statement saying the deal had been reached "at the urging of the Obama administration and in consideration of the executive branch interests at stake." The agreement "satisfies the Committee's desire for additional information and will finally put this matter to rest," Saliterman said.

Congress went to court to enforce the subpoenas, and a federal judge in Washington ruled last year that the former Bush administration officials had no grounds to invoke executive privilege. After Rove received a new subpoena in January, the Obama administration said it was reviewing whether Rove and Miers were still covered by executive privilege and worked to clear the way for Wednesday's agreement.

White House counsel Greg Craig said the deal allows the committee to go forward with its investigation.

"The president is pleased that the parties have agreed to resolve this matter amicably and that they have committed to work in good faith to bring about a timely and final resolution of this matter, which is in the interest of the American people," Craig said in a statement from the White House.

The Justice Department will file a joint motion from Congress and the administration to put the court case on hold, Justice officials said, allowing it to be reopened if necessary.

 

[GenMarshall]

About gosh darn time!

 

[Quiet Sound]

Subpoenas are for the little people not the aristocracy.

 

[GoodGame]

Originally Posted by Death_Machine
Nobody in the Bush administration will be prosecuted because the current administration will not want to set the precedent where it could happen to them as well. They're all in cahoots.

Now this might be the truth. The Washington establishment has to maintain the framework whereby powerful political figures are beyond the reach of the law.

Cleo

A gentlemen's agreement to be dirty? But I thought there was no honor among thieves...

I think it's ironic since the proposed reason for Rove being involved in the US Attorney firings was so they could use legal investigations to cast aspersions on political candidates, given that the public's voting habits might be influenced away from those candidates because of taint that they were being investigated (according to wikipedia). It might be closer to the truth that if the public gets too much of an earful from Rove about how those machinations occur, then a more cynical public will be immune to the machinations in the future.

 

[Death_Machine]

That's not what you said during the election...

Wrong. You dig up what I said that is different than that. I'm a 3rd party guy, have been since 1997, so put that in your pipe & smoke it.

 

[BasketCase]

A question completely unrelated to any previous arguments in this thread:

When (or, rather, IF) Karl Rove does testify, how is anybody gonna know whether he's telling the truth? Here's how it's gonna go down: the loonies now running the country--and also the loonies on CFC, and there are several--will only believe him if he says "yes, Bush illegally fired attorneys in order to cover something up".

If Rove says anything else, the above-mentioned loonies won't believe him. I have no illusions--nobody in Washington D.C. actually gives a crap about the truth. They only care that Rove tells them what they want to hear. CFC is moderately better, but not by much.

Hmm.....I think I just flamed half the entire membership of CFC.

 

[Simple Simon]

A question completely unrelated to any previous arguments in this thread:

When (or, rather, IF) Karl Rove does testify, how is anybody gonna know whether he's telling the truth? Here's how it's gonna go down: the loonies now running the country--and also the loonies on CFC, and there are several--will only believe him if he says "yes, Bush illegally fired attorneys in order to cover something up".

If Rove says anything else, the above-mentioned loonies won't believe him. I have no illusions--nobody in Washington D.C. actually gives a crap about the truth. They only care that Rove tells them what they want to hear. CFC is moderately better, but not by much.

Hmm.....I think I just flamed half the entire membership of CFC.

First, don't draw conclusions about others based on yourself. Just because you will accept what you want to hear doesn't mean others can't accept a plausible story, or refuse an implausible one.

Second, Rove will have to think twice about lying. Under Obama, the executive privilege secrecy is shrinking fast. If he lies and is found out by White House documents he's in for jail time, at worst.

 

[Dachs]

Under Obama, the executive privilege secrecy is shrinking fast.

I really haven't been paying attention at all (dead guys' politics being more personally interesting than alive ones') but didn't he actually invoke executive privilege already with respect to some other, possibly-Guantanamo-but-I-can't-remember-exactly stuff?

 

[Death_Machine]

First, don't draw conclusions about others based on yourself. Just because you will accept what you want to hear doesn't mean others can't accept a plausible story, or refuse an implausible one.

Second, Rove will have to think twice about lying. Under Obama, the executive privilege secrecy is shrinking fast. If he lies and is found out by White House documents he's in for jail time, at worst.

omg, too funny I bet you're the kind of guy who thinks he is "open minded" too.

How has executive privilege shrunk under any president?

You sir are a true believer & I feel sorry for you, just like I do for anybody who is a true believer of the Republican or Democrat machines.

 

[Simple Simon]

omg, too funny I bet you're the kind of guy who thinks he is "open minded" too.

How has executive privilege shrunk under any president?

You sir are a true believer & I feel sorry for you, just like I do for anybody who is a true believer of the Republican or Democrat machines.

Is this a flame, or just stupid partisan babble?

FACT is that the Bush administration has turned things into secrets that never before were secret. That the Bush administration has refused, ignored and tampered with scientific evidence wherever it could - an if it could not, it has kept it secret.

In contrast, Obama has stated that all advisory panel appointments will be reviewed to put the experts back into them, so that proper advice can be had, and published. Also, AFAIK Obama has never cried 'executive privilege, I won't tell' yet.

So what is your problem? Do you hate the fact that someone is running the US who does not place the profits of a close circle of friends from Big Business before the interests of the vast majority of the people?

 

[GoodGame]

A question completely unrelated to any previous arguments in this thread:

When (or, rather, IF) Karl Rove does testify, how is anybody gonna know whether he's telling the truth? Here's how it's gonna go down: the loonies now running the country--and also the loonies on CFC, and there are several--will only believe him if he says "yes, Bush illegally fired attorneys in order to cover something up".

If Rove says anything else, the above-mentioned loonies won't believe him. I have no illusions--nobody in Washington D.C. actually gives a crap about the truth. They only care that Rove tells them what they want to hear. CFC is moderately better, but not by much.

Hmm.....I think I just flamed half the entire membership of CFC.

So what do you think they want Rove to say?

I think the most that will come out is that Congress will decide that the Justice Dept. is too easily abused for politics, and any future actions of it have to be regularly reviewed by all branches in a timely fashion, after action, if not before action. W. can't be impeached at this time. Could he be jailed for abuse of power at this point?

 

[FriendlyFire]

Clinton didn't fire attorneys for political retribution? So what did the Whitewater investigator get canned for? Unpaid parking tickets? Dog pooped on the neighbor's yard and he didn't scoop it up?

i dont recall, I cant remember, To the best of my memory I dont remember, I cant recall, I dont remember, I cant recall.