Rove can testify.. just not under oath

[George Gervin's Afro]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,259843,00.html


No, Karl has nothing to hide.. he doesn't even have to tell the truth.. :lol

[xrayzebra]

Can they talk about Clinton firing 93 of them when he took office
and about 30 while in office. Just checking.

[Drive Like Jehu]

Can they talk about Clinton firing 93 of them when he took office
and about 30 while in office. Just checking.

There IS nothing wrong with Clinton firing 93 lawyers.

[xrayzebra]

As far as I am concerned there is nothing wrong with firing all
lawyers........LOL.

But what a bunch of crap, bitching about 8, who serves at the
Presidents pleasure.

[George Gervin's Afro]

As far as I am concerned there is nothing wrong with firing all
lawyers........LOL.

But what a bunch of crap, bitching about 8, who serves at the
Presidents pleasure.


I actually agree with you ray it ain't no big deal..what confuses me is that the WH & Gonzo have been telling conflicting stories since this all came out... They are actually to blame for making this worse than it would have been.. People don't trust this administration , wait..rationale thinking people don't believe this administration.. and guess what they look like thier lying again.. so if it's a buch of crap then why won't your hero bush just come out and say that?

[boutons_]

Karl not under oath? His testimony will be as useful as a pile of shit.

If I were Congress, I would say, "Karl under oath, else shove it up dickhead's ass".

[clambake]

Seeing Ray use the phrase "who serves at the Presidents pleasure" makes me strangely ill.

[ChumpDumper]

Can they talk about Clinton firing 93 of them when he took office
and about 30 while in office. Just checking.Ok, x. I'm calling you out on this one.

You need to show me a link showing Clinton fired 30 of the US Attorneys he appointed before their terms were up.

[Nbadan]

Bush fired all 93 when he got into office, the difference is, Clinton didn't target the ones that he didn't think helprd enough to push his political agenda, or in some cases, vendettas, later.

[Nbadan]

Bush warns Dems to take offer in firings
By LAURIE KELLMAN, Associated Press Writer 2 minutes ago


WASHINGTON - President Bush warned Democrats Tuesday to accept his offer to have top aides testify about the firings of federal prosecutors only privately and not under oath, or risk a constitutional showdown from which he would not back down.

Democrats' response to his proposal was swift and firm. "Testimony should be on the record and under oath. That's the formula for true accountability," said Patrick Leahy (news, bio, voting record), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Bush, in a late-afternoon statement at the White House, said, "We will not go along with a partisan fishing expedition aimed at honorable public servants. ... I proposed a reasonable way to avoid an impasse."

He added: "There's no indication ... that anybody did anything improper."

Yahoo News (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070320/ap_on_go_pr_wh/fired_prosecutors)

Oh shit. I'm afraid this is where the Democrats cave, or cut a deal, or have a "Gang of 14" agree to do nothing, or even apologize (like the Dick Durbin fiasco), or escalate the conflict to non-binding resolution status, or let more of our Constitutional rights get obliterated with backdoor meetings, or decide to let Bush invade Iran after all, or . . .

[mookie2001]

remember when Bush finally talked to the 9/11 Commission, except he didnt take an oath, no notes were taken, Cheney was by his side at all times and no one was allowed to ever talk about what he said?

[Yonivore]

Bush fired all 93 when he got into office, the difference is, Clinton didn't target the ones that he didn't think helprd enough to push his political agenda, or in some cases, vendettas, later.
You're right, he masked the firing of the one he didn't want continuing to pursue his corruption in Arkansas by firing all 93.

Very clever indeed.

[boutons_]

The Whitewater witchhunt continued for years AFTER Clinton took office. It cost many $Ms, $60M IIRC, and came up empty handed, just like the flaccid impeachment that the impotent Repugs couldn't consummate.

Clinton probably spent 100s of hours distracted by the "vast right wing/Repug" witchhunts, instead of doing his job, like spending some of those hours on al Qaida.

[xrayzebra]

Clinton probably spent 100s of hours distracted by the "vast right wing/Repug" witchhunts, instead of doing his job, like spending some of those hours on al Qaida.

Looking for more chicks to share his life/standards with. Maybe a little rape on the side. Hellva job you did
BillyBoy.

[clambake]

Rape???? you guys are desperate.

[George Gervin's Afro]

What Ray fails to grasp is this goes both ways. I don't want anyone, whether they are a Democrat or Republican, to refuse to go under oath in front of Congress. The President's ( In general you bushbots so take bush out of this) staff should have no problem answering questions under oath. Bush made the comment yesterday (I'm paraphrasing) that he felt that if these folks were to testify under oath they could be caught in a perjurous trap. What? Where I come from perjuring yourself means lying under oath. Whomever is called to trestify should be telling the truth..again bushbots for both parties.. so his concern seems to be that if his staff lies then they shouldn't be concerned with perjury..

[clambake]

Hell yes, bring'em all in. Who gives a shit. They're so afraid of bush getting caught. Why won't they agree to question everybody about everything?

[xrayzebra]

What Ray fails to grasp is this goes both ways. I don't want anyone, whether they are a Democrat or Republican, to refuse to go under oath in front of Congress. The President's ( In general you bushbots so take bush out of this) staff should have no problem answering questions under oath. Bush made the comment yesterday (I'm paraphrasing) that he felt that if these folks were to testify under oath they could be caught in a perjurous trap. What? Where I come from perjuring yourself means lying under oath. Whomever is called to trestify should be telling the truth..again bushbots for both parties.. so his concern seems to be that if his staff lies then they shouldn't be concerned with perjury..

One thing you forgot. Like the Constitution. You know
seperation of power. Congress cant tell the Prez how
to run his office.
:reading

[clambake]

They don't want to tell him how to run it, Ray. They want to question how it's run.

That ok with you?

[xrayzebra]

They don't want to tell him how to run it, Ray. They want to question how it's run.

That ok with you?

You aren't very bright are you? And no it isn't alright with
me for them to question how he runs it. It's the Presidents
office not theirs. If they think he violated the law, charge
him and throw him out of office. You know like when a
Congressman violates the law and goes to jail, like, whats
his face in California. Of course some are immune like the
the Louisiana Congressman, who kept a "cool" 90
thousand on hand. And others have been convicted of
bribing him. That I have a problem with DOJ on.

[clambake]

What are you afraid of? Say it.

[xrayzebra]

I am afraid of nothing. What are you afraid of?

[ChumpDumper]

If you are afraid of nothing then you should have no problem at all with Rove's testifying under oath before Congress.

I personally am afraid that US Attorneys were fired by the administration that hired them as a political retaliation. With all your bitching you have failed to even intimate that it was anything but just that.

And I'm still waiting for you to prove that Clinton fired 30 US Attorneys that he had previously appointed.

[George Gervin's Afro]

One thing you forgot. Like the Constitution. You know
seperation of power. Congress cant tell the Prez how
to run his office.
:reading


So your ok with any President allowing for anyone he considers a part of his 'staff' to be immune from testifying under oath. Where in the constitution does it define who his 'staff' is? So now we the people should allow the President to give anyone immunity from testifying under oath?

[boutons_]

The SC told Nixon to give up his tapes.

"executive privilege" is not in the Constitution. WTF use is check and balances if you can't check and balance?

[clambake]

Hey, take it easy. Give Ray some time to back up his gibberish.

[boutons_]

The problem is that the, eg New Mexico, politicians in the Legislative branch, were trying to influence and intimidate US Attorneys and prosecutions in the Exec branch.

[boutons_]

I can't find link, but the the Repug US Attorneys have prosecuted about 8x more Dems than Repugs these past 6 years.

Lam, who jailed a Repug, got fired.

The Repugs have shit all over This Great Country of Ours.

[Nbadan]

Source: CNN


A House subcommittee voted today to authorize subpoenas for President Bush's key adviser, Karl Rove, and other top White House aides, in the probe of ousted U.S. attorneys.

CNN (http://www.cnn.com/)

Looks like it's on biatch!

[George Gervin's Afro]

Source: CNN


CNN (http://www.cnn.com/)

Looks like it's on biatch!


Bush will just deny it and the public will distrust these fools even more than they do now. Can these morons have any less credibility? Well I guess they will after this episode.

[Nbadan]

"If you've done nothing wrong, you shouldn't mind being investigated".

Where have we heard this before?

:hat

[Nbadan]

Purging documents...

Snow Won’t Comment On 18-Day Gap: ‘I’ve Been Led To Believe There’s A Good Response For It'


Researchers have discovered an 18-day gap in the 3,000 documents on the U.S. Attorney purge released this week by the Justice Department. The gap extends from mid-November to early December, “which was a critical period as the White House and Justice Department reviewed, then approved, which U.S. attorneys would be fired while also developing a political and communications strategy for countering any fallout from the firings.”

During today’s press briefing, CNN’s Ed Henry noted that one of the last emails before the gap is from Attorney General Alberto Gonzales ex-chief of staff Kyle Sampson to then-White House Counsel Harriet Miers, asking, “Who will determine whether this requires the president’s attention?”

White House spokesman Tony Snow refused to explain the gap, telling reporters, “I’ve been led to believe that there’s a good response for it.” He said President Bush “has no recollection of this ever being raised with him.”

Think Progress (http://thinkprogress.org/2007/03/20/the-us-attorney-document-gap)

[boutons_]

"18 ... gap"

dickhead, still trying inflate the Exec up to and above pre-Watergate imperial, dictatorial powers, made this gap exactly 18 days to give the SC and the Lege a big fat

REMEMBER WATERGATE!

and

FUCK ALL Y'ALL!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watergate_tapes#18.C2.BD_minute_gap_Tape (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watergate_tapes#18.C2.BD_minute_gap_Tape)

http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smilol.gif

[Nbadan]

Faux news analysis on subpoena power doesn't look good for WH


...

Louis Fisher, a constitutional law specialist for the Library of Congress, said that should Conyers decide to go ahead and sign off on subpoenas and issue them, it could be a short time before Rove, Miers or anyone else would testify. The possibility of a contempt charge on someone's resume usually is enough to get them to comply, he said.

Fisher said that while the White House might be considering invoking executive privilege — the broad claim that members of the administration shouldn't have to testify because of constitutional separation of powers between Congress and the executive branch — the White House might have a hard time proving that.

For instance, Miers is no longer a member of the administration, drawing into question how clearly the lines of the executive branch are drawn. He also said that as recently as 2004, the White House backed off executive privilege claims when it allowed then-National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice to testify under oath before the Sept. 11 Commission.

Fisher said if Miers, Rove or anyone else chose to ignore the subpoenas they could be found in contempt, but the charge first would need to be put before a vote of the full House or Senate.

FoxNews (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,260222,00.html)