Rove: Attorney Scandal ‘A Lot Of Politics’
By on Mar 15th, 2007 at 2:34 pm
Rove: Attorney Scandal ‘A Lot Of Politics’
Karl Rove was asked about the U.S. Attorney purge during an event today in Troy, AL. There was no talk of “mistakes” made or actions not “handle[d] properly,” a phrase White House Press Secretary Tony Snow used today.
Instead, Rove repeated the false ‘Clinton did it too’ line several times, and concluded: “This to my mind is a lot of politics, and I understand that’s what Congress has the right to play around with, and they’re gonna do it.” Watch it:
[flv http://video.thinkprogress.org/2007/03/roveplay.320.240.flv]
UPDATE: Paul Kiel has more.
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Bush
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Global Warming
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Iraq
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
McCain
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Public Plan
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Sports
Steele
Steve King
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Technology
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
Pot, meet kettle.
March 15th, 2007 at 2:36 pmAnd of course, when all else fails, play the ol’ favorite, the Clinton card.
March 15th, 2007 at 2:37 pmMan, those guys are usually a little better at spinning than this. “Clinton did it in ‘93″ is the best they can come up with? They’re screwed. And they know it.
March 15th, 2007 at 2:38 pmRove: Attorney scandal ‘a lot of politics.’
Exactly. Political firing of US Attorneys should never happen. It weakens the faith in the system. Good call Karl. At least he admits this misdeed. Time to pony up to the others now.
March 15th, 2007 at 2:39 pmBring this slimey son-of-a-pig loving who*e to justice…
…he’s FARRR too smug, and needs to be brought DOWN!
March 15th, 2007 at 2:39 pmClinton (and Carter) DID do it — are you all saying that was wrong as well?! If not, it is all politics!
March 15th, 2007 at 2:40 pmFor a group of hacks who came to the White House with the basic theory that “everything Clinton did sucked” – they sure use him as an excuse alot.
March 15th, 2007 at 2:41 pmThe White House prosecutor purge is less about supposed voter fraud than Rove’s GOP strategy for suppressing the Democratic and independent vote. For the full story, see:
“The Link: Purging Prosecutors – and Voters.”
For the latest news, hearings, legal filings and other essential documents on the Bush DOJ prosecutor firings, see:
March 15th, 2007 at 2:43 pm“The U.S. Attorney Scandal Documents.”
KRank:
Read the threads below to see that Carter did it in 1978 and Clinton did it in 1993, 1994, and 1996.
March 15th, 2007 at 2:44 pmRove my hero!
March 15th, 2007 at 2:44 pmWARNING: GODWIN’S LAW IS NOW IN EFFECT
THE “BIG LIE”
“The phrase was also used (page 219 ) in a report prepared during the war by the United States Office of Strategic Services in describing Hitler’s psychological profile [1]
His primary rules were: never allow the public to cool off; never admit a fault or wrong; never concede that there may be some good in your enemy; never leave room for alternatives; never accept blame; concentrate on one enemy at a time and blame him for everything that goes wrong; people will believe a big lie sooner than a little one; and if you repeat it frequently enough people will sooner or later believe it. – OSS report page 51″
March 15th, 2007 at 2:44 pmI was going to remark about political advisor Karl Rove, but it turns out you have to go to rehab if you use the word FAGGOT!
March 15th, 2007 at 2:45 pmKarl is up to his neck in every crime done in the last 6 years. Notice he couldn’t show up to help Libby. Now he’s using the Clinton defense which is also a lie. Karl will dump Gonzo as the other GOP use him as the way out. Gonzo was put in office only for the Spanish vote. Gonzo still thinks he’s works as the council to the President he doesn’t know what an Attorney Generals job is. Karl will trow Gonzo under the bus as this starts getting closer to Bush. Remember what Bush said about Rummy and then Rummy was gone. Karl wants to hire only lawyers with criminal backgrounds not replace Judges with criminal background. Only hiring corrupt lawyer/Judges to follow the new Dictator Legal System.
March 15th, 2007 at 2:46 pmJeff Gannon’s pasty white friend.
March 15th, 2007 at 2:47 pmThe devil is in the details, Jake.
Traditionally, USA’s are changed / replaced at the beginning of a President’s term. NO administration has ever fired a USA in the middle of their term, and they were definitely NOT fired for their performance AFTER receiving positive performance reviews.
The uproar is not about the firing – it is about how the openings would be filled… and thanks to the Patriot Act, Bush has usurped some of Congresses power.
So you are right. It IS political – because Bush and Gonzales made it that way.
March 15th, 2007 at 2:47 pmCan someone please explain to Jake in words he can understand that what Carter, Clinton, Reagan and GW Bush did in replacing USAs at the beginning of their terms was business-as-usual? And that replacing eight of your own appointees six years into their terms is NOT? Especially when most of them had been either a) told they were not prosecuting Democrats as aggressively as the President’s political people would have liked or b) actually investigating and prosecuting corrupt Republicans?
To some, that might just look a lot like “obstruction of justice” .
March 15th, 2007 at 2:48 pmAnd here comes Joke, out to regurgitate all the talking points that were debunked DAYS ago…like King George…monkey see, monkey do.
March 15th, 2007 at 2:48 pmSorry – earlier Godwin’s Law post got up there before links were entered…
Let me know if the historically challenged need details.
March 15th, 2007 at 2:49 pmJake – simple question – If all of this was above board, then why did the staff people resort to using a @gwb43.com email address rather than an official one? There is not other reason than they KNEW they were doing hte wrong thing.
And you can shove that “Clinton did it too” crap up your….
Lame.
March 15th, 2007 at 2:49 pmIt’s the same, tired-ass, two-day-old rhetoric that these trolls expound incessantly. I guess they were mold-pressed from the same pile of shit.
March 15th, 2007 at 2:50 pm“Clinton (and Carter) DID do it — are you all saying that was wrong as well?! If not, it is all politics!
Comment by Jake — March 15, 2007 @ 2:40 pm”
Jake, how many times do people have to provide you with the FACTS that ALL administrations purge attorneys when they enter office?????
You write well, so you must be somewhat intelligent…… Stop with this stupid **** already! You know damn well that it is not right or has been done in the past to fire this many attorneys in the middle of a term. Not to mention firing them because they are procecuting Republicans!!!!
Tell Gates that you need some more talking points.
March 15th, 2007 at 2:51 pmJake – if you are between 17 and 42 – please join up – now http://www.goarmy.com. W needs you in Iraq – not in the 101st Fighting Keyboarders!
March 15th, 2007 at 2:52 pmI don’t understand the “news” value of this.
This would be news if he DIDN’T repeat the party line here, or if he came up with something new.
Last night they had someone who was part of this administration’s DOJ on PBS. Right away the Clinton thing came up. One of the other panelists pointed the difference right away.
Same old strategy from Bush’s mob. Bring up Clinton to have people defend that and point out the differences. In the meantime WE don’t have to answer the questions about the REAL issue.
March 15th, 2007 at 2:52 pmClinton did NOT do it!
Carter did NOT do it!
March 15th, 2007 at 2:53 pmRove: eat hot death you sick, bloated, amorphous blob. You are the worst kind of mindless political, unethical, beast Amercian politics could have created. Luckily your time has already passed.
March 15th, 2007 at 2:56 pmO.K., so I’m supposed to believe that Carter dismissing the U.S. Attorney investigation Democratic Rep. Eilberg (1978 — not the BEGINNING of his term, Technodaoist) was “obstruction of justice”? That’s the new standard now and forever?
March 15th, 2007 at 2:56 pmPolitical firings were par for the Clinton course
Posted Wednesday afternoon, March 14 OC Register
Steve Dufau
Right on Steve – these TPers has amnesia or selective memory.
TP is the new Soviet Pravda
March 15th, 2007 at 2:56 pmWell, if it’s not big deal, Karl, then why are you petrified of going in front of a committee hearing?
March 15th, 2007 at 2:57 pmCan someone please explain to Jake in words he can understand
Comment by KRank — March 15, 2007 @ 2:48 pm
Jake has had this very thing explained to him, very carefully, very many times, in the past few days. But Jake sticks to the script, no matter what. It can lead to some pretty comical outcomes.
March 15th, 2007 at 2:57 pmFu*k you Karl Rove and fu*k you Flaco. Your name says it all.
March 15th, 2007 at 2:58 pmWhat else is Queen Karl going to say? ..It’s either that or wet himself.
March 15th, 2007 at 2:59 pmGreat Flaco, the OC Register. I just read something in there the other day about how global warming doesn’t exist because Michael Chrichton has proved that it’s a fraud.
Global warming isn’t a fraud, Flaco, but you are.
March 15th, 2007 at 2:59 pm#27 Flaco
Wow. That’s a great big pile of opinionated crap. Was that supposed to be convincing or was it just filler to show that you posted while you were on the clock?
March 15th, 2007 at 3:00 pm“O.K., so I’m supposed to believe that Carter dismissing the U.S. Attorney investigation Democratic Rep. Eilberg (1978 — not the BEGINNING of his term, Technodaoist) was “obstruction of justiceâ€? That’s the new standard now and forever?
Comment by Jake — March 15, 2007 @ 2:56 pm”
Jake…… Are you 2 years old?????
Is it time for your napi???
Look!!!! If Carter did this, which I have not looked into, it was wrong then just as it is wrong NOW! Stop with this “HE DID IT” crap!!!!
How well do you think that would go over in a court of law about a bank robbery??? “Well your honor….. I didn’t see any problem with it because Jessey James did it”…..
Grow the hell up and look at the situation as an ADULT!!!!
If it’s wrong, it does not matter WHO did/does it! PERIOD!!!
March 15th, 2007 at 3:01 pminvestigation = investigating
BTW: if that is the new standard, the no U.S. Attorney could EVER be fired as long as he says he’s investigating someone who is a member of the President’s party?! I posted a CRS Report in another thread showing AT LEAST 55 U.S. Attorneys who did not serve full 4 year terms. That happened under every Administration since Ford (I’m sure I could find more going back to U.S. Grant’s).
March 15th, 2007 at 3:02 pm#29 VerbalKint
Jake has had this very thing explained to him, very carefully, very many times, in the past few days. But Jake sticks to the script, no matter what. It can lead to some pretty comical outcomes.
There’s no question that it’s a script.
March 15th, 2007 at 3:02 pmOk – conspiracy moment: anyone think there might be 1-2 suicides/accidents before some of the Justice Department officials can testify under oath? How about a raising of the terror alert level (anyone notice that this never seems to happen anymore, unlike in ‘04?)
The Bush administration isn’t used to being held over a barrel. My guess is that things could get very ugly, very soon.
March 15th, 2007 at 3:03 pmTrolls – keep it Apples to Apples.
1993: (Clinton sworn in to first term)
replaces all US Attorneys
2001: (Bush 43 sworn in to first term)
replaces all US Attorneys
1998: (2 years into Clinton’s second term)
Clinton fires NO US Attorneys
2007: (2 years into Bush’s second term)
March 15th, 2007 at 3:03 pmBush fires 7 US Attorneys that HE appointed
“Political firings were par for the Clinton course
Posted Wednesday afternoon, March 14 OC Register
I read with incredulity the Associated Press in-depth story, “Gonzales under fire†[Front Page, March 14]: a story about the outrage of both Democrats and spaghetti-spined Republicans at the Bush administration’s justice department firing of eight U.S. attorneys.
…
Right on Steve – these TPers has amnesia or selective memory.
TP is the new Soviet Pravda
Comment by Flaco — March 15, 2007 @ 2:56 pm”
Flacid…. Um…. I mean Flaco…..
See my post to Jake, maybe if you two put your heads together you MIGHT make one brain cell in order to comprehend. Though I doubt it…..
March 15th, 2007 at 3:04 pmKarl Rove is so full of himself, he even believes his own lies. Is it any wonder after listening to him, what a bunch of selfish, political hacks ( from the top, down) inhabit the executive branch at this point in our history as a nation? Let’s hope the power of the subpoena, the power of impeachment and above all, the power of the people prevail and take these scoundrels out of office. Our founding fathers would have these bastards flogged.
March 15th, 2007 at 3:04 pmWhere has Karl been this past week- at a Nazi convention? He is two days behind with his stupid mouthings and even blogging botards are ahead of his game. This man is supposed to be a political advisor? If this was his “best shot”, he’d better start packing his bags. Hit the frigging road, you bloated, tired-ass closet queen.
March 15th, 2007 at 3:04 pmJake,
Research you research, please.
Dismissing an investigation at the request of a single congressperson and FIRING multiple USA’s are not the same and to imply as much is disingenuous.
In addition, you seem to avoid debating anything but the firing itself. Do you have any more briliant insights into the Patriot Act or positive performance reviews???
March 15th, 2007 at 3:04 pmMan, those guys are usually a little better at spinning than this. “Clinton did it in ‘93″ is the best they can come up with? They’re screwed. And they know it.
Comment by KRank — March 15, 2007 @ 2:38 pm
This current administration came into office bashing the Clinton administration and promising to restore “honor and dignity” back to the White House but when things get tough for them, they bend over backwards to try to invoke Clinton’s name to justify their actions.
March 15th, 2007 at 3:04 pmAnd now, todays epidode of …As The Worm Squirms
March 15th, 2007 at 3:05 pmBut first, these messages from our sponsor…
RemoveBush:
As I have told you, I am 75 years old and I am not bringing up Carter / Clinton’s “wrongs” to make Bush’s “right” — I am pointing out that NEITHER was wrong — bank robbery OTOH is wrong whether Jesse James got away with it or not. Only a 2 year old couldn’t see the difference.
March 15th, 2007 at 3:06 pmTime to go watch some March Madness, enough beating my head against the wall trying to point out the obvious to these ignorant propaganda-pushers who insist on defending this most morally corrupt, ethically bankrupt, criminally culpable fascists in American history.
March 15th, 2007 at 3:06 pmHow do the trolls type and listen to Limbaugh at the same time without drooling on their keyboards?
Mommy mommy – Clinton did it too! The sound of pathetic wusses.
March 15th, 2007 at 3:06 pmFlaco,
Um. Are you sure of those Clinton firings?
WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft today announced that Jay B. Stephens, Associate Attorney General, will step down to pursue an opportunity in the private sector.
March 15th, 2007 at 3:07 pmagain and again:
The argument is premised on a mistaken understanding of how the process works. When a president takes office, he or she nominates federal prosecutors at the beginning of the first term. Under normal circumstances, these U.S. Attorneys serve until the next president is sworn in.
In 1993, Clinton replaced H.W. Bush’s prosecutors. In 2001, Bush replaced Clinton’s prosecutors. None of this is remotely unusual. Indeed, it’s how the process is designed.
The difference with the current scandal is overwhelming
March 15th, 2007 at 3:07 pmBush replaced eight specific prosecutors, apparently for purely political reasons. This is entirely unprecedented. For conservatives to argue, as many are now, that Clinton’s routine replacements for H.W. Bush’s USAs is any way similar is the height of intellectual dishonesty. They know better, but hope their audience is too uninformed to know the differencethat’s you trolls
Yet karl doesn’t answer the question, which asks about why the white house does not allow dissent. rove does not answer the question.
March 15th, 2007 at 3:08 pmSo trolls and rethugs, how do you respond to the charge that this administration does not allow dissent?
(sound of crikets chirping).
Technodaoist:
I was not the one who falsely claimed “NO administration has ever fired a USA in the middle of their term” — if you want specifics, please see multiple Gonzales threads below.
March 15th, 2007 at 3:08 pmDon’t you think if Clinton purged U.S. Attorneys who were investigating Democrats and replaced them with party loyalists who ended those investigations, there might have been just a teeny bit of protest from the Republicans at the time?
Is Rove making the argument that when a Democrat controlls the white house, then all U.S. Attorneys should be tasked solely with investigating Republicans? That the Justice Department become the official investigatory arm of the party in power?
March 15th, 2007 at 3:09 pmAhhh before it goes further disregard #48……heh…heh. Oooops. My bad.
March 15th, 2007 at 3:10 pmNat:
Let me try to explain it this way — I am not invoking Clinton’s name to justify something Bush did wrong — if your side drew up Articles of Impeachment because Bush took a jog, I would similarly point out that Clinton jogged and your side was fine with that. It’s called pointing out obvious hypocrisy.
March 15th, 2007 at 3:11 pm#47….
March 15th, 2007 at 3:12 pmone of the trolls, Patrick1 or Jake (if they are two different individuals, I have my doubts today) was actually quoting Rush Limbaugh yesterday… maybe they use headphones…
It is funny how you people crucify Republicans for everything the Democrats have done in the past.
ROTFL
I wish Bush would pull a bunch of sh!t and claim executive privilege. If he did it every day from now to the end of his term it would still not be as many times as Slick Willey did
ROTFL
March 15th, 2007 at 3:13 pmDon’t hurt me, pleeeeeease don’t hurt me! I didn’t meeeeeean it.
… whimper, whimper…
This “man” reminds me of a cockroach. You turn your back, and there he goes… running off to hide somewhere, like the putzy, sniveling coward he is.
March 15th, 2007 at 3:14 pm“RemoveBush:
As I have told you, I am 75 years old and I am not bringing up Carter / Clinton’s “wrongs†to make Bush’s “right†— I am pointing out that NEITHER was wrong — bank robbery OTOH is wrong whether Jesse James got away with it or not. Only a 2 year old couldn’t see the difference.
Comment by Jake — March 15, 2007 @ 3:06 pm”
Bush IS WRONG!!!!
There is A HUGE difference between firing appointees he placed in office because they are procecuting Republicans, rather than for performance issues….. The RECORD IS CLEAR!!!! Only ONE had any kind of perfromance issue….. The others were rated EXCEPTIONAL!!!! The performance issue is bogus, and the reason is because these procecutors were getting ready to get the bigger fish in the Republican party, which probably would lead to Bush!!!! So they had to go…..
This my 2 year old friend is why they were dismissed and why there is such a fuss about it…… This is not normal and you can TRY to spout that it is, but it is NOT.
You have been provided this information OVER AND OVER AND OVER so I’m done with this discussion with you since you don’t have the mental ability to understand the simplist of things…..
Please do see a doctor…… It seems that your ability to actually think and understand has diminished and I would not want to see you sitting at home alone with noone to help you remember how to go to the restroom.
March 15th, 2007 at 3:15 pmBriseadh na Faire:
I don’t recall what (if any) protest there was from the Republicans (who were in the minority at the time), but no one was ever forced to resign, that’s for sure. I don’t think Rove is making the argument that when a Democrat controls the White House, then all U.S. Attorneys should be tasked solely with investigating Republicans. I would agree with you that would make DoJ the official investigatory arm of the party in power. You do realize there are 93 U.S. Attorneys, right? Even when Clinton replaced the U.S. Attorney looking into Rostenkowski, the professional prosecutors and staff in that office still got a conviction. He was more successful in his replacement of the U.S. Attorney looking into Whitewater.
March 15th, 2007 at 3:17 pmEven if all these report’s of past president’s are true does it give the present administration free reign to do what ever the hell they want.? This crap from rove, about they did it ,so we can is just that.crap..
Forgot the actual quote but was thinking of this today, it goes something like this.” We did then what we knew how to do, now we know better we can do better.”….Any one remember who said this and the exact quote.?..Thank you Mia….Blessings
March 15th, 2007 at 3:17 pmJake,
March 15th, 2007 at 3:17 pmI hate having to bring up the same references again and again, but should we dissect this one again today. Is your short term memory really that bad?
#55- Of course they do. They’re all a bunch of puppets and parrots, simply repeating what they have already heard. By the way, I think Jerk is Patsy, too.
March 15th, 2007 at 3:19 pmFlaco,
It’s hard to take you seriously when you haven’t mastered English usage. “these TPers has amnesia…” Get out of the trailer and into night school for goodness sake.
You’re too funny.
March 15th, 2007 at 3:19 pmGreat. The troll set is complete — Happy Dude is here.
**eyes rolling**
March 15th, 2007 at 3:20 pm16. Can someone please explain to Jake in words he can understand
Comment by KRank — March 15, 2007 @ 2:48 pm
NO
He doesn’t understand anything anybody tries to explain to him. That would be counterproductive to his cause anyway. He spews inanity just to distract posters from the legitimate arguments they have.
That being said I am having a TROLL OUT!
March 15th, 2007 at 3:20 pmI’m TROLL-FREE ALL DAY!
See you later, RemoveBush.
Sharon:
The problem, of course, is if it was not considered “wrong” when Carter and Clinton did it, why is it “wrong” when Bush does it?
TheWaltMan:
I think the CRS Report proves my point, you don’t. I think we understand each other’s position.
March 15th, 2007 at 3:23 pmJake, Flaco and others.
We’ve all endured your Clinton did it for the last three days.
Could you dolts PLEASE come up with something new.
You’ve been proven wrong and continue to ignore the issue.
How about a challenge for you?
How about talking about the attorneys that Bush has decided to KEEP?
How about telling me why the American public should have any confidence that Federal prosecutions are not being political vendettas?
Lastly, could you tell me how you plan to explain to the American public that the government is now going to have to defend and retry MULTIPLE suits that they’ve won because of the implications of all of this?
Or do you just want to go back to Clinton did . . . Jimmy Carter did . . . 5th grade justification that isn’t viable?
March 15th, 2007 at 3:26 pmRegarding the Clinton alibi used by all Republicans and Trolls as the excuse for all bad behavior:
Clinton was investigated by the Republican Congress so heavily that he was impeached for lying about a blow job. Do you think that if he had commited any of the things Bush and his cronies are being investigated for your Republican Congress would not have charged him or at the very least had hearings.
It’s pretty safe to assume if Clinton wasn’t impeached for it he didn’t do it.
Case closed. End of story.
Ask us if Clinton did it and we’ll ask you if he was impeached for it. That’s all the explanation any of us owe any trolls.
March 15th, 2007 at 3:27 pmWhat about Clinton’s firing of the U.S. attorney Jay B. Stephens, who was investigating Rep. Dan Rostenkowski, D-Ill., a Clinton crony? Rostenkowski was later convicted of mail fraud and pardoned by Bill Clinton.
Comment by Flaco
Jay Stephens was fired when Clinton came in along with all the others. They stated that all the US attorneys that were in trial woould stay but Jay was in his intial investigation and they said that another attorney could pick up where he left off and apparently with the prosecution of Rostenkowski as you noted they did. So what exactly do you have a problem with?
March 15th, 2007 at 3:29 pmBlow it out your ass, turdface!
March 15th, 2007 at 3:31 pmHere’s a bit of useful information from the Congressional Research Office
that Jake and the BushCo apologists might want to check out before they embarrass themselves further:
http://www.buzzflash.com/archives/07/US_attrny_rprt.pdf
Interesting stuff in there. Turns out, Jake that the USAs that you refer to as having been “purged” by Clinton in ‘94 and ‘96 both resigned under pressure after embarrassing personal lapses (one grabbed a TV reporter by the throat, the other allegedly bit a stripper after losing a case).
Yeah, sounds like an identical situation to me.
March 15th, 2007 at 3:32 pmI’m removing my troll patch now:
Only a 2 year old couldn’t see the difference.
Comment by Jake — March 15, 2007 @ 3:06 pm
2 year old or 75 year old what’s the difference. Obviously they think and talk alot.
My daughter was 2 not that long ago and all she ever said was Why, Why, Why.
Jake is officially alzheimered to the level of a 2 year old and he’s basically brought it up himself.
Goodbye old fart.
March 15th, 2007 at 3:33 pmJake,
March 15th, 2007 at 3:33 pmYou are the post that supports post-turtle Bush.
Karl-pigula.
-GSD
March 15th, 2007 at 3:34 pmThis proves Rove is nothing but a one trick pony. All he can do is deny, lie, obfuscate, cover up and use fuzzy logic because their “arguements” don’t hold water. Just like our favorite trolls.
March 15th, 2007 at 3:37 pmFor those who never heard of a post turtle, see this. And all of you must have heard the term ‘Dumb as a post.”
March 15th, 2007 at 3:38 pmWell, old turd-blossom has got one thing right – it IS a lot about politics. Only in this case it’s about the politics they tried to impose on the judicial system.
March 15th, 2007 at 3:43 pmThere is a reason why Bush refers to Rove as Turdblossom. No matter how bad things are for Bush, Rove will spin a pile of crap into a flower and still 30% (and falling) of the US population swallow it, hook, line, and sinker with the help of Fox News and Republican talk radio hacks.
March 15th, 2007 at 3:43 pmWaltTheMan,
Bush is definitely a Post Turtle.
March 15th, 2007 at 3:43 pmWaaaahhhh… MOMMY! MOMMY!
That’s not fair!!!
CLINTON DID IT TOO!!!
Waaaahhhh!!!
March 15th, 2007 at 3:49 pmAnd the answer is: ‘Mistakes were made’
March 15th, 2007 at 3:51 pmSee my comment here regarding my investigation into the Carter firing of Marston because of Marston’s office’s investigation of Eilberg (D-PA):
Carter discussion
At the risk of repeating myself, I’m not sure how obstruction is proven, but at any rate, the summary is that no one in the Carter Administration was and Eilberg eventually was indicted and did plead guilty, meaning that the Carter Administration did not (or at worst could not) put a stop to the Eilberg investigation.
As best I can tell, Carter arguably ultimately used the same excuse that Bush did, that Carter was passing along Eilberg’s concern re: Marston, that that sort of thing happens all the time. Carter claimed that he didn’t know Eilberg was under investigation. So, either I’m wrong that Carter did so, or you think Bush shouldn’t be using the same excuse, or you think that Carter should have been allowed to use that excuse.
Carter was accused of being political when he explicitly stated he wouldn’t be regarding such decisions regarding attorneys. He was either guilty of being political, or his Attorney General, Griffin Bell, was (as Bell admitted), but there appears to have been no coordination between Carter/the White House and Bell, unlike the current situation. (I stated this a bit differently in the other post.)
My concern (and it appears to be shared by Congressional Democratic leadership) isn’t so much that politics was involved in the firings but that members of the Bush Administration have allegedly lied in testimony to Congress about the firings (which is why Gonzales, Snow, and Bush, etc., are trying to say there was simply miscommunication and not misdirection regarding why the facts so clearly contradict what such testifying members have said).
March 15th, 2007 at 3:53 pmJPV and tarazan:
Please see my previous posts to you on the subject. If you still have any questions for me, let me know.
March 15th, 2007 at 3:54 pmThe problem is not that these guys were replaced, the problem is why they were replaced and the circumstances surrounding their replacement. By all appearances they look to have been fired for politcal reasons. Now if the White House and Justice had their stories striaght without the contradictions and inconsistencies this issue may well have never been more thana footnote. However they could nto get things straight, so it has all the appearances of being politically motivated and there appears to be a cover up of something somewhere.
BTW the Clinton or Carter did it defense is no defense. It is akin to saying in court sure I shot that guy, but dick cheny shot a guy too so I should get off. i.e. it just does nto make sense.
March 15th, 2007 at 3:56 pmOh, further, there’s a bit more I mentioned regarding the differences between the Bush Administration’s and Carter Administration’s handling of their respective controversies, in my comment.
March 15th, 2007 at 3:58 pmMark:
I’m not using it as a defense. I’m pointing out the hypocrisy in that when Carter and Clinton did it, it’s fine, but when Bush does it, everyone has to resign.
March 15th, 2007 at 4:03 pmJake,
How about a response to post #67?
March 15th, 2007 at 4:06 pmre: Carter: That is, no WH/AG coordination beyond Carter’s phone call to Bell regarding Eilberg’s concern.
Again, I don’t know if this exonerates Clinton or Carter, but the outcomes of their controversial firings, at least, were different than in Bush’s Administration: US government attorneys successfully prosecuted Rostenkowski, in Clinton’s case, and Eilberg, in Carter’s.
Various investigations have been dropped, however, in the Bush case, among them one surrounding people alleged to have been illegally involved with Abramoff and Guam.
March 15th, 2007 at 4:06 pmJake, who’s saying “it’s fine” regarding Carter and Clinton? Who?
March 15th, 2007 at 4:07 pmAaron G. Stock:
thanks for the link — I seemed to have missed you comment on that thread — thank you also for at least admitting that Carter’s handling of Marston’s firing was at least a little fishy. I would quibble about the coordination between the White House and the Attorney General (Griffin Bell) but what is really important is that Bell indeed admitted that some politics was involved.
I’m sure there are “substantive problems” with these U.S. Attoirneys, at least as serious as those claimed with Marston (he liked calling press conferences?! I mean, come on, get serious). What do you think about Clinton replacing the U.S. Attorney for the Little Rock district who steadfastly refused to look into ANY of the Whitewater, etc. allegations?
March 15th, 2007 at 4:09 pmDogjudge:
I can’t very well come up with something because I don’t agree I’ve been proven wrong — in fact, Aaron G. Stock just admitted Marston was fired for political reasons — I think I will stick with the topic and decline your off-topic challenge for now. Thank you very much though.
Aaron G. Stock:
I am saying Carter/Bell’s dismissal for political reasons of a POLITICAL APPOINTEE was fine. As you pointed out, the professional prosecutors, investigators, staff in Philadephia did just fine under Marstan’s replacement. Did you see my question about Clinton replacing the U.S. Attorney for Little Rock? That would be a closer analogy to your point about the U.S. Attorney for Guam. As long as no other law is broken (i.e. bribing the new appointee, etc.), I fail to see the foul.
March 15th, 2007 at 4:15 pmWouldn’t the phrase, “it’s a lot of politics” be Rove’s way of confessing that nothing could more intrigue him or seem more important? For Rove to say, “it’s a lot of politics” is like a cardinal saying, “it’s a lot of religion.”
March 15th, 2007 at 4:15 pmI’m not using it as a defense. I’m pointing out the hypocrisy in that when Carter and Clinton did it, it’s fine, but when Bush does it, everyone has to resign.
Except Carter and Clinton did not do the same thing. There is no hypocrisy when comparing apples to oranges.
March 15th, 2007 at 4:22 pmann:
Please re-read Aaron G. Stock’s posts above.
March 15th, 2007 at 4:24 pmAaron G. Stock:
It seems that my second post to you disappeared. Did you see my first post at least?
March 15th, 2007 at 4:25 pmOne thing about the Carter/Marston is that Marston was appointed by the Ford administration. Why this has been ignored in previous discussions really evades me.
March 15th, 2007 at 4:30 pmJake at 4:09p wrote:
Are you asking what do I think about Clinton replacing an attorney who refused to investigate Clinton?
Do you want to rephrase that question or does it stand? As it stands, it sounds as though Clinton wanted to be investigated.
March 15th, 2007 at 4:34 pmYou Trolls/GOP Operatives can go an and on trying to spin this scandal with all your distorted “But, Mommy, Mommy, Clinton did it too” BS all you want.
It won’t make a bit of difference.
Get a clue… PEOPLE ARE FED UP WITH THE ABUSES FROM THIS ADMINISTRATION.
Once the OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE hearings start, your feeble minded and pathetic BS will have even less meaning, that it does now, in trying to form public opinion/momentum.
It will then be entirely out of all of our hands, and in the hands of the law… where it belongs.
And good luck trying to fire unfriendly Attorneys this time.
I’m afraid that the “jig” may just finally be up.
March 15th, 2007 at 4:35 pmJake, please re-read my posts above.
I AM saying that, beyond the question of whether Clinton or Carter were involved in the politics surrounding their firing(s) of US Attorneys, (which, as I also state in Carter’s case, is ALSO in doubt; I haven’t investigated Clinton’s case much), what Clinton and Carter appeared to have done IS different than what Bush is doing.
March 15th, 2007 at 4:38 pmOf course, the names involved were different ; )
My second post to you (which disappeared) clarified my question was about Clinton replacing the U.S. Attorney for Little Rock WITH someone who who steadfastly refused to look into ANY of the Whitewater, etc. allegations.
March 15th, 2007 at 4:52 pmI read Aaron’s post. Clinton and Carter did not do the same thing that Bush has done. What Bush has done is wrong. It’s not about hypocrisy, it’s about using the Patriot Act for political reasons that have absofuckinglutely nothing, nothing to do with terrorism and that’s what the Patriot Act is supposed to address, is it not?
March 15th, 2007 at 4:52 pmblah blah blah – No other president in history, of either party, has made the presidency into a gambino/manson family crime operation – this one has, without a doubt, and has to face the music for it.
March 15th, 2007 at 5:00 pmWhen Miss Piggy Rove, CHIMPya, Cheney, Rice, Gonzales, the rest of Bushland Uber Allies and the repugnant-repub rightwingnut crank fudge-pachyderms in congress and the media were all little children and did a PARTICULARLY NASTY MISDEED LIKE TAKING A SHIT IN THE PUNCH BOWL(I’ll bet Mama Babs REALLY WHUPPED W’s ASS FOR THAT FLOATING TURD), PISSING IN THE LEMONADE, PUTTING RAT POISON IN THE ICE CREAM, BROKEN GLASS IN THE BROWNIES, DRAINO(tm) IN THE ROOT BEER, ET CETERA AD NAUSEUM, THEIR COLLECTIVE ANSWER WAS “BILL CLINTON DID IT–NOT ME!!!!!” TO WHICH THEIR PARENTS SAID, “WHO IS BILL CLINTON?” ALWAYS SHIFT THE BLAME TO OTHERS, THAT’S THEIR SHIT-SKID-MARKED STRATEGY, WHICH DOESN’T CUT THE ICE ANY MORE, Rove, YOU FAT-F*CK!!!!!
March 15th, 2007 at 5:03 pm“Great. The troll set is complete — Happy Dude is here.
**eyes rolling**
Comment by Zooey — March 15, 2007 @ 3:20 pm”
zooey, how come you ran away from me on the torture thread?
March 15th, 2007 at 5:08 pmI’m not using it as a defense. I’m pointing out the hypocrisy in that when Carter and Clinton did it, it’s fine, but when Bush does it, everyone has to resign. Comment by Jake — March 15, 2007 @ 4:03 pm
Your head is so far up your *ss on these claims, I can smell your sh*t over the internet. Carter was criticized and investigated for the *single* dismissal, the very acts you claim shouldn’t happen now.
What does that prove – you’re a stupid senile old moron.
Clinton did what all presidents do, they replaced staff at the beginning of their term, and all replacements were confirmed.
What does that prove – that you’re a dishonest dim bulb, who’s too freaking st*pid to face reality.
At your age, senility and brain function often suffers. I suggest you go get that st*pidity of yours treated, before someone puts in a home for soiling yourself.
March 15th, 2007 at 5:10 pmzooey, how come you ran away from me on the torture thread?
Comment by michael — March 15, 2007 @ 5:08 pm
michael, how come you run away from every thread? Maybe because you’re a coward, just like you were in Vietnam?
March 15th, 2007 at 5:11 pmThe Carter/Clinton canard is getting old. Robert Parry pointed out in a May 5th article Chuck Banks the US attorney in Little Rock in ‘92 did look into the cooked up Whitewater referral, recognized it for the crap it was and also memorialized the political pressure he received from Bush 43’s team.
March 15th, 2007 at 5:17 pmzooey, how come you ran away from me on the torture thread?
Comment by michael — March 15, 2007 @ 5:08 pm
No thanks to you people michael there is still enough freedom in this country so that Zooey can go to whatever thread she chooses. Do you have a problem with that you little twerp. People need your permission to leave a discussion. Keep threatening and trying to intimidate people and lets see how long you guys last. I suspect you trolls are so disruptive you’re just about wearing out your welcome. After all they won’t let us post on the conservative sites will they.
March 15th, 2007 at 5:28 pmWaltTheMan,
Also, in Clinton’s case, the guy investigating Rostenkowski was a holdover from the Bush Administration.
Back to Carter’s case:
Let me also point out, which I haven’t before, the final sentences of this TIME article, “Again, the FBI Gets Its Man”:
Despite this unsigned TIME editorial’s criticism of Carter’s Marston firing as “inept,” it states:
Carter and Bell stated that they intended for the investigations in Philadelphia, including Eilberg’s, to continue, and in Eilberg’s case, they certainly did. In the absence of any solid evidence, I am satisfied that Carter did not obstruct justice.
March 15th, 2007 at 5:36 pmRove says in this video that Carol Lam got fired because she wasn’t as concerned about illegal immigration as the Bush administraion is.
March 15th, 2007 at 5:38 pmAnyone else see the irony in that lie?
In case you don’t, Bush doesn’t want to prosecute illegal aliens. He wants to give them amnesty and he wants to create a guest worker program for them in order to make them legal.
More Rove bullcrap.
I choose not to investigate your claims at #99, Jake and instead choose to rely on almcq’s (incompletely-referenced?) sources cited at #105, which contradict yours, whatever they are.
It would seem that, if money spent is any indication, that the government’s special prosecutors did a very thorough job of investigating Clinton’s alleged Whitewater wrongdoing.
If, as the special prosecutors claimed in the final report, there was “insufficient evidence” to indict Bill Clinton, then it certainly vindicates Chuck Banks’s decision to stop investigating Whitewater, to which almcq makes reference, and therefore it certainly vindicates Clinton’s decision to appoint Banks.
March 15th, 2007 at 5:53 pmshane: “Do you have a problem with that you little twerp. People need your permission to leave a discussion. Keep threatening and trying to intimidate people and lets see how long you guys last.”
Shane, haven’t you heard. Michael’s a very, very special person; very important. His Mother tells him so. He’s so special that he can direct the arguments to those of his liking, call the shots, decide which questions to address and which to ignore, you name it. It’s Michael’s world.
March 15th, 2007 at 6:00 pm[...] defending the Attorney purge say “Clinton did it“. Yeah, he also got [...]
March 15th, 2007 at 7:01 pm[...] defending the Attorney purge say “Clinton did it“. Yeah, he also got [...]
March 15th, 2007 at 7:01 pmJake,
March 15th, 2007 at 7:10 pmThe current running tally is :
Ford – 0
Carter – 0
Reagan – 3
Bush41 – 0
Clinton – 0
Bush43 – 8
Ford and Bush41 were mere flashes in the pan. Nixon was shucking AG’s, Special Prosecutors and USA’s at such a high rate that the numbers soared pass infinity.
Is there a pattern here?
Did Jake pass away? RIP dear Jake. We will miss you – not.
March 15th, 2007 at 9:58 pmPot meet kettle indeed.
March 15th, 2007 at 10:24 pmCan’t wait to see those emails.
Actually, Senator Mark Pryor (D-AR) has seen them. What they show is that Kyle Samson had a playbook that was implemented to get around Senate confirmation of Assistant United States Attorneys. The scheme involved stalling the Senate and lying to the members. The email says that all of this will be done in “good faith.†[quotation marks in original]
Senator Pryor – one of only six Democrats to vote for Gonzalez’s confirmation –reported on the floor of the Senate today that the plan was implemented and that pursuant to it, El Generalissimo performed exactly as directed. He says,
Visit the Schapira blog, What we know so far …
March 16th, 2007 at 12:58 am“… and tell ’em Big Mitch sent ya!â€
Son of a… Damn it I graduated from Troy (then State) University! It almost makes me wish I didn’t just throw away all their alumni letters soliciting money so I could turn around a refuse to give them any more cash after the campus was infected with of Rove’s visit.
March 16th, 2007 at 1:50 amRobert #38 – You forget one thing. None of the previous presidents were ever able to appoint new attorneys without confirmation from congress keeping highly partisan appointees from getting in. Bush hand picking these attorneys for political reasons and replacing them with hand picked partisans is the most glaring difference now. It would be like letting the mafia being allowed to pick prosecutors from among their own.
March 16th, 2007 at 11:41 amComment by Jake #99
Clinton replaced the US Attorney at the same time as all other 93 attorneys. The previous attorney was not removed because of investigating Clinton and other democrats or refusing to investigate anyone at the Clinton’s pleasure. This is the same thing that Bush 43, Bush 41, Reagan, Carter, Ford? and Nixon did at the start of their terms. The previous attorney Clinton replaced, appointed by Bush 41, also steadfastly refused to look into ANY of the Whitewater, etc. allegations further.
I know you’ve had this explained to you before but let me try one more time. Bush 43 has selected 8 attorneys he appointed himself for removal because either A) they are currently or had successfully prosecuted corrupt republicans or B) they were not willing to investigate or prosecute democrats in the run up to the 04/06 elections in order to embarrass them. In other words, they had a poor partisan performance record and didn’t prosecute to the pleasure of the president. They are also using a law hidden in the patriot act to appoint the replacements without vetting them through congress. NO PRESIDENT HAS DONE THIS BEFORE BECAUSE THEY COULD NOT HAVE.
March 16th, 2007 at 12:09 pm[...] bolster their claims that the U.S. Attorney purge is merely “a lot of politics,” conservative members of Congress and their media allies have charged that Sen. Chuck [...]
March 22nd, 2007 at 10:25 am