Breaking: New E-Mails Show Rove, Gonzales Had Deeper Role In U.S. Attorney Firings
Breaking: New E-Mails Show Rove, Gonzales Had Deeper Role In U.S. Attorney Firings
ABC News reports that new emails reveal that the plan for firing U.S. Attorneys originated in the White House. Both Karl Rove and Alberto Gonzales discussed the idea of firing all 93 U.S. attorneys in early January 2005. From the article:
New unreleased e-mails from top administration officials show the idea of firing all 93 U.S. attorneys was raised by White House adviser Karl Rove in early January 2005, indicating Rove was more involved in the plan than previously acknowledged by the White House.
The e-mails also show Attorney General Alberto Gonzales discussed the idea of firing the attorneys en masse while he was still White House counsel — weeks before he was confirmed as attorney general.
The e-mails directly contradict White House assertions that the notion originated with recently departed White House counsel Harriet Miers and was her idea alone.
UPDATE: ABC notes notes that the “latest e-mails show that Gonzales and Rove were both involved in the discussion, and neither rejected it out of hand.” That contradicts what Gonzales said during his press conference on Friday:
QUESTION: Can you explain what the White House role is specifically in your successor, Harriet Miers, suggested that perhaps all U.S. attorneys should be changed over? Is that the seed that started all of this? How does that connect to the actual terminations?
GONZALES: As we can all imagine, in an organization of 110,000 people, I am not aware of every bit of information that passes through the halls of the Department of Justice, nor am I aware of all decisions. As a general matter, some two years ago, I was made aware that there was a request from the White House as to the possibility of replacing all the United States attorneys. That was immediately rejected by me. I felt that that was a bad idea and it was disruptive.
UPDATE II: On March 6, the White House denied Rove was involved at all:
Q How about Karl Rove’s office? Do you know if he was involved?
DANA PERINO: I don’t believe so.
UPDATE III: On Tuesday, White House Press Secretary Tony Snow said that Miers had suggested firing all 93 attorneys, and that it was “her idea only.” He added that it “was quickly rejected by the Department of Justice.” But e-mails show that Miers suggested it in Feb. 2005; it was raised by Rove and Gonzales “in early January 2005.”
UPDATE IV: Earlier in the week, White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said “deputy chief of staff Karl Rove, the president’s top political adviser, vaguely recalls telling Miers that he also thought firing all 93 was ill–advised.”
UPDATE V: Read the full email:
In the email, which has the subject line “Re: Question from Karl Rove,” Kyle Sampson, who was then at the Justice Department, discusses with then-deputy White House Counsel David Leitch the idea of replacing “15-20 percent of the current U.S. Attorneys,” because “80-85 percent, I would guess, are doing a great job, are loyal Bushies, etc.”
“[I]f Karl thinks there would be policitical will to do it, then so do I,” Sampson concludes.
UPDATE VI: House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers (D-MI) and Rep. Linda Sanchez (D-CA) react to the news.
UPDATE VII: Paul Kiel has a statement from the Justice Department:
“The Attorney General has no recollection of any plan or discussion to replace U.S. Attorneys while he was still White House Counsel. The period of time referred to in the email was during the weeks he was preparing for his confirmation hearing, January 6th, 2005, and his focus was on that. Of course, discussions of changes in Presidential appointees would have been appropriate and normal White House exchanges in the days and months after the election as the White House was considering different personnel changes Administration wide.”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Go fu*k yourself Rove.
March 15th, 2007 at 5:06 pmThis is great news, if true.
Appears that the end is starting.
March 15th, 2007 at 5:06 pmBut but but but Clinton left the toilet seat up on June 3rd, 1994!!! /sarcasm
March 15th, 2007 at 5:07 pmThe e-mails directly contradict White House assertions that the notion originated with recently departed White House counsel Harriet Miers and was her idea alone.
So they lied again…
March 15th, 2007 at 5:14 pmSupprise, supprise. (not)
Fine by me.
March 15th, 2007 at 5:14 pmWait,
Now your upset they thought about purging all US attorney’s? Honestly folks, get ahold of yourself. I could see some very minor differences between what Clinton and Bush did, but if you get upset about them wanting to purge ALL us attorney’s that is just insane. Bubba Clinton also purge all of them. This is turning into a mirror. Both sides look identical. This story is getting fun.
March 15th, 2007 at 5:16 pmAnd the unraveling continues tomorrow…Valerie Plame will be testifying to Congress tomorrow, to put to bed once and for all whether or not she was ‘covert’ and was ‘outed’. Of course those of us who aren’t locksteppers/propaganda-pushers/water-carriers/fascist appeasers/Kool-Aid swillers/talking-point regurgitators/enablers/Bush suck-ups already know that she WAS, but this oughta at least create a .0001% chance that people like Joke and Firehose will get it once and for all. Of course they won’t, but I’ll try to be optimistic about it.
March 15th, 2007 at 5:16 pmis the W.H. imploding? naw say it can’t be …The shrub needs to be impeached along with his entire staff.
March 15th, 2007 at 5:16 pmHey Jake, you forgot to say…
“WAAAAHHHH!!! MOMMY, MOMMY IT’S NOT FAIR!!! CLINTON DID IT TOO. WAAAAHHH!!! IT’S NOT FAIR!â€
March 15th, 2007 at 5:17 pm“5. Fine by me.
Comment by Jake”
for jake, repubilcan crime is like jello, there’s always room for more.
March 15th, 2007 at 5:17 pmHey Jake! I’m still waiting.
Answer this question…
WHAT DOES ROVE AND THE ADMINISTRATION HAVE TO LOSE BY TESTIFYING???
March 15th, 2007 at 5:18 pm“Wait,
Now your upset they thought about purging all US attorney’s? Honestly folks, get ahold of yourself. I could see some very minor differences between what Clinton and Bush did, but if you get upset about them wanting to purge ALL us attorney’s that is just insane. Bubba Clinton also purge all of them. This is turning into a mirror. Both sides look identical. This story is getting fun.
Comment by Roger_Roger — March 15, 2007 @ 5:16 pm”
Rogerx2….. The only reason they gave that a thought was to try and HIDE the fact that they were purging for political reasons. This is a CONSPIRACY!!!!
Planning to do something in order to obscure the actual reason is a CONSPIRACY. The president has in fact conspired against the US and should be impeached, tried, and shot right on the spot.
March 15th, 2007 at 5:19 pmCONservative:
I’m hoping someone asks Plame who else (besides her future husband on their 2nd date) she told she worked for the CIA.
March 15th, 2007 at 5:20 pmIt’s not even worth arguing with the trolls if they can’t even stay on the same page.
March 15th, 2007 at 5:20 pmJPV:
I didn’t forget to say anything.
March 15th, 2007 at 5:20 pmHey Jake! I’m still waiting.
Answer this question…
WHAT DOES ROVE AND THE ADMINISTRATION HAVE TO LOSE BY TESTIFYING???
What’s wrong? Did you GOP Talking Points FAX Machine™ get jammed up or something?
March 15th, 2007 at 5:20 pmbob (the hacker):
Please cite to any LAW you think was violated.
March 15th, 2007 at 5:21 pmPlease cite to any LAW you think was violated.
Comment by Jake
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE
March 15th, 2007 at 5:22 pmPlease cite to any LAW you think was violated.
Comment by Jake
Please cite…
WHAT DOES ROVE AND THE ADMINISTRATION HAVE TO LOSE BY TESTIFYING???
March 15th, 2007 at 5:23 pmNow your upset they thought about purging all US attorney’s?
— Roger_Roger
They got caught in another lie Idiot.
And you are still supporting the lying f*cks?
Priceless…….
March 15th, 2007 at 5:23 pm“Please cite to any LAW you think was violated.
Comment by Jake — March 15, 2007 @ 5:21 pm”
Lying to congress….. Lying under oath…..
You know that thing that you Republicans decried was such a bad thing when Clinton did it for a personal matter……
What now it’s all of a sudden OK???
March 15th, 2007 at 5:24 pm“WAAAAHHHH!!! MOMMY, MOMMY IT’S NOT FAIR!!! CLINTON DID IT TOO. WAAAAHHH!!! IT’S NOT FAIR!â€
March 15th, 2007 at 5:25 pmJPV:
I’ve answered that question, so I hope you’ll forgive me if I don’t respond to your high-brow: “WAAAAHHHH!!! MOMMY, MOMMY IT’S NOT FAIR!!! CLINTON DID IT TOO. WAAAAHHH!!! IT’S NOT FAIR!†argument.
March 15th, 2007 at 5:25 pmC’mon Jake.
We’re still waiting…
WHAT DOES ROVE AND THE ADMINISTRATION HAVE TO LOSE BY TESTIFYING???
March 15th, 2007 at 5:26 pmWayne:
You are claiming that “That was immediately rejected by me” is a lie?
March 15th, 2007 at 5:26 pmJPV:
Please see numerous threads below re: U.S. Attorneys, Executive Privilege, and setting bad precedent.
March 15th, 2007 at 5:27 pmDubbie’s Tex Watson and Bobbie Beausoleil plotting to do away with Shorty Shea. This Manson Family analogy really has legs when applied to the bushco regime…
March 15th, 2007 at 5:27 pmFine by me.
Comment by Jake
You are fine with them lying?
Figures, since you seem to be an old hand at it yourself.
Now answer JPV’s question to you.
WHAT DOES ROVE AND THE ADMINISTRATION HAVE TO LOSE BY TESTIFYING???
March 15th, 2007 at 5:29 pmYou can do it Jake.
Answer the question GOP WaterBoyâ„¢
WHAT DOES ROVE AND THE ADMINISTRATION HAVE TO LOSE BY TESTIFYING???
March 15th, 2007 at 5:29 pmWHAT DOES ROVE AND THE ADMINISTRATION HAVE TO LOSE BY TESTIFYING???
Comment by JPV
Gee, so many posts by Jake and NOT ONE addressing this question that has been asked multiple times now. Hmmm…
March 15th, 2007 at 5:30 pmwarrantless wiretapping violates the 4th amendment. Lying to Congress under oath. Breaking the Geneva Convention by torturing people. Denyng U.S citizens their constitutional rights.
That’s a start. If you actually respond in an adult way to these, there’s plenty more. But if the past is any predictor of the future, you’ll accuse me of wanting the terrorists to win, of being liberal wackjob, of hating America, or you just won’t respond, like you’re doing with jpv…
March 15th, 2007 at 5:30 pm…. urrrrp……
March 15th, 2007 at 5:31 pmYou have yet to prove anyone lied yet, especially under oath.
March 15th, 2007 at 5:32 pm…nothing to lose, but the ball game…
March 15th, 2007 at 5:33 pmFor more on the Rove connection and the latest news, hearings, legal filings and other essential documents on the Bush DOJ prosecutor firings, see:
March 15th, 2007 at 5:33 pm“The U.S. Attorney Scandal Documents.”
Jake – Keep defending the indefensible – it just proves to us how the Republican party is now morally bankrupt.
March 15th, 2007 at 5:34 pm#5 Jake:
Fine by me.
Jake’s just fine with lyin’ one’s a$$ off. Which kind of explains his behaviour here too, nicht wahr?
Cheers,
March 15th, 2007 at 5:35 pmI also disagree that warrantless wiretapping violates the Fourth Amendment (the Constitution is not a suicide pact) or that anyone is breaking the Geneva Convention by torturing terrorists. As for denyng U.S. citizens their Constitutional rights, is there some specific case you are referring to?
March 15th, 2007 at 5:35 pmWHAT DOES ROVE AND THE ADMINISTRATION HAVE TO LOSE BY TESTIFYING???
Comment by Wayne — March 15, 2007 @ 5:29 pm
Wayne,
That argument is false. What does anyone who is innocent have to lose by testifying in any case?
March 15th, 2007 at 5:35 pmTHE PLOT THICKENS–ESPECIALLY FOR Gonzales, Rove and Miers–SAY DIDN’T I SEE THEM IN THE WARNER BROTHERS FILM “THREE STRANGERS(tm)”? Oops…That was Peter Lorre, Sydney Greenstreet and Rosalind Ivan–THEY WERE GREAT AS THE OILY LITTLE CREEP, THE BIG FAT F*CK AND THE OLD HATCHET-FACED HARPY–MATCHES Gonzales, Rove and Miers TO A T–TURD THAT IS!!!!!
March 15th, 2007 at 5:35 pmYou have yet to prove anyone lied yet, especially under oath.
Comment by Jake
Just turn on the TV, anytime words come out of Bush’s mouth is proof of lying! Not that we expect you to actually comprehend any of this, you’ll just keep telling yourself ‘Bush talks to God, Bush talks to God’…
March 15th, 2007 at 5:36 pmIt’s the ChristianRiechWingNut wet dream. It’s the End Times.
Only problem for underage boy chasing GOP BrownShirters is that it’s beginning to look like the End Times of their sainted Empire as run by His Supreme Holiness, Emperor George Wanker Bush… and NOT the second cumming… er… coming… (I think I got it right that time)…
March 15th, 2007 at 5:36 pmDidn’t someone once counsel a very powerful government official to: “Beware the Ides of March”?
March 15th, 2007 at 5:37 pm#6 Roger_Roger:
I could see some very minor differences between what Clinton and Bush did…
“… and I can sorta tell the difference between a 747 and a food service cart, but the difference between the business end of a female moose in heat and the front end of a grizzly bear eludes me. Pray for me….”
Cheers,
March 15th, 2007 at 5:38 pmAngry One:
You’re slipping — I posted here eight times before you included your link.
Robert:
I am registered Independent.
Arne:
In English, please?
March 15th, 2007 at 5:38 pmNo wonder Miers left Dodge City.
She knew things would be getting hot with the mess she, KKKarl Rove, and Gitmo Abu Gonzo created, and she might want to see her family once more before being jailed.
March 15th, 2007 at 5:38 pmListen, this unwillingness to testify on Karl Rove’s part exhibits PRE 9/11 thinking. 9/11 changed everything. Besides, if Karl Rove has nothing to hide why won’t he testify.
I mean I hear Bush/Coulter Republicans tell me that they aren’t worried about domestic spying and will the government look through their e-mails and phone calls because they have nothing to hide.
So if Karl Rove has nothing to hide he should proudly testify.
-GSD
March 15th, 2007 at 5:38 pmPlease see numerous threads below re: U.S. Attorneys, Executive Privilege, and setting bad precedent.
Comment by Jake — March 15, 2007 @ 5:27 pm
Jake – Rove was a political adviser at the time – not an elected official. I don’t think he can site executive privilege unless he can somehow show that Bush was involved… and I’m pretty sure he does not want to do that.
March 15th, 2007 at 5:39 pmWe must put pressure on congress this should be the straw that broke the camels back
March 15th, 2007 at 5:39 pmhttp://www.commondreams.org/headlines07/0315-05.htm
CONservative:
So, when Bush said this morning: “Good morning” he was LYING?
March 15th, 2007 at 5:39 pmJake, what does Rove and the administration have to lose by testifying?
March 15th, 2007 at 5:41 pmI am registered Independent.
Comment by Jake
So am I…but you’re still a water-carrier. If it parrots talking point lies like a water-carrier, and it apologizes and defends the criminal cabal like a water-carrier…
March 15th, 2007 at 5:42 pmYou have yet to prove anyone lied yet, especially under oath.
Comment by Jake
I agree with you 110% here Jake old boy.
That being the case, would you agree with me that the best way for Rove to vindicate himself and the Administration would be to…
TESTIFY UNDER OATH AND PROVE FOR ONCE AND FOR ALL THAT NOTING ILLEGAL WAS DONE VIA SWORN TESTIMONY.
Can you think of any better way to prove the naysayers wrong and lay this fiasco to rest.
March 15th, 2007 at 5:43 pmI also disagree that warrantless wiretapping violates the Fourth Amendment (the Constitution is not a suicide pact) or that anyone is breaking the Geneva Convention by torturing terrorists. As for denyng U.S. citizens their Constitutional rights, is there some specific case you are referring to?
Comment by Jake — March 15, 2007
First of all just because George W. Bush claims someone is a terrorist, doesn’t mean they are.
Secondly, torture and abuse were beneath George Washington, but somehow Stalinist and Pol Pot tactics are now fine for George W. Bush.
Finally Jose Padilla is an American. But the authortarian Bush Cultists think that Brown people are less than human so they are find with allowing torture.
The New Nazi Era is finally here.
-GSD
March 15th, 2007 at 5:43 pmAm still waiting for the Monty Python boot to squash from on high.
March 15th, 2007 at 5:44 pm#37 Jake:
I also disagree that … anyone is breaking the Geneva Convention by torturing terrorists.
Oh. Really. The Geneva Conventions permit torture? Missed that part. Could you point out where? How abou the Treaty Against Torture?
Cheers,
March 15th, 2007 at 5:44 pmPretty much. This morning was just okay, not good.
Mild traffic, kind of foggy AND BUSH IS STILL PRESIDENT.
March 15th, 2007 at 5:44 pmHow many U.S. attorneys did Reagan’s administration sack when they took over after the Carter years? Oh, oh, conservatives. Looks like it’s standard operating procedure when the opposition takes over the executive branch. Presidents, when taking over the branch after it has been held by the opposition, always “clean house.”
What this is about is firing U.S. attorneys because they are investigating people in your own party or because they are not aggressive enough in investigating those in the other party. This is about obstruction of justice and illegally politicizing the Justice Department. This endless “Clinton did it too” crap is just a pathetic Karl Rove talking point that holds absolutely no water.
March 15th, 2007 at 5:44 pmI think the fact that they can’t keep their story straight and that we’re continually discovering new attempts to deceive are reasons enough to get all the players in to testify under oath. There isn’t an awful lot that Gonzales was saying a week or two ago about this that has turned out to be true.
March 15th, 2007 at 5:44 pmSo, when Bush said this morning: “Good morning†he was LYING?
Comment by Jake
Could’ve been, depends on your perspective. Really, how good of a morning can it be when the house of cards built by the Bush Crime Family is starting to tumble? haha
March 15th, 2007 at 5:44 pmJake, they are all under oath when they take office. Gonzo has always been under oath and he said that he wasn’t discussing the removal with the WhiteHouse or Rove but it turns out he was.
He has not dutifully executed the orders of his office and will answer to the american public because of it.
March 15th, 2007 at 5:46 pmThis is just a re-run of Tex Watson and Bobbie Beausoleil plotting the murder of Gary Hinman. But Charlie didn’t know about it – didn’t exhort them to do it, did he, righties??
March 15th, 2007 at 5:46 pmSo, when Bush said this morning: “Good morning†he was LYING?
Comment by Jake
Well, as a matter of fact he was. It’s certainly not a good morning for him and his crime syndicate.
March 15th, 2007 at 5:46 pmKarl Rove, you’re lost and will be remembered as the designer of the worst administration in this nation’s history. I hope you die a slow, painful and horrible death. THAT will be GOOD karma… for you…, and something only a maggot like you could truly appreciate experiencing.
March 15th, 2007 at 5:46 pmJake, according to our constitution, all treaty engagements entered into lawfully by our government are treated as U.S. federal law. What is it about this that you don’t understand. If the Geneva Convention holds that torture is illegal, then our government is breaking U.S. Federal law by torturing people. It’s actually that simple.
March 15th, 2007 at 5:46 pmLily:
Please see numerous threads below re: U.S. Attorneys, Executive Privilege, and setting bad precedent.
G.W.SuperChrist:
Executive Privilege can indeed be claimed for Rove. In United States v. Nixon the Supreme Court recognized “the valid need for protection of communications between high Government officials and those who advise and assist them in the performance of their manifold duties” and that “[h]uman experience teaches that those who expect public dissemination of their remarks may well temper candor with a concern for appearances and for their own interests to the detriment of the decisionmaking process.” (Emphasis Added).
March 15th, 2007 at 5:47 pmTESTIFY UNDER OATH AND PROVE FOR ONCE AND FOR ALL THAT NOTING ILLEGAL WAS DONE VIA SWORN TESTIMONY.
Can you think of any better way to prove the naysayers wrong and lay this fiasco to rest.
In America, people have to be proven guilty, they are not responsible for proving their own innocence. I realize alot of people here do not like that, but that’s kinda the way it works. If you are going to start demanding it for someone as bad as Rowe, you should expect it to go for everyone “Accused” of a crime.
March 15th, 2007 at 5:47 pm#37 Jake:
As for denyng U.S. citizens their Constitutional rights, is there some specific case you are referring to?
How about Hamdi?
Cheers,
March 15th, 2007 at 5:47 pmCome on, stuff like this happens all the time. Like, say, the last six years or so.
March 15th, 2007 at 5:48 pmHey, Jake,
What would they have to lose if they testified?
I imagine one would want to testify, to get their story out.
Why don’t they?
I think you should answer that very simple question; you want to be taken seriously, don’t you?
March 15th, 2007 at 5:48 pmThe fact that they were thinking of firing all the AGs strikes me as either undercutting or being irrelevant to the real scandal (that Bush axed only those prosecutors that weren’t playing politics for the ‘06 election).
March 15th, 2007 at 5:48 pmThis is just a re-run of Tex Watson and Bobbie Beausoleil plotting the murder of Gary Hinman. But Charlie didn’t know about it – didn’t exhort them to do it, did he, righties??
Comment by tom baker
“WAAAAHHHH!!! MOMMY, MOMMY IT’S NOT FAIR!!! CHARLIE MANSON DID IT TOO. WAAAAHHH!!! IT’S NOT FAIR!â€
You my friend, win the award for the stupidest and most incoherent comment of the day.
How’s that crack pipe treating you BTW?
March 15th, 2007 at 5:49 pmJake,
Two questions for you, and no, I’m not trying to be a jerk, I really want to try to understand the other point of view on this. One, why do you believe Rove should not have to testify? If he did nothing wrong, he should have nothing to hide. In fact, if he did testify, it would take a lot of the wind out of the left’s arguments. Second, if Hillary, or Obama, or any other Democrat becomes president, and starts firing attorneys who are investigating other Democrats, and then replacing them at his/her liesure with attorneys that agree more readily with his/her point of view – would you really be OK with that?
March 15th, 2007 at 5:49 pmJPV:
I’ve answered that, no.
GSD / Arne:
You can look it up yourselves — the U.S. does not torture, and “enemy combatants” such as Padilla are not covered by the Convention.
Spudge Boy:
It certainly was a good morning for Vice President Adil Abd Al-Mahdi of Iraq (he is at least still alive ; )
March 15th, 2007 at 5:50 pmIn America, people have to be proven guilty, they are not responsible for proving their own innocence. I realize alot of people here do not like that, but that’s kinda the way it works. If you are going to start demanding it for someone as bad as Rowe, you should expect it to go for everyone “Accused†of a crime.
Comment by Tundra
Were not talking about a trial, not yet at least, just a Congressional hearing.
I think that it is the perfect opportunity for the Administration to prove their detractors wrong, and they would be foolish not to capitalize on it.
March 15th, 2007 at 5:52 pmTerrorists are covered by Common Article III only, which itself only covers civil wars and occupations. I don’t buy it myself, but there’s at least a colorable argument that most terrorists in our custody aren’t covered by C.A. 3.
That doesn’t make torture right, but it may make it legal under the Genevas (although other treaties cover torture)
March 15th, 2007 at 5:53 pmAnother question. If the justice department was concerned about voter fraud, why, oh, why did they not begin any investigations in Florida?
-GSD
March 15th, 2007 at 5:53 pmChris, Jake practices “situational ethics.” It makes life easier for him but harder for everyone else.
March 15th, 2007 at 5:53 pmJPV:
I’ve answered that, no.
You did? Where?
And what do you mean by “no”? “No” what?
March 15th, 2007 at 5:54 pmYou can look it up yourselves — the U.S. does not torture
That’s right, since King George said it, it must be true!
March 15th, 2007 at 5:54 pmhellinabucket:
I think the rest of are speaking about an oath taken for the purposes of purjury. It’s a legal concept, but that’s not important right now. Don’t worry about it at all.
Arne:
I mainly agree with Professor Kmiec on Hamdi http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-kmiec011003.asp
trueblue:
I did answer that question, although I could care less how you take me.
March 15th, 2007 at 5:54 pm71 – you just stick by your Charlie, JPV – you know he loves you like no one else can.
March 15th, 2007 at 5:55 pmPadilla is a citizen. He’s covered by the constitution.
March 15th, 2007 at 5:55 pm#65 Jake:
Executive Privilege can indeed be claimed for Rove. In United States v. Nixon the Supreme Court recognized “the valid need for protection of communications between high Government officials and those who advise and assist them in the performance of their manifold duties 
“… and ordered the Nixon tapes turned over to the court.”
Can’t beat that for a holding, can you?
Just a FYI: Your buddy Starr did a good job of shredding vast areas of “executive privilege” a while back. Karma.
Cheers,
March 15th, 2007 at 5:55 pmChris asks, “If he (Rove) did nothing wrong, he should have nothing to hide. ”
Karl Rove does not have to prove his innocence – he can choose to if he wants – but the burden lies with those making the accusation.
March 15th, 2007 at 5:56 pmAnother question. If the justice department was concerned about voter fraud, why, oh, why did they not begin any investigations in Florida?
-GSD
Or Ohio?
March 15th, 2007 at 5:56 pmJake: “You can look it up yourselves — the U.S. does not torture..”
Hey, you just can’t argue with logic like that! Everyone, please take note. This is the result of time spent trying to argue with a guy like Jake. Time well spent? Ummm. Not so much.
March 15th, 2007 at 5:56 pmKarl Rove= psychotic rapist. He has raped the U.S. constitution and then has lied about it. He needs to testify, now.
March 15th, 2007 at 5:56 pmJake, you just resorted to using Nixon as a defense for Bush. That’s awesome. You may be a little ahead of your time because history will treat Bush in the same light as Nixon.
Thanks for that.
March 15th, 2007 at 5:57 pmJake’s train of rationalization:
1. They didn’t do anything wrong.
2. If it’s shown that they did something wrong, say it’s okay because Clinton did the same thing.
3. If it’s shown that Clinton didn’t do the same thing or anything nearly as bad, say it’s okay because the imperial presidency is immune from prosecution.
4. If it’s shown that the Bush White House isn’t immune from prosecution, start over at step 1.
After several cycles, divert the thread with a ridiculous accusation against some ‘liberal’.
March 15th, 2007 at 5:57 pm71 – you just stick by your Charlie, JPV – you know he loves you like no one else can.
Comment by tom baker
Here’s some advice. Lay off the crack for a while.
March 15th, 2007 at 5:58 pmChris:
I’ve answered that in numerous threads below re: the procedures for replacing U.S. Attorneys, Executive Privilege, and setting bad precedent. If any more people have to testify / resign over this, no, I think the new standard will be fully enforced for the next Democrat in the White House.
March 15th, 2007 at 5:58 pm#37 Jake:
As for denyng U.S. citizens their Constitutional rights, is there some specific case you are referring to?
“American guards arrived at the man’s cell periodically over the next several days, shackled his hands and feet, blindfolded him and took him to a padded room for interrogation, the detainee said. After an hour or two, he was returned to his cell, fatigued but unable to sleep.
The fluorescent lights in his cell were never turned off, he said. At most hours, heavy metal or country music blared in the corridor. He said he was rousted at random times without explanation and made to stand in his cell. Even lying down, he said, he was kept from covering his face to block out the light, noise and cold. And when he was released after 97 days he was exhausted, depressed and scared.
The detainee was Donald Vance, a 29-year-old Navy veteran from Chicago who went to Iraq as a security contractor.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/18/world/middleeast/18justice.html?ex=1324098000&en=e8d1cabad3afa06b&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
March 15th, 2007 at 5:59 pmSo you acknowledge that you don’t know from Adam concerning the Geneva convention? If you are, in fact, a representative example of the “Republic” party, than it’s no wonder that your party’s collective karmic debris is hitting the fan so odoriferously today, spreading fertilizing agents far and wide.
“I also disagree that warrantless wiretapping violates the Fourth Amendment (the Constitution is not a suicide pact) or that anyone is breaking the Geneva Convention by torturing terrorists. As for denyng U.S. citizens their Constitutional rights, is there some specific case you are referring to?”
Comment by Jake — March 15, 2007 @ 5:35 pm
March 15th, 2007 at 5:59 pmKarl Rove does not have to prove his innocence – he can choose to if he wants – but the burden lies with those making the accusation.
Comment by valiant venus
Again, we’re talking about a Congressional hearing, not a criminal trial… yet.
March 15th, 2007 at 5:59 pm[...] roads lead to Rove“: – “[T]he idea of firing all 93 U.S. attorneys was raised by White House adviser Karl Rove in early January 2005, indicating Rove was more involved in the plan than previously acknowledged [...]
March 15th, 2007 at 6:00 pmalthough I could care less how you take me.
Jake,
I don’t take you any way.
I just think that 4 people asking you the same question warrants an answer, that’s all.
Not a “look it up” or “I said it before” dodge – just answer us now and be done with it.
Seems pretty simple to me.
March 15th, 2007 at 6:01 pmKarl Rove does not have to prove his innocence – he can choose to if he wants – but the burden lies with those making the accusation.
Comment by valiant venus — March 15, 2007 @ 5:56 pm
I am not saying he needs to prove his innocence. Just testify in a hearing. Hell, I have testified in court before, and I was not guilty of anything. I was happy to testify just to shed light on what had really happened. By not testifying what does he gain?
March 15th, 2007 at 6:04 pmBluedog49
I am the only one being completely consistent here — what Carter did was not illegal and neither was what Bush did illegal.
Arne:
I doubt the current Supreme Court would force Rove to testify though.
R:
You mean “rape” figuratively, right? I think the actual Constitution is safe and sound in the National Archives.
hellinabucket:
If I cite law from the Dred Scott decision, that doesn’t mean I favor the return of slavery. As I said, though, don’t worry yourself about it.
March 15th, 2007 at 6:05 pmI am the only one being completely consistent here — what Carter did was not illegal and neither was what Bush did illegal.
Comment by Jake
Then they shouldn’t worry about letting Rove testify then, should they?
March 15th, 2007 at 6:08 pm#74 Jake:
GSD / Arne:
You can look it up yourselves — the U.S. does not torture,…
FWIW, the U.S. has been torturing. That’s how they got that garbage “intelligence” out of al-Libi about the bioweapons stuff that turned out to be crap.
… and “enemy combatants†such as Padilla are not covered by the Convention.
The Geneva Conventions don’t include anywhere the term “enemy combatant” (much less “illegal/unlawful enemy combatant”). Here’s what the Commentaries to Article 3 say.
Cheers,
March 15th, 2007 at 6:09 pmJake, what does Rove and the administraion have to lose by testifying? I missed your answer. At at least link the specific thread where you posted it. Unless its easier to just answer again here. I don’t mind.
March 15th, 2007 at 6:09 pmThe white house’s plan seems to be to run out the clock on all investigations into what they are doing. I’m starting to wonder if it’s possible to wait until they’re out of office to fully investigate this administration that way, they won’t have the power of the gov’t to impede the congress’ oversight.
March 15th, 2007 at 6:09 pmWere not talking about a trial, not yet at least, just a Congressional hearing.
I think that it is the perfect opportunity for the Administration to prove their detractors wrong, and they would be foolish not to capitalize on it.
Comment by JPV — March 15, 2007 @ 5:52 pm
That’s right it is an investigation and he has a right to lawyer up. Any good lawyer would advise him to keep his mouth shut and make them build a case. This site and every news outlet that is out there has a thousand theories on what happened. If people began accusing you of several different things (rape/murder/traffic tickets and a DWI) the smartest thing you can do is keep your mouth shut. Otherwise you say something and it gets confused or turned. People will then read into those statements and make new accusations.
Rove isn’t smart enough to totally shut up and seems to feel it’s better to defend himself in the press and at award dinners.
Clinton could have kept himself out of a lot of hot water by following that rule (No I am in no way pulling a “it’s Clinton’s fault” post here) But if he made them build the first case and kept his mouth shut, instead of denying it he would have been fine. He would not have given them the ammo they ended up using. The whole thing turned from an affair (Which America in general could handle) to lying to a grand jury (which changes things).
Either way, I am not a fan of good old Rove there, but I think he should keep his mouth shut for his own sake.
March 15th, 2007 at 6:10 pmLord, Jake is a buzzy fucOff.
Rove, Bush, Cheney, Scooper, and Gonzales all want to fire Fitz. They were will to fire all the other just to get him.
When they decide that would immediately lead to an impeachment they settle on minimizing the GOP damage by firing a select few that were doing their appoint jobs for the American people.
We need to dig deep and impeach all of these SOB and to save our nation and government from these criminals.
March 15th, 2007 at 6:12 pmComment by valiant venus — March 15, 2007 @ 5:56 pm
Regarding Rove’s testimony, let me put it a different way. I used to work as an MP at Fort Hood, TX. Once, during an NTC rotation, we had an M16 come up missing. We were pretty sure we knew who had done it, had plenty of evidence to back it up, and went to pick up the soldier. After 11 hours of questioning, he still said he had no idea what had happened to the M16. We offered him a polygraph test, because we knew he was guilty. He was not required to take the polygraph, had not been charged with any crime, and he could have told us all to go shove it. Instead, he took the polygraph of his own free will, and passed. It was later proven that someone else had taken the rifle. He did not have to “prove his innocence” as you say, but by taking the polygraph and clearing the air, he reassured everyone there that he was an upstanding guy.
March 15th, 2007 at 6:12 pmThat’s right it is an investigation and he has a right to lawyer up. Any good lawyer would advise him to keep his mouth shut and make them build a case. This site and every news outlet that is out there has a thousand theories on what happened. If people began accusing you of several different things (rape/murder/traffic tickets and a DWI) the smartest thing you can do is keep your mouth shut. Otherwise you say something and it gets confused or turned. People will then read into those statements and make new accusations.
Comment by Tundra
But, but, but… he has nothing to hide. He hasn’t done anything wrong. Has he?
And besides that…
“WAAAAHHHH!!! MOMMY, MOMMY IT’S NOT FAIR!!! CLINTON DID IT TOO. WAAAAHHH!!! IT’S NOT FAIR!â€
That alone should convince Congress that there was no wrongdoing.
March 15th, 2007 at 6:14 pmRegarding Rove’s testimony, let me put it a different way. I used to work as an MP at Fort Hood, TX. Once, during an NTC rotation, we had an M16 come up missing. We were pretty sure we knew who had done it, had plenty of evidence to back it up, and went to pick up the soldier. After 11 hours of questioning, he still said he had no idea what had happened to the M16. We offered him a polygraph test, because we knew he was guilty. He was not required to take the polygraph, had not been charged with any crime, and he could have told us all to go shove it. Instead, he took the polygraph of his own free will, and passed. It was later proven that someone else had taken the rifle. He did not have to “prove his innocence†as you say, but by taking the polygraph and clearing the air, he reassured everyone there that he was an upstanding guy.
Comment by Chris
Perfect example.
March 15th, 2007 at 6:15 pmJake, what you are conveniently ignoring is this: Reagan, George HW. Bush and Clinton all asked for all U.S. attorney’s resignations upon taking office. Reagan and Clinton did NOT sack U.S. attorneys in the middle of their two terms or at any time during their two terms. Carol Lam, just as one example in the current situation, had prosecuted Duke Cunningham and was in the middle of investigating Jerry Lewis, another influencial Republican — her firing could be seen as obstruction of justice. That’s why Rove’s little talking point about Clinton is so stupid. Why didn’t he ask people to explain why they had no problem with Reagan doing it? After all, they’re not supposed to LIKE Clinton’s way, but they’re supposed to LOVE Reagan’s way.
March 15th, 2007 at 6:15 pmChris:
I’ll look into that case and get back to you.
robin:
I do not “acknowledge that I don’t know from Adam concerning the Geneva Convention.” Next question?
trueblue:
Are you seriously asking me to re-post everything I have posted in numerous threads below re: the procedures for replacing U.S. Attorneys, Executive Privilege, and setting bad precedent?
March 15th, 2007 at 6:16 pm#80 Jake:
I mainly agree with Professor Kmiec on Hamdi
Do you agree with the Supreme Court? They said that the maladministration’s attempts to deny Hamdi his day in court (that is to say, his right as a citizen, which is what we were talking about here) was illegal.
Cheers,
March 15th, 2007 at 6:16 pmBush/Nixon or is it Nixon/Bush. How about Buxon and Nish. I am not a crook I am the decider.
March 15th, 2007 at 6:18 pmComment by Chris — March 15, 2007 @ 6:12 pm
Good old NTC…
OK, Suppose he failed the polygraph test. Maybe he has a heart murmur, maybe he was really nervous, perhaps he ate bad fish. That story wouldn’t have ended like that. Everyone would have stopped looking for anyone else and figured it was him. He may have ended up taking the fall for it. Personally I think it was a stupid move to take it in that case.
March 15th, 2007 at 6:18 pm[...] conference moments ago to react to new emails showing that Karl Rove and Alberto Gonzales had a deeper role in the U.S. Attorney scandal than they originally [...]
March 15th, 2007 at 6:19 pmApparently the memo didn’t get to Mel Martinez to ixnay talking about oveRay’s non-involvement.
March 15th, 2007 at 6:20 pmDon’t worry Jake, when to Rove testifies under oath to Congress that…
“WAAAAHHHH!!! MOMMY, MOMMY IT’S NOT FAIR!!! CLINTON DID IT TOO. WAAAAHHH!!! IT’S NOT FAIR!â€
All will be forgiven.
March 15th, 2007 at 6:20 pm#97 Jake:
Arne:
I doubt the current Supreme Court would force Rove to testify though.
I really don’t care what your opinion is. You seem particularly clueless. If you want to argue your assertion though, you should support it with evidence and/or caselaw.
Cheers,
March 15th, 2007 at 6:21 pmBluedog49:
Actually, neither the Reagan nor George HW. Bush Administration asked for all U.S. Attorney’s resignations upon taking office. And both Reagan and Clinton DID sack U.S. attorneys in the middle of their two terms — didn’t someone IN THIS THREAD bring up the U.S. Attorney who bit the topless dancer? Maybe if you get up to speed on the issues, you will understand the debate better.
Arne:
I did not agree with the Supreme Court on that one, and neither did the majority of the Congress who subsequently passed legislation to deal specifically with Military Tribunals. Since then, I think the courts have taken the proper approach : )
March 15th, 2007 at 6:22 pmTundra, how do you build a case if no one shows up at the hearing?
March 15th, 2007 at 6:23 pmJake, you’ve lost the argument. The attorney purge was an attempt to obstruct an investigation into GOP congressmen. There’s no other reason to fire Carol Lam. That’s the story and any reasonable person who looks at the facts can see that is what the administration was trying to do.
March 15th, 2007 at 6:24 pmOK, Suppose he failed the polygraph test. Maybe he has a heart murmur, maybe he was really nervous, perhaps he ate bad fish. That story wouldn’t have ended like that. Everyone would have stopped looking for anyone else and figured it was him. He may have ended up taking the fall for it. Personally I think it was a stupid move to take it in that case.
Comment by Tundra
Don’t worry. Rove has a much stronger and foolproof defense.
All he needs to do is tell Congress that…
“WAAAAHHHH!!! MOMMY, MOMMY IT’S NOT FAIR!!! CLINTON DID IT TOO. WAAAAHHH!!! IT’S NOT FAIR!â€
And he’s off the hook.
March 15th, 2007 at 6:25 pmeven if it *was* all harriet’s idea, shouldnt that have disqualified her from being nominated for Supreme Court?
March 15th, 2007 at 6:25 pmthe thing that puzzles me is that if clinton did it, it was when he took office. bush wanted to fire everyone 4 years after he took office. wern’t these the people that bush hired 4 years earlier?
March 15th, 2007 at 6:25 pm[...] A special note on the latest political opera Attorneys on Fire: For those of you unaware, Karl Rove was singing lead, not Harriet Miers way back in January of 2005. Damn those e-mails about firing all those United States Attorneys. And damn it if Alberto Gonzales wasn’t involved “weeks before he was confirmed as attorney general.” Hard to say who this news sucks more for: Rove or Gonzales? [...]
March 15th, 2007 at 6:26 pmD.:
Lam was fired AFTER Cunningham’s conviction. You might want to re-think who lost which argument before you post again.
March 15th, 2007 at 6:26 pmArne:
You seem particularly clueless. If you want to argue your assertion though, you should support it with evidence and/or caselaw.
Fairly ironic, since I’m the only one actually quoting Supreme Court precedent.
March 15th, 2007 at 6:28 pm#115 Jake:
Arne:
I did not agree with the Supreme Court on that one, and neither did the majority of the Congress who subsequently passed legislation to deal specifically with Military Tribunals. Since then, I think the courts have taken the proper approach : )
OIC. You’re a legal eedjit. Maybe you don’t agree with the Supreme Court, but no one appointed you emperor.
As for the DTA/MCA line of cases, those were the Rasul and Hamdan cases. You’re just ignerrent.
After the Hamdi decision, the gummint threw in the towel and released Hamdi and sent him to Saudi Arabia (rather than actually give him his day in court).
Cheers,
March 15th, 2007 at 6:29 pmOK, Suppose he failed the polygraph test. Maybe he has a heart murmur, maybe he was really nervous, perhaps he ate bad fish. That story wouldn’t have ended like that. Everyone would have stopped looking for anyone else and figured it was him. He may have ended up taking the fall for it. Personally I think it was a stupid move to take it in that case.
Comment by Tundra — March 15, 2007 @ 6:18 pm
I agree. I saw a lot of things as an MP that have changed my view of society as a whole. I knew a female DEA agent who was sleeping with half of the Provost Marshal’s office, MP’s that smoked pot, and FBI agents who “forgot” where they put evidence, etc. This is why I am so distrustful of the government now.
March 15th, 2007 at 6:30 pmLam was fired AFTER Cunningham’s conviction. You might want to re-think who lost which argument before you post again. Comment by Jake — March 15, 2007 @ 6:26 pm
Yeah, there was no *retaliation* in that one! Firing an *effective* attorney because they brought down corruption doesn’t seem political at all!
Who lost what argument again, old dinosaur? Oh yeah, right, that was *you* as usual.
Do yourself a favor, and don’t sit down – otherwise you’ll suffocate.
March 15th, 2007 at 6:31 pmheirique:
Clinton also let go U.S. Attorneys he had put into place in 1993 as well — James Wiggins and Kent Alexander come to mind.
March 15th, 2007 at 6:31 pmLam was fired AFTER Cunningham’s conviction. You might want to re-think who lost which argument before you post again. Comment by Jake — March 15, 2007 @ 6:26 pm
Misquoting doesn’t mean anything, but that you’re a useless senile old fool.
March 15th, 2007 at 6:31 pm#122 Jake:
Fairly ironic, since I’m the only one actually quoting Supreme Court precedent….
“… wrongly.”
There, all fixed up. No charge.
Cheers,
March 15th, 2007 at 6:32 pmNo, Jake,
You do not have to repost a thing.
It’s a question, and one that can be answered in a sentence or two.
Please stop dodging.
March 15th, 2007 at 6:32 pmTundra, how do you build a case if no one shows up at the hearing?
Comment by Lily — March 15, 2007 @ 6:23 pm
The same way you build a case when there isn’t a witness to a crime. The same way you build a case where the victim is a child and you don’t want them testifying. The same way as you build a case where the purpetrator has done a remarkable case of covering their tracks. You investigate it, e-mails, subponeas for records.
At this point noone knows for sure a crime was even committed. All anyone really has is that 8 out of 93 attorneys were either let go or not kept on after their term expired. Rove has to get hundreds of investigation requests a month from every nutjob in the country who feels he has to bring a case up. He cannot spend his time doing that every time. Because this time he is holding that policy he is guilty.
March 15th, 2007 at 6:32 pmYou’re right – I was thinking Hamdan in my rush to answer 100 posts – will you ever forgive me?
March 15th, 2007 at 6:33 pmTranslation from Jake B.S. to English: “I lost the argument and I’m afraid to throw in the towel, so I’ll ignore Lam’s investigation of Cunningham had implicated Rep. Jerry Lewis R-CA. ”
Be a man and admit you’re wrong, Jake.
March 15th, 2007 at 6:33 pmJake, How is Leon Panetta testifying before a GJ or Clinton Testifying Under Oath differant from Rove Testifying before congress?
March 15th, 2007 at 6:34 pmBe a man and admit you’re wrong, Jake.
Comment by D.
Yeah right!
LOL!!!! LOL!!!! LOL!!!! LOL!!!! LOL!!!! LOL!!!! LOL!!!! LOL!!!! LOL!!!! LOL!!!!
March 15th, 2007 at 6:35 pmI hadn’t even heard Lewis was under investigation. Oh well, I guess all U.S. Attorneys get to keep their jobs forever now that they can never be fired while they are investigating at least one politician. Fine by me — the Full Employment for U.S. Attorney Act of 2007.
March 15th, 2007 at 6:35 pmIf Bush, Rove and Gonzales got rid of these US attorneys to protect friends committing crimes, that is not only obstruction of justice, which is a crime, but it is also an impeachable offense.
March 15th, 2007 at 6:37 pm#131 Jake:
You’re right – I was thinking Hamdan in my rush to answer 100 posts – will you ever forgive me?
No. You’re just an eedjit. Case closed.
Cheers,
March 15th, 2007 at 6:38 pmtranslation from Jake B.S. to English: I’m wrong but I’m too cowardly to admit it.
March 15th, 2007 at 6:38 pmI would be happy to let this administration off the hook for this one, and concede the whole argument to the trolls. I have no problem with this. We can agree that US attorneys serve at the liesure of the President, and he can fire them anytime he wants, no problem. I would even be OK with not requiring Senate confirmation of new US Attorneys appointed by the president. And, hell, Rove doesn’t even have to testify if he doesn’t want to. Just remember, if a Democrat is elected president, any attorney that investigates any democrats for anything is instantly fired.
March 15th, 2007 at 6:38 pmtrueblue:
My answer is that based on all the long-established procedures for replacing U.S. Attorneys, Executive Privilege, and setting a bad precedent, I don’t think Rove should testify — as I said, if you want the specifics, you can look those posts up at your leisure. I’m not going to repeat them all over again.
March 15th, 2007 at 6:39 pmSorry, Chris — too late — the new standard for the Full Employement of U.S. Attorneys Act of 2007 including, but not limited to the Attorney General resigning for even suggesting otherwise, is already in place.
March 15th, 2007 at 6:41 pmJake:
Do tell us again how the U.S. Supreme Court upheld “executive privilege” in the U.S. v. Nixon case. I just love “Just So” stories….
Cheers,
March 15th, 2007 at 6:42 pmI agree. I saw a lot of things as an MP that have changed my view of society as a whole. I knew a female DEA agent who was sleeping with half of the Provost Marshal’s office, MP’s that smoked pot, and FBI agents who “forgot†where they put evidence, etc. This is why I am so distrustful of the government now.
Comment by Chris — March 15, 2007 @ 6:30 pm
Oh I am with you on the distrust part. Which is why I put such an importance on individual rights. He has a right to keep his mouth shut and I think he should. I do not trust any part of the government to “do the right thing”, anyone of those people will sell you down the river for personal gain. He needs to protect himself. If he goes into that hearing room it will simply be a forum for his political opponents to ask all kinds of irrelevant questions. The questions will be cited as pertaining to this case, but won’t. His allies will spend their time citing what a remarkable man he is for their 15 minutes of game time.
Before the childish posts of “Which is why I put such an importance on individual rights.” Oh so you are against the Domestic Wiretapping plan (Yes) Oh so you are against Imminent domain (yes) Oh you are against holding american citizens without a trial (yes) you are against the federal government telling a woman what to do with her body (yes) you are against the seatbelt and helmet laws (yes).
March 15th, 2007 at 6:44 pmMy answer is that based on all the long-established procedures for replacing U.S. Attorneys, Executive Privilege, and setting a bad precedent, I don’t think Rove should testify — as I said, if you want the specifics, you can look those posts up at your leisure. I’m not going to repeat them all over again. Comment by Jake — March 15, 2007 @ 6:39 pm
It won’t matter how many times you repeat your stupid, and ill informed opinions – you will still look like an ignorant fool.
You can’t help it that *every* progressive on here is smarter, better informed, and more capable than you are. Blame the incest that brought you into the world for that problem!
March 15th, 2007 at 6:44 pmBefore the childish posts of “Which is why I put such an importance on individual rights.â€
That was really meant at one person, didn’t mean to give it the blanket feel.
March 15th, 2007 at 6:48 pmJake: “Bluedog49: Actually, neither the Reagan nor George HW. Bush Administration asked for all U.S. Attorney’s resignations upon taking office. And both Reagan and Clinton DID sack U.S. attorneys in the middle of their two terms — didn’t someone IN THIS THREAD bring up the U.S. Attorney who bit the topless dancer? Maybe if you get up to speed on the issues, you will understand the debate better.”
Fred Greenstein, professor emeritus of politics at Princeton, quoted in the Washington Post: “When the party in the White House changes hands, it is common for the new president to fire all the sitting U.S. attorneys, as Ronald Reagan did in 1981 and Bill Clinton in 1993. By contrast, Bush allowed some to stay on the job for several months when he took office in 2001, although all were replaced eventually.”
Jake, I, for one, am not buying your pathetic act. You just don’t know what you’re talking about.
March 15th, 2007 at 6:49 pmIt’s not the firing of the US Attorneys which is the problem. Many US Attorneys have been fired for a variety of reasons. The issue is the circumstances under which they were fired, the motives behind the firing, and the subsequent coverup, which could involve perjury. If the firings were intended to interfere with any ongoing investigations, obstruction of justice charges might be brought as well.
March 15th, 2007 at 6:49 pmClinton also let go U.S. Attorneys he had put into place in 1993 as well — James Wiggins and Kent Alexander come to mind. Comment by Jake — March 15, 2007 @ 6:31 pm
Really? Then would you care to explain why Kent Alexander specifically stated in an interview that these firings sounded suspicious?
You’re a really crappy troll Jake. I hope you were better at your day-job, because you s*ck at this one.
March 15th, 2007 at 6:50 pmIf he goes into that hearing room it will simply be a forum for his political opponents to ask all kinds of irrelevant questions. The questions will be cited as pertaining to this case, but won’t. Comment by Tundra — March 15, 2007 @ 6:44 pm
You mean like asking whether you’ve had an affair, when discussing a failed land deal? Is that the kind of *irrelevant* questions you were referring to? Yeah, those are a b*tch aren’t they?
March 15th, 2007 at 6:52 pmArne:
You missed the post where I actually QUOTED from the case accepting “the valid need for protection of communications between high Government officials and those who advise and assist them in the performance of their manifold duties” and that “[h]uman experience teaches that those who expect public dissemination of their remarks may well temper candor with a concern for appearances and for their own interests to the detriment of the decisionmaking process.”?! Sorry, but I’m not going to repeat myself over and over.
ValiantVenusGrewFromUranus:
I already admitted D. knew more about Rep. Jerry Lewis R-CA than I did. And, I’ve never said I’m smarter than any progressives here. You got me.
March 15th, 2007 at 6:52 pmBefore the childish posts of “Which is why I put such an importance on individual rights.†Oh so you are against the Domestic Wiretapping plan (Yes) Oh so you are against Imminent domain (yes) Oh you are against holding american citizens without a trial (yes) you are against the federal government telling a woman what to do with her body (yes) you are against the seatbelt and helmet laws (yes).
Comment by Tundra — March 15, 2007 @ 6:44 pm
I’ll agree with all of that except the seatbelt/helmet part. I spent two years working on an ambulance in Nevada (before the Army).
March 15th, 2007 at 6:52 pmDamn, VVGFU,
You kick some serious ass when you’re here.
March 15th, 2007 at 6:53 pmBluedog49:
Douglas Kmiec, professor of law at Pepperdine (and head of Office of Legal Counsel for Reagan) states “Reagan did not fire all the sitting U.S. Attorneys in 1981.” So there.
March 15th, 2007 at 6:55 pmI already admitted D. knew more about Rep. Jerry Lewis R-CA than I did. And, I’ve never said I’m smarter than any progressives here. You got me. Comment by Jake — March 15, 2007 @ 6:52 pm
Yeah, that *tone* of yours, and your proclamations just *scream* humility!
You’re right, I do have you, you arrogant pedantic old pr*ck.
You’re st*pid, self righteous, ignorant, sloppy, and incompetent.
In summary – a *republican*.
March 15th, 2007 at 6:57 pmJake get a clue
March 15th, 2007 at 6:58 pmDo you know that there are attorney’s who specialize in Constitutional Law. But even they have to go in fron of judges for rulings. And if those judges can’t figure it out eventually they end up at the Supreme Court. But you brainiac have every legal position 100% certain in your head. For somebody who acts like some big hotshot attorney you sure spend a lot of time here, loser.
treublue,
I’m not going to repeat them all over again.
Comment by Jake
Translation: I forgot where I found all that shit on “the Google.”
March 15th, 2007 at 6:59 pmJake, I, for one, am not buying your pathetic act. You just don’t know what you’re talking about. Comment by Bluedog49 — March 15, 2007 @ 6:49 pm
It’s hard for Jake to see where he’s going, when the only view he has is his own *ss.
March 15th, 2007 at 6:59 pmHey Jake, you little weasel: you chided me on my grasp of the facts. You said, “Maybe if you get up to speed on the issues, you will understand the debate better.†You stated that Reagan didn’t get rid of all his U.S. attorneys.
I responded with a statement from the emeritus professor of politics at Princeton supporting what I posted. I’m not going to let you stare off into space and act like this didn’t happen. You’ve been handed your lunch. Run along, now.
March 15th, 2007 at 6:59 pmshane:
I’m retired.
March 15th, 2007 at 7:01 pmDouglas Kmiec, professor of law at Pepperdine (and head of Office of Legal Counsel for Reagan) states “Reagan did not fire all the sitting U.S. Attorneys in 1981.†So there. Comment by Jake — March 15, 2007 @ 6:55 pm
It must be hard for you to read, with that view out your *sshole. The key word in that is “all”, and at the *beginning* of his term, and that the ones replaced were *senate-confirmed*.
All of which are *context*. You know, the thing that makes a point *relevant*?
Oh wait – you don’t know that basic premise of *reason* – which is why after 75 years on this earth, you still have the useless brain of a 13 year old boy that’s never learned to *think*. How sad. You wasted your entire life, only to come out the other end probably *more* stupid than when you started.
March 15th, 2007 at 7:02 pmI’m retired.Comment by Jake — March 15, 2007 @ 7:01 pm
Yet you *remained* incompetent through the process. Congratulations!
March 15th, 2007 at 7:03 pmBluedog:
I saw your professor emeritus Greenstein, and raised you (see above) with someone who was ACTUALLY IN THE REAGAN ADMINISTRATION!
March 15th, 2007 at 7:03 pmAt this point noone knows for sure a crime was even committed.
Comment by Tundra
That’s what hearings are for, to determine if a crime was committed. And to do this, you have to ask people questions. It’s likely that Rove has some knowledge in this matter that may be useful in determiming if a crime was committed. So what’s the big deal with asking him to answer some questions?
March 15th, 2007 at 7:03 pmYou kick some serious ass when you’re here.
Comment by trueblue — March 15, 2007 @ 6:53 pm
Well, when he’s head is buried there – what else am I supposed to do? ;)
March 15th, 2007 at 7:04 pmJake, what does Rove and the administration have to lose by testifying?
Yeah Jake, what about it?
Or maybe we should just listen to illegal wiretaps of them.
March 15th, 2007 at 7:04 pmOK, Jake, now I understand. You’ve been listening to a right wing hack who works for a right-wing propaganda factory masquerading as a legitimate law school — Pepperdine — where the distinguished Kenneth Starr holds forth. Now, if you would please provide a link to the distinguished hack’s article claiming that Reagan didn’t ask for resignations of all U.S. Attorneys, I would appreciate it, because I was there and I remember all of them turning in their resignations. I really want to see where you got this bogus info, because I’m interested in the mechanics by which the right wing spreads propaganda, and this is a great little detail. Help me out here. Where did you get that info?
March 15th, 2007 at 7:05 pmVery funny, Zooey — the threads I’ve posted on are all right here at Think Progress — I’m sure you can understand what with the amount of posts I’m responding to, I don’t have the time to look up everything I’ve posted before and post it again too.
March 15th, 2007 at 7:05 pmre:32 37 Jake (or should we just call you joke?)
Scooter libby was just convicted of perjury. dumass.
It’s is illegal to break treaties. the Geneva Convention is a treaty. the Geneva Convention prohibits torture. At war crimes trials in Japan, after WWII. Japanese Officers were convicted of torturing US Servicemen by waterboarding them. dumass.
the existing FISA laws allow for warrantless wiretapping when needed. Your strawman arugment about “suicide” is embarrassingly lame. the only people who are committing suicide are the republican idiots who still support this corrupt gov.
Why won’t you answer jpv’s question?
Does anyone else see a scary resemblance between cheney and Montgomery Burns, and scooter and Smithers?
March 15th, 2007 at 7:07 pmI saw your professor emeritus Greenstein, and raised you (see above) with someone who was ACTUALLY IN THE REAGAN ADMINISTRATION! Comment by Jake — March 15, 2007 @ 7:03 pm
Wow, and we know how *trustful* they were! How many *indictments* did that administration suffer again? How many criminal acts had to be *pardoned*?
You just trust the *nicest* people – dum bass!
March 15th, 2007 at 7:08 pmThank you, VVGFU. I knew that since this guy was from Pepperdine, the best these words could possibly be were “weasel words,” designed to obfuscate and mislead. I’m sure that if I were a weasel, I might say something like “Clinton did not fire all U.S. attorneys in 1993, and be technically correct.
March 15th, 2007 at 7:09 pmshane:
My answer is that, based on all the long-established procedures for replacing U.S. Attorneys, the protections afforded under Executive Privilege, and setting a bad precedent otherwise, I don’t think Rove should testify — as I’ve said repeatedly, if you want the specifics on why I hold that opinion, you can look those posts up at your leisure. I’m not going to repeat them all over again.
Bluedog49:
No article — I’m quoting him directly.
March 15th, 2007 at 7:09 pmshane:
I’m retired.
Comment by Jake — March 15, 2007 @ 7:01 pm
From what Jake, your Walmart Greeter job. Retired from being an attorney, because you have the mentality of an ambulance chaser not a constitutional attorney. And where’d you go to law school, Dumb Shit U.
Okay, Jake tell us where and what year you went to law school, we’re waiting.
March 15th, 2007 at 7:09 pmbob:
I did answer JPV’s question, and no (Cheney is overweight).
March 15th, 2007 at 7:10 pmJoke must not be getting paid per post, otherwise he’d be more than happy to repeat all the crap he’s littered the other threads with.
Keep it up, VVGFU, it’s whack-a-troll time! Have fun!
March 15th, 2007 at 7:17 pmVery funny, Zooey — the threads I’ve posted on are all right here at Think Progress — I’m sure you can understand what with the amount of posts I’m responding to, I don’t have the time to look up everything I’ve posted before and post it again too. Comment by Jake — March 15, 2007 @ 7:05 pm
You’ve spent your entire life, only to become an old *fool*, must you now waste our time by continuing to act line one in public?
What you post is poorly researched, or even dishonest. When people press you on it – you refuse to back up your b*llsh*t with relevant resources.
You’re an idiot, and a fool – you st*pid old *sshole.
March 15th, 2007 at 7:17 pmI’m not going to repeat them all over again.
Comment by Jake — March 15, 2007 @ 6:39 pm
Sorry, but I’m not going to repeat myself over and over.
Comment by Jake — March 15, 2007 @ 6:52 pm
as I’ve said repeatedly, if you want the specifics on why I hold that opinion, you can look those posts up at your leisure. I’m not going to repeat them all over again.
Comment by Jake — March 15, 2007 @ 7:12 pm
Hey Jake, wouldn’t it be easier to repeat what you’re not going to repeat rather than to keep repeating that you’re not going to repeat it?
March 15th, 2007 at 7:17 pmSorry, shane. The Terms of Use prohibit sharing personal information on line. I’m already married anyways.
March 15th, 2007 at 7:17 pmNo article — I’m quoting him directly.
Comment by Jake — March 15, 2007 @ 7:09 pm
How convenient – a *resource* that comes from your own *head*. Those voices come more often as the Alzheimers sets in Mr. RayGun!
March 15th, 2007 at 7:19 pmI’m sure you can understand what with the amount of posts I’m responding to, I don’t have the time to look up everything I’ve posted before and post it again too.
Comment by Jake
Jake,
You seem to be a smart guy, I’m sure you can figure out that in a forum such as TP, if you keep referring people to prior comments on dead threads, you will lose your credibility. At least be able to link to your prior comment.
Just sayin’
March 15th, 2007 at 7:19 pmI did answer JPV’s question, and no (Cheney is overweight).
Comment by Jake — March 15, 2007 @ 7:10 pm
So’s your EGO – dum bass.
Someone as st*pid and foolish as yourself should stick to getting drunk and embarrassing your grandkids in private. Here, you look like a fcuking Nixon fool.
March 15th, 2007 at 7:20 pmNo, Jane, I don’t get paid to post. I simply enjoy the company here at TP.
March 15th, 2007 at 7:20 pmSorry, shane. The Terms of Use prohibit sharing personal information on line. I’m already married anyways.
Comment by Jake
That’s a hell of a dodge.
Who cares if you’re married? What does that have to do with anything?
March 15th, 2007 at 7:21 pmLily — the threads I’ve posted on are all right here at Think Progress — you can search them as easily as I can. I’m sure you can understand what with the amount of posts I’m responding to, I don’t have the time to look up everything I’ve posted before and post it again too.
March 15th, 2007 at 7:22 pmSorry, shane. The Terms of Use prohibit sharing personal information on line. I’m already married anyways. Comment by Jake — March 15, 2007 @ 7:17 pm
The Terms of Use also prohibit you from posting intentionally dishonest material for political purposes – yet that doesn’t stop you!
If you’re married, go play with your wife. Or is that why you have so much on the *gay* issue? She doesn’t keep you happy grandpa?
Why must you lie Jake – is the truth just too painful for an old liar like yourself? Why do you and the rest of you RayGunites hate America so much?
Without you supporting terrorists all over the world, 911 wouldn’t have happened! It’s your fault – grandpa!
March 15th, 2007 at 7:22 pmI’m new to the Internets — I didn’t know the rule about “if you keep referring people to prior comments on dead threads, you will lose your credibility” — thanks for the pointer.
March 15th, 2007 at 7:23 pmNo, Jane, I don’t get paid to post. I simply enjoy the company here at TP. Comment by Jake — March 15, 2007 @ 7:20 pm
You GOP Nutjobs always do. With friends as st*pid as you are, it’s always a change of pace for you to meet people that lap you on your IQ!
Do us a favor, get a hobby, get a boyfriend, come out, and catch a fcuking clue for once in your miserable and failed life – *sshole!
March 15th, 2007 at 7:24 pmJake, just a little lesson here in critical thinking: if one guy says this is so because I say I heard someone say so and another guy says this is so and presents a published article supporting it, the critical thinker is naturally going to place more weight on the second guy’s argument. That’s just common sense, right?
March 15th, 2007 at 7:24 pmComment by Jake — March 15, 2007 @ 7:20 pm
Too bad we can’t say the same for you.
Good night, and good luck!
March 15th, 2007 at 7:25 pmJake, a link would suffice. Or just tell us which thread you posted your response on. Or how about narrowing it down to a day. Or maybe, maybe just answer the question.
March 15th, 2007 at 7:31 pmI’m new to the Internets — I didn’t know the rule about “if you keep referring people to prior comments on dead threads, you will lose your credibility†— thanks for the pointer. Comment by Jake — March 15, 2007 @ 7:23 pm
You’re also new to *reason*, *debate* and *rational-thought* – if your st*pid posts are any measure of your state of mind.
I suggest you catch up to the lessons you should have learned 60 years ago, and learn to think for your self – little man.
March 15th, 2007 at 7:31 pmBluedog49:
Actually, I’ll believe the eyewitness to an event over someone who was not an eyewitness, all other things being equal.
JaneESchneider:
Good night, and good luckto you as well.
March 15th, 2007 at 7:32 pmLily:
I’ve only posted here since day before yesterday. My justification for replacing U.S. Attorneys who serve at the pleasure of the President, and well as the concepts of Separation of Powers / Executive Privilege (I think I even quoted relevant case law) has been all over those threads.
March 15th, 2007 at 7:34 pm#150 Jake:
Arne:
You missed the post where I actually QUOTED from the case accepting “the valid need for protection of communications between high Government officials and those who advise and assist them in the performance of their manifold duties†and that “[h]uman experience teaches that those who expect public dissemination of their remarks may well temper candor with a concern for appearances and for their own interests to the detriment of the decisionmaking process.�! Sorry, but I’m not going to repeat myself over and over.
You missed the point where I so helpfully pointed out that they held that Nixon had to give up the tapes. What you cite above is neither a holding in the case, nor is it even an assertion that “executive privilege” exists. It is at best one argument (or two) in favour of such a “privilege”, but it’s hardly any explication of what should happen when such is asserted against competing interests. That explication came when they held that any such executive interests must give way in the interest of pursuing criminal wrongdoing.
Here’s the full quote from Nixon:
“In support of his claim of absolute privilege, the President’s counsel urges two grounds, one of which is common to all governments and one of which is peculiar to our system of separation of powers. The first ground is the valid need for protection of communications between high Government officials and those who advise and assist them in the performance of their manifold duties; the importance of this confidentiality is too plain to require further discussion. Human experience teaches that those who expect public dissemination of their remarks may well temper candor with a concern for appearances and for their own interests to the detriment of the decisionmaking process.”
IOW, they’re describing the arguments of Nixon’s attorneys.
Funny how you dishonestly leave out the part where they say that these are the arguments that Nixon’s counsel “urge[d]“.
They went on to reject these arguments as controlling in this case, and rule that he had to turn over the tapes.
They phrase it thusly:
“However, neither the doctrine of separation of powers, nor the need for confidentiality of high-level communications, without more, can sustain an absolute, unqualified Presidential privilege of immunity from judicial process under all circumstances. The President’s need for complete candor and objectivity from advisers calls for great deference from the courts. However, when the privilege depends solely on the broad, undifferentiated claim of public interest in the confidentiality of such conversations, a confrontation with other values arises. Absent a claim of need to protect military, diplomatic, or sensitive national security secrets, we find it difficult to accept the argument that even the very important interest in confidentiality of Presidential communications is significantly diminished by production of such material for in camera inspection with all the protection that a district court will be obliged to provide.”
IOW, if it ain’t a “national security” matter, you’re SOL….
Now stop your dishonesty. It’s really unbecoming.
Cheers,
March 15th, 2007 at 7:46 pmI never said it was an absolute privilege — I am comfortable with the ROBERTS Court determining how far the dicta would apply to the instant case when there’s no doubt the President can replace U.S. Attorneys at will — as opposed to a criminal investigation of Nixon. Thanks for the “link” though. I still don’t know how to do those here.
March 15th, 2007 at 7:54 pmDouglas Kmiec, professor of law at Pepperdine (and head of Office of Legal Counsel for Reagan) states “Reagan did not fire all the sitting U.S. Attorneys in 1981.†So there. Comment by Jake — March 15, 2007 @ 6:55 pm
Jake, FYI, that’s for your information, Pepperdine is a rich kid college, $50,000 a year for kids who can’t get into a good college. And Office of Legal Counsel for Reagan. Reagan Jake, a regular brain trust who couldn’t answer on question during Iran/Contra.
March 15th, 2007 at 7:54 pmI’m still waiting to hear what law school you went to Jake.
Pepperdine is know for its Tennis but thanks for the info.
Oh and Jake, Pepperdine is in Malibu, you know Malibu in California on the across the street from the beach.
March 15th, 2007 at 7:56 pmSomebody else cites Princeton and you cite Pepperdine. I’ll take Princeton for 10.
Jake:
No, Jane, I don’t get paid to post. I simply enjoy the company here at TP.
Oh, into masochism? Enjoy getting your butt spanked by all and sundry?
Don’t worry, though. Three weeks of therapy and even you can be cured.
Cheers,
March 15th, 2007 at 7:57 pm#194 Jake:
I never said it was an absolute privilege …
Ummm, nope. You said that U.S. v. Nixon upheld “executive privilege” and that therefore Rove wouldn’t have to testify. But, sadly enough for you, U.S. v. Nixon rejected an “executive privilege” claim absent any legitimate “national security” concerns.
… — I am comfortable with the ROBERTS Court determining how far the dicta would apply to the instant case …
Then you’re pretty stoopid (and clueless about the law)>
… when there’s no doubt the President can replace U.S. Attorneys at will — as opposed to a criminal investigation of Nixon….
The “at will” is not the issue (much as you RW foamers would like it to be so). “L’etat c’est moi” doesn’t translate into ‘Merkun very well, I’m afraid. I’d point out that the crimes alleged in the Nixon maladministration are not too far from the abuses of the present one (I find it interesting the dear ol’ Fred Fielding is back in the saddle, seems like old times, donnit?)
… Thanks for the “link†though. I still don’t know how to do those here.
Which just adds to the panoply of things that you don’t know how to do.
Now care to explain why you’re mangling other legal cites as well, and how you haven’t a clue as to what the cases actually said? And when you’re done with that, why you shouldn’t be laughed at and derided when you start pretending to know anything about law?
Cheers,
March 15th, 2007 at 8:07 pm#15 shane:
I’m still waiting to hear what law school you went to Jake.
My money’s on “none”.
Cheers,
March 15th, 2007 at 8:09 pmJake, you would know better than I where you posted your reasons why Rove shouldn’t testify. You obviously have strong feelings about this issue. How hard would it be to paraphrase these reasons from your elusive post?
March 15th, 2007 at 8:10 pmThe point I was trying to make is that you’ve spent far more time telling people to go find your post than it would take to just tell us.
I certainly hope that the people who protested outside Rove’s home…
…pass his address on to people…
…who really like to give him…
…a serious home makeover…
March 15th, 2007 at 8:12 pmCrawford = Spahn Ranch East.
March 15th, 2007 at 8:28 pmCrawford = Spahn Ranch East.
Comment by tom baker
Ouch. Heh.
March 15th, 2007 at 8:42 pmLily sez:
Lily, Jake isn’t here to engage in debate…he’s here to stifle and derail debate. With this in mind, it’s obvious why Jake would rather send you on a wild goose chase than to honestly answer your questions.
March 15th, 2007 at 8:46 pmI am delighted that the corruption of the Bush Administration is being exposed.
But, the issue has become diluted by the ongoing conversation with Jake, the troll.
S/he must be reveling in the the personal attention. It’s an open forum to “express” his thoughts.
March 15th, 2007 at 8:47 pmActually, I’ll believe the eyewitness to an event over someone who was not an eyewitness, all other things being equal.
JaneESchneider:
Good night, and good luckto you as well.
Comment by Jake — March 15, 2007 @ 7:32 pm
Actually no one here believes you – so why don’t you STFU you st*pid old man?
March 15th, 2007 at 8:53 pmI’ve only posted here since day before yesterday. My justification for replacing U.S. Attorneys who serve at the pleasure of the President, and well as the concepts of Separation of Powers / Executive Privilege (I think I even quoted relevant case law) has been all over those threads. Comment by Jake — March 15, 2007 @ 7:34 pm
Ah, more of that “pleasure of the president b*llsh*t”. I suggest you go to this link and watch this video.
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/03/15/daily-show-serving-at-the-pleasure-of-the-president/
As for you quoting *relevant* caselaw – bwahahaha, now THAT’S a FUNNY JOKE!
You tend to *imply* you were an attorney before retirement. Your incompetence demonstrates a good reason for you retirement – old man. Senility doesn’t bode well for legal practice!
March 15th, 2007 at 8:55 pmI never said it was an absolute privilege — I am comfortable with the ROBERTS Court determining how far the dicta would apply to the instant case when there’s no doubt the President can replace U.S. Attorneys at will — as opposed to a criminal investigation of Nixon. Thanks for the “link†though. I still don’t know how to do those here. Comment by Jake — March 15, 2007 @ 7:54 pm
You hit the button that says *link* dum bass, and it sends it over the *tubes*. You also don’t know *squat* about what’s legal, ethical or moral – as has been consistently pointed out to you.
You’re right up there with Gonzales – he *pretends* to be a competent lawyer – and Roberts – he *pretendes* to be a competent judge!
March 15th, 2007 at 8:57 pmI seem to remember ripping some troll for citing a Pepperdine source here a few weeks ago. I don’t remember it being Jake, though.
March 15th, 2007 at 10:18 pmHere’s what happened …
bush&co. after losing the 06′ elections went on acting as if they still had the power of Gods when anyone with an IQ above the temperature of warm p*ss can see just how obvious and petty these vile souls are …
they’ve been caught – period – they can’t lie their way out of this – the emails are the evidence – put a fork in em’
March 15th, 2007 at 10:49 pmI believe the fat lady has now sung.
March 15th, 2007 at 10:50 pmAs for denyng U.S. citizens their Constitutional rights, is there some specific case you are referring to?
Jose Padilla, for one.
March 15th, 2007 at 10:54 pm[...] read more | digg story [...]
March 16th, 2007 at 12:03 amCan’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 …
“… and tell ’em Big Mitch sent ya!â€
March 16th, 2007 at 12:28 amI seem to remember ripping some troll for citing a Pepperdine source here a few weeks ago. I don’t remember it being Jake, though.
Comment by VerbalKint
I don’t think I saw that particular post of yours because I had the flu a few weeks ago. However, I am quite sure that michael-troll has claimed to be a graduate of (is the surf up? Pepperdine.
March 16th, 2007 at 12:50 am[...] E-Mails Show Rove, Gonzales Had Deeper Role In U.S. Attorney Firings New E-Mails Show Rove, Gonzales Had Deeper Role In U.S. Attorney Firings ABC News reports that new emails reveal that the plan for firing U.S. Attorneys originated in the [...]
March 16th, 2007 at 3:33 amNah, the White House isn’t imploding. It’s destruction is caused by jet fuel.
March 16th, 2007 at 8:46 amYou mean like asking whether you’ve had an affair, when discussing a failed land deal? Is that the kind of *irrelevant* questions you were referring to? Yeah, those are a b*tch aren’t they?
That would be exactly what I meant.
March 16th, 2007 at 8:56 amE-Mails Show Rove, Gonzales Had Deeper Role In U.S. Attorney Firings…
I thought this was obvious when the White House claimed Rove didn’t have a role in the Attorney firings……
March 16th, 2007 at 11:51 am