Administration withheld emails about Rove.
By on May 10th, 2007 at 1:45 pm
Administration withheld emails about Rove.
Major news out from Murray Waas in the National Journal:
The Bush administration has withheld a series of e-mails from Congress showing that senior White House and Justice Department officials worked together to conceal the role of Karl Rove in installing Timothy Griffin, a protégé of Rove’s, as U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Arkansas.
The withheld records show that D. Kyle Sampson, who was then-chief of staff to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, consulted with White House officials in drafting two letters to Congress that appear to have misrepresented the circumstances of Griffin’s appointment as U.S. attorney and of Rove’s role in supporting Griffin.
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
Business
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Global Warming
Health Care
Hoffman
Immigration
International Relations
Iraq
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Sports
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Tea Party
Terrorism
Veterans
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
Nothing to see here. Move along!!
May 10th, 2007 at 1:46 pmThe congress can hold them in contempt. You know, just like most of us do.
May 10th, 2007 at 1:49 pmYou could knock me over with a feather, I’m so surprised.
May 10th, 2007 at 1:50 pmAnd that is exactly how the Repubs Representatives are behaving as they take turns questioning Gonzales in the Justice hearing today. It is sickening to watch them do this crap!
May 10th, 2007 at 1:52 pmSmoking Gun?/
Hope so.
May 10th, 2007 at 1:52 pmMaybe it’s better that Rove isn’t prosecuted until after the dark days of the bush administration are over, that way there can be no pardon of that pile of sh*t
May 10th, 2007 at 1:56 pmIsn’t it time to just subpeona him?
May 10th, 2007 at 1:57 pmFor the latest news, document dumps, email archives, hearing transcripts and other essential materials in the firings of U.S. attorneys, see:
May 10th, 2007 at 1:57 pm“The U.S. Attorney Scandal Documents.”
Are you suggesting that this administration is not forthcoming?
I AM SHOCKED!
May 10th, 2007 at 1:57 pmOOJ, anyone?
May 10th, 2007 at 1:57 pmI’m not really sure what the big deal is. Can’t the President appoint and remove anyone in the Justice Dept. for any reason?
May 10th, 2007 at 1:57 pmI’d like to hear most of the Waas article read aloud by one of the committee members. Then I’d like to hear Gonzo hem and haw about delivering those e-mails.
Time to level a contempt of Congress charge. Seeing this toad frog-marched out of the chamber would be delightful.
May 10th, 2007 at 1:58 pmWould all trolls kindly refrain from commenting until they’ve read the article in question? Thank you.
May 10th, 2007 at 2:02 pm#11, we would need a president first.
May 10th, 2007 at 2:02 pmRepublicans R.I.P. May 10, 2007. This is the end of your party… the definitive coffin nail… It all goes to the top and Republican Senators knew of the plan and said nothing… even ones on the judiciary committee. Don’t think any of the 9 to 10 Republican clowns running for pres. are going to be your savior.
May 10th, 2007 at 2:02 pmAt least some of the Republican senators weren’t afraid to confront Alberto. These House Republicans are simply falling all over themselves in their attempts to put lipstick on the pig. Pathetic.
May 10th, 2007 at 2:04 pmHey Junior . . . how does ‘T-blossom’s on the march’ sound to ya ?
May 10th, 2007 at 2:04 pmHa !
I’m not really sure what the big deal is. Can’t the President appoint and remove anyone in the Justice Dept. for any reason?
Comment by Storms — May 10, 2007 @ 1:57 pm
Of course he can! The President can remove a person for illegal reasons! Why shouldn’t the President be able to break the law? After all, if the President does it, that means it’s legal. Who needs a Constitution anyway?
/sarc
May 10th, 2007 at 2:05 pmNo! Really!?! Like maybe UP TO 5 MILLION OF THEM?
May 10th, 2007 at 2:07 pmWell, at least we know the e-mails aren’t “lost”, after all.
Hark, what is that loud sucking sound I hear?
May 10th, 2007 at 2:12 pmCould it be the sound of the Bush administration
going down the toilet?
Of course he can! The President can remove a person for illegal reasons!
Did Clinton remove all of them for “illegal” reasons?
May 10th, 2007 at 2:13 pmNot for “any” reason. That is a like a king. Next time you are confused, compare Bush to a king. If he is acting like one, then he is wrong. You don’t think it is a big deal, because you are one of them.
May 10th, 2007 at 2:16 pmWell, at least we know the e-mails aren’t “lostâ€, after all.
Hark, what is that loud sucking sound I hear?
Could it be the sound of the Bush administration
going down the toilet?
Comment by heyzeus — May 10, 2007 @ 2:12 pm
Yeah, but Turd Blossom is always that persistent floatie that keeps popping back up.
May 10th, 2007 at 2:16 pmNope, he did it at the begining of his term, just like every other president.
JESUS FU*KING CHRIST WE HAVE ALREADY BEEN OVER THIS SAME SH!T DAY IN AND DAY OUT> ARE YOU REALLLY THAT FU*KING STUPID?
May 10th, 2007 at 2:17 pmMr. Predictable on cue: Clinton did it!
Hahahahaha
Now kindly f yourself, troll.
May 10th, 2007 at 2:19 pm“Can’t the President appoint and remove anyone in the Justice Dept. for any reason?”
Not the issue. the DOJ lied and said the attorneys were removed for performance issues. That’s been proven to be a LIE. That’s the problem. It’s like that statement, “I did not have sexual relations….”
“Did Clinton remove all of them for “illegal†reasons?”
Um, nooooooo, and I’m sure you’re aware that when a new president takes office, frequently they remove all sitting prosecutors and appoint new ones. What happened here was prosecutors were appointed by Bushie and removed by Bushie midterm because they were refusing to go after bogus cases against Dems and were actually going after Reps who had committed crimes.
But your concern and confusion are just precious!
May 10th, 2007 at 2:20 pm#22 – You’re definitely wrong. Whether you agree with it or not, the president can remove nearly anyone he wants, for “any” reason. They all serve at his pleasure. That’s just the way it is.
Now, whether e-mails were deliberately hidden, that’s another issue. I for one don’t think it’s the responsibility of the Adminsitration to give anything to Congress, if it has to do with the President doing something he can do for “any” reason. That just doesn’t make sense.
May 10th, 2007 at 2:22 pmHa! This is BIG TIME different. The article says the “Several of the e-mails that the Bush administration is withholding from Congress, as well as papers from the White House counsel’s office describing other withheld documents, were made available to National Journal by a senior executive branch official, who said that the administration has inappropriately kept many of them from Congress,” meaning that they have an inside source, and Waas already has the docs! Bring it on you s#!thead trolls – your goose is cooked this time.
May 10th, 2007 at 2:22 pmThe WH can’t politicize the DOJ and try to rig elections. That’s what this is about, storms. But I suspect you already know that.
May 10th, 2007 at 2:22 pmAnd a plea for us to believe that Bill Clinton also did this will begin in 5, 4, 3……
May 10th, 2007 at 2:24 pmMaybe you have been over and over it. I haven’t been her for a while, but the bottom line is that the President can remove them, and he doesn’t have to give any justifiable reason, although in this case, they weren’t following through on his policies – that’s a good reason to me.
May 10th, 2007 at 2:24 pmYeah, right. Whatever.
Right now Gonzo is successfully stonewalling in front of the House Judiciary Committee and he’ll walk away from it all unscathed. If you can’t bag this incompetent buffoon, how do you think you’ll be able to touch someone like Rove?
It’s quite amazing what steadfast support from the President can do.
May 10th, 2007 at 2:26 pmYou are wrong you brown shirt piece of sh!t.
We know, because you are a brown shirt nazi fascist piece of sh!t who needs to be hung for the highest bough of a large tree for all to see what happens to traitors that betray the best interests of the United States.
You are wrong traitor.
The least you could do is have the balls to stand up and pledge your allegiance to George W Bush over your country. Otherwise you are just a big blubbering pu$$y.
May 10th, 2007 at 2:27 pmDid Clinton remove all of them for “illegal†reasons?
Comment by Storms — May 10, 2007 @ 2:13 pm
Nope, he did it at the begining of his term, just like every other president.
JESUS FU*KING CHRIST WE HAVE ALREADY BEEN OVER THIS SAME SH!T DAY IN AND DAY OUT> ARE YOU REALLLY THAT FU*KING STUPID?
Comment by Spudge_Boy
Exactly Spudge! It’s like some of these folks just don’t have a memory. We have to gently remind them of the current events they should already be aware of. Or maybe they are just ‘making stuff up’ like their leaders do. I don’t know…
May 10th, 2007 at 2:28 pmYou’re definitely wrong. Whether you agree with it or not, the president can remove nearly anyone he wants, for “any†reason. They all serve at his pleasure. That’s just the way it is.
Comment by Storms — May 10, 2007 @ 2:22 pm
It’s you who is WRONG!
The President cannot fire anyone for an illegal reason.
May 10th, 2007 at 2:32 pmTom: Ever read the bit about how certain people create reality and some study it judiciously? What you mistake for the lack of memory is, in fact, reality creation in action. This is the way how the public opinion is influenced. It doesn’t matter how many times you debunk such a claim. We just assert it again and again and again until a sufficient number of people believe it.
Truth is malleable.
May 10th, 2007 at 2:33 pm#33 – Wow, dude. That was an awesome, typical, peace-loving comment. Haven’t visited my friends at TP for a while, but it’s always nice to stop over, see the kind of people who frequently comment on this site and realize how reasonable I actually am.
May 10th, 2007 at 2:33 pmThese trolls are like “robo-roves” they keep repeating the same s#it over and over again. Maybe it’s a work-furlough program…
May 10th, 2007 at 2:34 pm#22 – You’re definitely wrong. Whether you agree with it or not, the president can remove nearly anyone he wants, for “any†reason. They all serve at his pleasure. That’s just the way it is.
Comment by Storms — May 10, 2007 @ 2:22 pm
I see. We have an authorative answer from a clueless idiot who clearly understands nothing about the law. This talking point was seriously dead over a month ago. Truly pathetic that a troll would dare resurrect it.
May 10th, 2007 at 2:34 pmThere is no law that states the president cannot remove an appointed US Attorney that he appointed mid term. There is no law that states he cannot remove an appointed US attorney for not following his policies. If emails have in fact been hidden or deleted, that is illegal.
May 10th, 2007 at 2:34 pm#35 What’s the “illegal” reason?
May 10th, 2007 at 2:35 pmThanks for the decency John. I’d agree with that.
May 10th, 2007 at 2:36 pmThere is no law that states the president cannot remove an appointed US Attorney that he appointed mid term. There is no law that states he cannot remove an appointed US attorney for not following his policies. If emails have in fact been hidden or deleted, that is illegal. Comment by John M — May 10, 2007 @ 2:34 pm
There is a law that says you can’t interfere with a federal investigation – it’s called *obstruction-of-justice*. Your ignorance of that law, doesn’t make it go away – child.
May 10th, 2007 at 2:36 pmand realize how reasonable I actually am.
Comment by Storms — May 10, 2007 @ 2:33 pm
Don’t kid yourself, troll. Either you are pathologically incapable of learning, or you are a determined liar. Take your pick.
Same to you, John M. There are a myriad of illegal reasons for firing USAs, and you damn well know it.
May 10th, 2007 at 2:37 pm#22 – You’re definitely wrong. Whether you agree with it or not, the president can remove nearly anyone he wants, for “any†reason. They all serve at his pleasure. That’s just the way it is.
By Storms
No sir, you are wrong. When the rules state that the President can remove for ANY reason, the founding fathers probably didn’t think of Rove and Bush. They probably thought good, loyal, honest Americans would interpret the rules in a fair and even-handed manner. They probably thought that a president would NEVER put his party above the rule of law. The president cannot remove USA’s to stiffle or avoid cases which reflect badly on the administration. Again, your ‘dear leader’ is subverting the Constitution, and that doesn’t bother you at all? His administration then lies to the PLANET about what happened and why – and that doesn’t bother you at all? What has the current occupant of OUR white house done so well that he deserves to be crowned King? Can you please help me with this one? What on earth has Bush done FOR YOU! Not Hallibuton and the rest – but FOR YOU! Please wake up from your dream of a bush dicatorship – ’cause it ain’t gonna happen.
May 10th, 2007 at 2:37 pm“Maybe you have been over and over it. I haven’t been her for a while, but the bottom line is that the President can remove them, and he doesn’t have to give any justifiable reason, although in this case, they weren’t following through on his policies – that’s a good reason to me.”
US Attorneys are appointed to serve justice, not the president.
May 10th, 2007 at 2:38 pmI’m not really sure what the big deal is. Can’t the President appoint and remove anyone in the Justice Dept. for any reason?
Comment by Storms — May 10, 2007 @ 1:57 pm
Well is Karl Rove allowed to do so? Those are the emails withheld. Or do you trolls not even read the subject just spew more bile.
May 10th, 2007 at 2:39 pmThere is no law that states the president cannot remove an appointed US Attorney that he appointed mid term.
Faulty reasoning. There is also no law that states that people cannot smoke. There are plenty of laws detailing circumstances under which it would be illegal to smoke, however.
Somehow I don’t think that the trolls can really be this stupid.
May 10th, 2007 at 2:39 pmThere is a law that says you can’t interfere with a federal investigation – it’s called *obstruction-of-justice*. Your ignorance of that law, doesn’t make it go away – child.
Comment by ValiantVenusGrewFromUranus
Can you show that there was obstruction of justice? Of course you can’t.
May 10th, 2007 at 2:40 pmThe basic reasoning of the trolls is this: if it is ever legal, then it is always legal. The utter lack of merit of this legal argument is self-evident. It is simply farcical for them to keep repeating it. It is juvenile. It is intended to disrupt and vandalize the discussion.
May 10th, 2007 at 2:41 pmJust remember, trolls: when you support Bush, you abandon the rule of law. And that’s a fact. And you will be remembered for it, just like Nazi collaborators are remembered.
May 10th, 2007 at 2:43 pmTom,
The rules are the rules, regardless of what the founding fathers “probably” didn’t or did think about. I’m sure they didn’t think we’d be stabbing babies in the back of the neck, or that we’d be creating laws to charge people for what they think instead of just what they do.
During the Bush administration, I’ve been protected against terrorist attacks on my homeland, including one earlier this week, I’ve had my taxes lowered, and I’ve enjoyed seeing a whole bunch of idiots yell & scream about nonsense with each other, while they try as hard as they can to find something (just anything) that might give them a glimmer of hope Bush might be removed from office.
It’s been a good 6 years.
May 10th, 2007 at 2:43 pmFaulty reasoning. There is also no law that states that people cannot smoke. There are plenty of laws detailing circumstances under which it would be illegal to smoke, however.
Somehow I don’t think that the trolls can really be this stupid.
Comment by VerbalKint
Under U.S. Law a President may dismiss a US Attorney at anytime. Your connection to smoking is rather weak. There are places where smoking is illegal, but smoking is not illegal for anybody over 18. Just like it is not illegal to be naked, but there are places where it is illegal to be naked.
May 10th, 2007 at 2:43 pmThe basic reasoning of the trolls is this: if it is ever legal, then it is always legal. The utter lack of merit of this legal argument is self-evident. It is simply farcical for them to keep repeating it. It is juvenile. It is intended to disrupt and vandalize the discussion.
Comment by VerbalKint
Please show the law that was broken in firing them. If you cannot provide a link we will assume your post has been withrawn.
May 10th, 2007 at 2:44 pmIf it’s illegal, then take it to the courts and see what happens.
May 10th, 2007 at 2:45 pmCan you show that there was obstruction of justice? Of course you can’t.
Comment by John M — May 10, 2007 @ 2:40 pm
When your boss goes up to Capital Hill and repeatedly lies (everyone, even the koolaid drinkers, know he is lying) it is difficult to determine just which crimes were committed by which persons, even though it is apparent that a criminal conspiracy exists.
May 10th, 2007 at 2:45 pmTom: Ever read the bit about how certain people create reality and some study it judiciously? What you mistake for the lack of memory is, in fact, reality creation in action. This is the way how the public opinion is influenced. It doesn’t matter how many times you debunk such a claim. We just assert it again and again and again until a sufficient number of people believe it.
Truth is malleable.
Comment by GOPcurious
Ahhh, the Big Lie. I remember now. It has been a topic on TP before. It still scares the hell out of me though.
May 10th, 2007 at 2:47 pmIf it’s illegal, then take it to the courts and see what happens.
Comment by Storms — May 10, 2007 @ 2:45 pm
Well, idiot, when it is under investigation by Congress, then it might as well be in the courts. Also, how do you explain Gonzales’ chief counsel Goodling pleading the Fifth and under criminal investigation? The ball has just started rolling on this.
May 10th, 2007 at 2:48 pmJESUS FU*KING CHRIST WE HAVE ALREADY BEEN OVER THIS SAME SH!T DAY IN AND DAY OUT> ARE YOU REALLLY THAT FU*KING STUPID?
Comment by Spudge_Boy — May 10, 2007 @ 2:17 pm
Trolls don’t listen or learn. They’re sole mission is to spew and stink up the place. And since they won’t answer, yes, they really are that fu*king stupid! Oh was that rhetorical, sorry.
May 10th, 2007 at 2:49 pmNow, whether e-mails were deliberately hidden, that’s another issue. I for one don’t think it’s the responsibility of the Adminsitration to give anything to Congress, if it has to do with the President doing something he can do for “any†reason. That just doesn’t make sense.
Comment by Storms — May 10, 2007 @ 2:22 pm
So Jake, afraid to use your own name again?
May 10th, 2007 at 2:49 pm“During the Bush administration, I’ve been protected against terrorist attacks on my homeland, including one earlier this week…”
9/11 happened on Bush’s watch. And the plot that was uncovered earlier this week was because a pizza guy informed on them, not because of anything Bush or his pathetic excuse for “Homeland Security” employees did. An informant came forward, law enforcement stepped in. That is exactly how it worked and no illegal spying or torture required. Fancy that.
May 10th, 2007 at 2:51 pmPlease show the law that was broken in firing them. If you cannot provide a link we will assume your post has been withrawn.
Comment by John M — May 10, 2007 @ 2:44 pm
Sorry, loser, no can do. The breaking of laws is under active investigation. One of your team members has already pleaded the Fifth and is under investigation for criminal acts. Another team member has told members of the Judiciary Committee that parts of his testimony was false, and alleges that it was planted by other members of the team, which would certainly constitute a crime. Your attempt to sweep away the matter on your ludicrous say so is pathetic.
May 10th, 2007 at 2:51 pmYou are wrong traitor.
The least you could do is have the balls to stand up and pledge your allegiance to George W Bush over your country. Otherwise you are just a big blubbering pu$$y.
Comment by Spudge_Boy — May 10, 2007 @ 2:27 pm
Yeah, Storm/Jake/Asswipe, Spudge_Boy speaks for many of us on this issue.
May 10th, 2007 at 2:52 pmLaw of contracts (At least in South African Law) holds that so long as someone is keeping their end of the contract up you can’t terminate that contract before the stated expiration of that contract.
In short, you can’t fire an attorney for doing his job.
This I would imagine has been overlooked in the past in America’s legal history due to custom, but I do not see why the same basic principle shouldn’t apply.
Oddly enough, Clinton didn’t do the same thing as Bush. You see, with Clinton the AG’s who were “Fired” weren’t actually fired, their contracts just weren’t renewed.
A subtle difference, but a big one as the current case unfolds.
May 10th, 2007 at 2:52 pmWhen your boss goes up to Capital Hill and repeatedly lies (everyone, even the koolaid drinkers, know he is lying) it is difficult to determine just which crimes were committed by which persons, even though it is apparent that a criminal conspiracy exists.
Comment by VerbalKint
So what you are saying is that you think it is obstruction of justice, because you don’t like him? Since you don’t have any evidence to speak of, I guess we can just go by your gut instinct.
May 10th, 2007 at 2:52 pmUNDER OATH Karl.
Washington, Lincoln, Jefferson would have WANTED it that way.
May 10th, 2007 at 2:53 pmDuring the Bush administration, I’ve been protected against terrorist attacks on my homeland, including one earlier this week, I’ve had my taxes lowered, and I’ve enjoyed seeing a whole bunch of idiots yell & scream about nonsense with each other, while they try as hard as they can to find something (just anything) that might give them a glimmer of hope Bush might be removed from office.
It’s been a good 6 years.
Comment by Storms
Storms, no disresppect. I fell out of my chair when I read your words, then I realized you are serious. I mean, you really believe this stuff. The flimsy and hilariously funny reasons you state just made me hope you don’t have children who may grow up thinking the stuff you do. I am not trying to be snarky, just honest. We need loyal americans who support the rule of law, which means we need you. You have to know history will be very unkind to this administration. You have to know the present administration is absolutely the wrong group of people, doing the wrong things, for all the wrong reasons. It is so clear to the vast majority of thinking people. I think you are so ashamed of your support for this imbecile, that even though you know you are wrong – you have to keep believeing. You have to keep supporting – cause what are you gonna do? Admit you were wrong? Noway for that, huh? Another lesson from ‘dear leader’ – admit nothing, ever! You need to help us take back our country, since folks like you assisted in its destruction.
May 10th, 2007 at 2:53 pmWow, dude. That was an awesome, typical, peace-loving comment. Haven’t visited my friends at TP for a while, but it’s always nice to stop over, see the kind of people who frequently comment on this site and realize how reasonable I actually am.
Comment by Storms — May 10, 2007 @ 2:33 pm
Who told you we were al peace-loving, Limbaugh, O’Reilly, which of your brain dead pundits?
Most progressives love justice, something you neocon fascists don’t understand. And we will get justice, no matter what it takes. We’re no THAT peace loving. We just don’t believe in fighting wars to make the American Aristocracy even wealthier.
May 10th, 2007 at 2:56 pmSorry, loser, no can do. The breaking of laws is under active investigation. One of your team members has already pleaded the Fifth and is under investigation for criminal acts. Another team member has told members of the Judiciary Committee that parts of his testimony was false, and alleges that it was planted by other members of the team, which would certainly constitute a crime. Your attempt to sweep away the matter on your ludicrous say so is pathetic.
Comment by VerbalKint
Again, I ask what law was broken?
May 10th, 2007 at 2:58 pmIt’s been a good 6 years.
Comment by Storms — May 10, 2007 @ 2:43 pm
Wow, you are as dumb as you sound.
May 10th, 2007 at 3:01 pmSince you don’t have any evidence to speak of, I guess we can just go by your gut instinct.
Comment by John M — May 10, 2007 @ 2:52 pm
How about this, John M: we go by what Congress decides? Right now Congress has decided that your boss has not been forthcoming, and that there is MUCH to investigate.
Get used to it.
May 10th, 2007 at 3:01 pmJohn M
When you keep something secret, as this has been kept secret, people think the worst.
It is human nature.
That said, if someone could post a link to a copy of an AG’s employment contract we could all argue this point from a more informed perspective. It could be that civil law was indeed broken in this case.
Further, the truth of this whole story is this: Bush fired these guys for enforcing the law a little too well and catching a few too many of Bush’s cronies while looking for crooked dealings. Bush has fired these guys in order to shelter his crooked staff, and himself, from the full scrutiny of the law.
That is the true nature of this: Even if it is legal it isn’t ethical, and anybody who supports Bush in this is basically supporting dishonesty in government.
Of course, for the right that is nothing new.
May 10th, 2007 at 3:02 pmPeople, don’t be so hard on Storms. I suspect it’s not really a troll, since it sounds so much like Jake (smae talking points, same faux-reasonable facade) that it’s probably a performance art project. Kind of like “Jake-0-Mania”… you know — “It’s not Jake, but it is an incredible simulation!“
May 10th, 2007 at 3:02 pmAgain, I ask what law was broken?
Comment by John M — May 10, 2007 @ 2:58 pm
The hiring of non-appointed government personnel based on a political litmus test. Lying to Congress. Obstruction of justice.
May 10th, 2007 at 3:02 pmHow about this, John M: we go by what Congress decides? Right now Congress has decided that your boss has not been forthcoming, and that there is MUCH to investigate.
Get used to it.
Comment by VerbalKint
If there has been lying under oath or deleting of emails, then they are against the law. But you have not answered my question so I will rephrase: What law was broken in firing the US Attorneys?
May 10th, 2007 at 3:05 pmI think it really shows desperation that the trolls are resurrecting this dead talking point. The world has moved way beyond the false notion that Bush can fire USAs for any reason. Congress is investigating and the administration is circling the wagons now. Only the dumbest of Bush lickspittles will fall for this argument now. Rallying the 28%ers is looking ever more futile.
These players were once on top of the world. They have been reduced to holding their fingers in a dike they know is about to burst.
May 10th, 2007 at 3:06 pmThe hiring of non-appointed government personnel based on a political litmus test. Lying to Congress. Obstruction of justice.
Comment by VerbalKint
Lying to congress will be pursued, however how do you know that there was obstruction of justice? Also, please elaborate on “the hiring of non-appointed government persnnel based on political litmus test” I’m not sure what you mean regarding the breaking of laws here.
May 10th, 2007 at 3:07 pmJohn M also believes that global warming is a hoax, the surest sign of an idiot I know of. I bet he thinks things are going well in Iraq, too. Creationist perhaps? Seems likely enough.
May 10th, 2007 at 3:08 pmWhat the fu*k gives you the idea I am peace loving? I served in the military and 100% back the war in Afghanistan. I support sending special forces in to KILL Osama bin Laden where he is, Pakistan.
Iraq had nothing to do with the “Global War on Terror.”
KILLING terrorists = good
Killing Iraqi civilians = bad
KILLING the Taliban = good
Killing Afghani civilians = bad
But, you brown shirts are too stupid to realize that.
May 10th, 2007 at 3:08 pmThe hiring of non-appointed government personnel based on a political litmus test.
Lying to Congress.
Obstruction of justice.
May 10th, 2007 at 3:09 pmOnly the dumbest of Bush lickspittles will fall for this argument now.
Comment by VerbalKint — May 10, 2007 @ 3:06 pm
There you go, Verbal. You’ve just described most of our most prominent trolls.
May 10th, 2007 at 3:10 pmJohn M
When you keep something secret, as this has been kept secret, people think the worst.
It is human nature.
That said, if someone could post a link to a copy of an AG’s employment contract we could all argue this point from a more informed perspective. It could be that civil law was indeed broken in this case.
Comment by Bruce Gorton
You may be onto something there. However, since it is US law that a president can remove a US attorney at anytime, I am sure wording to that nature is in the US attorney contracts.
May 10th, 2007 at 3:10 pmThe hiring of non-appointed government personnel based on a political litmus test.
Comment by VerbalKint
Please elaborate how a law was broken, links would be apprecaited.
May 10th, 2007 at 3:12 pmFirst John M, change your screen name back to liberalism = mental disorder, because it is quite clear that you would rather be a troll and back the criminals in Washington than hold your parties leaders responsible for the crimes they have committed against America. And no, you are not an independent.
Second, your argument is stupid. If there wasn’t a law against murdering somebody, do you think that it is okay for people to do it? Because that is your argument. It doesn’t matter what they did because there isn’t a law.
Now, I am not saying there isn’t a law, just pointing out how stupid your argument is.
May 10th, 2007 at 3:13 pmRove, Gonzales, and others set up a scheme to drive out career (non-appointed) employees and replace them with new hires screened according to a political litmus test, which is flatly illegal. The crime was carried out by Sampson and Goodling. Sampson, Gonzales and others are lying to Congress to cover up their participation in the crime. Goodling has chosen to plead the Fifth and is now under criminal investigation for her participation. It seems likely that other laws were broken as well, including obstruction of justice and abuse of power, in the USA purge.
May 10th, 2007 at 3:14 pmYou may be onto something there. However, since it is US law that a president can remove a US attorney at anytime, I am sure wording to that nature is in the US attorney contracts.
Comment by John M — May 10, 2007 @ 3:10 pm
*eyes rolling*
It’s like teaching a piece of toast.
May 10th, 2007 at 3:14 pmLying to congress will be pursued, however how do you know that there was obstruction of justice? Also, please elaborate on “the hiring of non-appointed government persnnel based on political litmus test†I’m not sure what you mean regarding the breaking of laws here.
Comment by John M — May 10, 2007 @ 3:07 pm
Do you understand the concept of an “investigation”?
You might recognize it from watching “Law & Order” all day on cable. You see, when a crime is supected, it has to be investigated and thus proven.
The investigation precedes the proof. You don’t require proof in order to investigate. You see how it works?
May 10th, 2007 at 3:15 pmPlease elaborate how a law was broken, links would be apprecaited.
Comment by John M — May 10, 2007 @ 3:12 pm
Read my previous comment, then go to talkingpointsmemo.com and do some reading. The site is full of analysis and primary documents. Use the google to search the internets for news items discussing the criminal investigation of Monica Goodling.
May 10th, 2007 at 3:16 pmFrom current headlines at http://www.buzzflash.com
Lawrence Wilkerson,
Colin Powell’s Chief of Staff
has just stated that Bush should be impeached.
Audio:
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/22349
May 10th, 2007 at 3:18 pmFirst John M, change your screen name back to liberalism = mental disorder, because it is quite clear that you would rather be a troll and back the criminals in Washington than hold your parties leaders responsible for the crimes they have committed against America. And no, you are not an independent.
Second, your argument is stupid. If there wasn’t a law against murdering somebody, do you think that it is okay for people to do it? Because that is your argument. It doesn’t matter what they did because there isn’t a law.
Now, I am not saying there isn’t a law, just pointing out how stupid your argument is.
Comment by Spudge_Boy
I am not the one resorting to name-calling I am just discussing the facts. Whether it is moral or not to fire a US Attorney for political reasons is irrelevent. The fact is that US attorneys are fired routinely for political reasons, the only differnce here is that they were Bush appointees and they were mid-term, neither of which is illegal. So you can bring up completely unrelated things (like murder being legal?) all you want, that strawman won’t stand. Again I state, if evidence comes to light that there was lying under oath, or emails were intentionally deleted then I agree that there should be charges, but as for the firing of the attorneys-no law was broken.
May 10th, 2007 at 3:19 pmsince it is US law that a president can remove a US attorney at anytime, I am sure wording to that nature is in the US attorney contracts.
Comment by John M — May 10, 2007 @ 3:10 pm
Oh, OK. Did you hear that everybody? John M is sure that “wording to that nature is in the US Attorney contracts”, so that pretty much settles it. There’s nothing to see here. Move along.
No wonder so many people want to be President. It appears that you can do away with any inconvenient investigation just by firing the US Attorney in charge. No such thing as “Obstruction of Justice”. That’s awesome!
May 10th, 2007 at 3:19 pmThe investigation precedes the proof. You don’t require proof in order to investigate. You see how it works?
Comment by KRank — May 10, 2007 @ 3:15 pm
This is one of the rhetorical dirty tricks that this type of troll often employs. They set up a non-sensical standard that is impossible to meet, a deliberate catch-22. What makes these trolls so despicable is that they are always hostile to the discovery of the truth. Being stupid does not excuse this behavior.
May 10th, 2007 at 3:19 pmAny Comment by Storms on this issue — Lam’s office began investigating Randy “Duke the Puke”Cunningham and his associates on bribery allegations in July 2005. Cunningham pleaded guilty and was sentenced in March 2006 to more than eight years in federal prison for taking more than $2.4 million in bribes from defense contractors.
Two days before Lam was made to leave her post, her office obtained indictments of one of the defense contractors and a former top CIA official accused of fraud in the expanding corruption investigation. This would have been back-burnered if the attorney’s, specifically Lam didn’t start talking to the Press.
What we know now. Is the very first contract given to the Cunningham’s contracting firm was from Dick Cheney to purchase Office supplies for Whitehouse staff. What Lam found is that exact same amount was the amount that the contracting firm paid for a Yacht, moored at the Capital Yacht Club. Who lived at the yacht? Cunningham. Carol Lam was fired as the second part of this investigation was to take place.
So what’s the big deal….Aaaa Prison.
May 10th, 2007 at 3:20 pmRove, Gonzales, and others set up a scheme to drive out career (non-appointed) employees and replace them with new hires screened according to a political litmus test, which is flatly illegal. The crime was carried out by Sampson and Goodling. Sampson, Gonzales and others are lying to Congress to cover up their participation in the crime. Goodling has chosen to plead the Fifth and is now under criminal investigation for her participation. It seems likely that other laws were broken as well, including obstruction of justice and abuse of power, in the USA purge.
Comment by VerbalKint
If they did drive them out as you say-can you show how or provide any proof?
May 10th, 2007 at 3:21 pm*eyes rolling*
It’s like teaching a piece of toast.
Comment by erock
I’m sorry the law does not change for you here.
May 10th, 2007 at 3:21 pmAs Rove has already been exposed violating the Hatch act by using governmental agencies and facilities to further republicans political interests, it would be truly naive to think they weren’t doing the same at Justice.
May 10th, 2007 at 3:23 pmOh, OK. Did you hear that everybody? John M is sure that “wording to that nature is in the US Attorney contractsâ€, so that pretty much settles it. There’s nothing to see here. Move along.
No wonder so many people want to be President. It appears that you can do away with any inconvenient investigation just by firing the US Attorney in charge. No such thing as “Obstruction of Justiceâ€. That’s awesome!
Comment by KRank
It is US law that he can fire them at anytime. There is no evidence of obstruction of justice here.
May 10th, 2007 at 3:23 pmI don’t pretend to fully understand the rules here but it seems to me that it hasn’t occurred to those who say, “what’s the big deal here?!” that if Gonzo and gang get away with this then when the Democrats get voted in in ‘08 they’ll be able to get away with it too!
In other words, what would prevent a Democratic president from firing any federal investigator who didn’t focus ALL of their attention on aggressively investigating exclusively Republicans?
Not that there’s a lack of Republicans to investigate mind you…
May 10th, 2007 at 3:25 pm“The fact is that US attorneys are fired routinely for political reasons, the only differnce here is that they were Bush appointees and they were mid-term, neither of which is illegal.”
Except for the fact about pushing bogus voter fraud cases, to influence an upcoming election cycle. That is unprecedented, and hardly routine.
May 10th, 2007 at 3:25 pmNo John M. You are the one bringing up sh!t that is irrelevant and aren’t paying attention, so I will try again. I will type real slow for you.
The fact that attorneys were fired at the beginning, the end or the middle of Bush’s term and the fact that they were appointed by Bush mean NOTHING.
It is the fact that they were fired while 1) investigating republicans and 2) that they wouldn’t trump up charges against democrats.
Now, if you would like to discuss what this is really about, okay fine, if you want to keep throwing out straw man arguments, go for it.
But, your “Show me a law” argument is bullsh!t and you god damn well know it.
May 10th, 2007 at 3:28 pmI’m confused — Which is actually Jake? Storms or John M?
Or did Storms just abandon that handle mid-thread to become John M?
Both trolls have the same obtuse style, rely on the same concepts and talking points and pretend to be rational while pushing irrational ideas.
Maybe Jake is feeling his oats and thinks he can juggle two handles on one thread.
Or did Lurita Doan just finish a troll training seminar and these guys are anxious to try out what they learned?
May 10th, 2007 at 3:29 pmthe only differnce here is that they were Bush appointees and they were mid-term, neither of which is illegal.
Comment by John M — May 10, 2007 @ 3:19 pm
No one is alleging that it is illegal to fire appointees midterm. So please return to the discussion instead of attempting to derail it with your straw man arguments.
May 10th, 2007 at 3:29 pmSo, then the question is: Are you a psychic or just stupid, because the majority of Americans can see the obstruction of justice with their own eyes. You are seeing through Fox eyes.
May 10th, 2007 at 3:29 pmAnd, as the Bushists are doing the same sort of political stunts at Justice, it is small wonder no hard evidence of criminality has yet emerged. But the careerists at Justice evidently aren’t going to be steamrolled by Gonzo, as shown by the near-non-stop leaks coming from Justice.
May 10th, 2007 at 3:30 pmIf they did drive them out as you say-can you show how or provide any proof?
Comment by John M — May 10, 2007 @ 3:21 pm
Looks like you stepped right in it, bud. I didn’t assert that was a crime. In fact I don’t know that they specifically tried to drive specific career appointees out, although a lot have indeed left. So I will concede that one irrelevant point to you. It is a pyrrhic victory, given your failure to refute anything else in my post, namely that a criminal conspiracy existed to subvert the law against using political affiliation as a hiring screen for non-appointed personnel.
May 10th, 2007 at 3:34 pmYour boss is up on Capitol Hill obstructing justice right now.
May 10th, 2007 at 3:36 pmTo republican sheep:
Illegal = bad
unethical = okay
immoral = okay
unethical does not = illegal, therefore = okay
immoral does not = illegal, therefore = okay
So, to a republican shill, if it ain’t illegal, it is fine and dandy.
Even the ten commandments, because only two of them are illegal, therefore, it is okay to break the other eight.
May 10th, 2007 at 3:42 pmSpudge: You got it almost right, but illegal is ok IF you don’t get caught.
May 10th, 2007 at 3:49 pmIllegal is okay in the hearts and mind of neocons and their apologist slaves.
May 10th, 2007 at 3:53 pmAnd it is people like Storm, Valiant Douche Bag, Patti 1″, Exlax and the like that I say it is one big MAFIA, they know that this administration is criminal, but they are THEIR criminals, and they are part of the Repukian MAFIA. I consider all repukians scum to be traitors and criminal in their support of this criminal administration. They are all in it together and need to be taken down forever.
Destroy the repukian mafia and take back America.
May 10th, 2007 at 3:54 pmIf they did drive them out as you say-can you show how or provide any proof?
Comment by John M
THAT is what the investigation will provide.
Thanks for asking…
Arn Gunnutes
May 10th, 2007 at 3:59 pmWOW!
May 10th, 2007 at 4:05 pm#108: If believing that makes you feel better, please keep thinking so. I’d rather be a realist and support the winning ideology, namely that which has the backing of the big business (including media), intelligence community and – by large – the military and law enforcement establishments.
If you’d see the big picture like I do, you’d realize that resistance really is futile. You may have won the 2006 elections and may do well in 2008, but the entire democratic system is losing its significance. I wouldn’t read too much into the results from 2008 on.
May 10th, 2007 at 4:05 pmSo, what your saying is that I AM RIGHT about you fu*king people.
Thanks for confirming what I already know.
And as a patriot, I will be waiting for you to come, all the while taking advantage of my second amendment rights. See you soo hopefully.
May 10th, 2007 at 4:16 pmIf they did drive them out as you say-can you show how or provide any proof?
Comment by John M — May 10, 2007 @ 3:21 p
Are you asking us to do the job of Congress? We needed to during the Republican controlled, no oversight Congress, but now the Democrats are doing THEIR job. Why don’t you watch CSpan yourself, the questioning is still running online.
May 10th, 2007 at 4:17 pmOh yeah and you are a fu*king loser for giving in to corruption. But, that is okay. I can relax in my comfort knowing you will burn in hell.
May 10th, 2007 at 4:17 pmNothing will happen. Nothing. I hate to rain on the parade, but the Bush administration is hell bent upon giving congress the finger, three time over. Congress and “THEY WRITE LETTERS” seems flaccid and impotent at this point, even though the Democrats have the majority.
They will do nothing. Sorry. All they can do is get a bit post in the news. They lack the ability to go for the jugular.
Meanwhile, we have a president who has led us down the path of lies, lies and more lies, and troops are dying, not to mention the thousands upon hundreds of th ousands of innocent people who have died because of his reckless politices. But they got the oil, man. They got the oil.
Our system is broken. We believed that a shift in the congress would bring some sort of justice for the crimes committed by George Bush, the stupid.
Instead we get the finger and the Democrats willingly accept that finger. It leads me to suspect that this party actually DID WANT THE INVASION AND THE WAR. All this “writing of letters” is a scam on the American people, making us believe we do have a system of democracy and system of laws that allows us to kick an insane man out of the White House.
Apparently we do not. and it is about time to take a good hard look at the efficacy of this so called “democracy”
May 10th, 2007 at 4:20 pmI’m confused — Which is actually Jake? Storms or John M?
Or did Storms just abandon that handle mid-thread to become John M?
I was thinking the exact thing. They both seem like Jake and Storms left after John M got here.
May 10th, 2007 at 4:21 pmNo one is alleging that it is illegal to fire appointees midterm. So please return to the discussion instead of attempting to derail it with your straw man arguments.
Comment by VerbalKint — May 10, 2007 @ 3:29 pm
If the actions were taken to influence voting through manipulating attorney positions, might that not be voter fraud?
May 10th, 2007 at 4:23 pmJohn M IS liberalism = mental disorder.
May 10th, 2007 at 4:24 pmOh yeah and you are a fu*king loser for giving in to corruption
Maybe, but at least my future is secured.
In the last hundred years or so, we’ve been really living it up with the almost unlimited energy of oil, but after this party is over, we’ll be back to the bad old days. Days when the power will again come solely from the barrel of a gun bought by the person with the most money. So, choose your side carefully.
And the party, my friends, will be over sooner than you think.
May 10th, 2007 at 4:31 pmIf the actions were taken to influence voting through manipulating attorney positions, might that not be voter fraud?
Comment by Shane — May 10, 2007 @ 4:23 pm
Sure sounds illegal to me. I wasn’t asserting that these particular firings are legal. Quite the contrary, I think it is obvious that the firings are illegal in more ways than one.
May 10th, 2007 at 4:35 pmOh yeah and you are a fu*king loser for giving in to corruption
Maybe, but at least my future is secured.
Yup. That is TRUE.
See YOU in hell, BottomLicker, with master SATAN (cause I’ll be THERE),
May 10th, 2007 at 4:37 pmMr. Bush
MURDEROUS WAR CRIMINAL
COWARDLY TRAITOR TO THE USA (TM–BushCrimeCo, Inc.)
John M IS liberalism = mental disorder.
Comment by Spudge_Boy — May 10, 2007 @ 4:24 pm
I’ll take your word for it. I always figure L=MD as being way more infantile than John M pretended to be. Maybe I’m wrong.
Does this mean than Jake=liberalism=mental disorder?
May 10th, 2007 at 4:39 pmYour money won’t be worth the paper it is printed on dumb fu*k. I have chosen my side and that is the side of truth justice and the American way.
We already know your side.
Face down power bottom(boy).
And don’t call me friend, because friends we are not. You are a domestic enemy. And you will go down just like all of the enemies of this country, when Bush isn’t at the helm.
May 10th, 2007 at 4:43 pmThat I don’t know.
L=MD and I called a truce a little while ago, because he was speaking coherently and had a point of view that wasn’t talking points. But, since that time, he has degraded back to just spewing talking points.
May 10th, 2007 at 4:44 pmBottomBoy
We have the university professors, the various US Generals who have opposed you, and a predisposition which renders us friendly towards scientists and foreign allies.
You have isolationists who think that creationism is just as valid as evolution as a scientific theory. Oh, and Freedom Fries.
You have a society which strives to segragate and keep itself seperate from outside influences. We have a society which strives to maintain outside influences.
Most importantly, you have guys who will buy guns, build basements and hide out. You in essence, have the guys who will be more interested in protecting what is theirs, then actually protecting you. We have guys who will figure out alternatives to fossil fuels and make alternative plans. In other words, guys who are interested in salvaging what is left.
Sure, leftwingers will die. In these things the intellectual always suffers, but we will win because we learn, and conservatives don’t.
May 10th, 2007 at 4:46 pmIf you’d see the big picture like I do, you’d realize that resistance really is futile. You may have won the 2006 elections and may do well in 2008, but the entire democratic system is losing its significance. I wouldn’t read too much into the results from 2008 on.
Comment by BottomBoy — May 10, 2007 @ 4:05 pm
Wow, you don’t consider yourself an American do you?
May 10th, 2007 at 4:46 pmResistance is futile? What are we Borg now?!
Whatever happened to ‘Live Free or Die’?
May 10th, 2007 at 4:49 pm#127 and #128: Well. It was a nice experiment.
May 10th, 2007 at 4:53 pmYou left out this part:
Sure, leftwingers will die, but right wingers will die too.
May 10th, 2007 at 4:54 pmYou are an experiment, in brainwashing by your masters.
May 10th, 2007 at 4:54 pmToday’s English lesson:
The Bush administration has withheld a series of e-mails from Congress showing that senior White House and Justice Department officials worked together to conceal the role of Karl Rove in installing Timothy Griffin, a protégé of Rove’s, as U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Arkansas.
This should read: The Bush administration has withheld from Congress a series of e-mails showing that senior White House and Justice Department officials worked together to conceal the role of Karl Rove in installing Timothy Griffin, a protégé of Rove’s, as U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Arkansas.
Otherwise, it appears on first blush that the emails were from Congress.
That’s all for now. Carry on.
May 10th, 2007 at 4:59 pmMaybe, but at least my future is secured.
In the last hundred years or so, we’ve been really living it up with the almost unlimited energy of oil, but after this party is over, we’ll be back to the bad old days. Days when the power will again come solely from the barrel of a gun bought by the person with the most money. So, choose your side carefully.
And the party, my friends, will be over sooner than you think.
Comment by BottomBoy — May 10, 2007 @ 4:31 pm
Nobody’s future is guaranteed, ever. And I think you know to much and are shooting off your mouth. Good way to get yourself rubbed out by your bosses. That’s the way the mafia, even the neocon mafia works. If you ask me the Italian mafia in it’s hay day was more honorable.
The joke is you don’t think Democrats have weapons. Keep on thinking bubba. But let me ask you, do you think all those gang bangers in big cities are going to be on your side? Oh you forgot about all those automatic weapons, didn’t you? When you get time look at the statistics about what percentage of the population lives in urban areas. And then look and see most of these areas vote Democrat.
I’ll take my chances with the guys who have carry their weapons with them every day and have NOTHING to lose.
Go ahead, make my day.
May 10th, 2007 at 5:01 pmSure sounds illegal to me. I wasn’t asserting that these particular firings are legal. Quite the contrary, I think it is obvious that the firings are illegal in more ways than one.
Comment by VerbalKint — May 10, 2007 @ 4:35 pm
Oh I know, but I’m trying to wean myself off trolls. It’s not easy, Zooey says we have to go cold turkey. I’m a weak willed troll hater.
May 10th, 2007 at 5:04 pmIt’s too spooky that there is all this talk about the end of times under Karl Rove’s thread.
May 10th, 2007 at 5:09 pmErrr..for all you people saying Bush can’t fire the attorneys for any reason, I believe he can. But it depends on “HOW” he does it.
Ie:
Perfectly fine
Bush: How is XXX doing?
GonzoBean: Well, XXX isn’t moving as fast as we would like.
Bush: Well, fire him.
NOT FINE:
Bush: Hey XXX, how are you doing on that case?
XXX: Err..Hi Mr. President, you know you shouldn’t be asking me that.
Bush: Hey GonzoBean, Fire XXX.
The big reason why this was such a big “stink” was because it was done midterm, and these attorneys were originally CHOSEN by Bush at the beginning of his second term..which leads Congress to ask “Hey, why are you firing guys YOU chose? What’s going on”.
GonzoIdiot then decided to hand Congress a smoking gun by hemming and hawwing and trying to mislead them instead of just saying “We fired them because we wanted to.” Yeah, Congress may not like that answer, but it’s not an “illegal” answer.
The only attorney that I know of that has a real case of screwing over the administration, is Iglesias, who was fired for “being an absentee landlord”, but was absentee due to the fact that he was serving the Navy at the time and helping teach Navy lawyers about laws in Iraq. It IS illegal to fire someone who is absent due to service in the armed forces, which was Iglesias’s case. And I REALLY hope he sues the heck out of them.
There were other “inappropriate” phone calls to some attorneys, but those, unfortunately comes down to he said she said.
As much as everyone hates this adminstration, and believe me I do, you should REALLY be yelling and screaming at your state representatives for not having the balls to stand up for for the people they represent. Congress failed the US people, Congress is the check and balance to a despotic president, but Congress let this president run amok, and that’s both Democrats AND Republicans.
It’s too bad the federal politicians, from BOTH parties, forgot that they serve the PEOPLE, not themselves or the lobbyists.
May 10th, 2007 at 5:19 pmI don’t get it
The people must, ultimately, stand up for themselves. If neither the Democrats nor the Republicans are willing to do their duty, then vote for someone who is.
Until Americans react with enough disgust to vote out both major parties, you will always have the threat of this happening again in ten years.
That is, unless the Democrats act in good conscience and impeach Bush despite how much they have to gain if they don’t. (Think about all the power Bush has grabbed, and how it could be used in the hands of someone with a brain.)
May 10th, 2007 at 5:32 pm#37 Storms:
… it’s always nice to stop over, see the kind of people who frequently comment on this site and realize how reasonable I actually am.
You misspelled “stoopid”. No charge.
Cheers,
May 10th, 2007 at 5:39 pmYou can tell from the talking points of the troglodyte trolls…they are repeating the lard assed, drug addled, gas bag. That is where they get their shit. That is why every troll on this board is an ignorant dumbass speaking untruth. Get off the radio and start reading a book. Use your freaking brains. Trolls are just as guilty of treason as the Bush Crime Family.
May 10th, 2007 at 5:50 pm#52 Storms:
During the Bush administration, I’ve been protected against terrorist attacks on my homeland, including one earlier this week, I’ve had my taxes lowered, and I’ve enjoyed seeing a whole bunch of idiots yell & scream about nonsense with each other, while they try as hard as they can to find something (just anything) that might give them a glimmer of hope Bush might be removed from office.
Sold your soul for pottage, eh?
You left out a $7 trillion national debt, 3500 dead U.S. soldiers, 3000 dead civilians, an economy in the doldrums (DJIA just recently barely got back to its high at the end of the real Clinton-era expansion), half a million Iraq dead, literally billions of dollar bills packed up pallets sent to Iraq unaccouted for, hundreds of billions sucked into the coffers of the Republicans’ business side-ventures (Trireme, Custer Battle, Halliburton, etc.), a major U.S. city left defenceless and wiped out, gutting of the rule of law and the Constitution, the U.S. reputation irretrievably shattered, anonanonanonanon….
It’s been a good 6 years.
Well, if your last name is Beelzebub, perhaps. You didn’t have a soul to sell. You sold eveyone else’s
Cheers,
May 10th, 2007 at 5:57 pmI’ve got an idea: Let’s review the attorney standards of conduct and find out of legal counsel had a duty to report peers who were violating some sort of rule.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/ethics/tx/narr/TX_NARR_8.HTM#8.3:200
“a lawyer having knowledge that another lawyer has committed a violation of applicable rules of professional conduct that raises a substantial question as to that lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects, shall inform the appropriate disciplinary authority.”
Shocked!
So which White House counsel knew that the e-mails were not provided as required; but has not reported their peer to the approrpiate bar assocaition?
Either the american lawyers are going to police their own; or the lawyers are saying they know something, but aren’t required to be held accountable for inaction on misconduct during Congressional investigations.
All this illlegal activity, and the lawyesr want us to blieve Sgt Shultz, “I know nothing.” Sure. What-eh-vah.
May 10th, 2007 at 6:24 pm