Welcome to PatsFans.com

Rove's Role in U.S. Attorney Firings

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by Holy Diver, Mar 15, 2007.

  1. Holy Diver

    Holy Diver Pro Bowl Player

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    10,834
    Likes Received:
    15
    Ratings:
    +23 / 0 / -0

    #80 Jersey

    White House of Cards!

    http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=2954988&page=1

    March 15, 2007 — New unreleased emails from top administration officials show the idea of firing all 93 U.S. attorneys was raised by Karl Rove in early January 2005, indicating Rove was more involved in the plan than previously acknowledged by the White House. The emails also show 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 emails directly contradict White House assertions that the notion originated with recently departed White House counsel Harriet Miers and was her idea alone.

    Two independent sources in a position to know have described the contents of the email exchange, which could be released as early as tomorrow. They put Rove at the epicenter of the imbroglio and raise questions about Gonzales' explanations of the matter.

    The e-mail exchange, the official says, is one dated January 6, 2005 and is between then-deputy White House Counsel David Leitch and Kyle Sampson at the Justice Department.New unreleased e-mails from top administration officials show that 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 the White House previously acknowledged.
     
  2. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    25,189
    Likes Received:
    122
    Ratings:
    +310 / 9 / -12

    So what? Firing the attornys was perfectly legal and under the constitution no reason was required. Congressional oversight is irrelevant since it is none of their business.
     
  3. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    27,372
    Likes Received:
    257
    Ratings:
    +681 / 7 / -2

    This made me wonder where all the government emails about the planning of 9/11 are. :p

    I saw a few minutes of Hardball tonight, David Gregory was filling in, and they had two of the fired DA's on. Anyhow, Gregory tried to push the idea that Rove's involvement was peculiar and the DA said it wasn't. I turned it on right as they were discussing it, so I'm not sure what I might have missed.
     
  4. Pujo

    Pujo Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2005
    Messages:
    6,572
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    Maybe not oversight in the sense of reversing any of the moves, but there's going to be congressional involvement. Whether it's to pass another independant counsel statute, or just to distance themselves from the move in the eyes of the people. Legal it may be, but it'll be a storm nontheless.
     
  5. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    25,189
    Likes Received:
    122
    Ratings:
    +310 / 9 / -12

    O fcourse congress is gonna get involved the dems promised their extreme left wing scandals and investigations, this will have to do in leiu of a real scandal.
     
  6. Pujo

    Pujo Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2005
    Messages:
    6,572
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    It's still a real scandal, even though it's legal. When Nixon fired the AG and the deputy AG, because they wouldn't can the special prosecutor, it was a real scandal, even though it was technically legal. And it led to the passage of the now-expired independant counsel statute. This too will be a real scandal, because real people are really concerned about potential abuses of power.
     
  7. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    25,189
    Likes Received:
    122
    Ratings:
    +310 / 9 / -12

    \


    \Nixon fired the AG because he wouldn't defy a judges order. A better comparison would be Clinton who fired an investigator who had been investigating him and replaced the US Attorney with one of his ex students. Of course I don't recall the dems having a problem with that.

    If the US Attorneys were unwilling to investigate cases of voter fraud by dems they deserved to be fired. If Bush had tried to derail investigations of his administration or republicans then there would have been an issue. Of course this isn't the case (the investigations fo Cunningham and Weldon went on unimpeded).
     
  8. Pujo

    Pujo Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2005
    Messages:
    6,572
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    That's not true at all, there was no "judge's order". The third person Nixon tried (Solicitor General Robert Bork) did agree to fire Cox.

    As far as Clinton, what's your point? The Dems weren't outraged because politics is alive and well, but I'm just as outraged by Clinton's transgressions in office as I am Bush's. Two wrongs don't make a right and if Bush is doing something wrong now, it needs to be called out. If there's a Democrat in office in 2008 and he does something similar, he deserves the same response.
     
  9. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    25,189
    Likes Received:
    122
    Ratings:
    +310 / 9 / -12

    What Bush is doing is fundamentally different to anyone who isn't a total partisan. Bus removed people for not being agressive in persuing criminal acts. Clinton fired a person and put in a crony to stop an investigation.

    Trying to compare the 2 is silly.

    Are you OK with an US attorney letting people get away with voter fraud without a complete investigation?
     
  10. Pujo

    Pujo Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2005
    Messages:
    6,572
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    Is there any proof that that actually happened??? Right now, it just sounds like a cover-your-ass thing to say by the administration. Again, we're talking about 8 REPUBLICAN APPOINTED prosecutors, who were supposedly fired for protecting Democrats? All 8 of them?

    I'm also bothered by your outright BS with that "judge's order" thing. I'd like to think that you're not just throwing some crap out there and seeing what you can get past people, but between this and when you said that France's criminal justice system is based on "guilty until proven innocent", I suggest you should check simple facts before using them.
     
    Last edited: Mar 15, 2007
  11. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    25,189
    Likes Received:
    122
    Ratings:
    +310 / 9 / -12

    Well you can bet your last dollar that if a Attorney was sacked for investigating republicans too vigoriously the rats would be screaming bloody murder. The fact that they have no specificsof protected pubbies, tells the story. Beyond that I don't care since the President acted fully withing his rights as the cheif executive.
     
  12. Pujo

    Pujo Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2005
    Messages:
    6,572
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    You're talking in circles. You're the one that claimed that this firing is different from Nixon's because the attorneys in question weren't prosecuting Democrats for things they should have prosecuted them for. I called your lie, and your response was that you must be right, because the Democrats haven't offered proof that the fired prosecutors were going after Republicans too much?

    And then you came back to the whole "it's not illegal thing", which brings us back to Nixon. I'm getting tired of this (go ahead, insert your "Getting tired of being WRONG???"), I've had reasonable arguments with you but you're getting desperate on this one. Sleep on it.
     
  13. PressCoverage

    PressCoverage Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2005
    Messages:
    8,609
    Likes Received:
    13
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -0


    wow.... you've just capsulated this guy's strategy in every debate in this forum perfectly...

    bad liberal: "Dick Cheney is a documented piece of sh!t... Here's why.... "
    patsfan13: "Bill Clinton in 1994 blah blah blah... "
    bad liberal: "Yes, but Clinton didn't blah blah blah"
    patsfan13: "What does that have to do with Cheney?"

    oh, ok...

    the next time our favorite GOP representative actually stays on topic and consistent for more than 3 volleys will be the first...
     
  14. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    27,372
    Likes Received:
    257
    Ratings:
    +681 / 7 / -2

    Wait a second though, Nixon fired people who were actively involved in case, or wouldn't cal a specific case. That's clear for all to see. With these guys there is nothing specific like that. Also, if GW's admin was in it's right to fire these people, as it was legal, then what abuse of power are you talking about?
     
  15. Pujo

    Pujo Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2005
    Messages:
    6,572
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    Again, as far as the Nixon case, Nixon was within his power to fire them. Nobody alleged that the firings were somehow illegal. People were pissed because the firings were politically motivated.

    Now, were the Bush firings politically motivated? I'm not sure why these attorneys were fired, but the recent revelation that this came from Rove makes me seriously doubt that it was a job performace issue. Rove's job is political and has nothing to do with evaluating US attorneys' job performances.
     
  16. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    27,372
    Likes Received:
    257
    Ratings:
    +681 / 7 / -2

    I think your reaching a little bit here Pujo. If the Admin wanted to fire them for picking their nose they could, meaning, no laws were broken, with which we all agree. Any firings of DA's will be politically motivated since they are politically appointed positions. I think we all agree there. Therefore, where that leaves us in the full historical spectrum of DA hires and fires is the degree, level, and/or circumstances surrounding anyone's hiring or firing. To equate this with Nixon involving himself in a specific case, with a specific firing being the result, is a severe reach. I'm concerned, maybe more curious as to the reasons for these firings, but to call it a scandal is ludicris and completely pile on, headline driven. IMO anyway. Again, that's not to say it's not concerning, or eye opening. I want some info, but this isn't Watergate like some people are leading the public to believe.
     
  17. Pujo

    Pujo Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2005
    Messages:
    6,572
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    Nobody's equating this to Watergate. The President will not resign under thread of impeachment. The Watergate scandal had to do with a break-in, the Saturday Night Massacre (terminating the AG and deputy AG) just added fuel to the fire - it wasn't the meat of the scandal.

    Congress has two good reasons to investigate (other than the obvious "looking good for the cameras", which is the obvious motivation for anything done by anyone in politics).

    1. To find out why these attorneys were fired. Even though it still wouldn't be illegal, if it turns out that Bush fired the attorneys because they were not bowing to political pressure, the people deserve to know about that and make up their mind as to how outraged they'd be.

    2. To see whether any changes in the law are needed to prevent future abuse. The Saturday Night Massacre led to the Independent Counsel Statute, this may lead to a similar law.
     
  18. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    27,372
    Likes Received:
    257
    Ratings:
    +681 / 7 / -2

    Here is one of the issues the Admin had with the DA's in question. One, or some, of them were assigned to investigate the Washington voter fraud issue. Note the date of the article, as it's from a year ago. I saw the McKay DA on Hardball and he said questions about his conclusions were warranted, as it was a dicey case, which he deemed to take no action. He said many people were upset at the time, but that's how he saw it.


    JOHN FUND ON THE TRAIL

    Florida With Rain
    More funny business in the Washington governor's race. Will there be a new election this year?

    Monday, April 11, 2005 12:01 a.m. EDT

    Washington state has supplanted Florida as the leading example of the need for election reform. The Evergreen State's voting system is so sloppy that you can't tell where incompetence ends and actual fraud might begin. Three Washington counties just discovered 110 uncounted absentee ballots--including 93 from Seattle's King County--in a governor's race that occurred more than five months ago and was decided by only 129 votes. Officials in Seattle's King County admit they may find yet more ballots before a court hearing next month on whether a new election should be called. Last Friday, they reported finding a 111th ballot.

    The infamous 2004 governor's race was finally decided seven weeks after the election, after King County officials found new unsecured ballots on nine separate occasions during two statewide recounts. After the new ballots were counted, Democrat Christine Gregoire won a 129-vote victory out of some three million ballots cast. Even as she was sworn in last January, King County election supervisor Dean Logan admitted it had been "a messy process."

    He wasn't kidding. During the two recounts, Mr. Logan's office discovered 566 "erroneously rejected" absentee ballots, plus another 150 uncounted ones that turned up in a warehouse. Evidence surfaced that dead people had "exercised their right to vote"; documentation was presented that 900 felons in King County alone had illegally voted and that military ballots were sent out too late to be counted. A total of 700 provisional ballots had been fed into voting machines before officials had determined their validity. In the four previous November elections, King County workers had never mishandled more than nine provisional ballots in a single election.


    http://www.opinionjournal.com/diary/?id=110006543
     
  19. Pujo

    Pujo Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2005
    Messages:
    6,572
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    There were 8 attorneys, were they all failing to investigate voter fraud? We'll see what the congressional investigation uncovers. Since you're concerned, I'm sure you support that 100%.
     
  20. IcyPatriot

    IcyPatriot ------------- PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    39,741
    Likes Received:
    570
    Ratings:
    +1,386 / 34 / -28

    #87 Jersey

    No Criminal Charges in U.S. Attorney Firings – Main Justice

     

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>