I hope no one is so foolish as to believe that Rove will tell the truth. Being under oath means nothing to him.

What a joke. Karl Rove, the best spin doctor around telling the truth, not gonna happen. He is a despicable man.

"Congress now has the opportunity to uncover the truth and determine whether improper criteria were used by the Bush administration to dismiss and retain U.S. attorneys,"

Unless I'm mistaken, these attorneys serve at the discretion of the President and can be replaced for any reason.

Also, Bill Clinton fired 93 of them when he was elected. Sounds like a witchhunt. I wonder if we should drag Clinton's people in to testify about why they fired 93 attorneys back in 1993 to be completely fair?

This excellent news. I am certain that the Republican executive does not want the power to be extended to the new Democratic executive.

Yes, I agree with you Roy. Bill Clinton did in fact fire 93 of them when he was elected. My question to you is, were new applicants filtered out with questions like, "What is it about George W Bush that makes you want to serve him?". I submit the questions asked by the Bush Administration of potential candidates for US Attorney positions were bordering on the illegal. People were fired for refusing to participate in malicious prosecution to silence "the enemy" so to speak.

Is it within the President's discretion to fire and replace US Attorneys? Yes. Does that mean you fire qualified and capable people, replacing them with rabid ideologues?

You tell me....is that the right way for our country to be Administered? Isn't that exactly how we got into the trouble we're in today?

Proceedings should be public...

JT, besides having the qualifications for office, it is a POLITICAL appointment. So much whining and publicity over what GWB did, with about 9 attorneys (who, as stated above, serve at the pleasure of the president). Why have you not screamed for Clinton's hide for his firing of 93?

And, while we're at it, Ken Salazar, now the Sec of the (untouchable for any resources) Interior, when he became Colorado attorney general, fired ALL the attorneys in the office of atty general. Really despicable, just like his hiding evidence so he could get convictions.

Since you think appts are supposed to be non-partisan, I am sure Obama will appoint a conservative to the Supreme Court when given the chance. And...maybe make Rush Limbaugh White House chief of staff, to prove he can reach across the aisle.

To make the hearings fair, you must call on Clinton's staff, to see if a precedent had been set.

But it's a good thing you will get to see Karl Rove, kind and gentle just like Rahm Emanuel.

You are right in that Clinton had the right to replace anyone he saw fit as most President do when they take office or soon thereafter the difference in the ones that were fired was they were doing their job but were asked to lean on opponents and lay off friends and they refused. That is the gist of the investigation. Bush also replaced a lot more than just these people also and so will Obama. And the next President after him etc etc etc. this is another flaw in the system. These jobs should be handled by people who are neutral and do not have allegience to either party.

They were fired because they wouldn't prosecute Illegal aliens drug pushers and wanted to approach terrorist prosecutions like criminal cases.

If something by Bush was illegal he should pay. Regardless of any party affiliation this is the only way we can try and keep the Office of President honest.

I have a problem with conyers even being involved.

His wife attacks someone in a bar, she has threatened someone with a gun, she has berated council members in Detroit for wanting things in writing and is currently under indictment for bribes and kickbacks.

Somehow thinking this guy should not be in charge of any investigation.

It is not uncommon for a new administration to replace judges. Once they have become an established administration they have to show cause for replacing a sitting judge. You can't fire them just because they won't do what you want.

That's kind of like Nixon firing Archibald Cox because he insisted that Nixon turn over the tapes. Seems Republicans can never keep this straight for some reason.

When the President does it, that means it's not illegal!!! (Nixon in a David Frost interview)

Bill Clinton fired 93 of them when he was elected. Sounds like a witchhunt. I wonder if we should drag Clinton's people in to testify about why they fired 93 attorneys back in 1993 to be completely fair?

I see you don't understand. Sure, Clinton fired the attorneys when he was elected. Incoming Presidents usually do! The difference here is that Bush fired them in 2006 -- mid term -- for political reasons, not because of their performance. New Mexico Sen. Pete Domenici, for instance, complained to disgraced former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales about U.S. Attorney David Iglesias because he wouldn't file charges (false charges, mind you) against New Mexico Democrats over voter fraud, which led to Iglesias losing his job (http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7014058497). Ultimately, Gonzales lost his job as well, as he resigned in disgrace in summer, 2007.

As far as Rove goes, he'll mostly say three things:

1. I don't recall.

2. Claim "executive privilege" and not answer.

3. No...and lying through his teeth.

That's it. Rove won't give any information; he'll duck and dodge like he did by ignoring repeated Congressional subpoenas to testify. He'll claim "executive privilege" even though a Federal judge ruled that the Presidential executive privilege did not extend to those who worked for George W. Bush. At least they'll be testifying under oath (whether or not that means anything to Rove is highly questionable) and if either of them lies and gets caught doing so would face perjury charges. Personally, I hope Rove is so arrogant that's he'll lie, not expecting to get caught, and be "busted" and face charges, which he'll again try to duck. He's a slimeball. As for Miers...she probably isn't in it as much as Rove, but she'll also avoid answering the questions...

DG_W Very insightful post. I agree.

DG_W "Sure, Clinton fired the attorneys when he was elected. Incoming Presidents usually do! The difference here is that Bush fired them in 2006 -- mid term -- for political reasons, not because of their performance."

So are you suggesting that Clinton fired the 93 attorneys for "their performance"?
Sounds like you endorse a double standard to me. Clinton can fire 93 and claim it was for "performance", even though he couldn't have gauged their performance so quickly, but Bush firing a handful of attorneys after having time to gauge their performance is somehow "political"?
Give me a break. Clinton's firing of the 93 was no less "political" than Bush's firing of the handful. If they investigate one, they should equally investigate the other (and any fired by Obama as well).

This is nothing but more partisan politics in action. Keep in mind that what goes around, comes around.

Roy - You're twisting and spinning just like your buddy Rove.

A President changes his Administration when he takes office. Lawyers and street cleaners are all included. BUT, a President doesn't change personnel in the middle of his term just to make sure the people support his agenda and produce the results he wants.

Bush and Cheney wanted to be total dictators. They had no need for anyone who wasn't a 'yes' man/woman. That's why what they did was illegal and typical of the 8 years they spent in office.

No, we will never hear the truth from any Republican that is ordered to testify. It isn't in their DNA. They seem to think that they can do and say anything they want. Isn't it nice to be above the law??!!

They are hired at the discretion of the president. They are serving the American people, They do not give an oath to the president,rather America. Big Difference

DG_W "Sure, Clinton fired the attorneys when he was elected. Incoming Presidents usually do! The difference here is that Bush fired them in 2006 -- mid term -- for political reasons, not because of their performance."

So are you suggesting that Clinton fired the 93 attorneys for "their performance"?
Sounds like you endorse a double standard to me. Clinton can fire 93 and claim it was for "performance", even though he couldn't have gauged their performance so quickly, but Bush firing a handful of attorneys after having time to gauge their performance is somehow "political"?

Apparently you need everything explained to you, so like a third grade teacher I guess I'll have to do that.

Like I said above, yes, Clinton dismissed all 93 attorneys, as did Bush in 2001. Presidents generally do that at the start of their term! If it had been a problem, don't you think your Republican buddies would have been whining to high heaven? Here's your first reading assignment:

http://theobfuscationreport.blogspot.com/2007/03/summary-of-gonzales-scandal.html

Look particularly at the second and third paragraphs; also the sixth. It explains how U.S. attoneys are usually appointed and dismissed, and also why these attorneys were fired under dubious circumstances. They are not supposed to be dismissed for partisan political reasons! Yet ol' Dubya did. Read on...Bush was able to do so because a last minute addition to the "Patriot Act" (the most misnamed piece of legislation in the history of this country!) allowed him to do so without Senate approval. Just another example of the Bush dictatorship. Read this article, paying attention to the last paragraph, under the video window: http://harpers.org/archive/2009/03/hbc-90004488.

I sincerely hope that the Senate's Truth Commission about the Bush administration and the many illegal things they did comes to fruition. There would be grounds to censure or jail many (if not most) people who worked for Bush. This was the most dishonest and damaging President in this country's long history. Myself...I would be willing to let Bush off, as long as Rumsfeld, Rove, and especially Cheney faced justice. They have committed repeated acts of treason and should be punished accordingly. Hopefully, finally getting Rove to testify before Congress will be the first step on their long road to justice...

Sorry not following the goals and policy of the Administration..is not "dubious political circumstances"

Do you think Obama will keep prosecutors that dont follow his policies?

Get real this case been trumped up from the beginning...

I have taken the liberty of doing a little "tweaking" to something written by William Shakespeare to suit the occasion of Rove's testifying before the judiciary committee. I hope you like it:

“Contemporary MacBeth”

Setting: A forlorn, foul-smelling swamp, somewhere in Texas

Three witches enter. They begin:

“Double, double toil and trouble;
Fire burn, and caldron bubble.
Fillet of Limbaugh,
In the caldron boil and bake;
Eye of Newt, and hoof of pig,
Dirty diaper of baby Trigg.
Cheney’s fork, and Karl Rove’s sting,
Palin’s leg, and Jindal’s wing,—
For a charm of powerful trouble,
Like a hell-broth, Bush and bubble.”

Sorry not following the goals and policy of the Administration..is not "dubious political circumstances"

Do you think Obama will keep prosecutors that dont follow his policies?

Do you really believe that garbage? This sums it up:

So the attorneys were fired because they either didn't investigate enough Democrats, or because they investigated Republicans - and that's the problem. U.S. attorneys are politically appointed, but they are supposed to remain above politics. These firings appear to be, as John McLaughlin said last week, "a shabby and grave departure from good government."

--The Obfuscation Report, March 19,2007

Is it "following policy" to use supposedly neutral U.S. Attorneys to either a) specifically to invesitgate Democrats, or b) avoid invesigating Republicans? That's what these specific attorneys (the fired ones) were expected to do, and for not doing either a) or b) above, they were dismissed. That's not policy, that's politics, and if U.S. Attorneys were used that way you can bet that every member of Bush's government would be under investigation right now for whatever could be trumped up. Are they being investigated? No! Because Obama is not using U.S. Attorneys to do his political bidding! That's not why they're there!

Sorry if you can't understand that...it's pretty simple really. The U.S. Attorneys are there to prosecute crimes, not to be the President's political strongman. Politics is supposed to be kept out of it...and the Bush administration violated that rule. For those who took an active part in politicizing their role...expect to be prosecuted.

Dg W what republicans did they avoid investigating?

Cite the evidence to support the your and the dems claims?

Just because GOP did not Steigleman does not mean he is not a crook. You can have political enemies and be a crook.

To claim Obama DOJ not political is to be NAIVE.

Recent deciison by Obama DOJ not to go after Medical Marijuana clinics in CA is a politcal decision. These clinics are clearly in violation of FED law but because LIBERALS who support Obama support them..OBAMA DOJ is not going to prosecute them anymore.

Stop being SO NAIVE..almost all criminal decisions made in the DOJ have some Politics involved.

Or for goodness sakes.

Two of our Village Idiots taking the stand.

Our tax dollars at work.

Became very pissed when I found out that their negotiated appearance are going to be;

1. Close door Q&A
2. They will be entitled to unlimited # of lawyers
3. They will not be sworn in (their testimony will not be legally binding).

This is worse than Baseball and Steroids!

Excuse me all of you Bush haters where were you when Clinton fired 93 prosecuters several which were conducting major investigations into political corruption by several Democratic Congressman. What a bunch of hypocrites. 8 versus 93 yeah you guys are as clean as the driven snow. There are multiple reasons why advisors are exempt from being harassed by a partisan congress. Ask Clinton

Another guy who does not know what or why this is occuring. Maybe FUX news did not tell him.

I know; it's called Vendetta maybe you didn't get the right news from MSNBC I mean they are so unbiased. Remember these prosecuters didn't do anything wrong, just like nobody in prison ever committeed a crime. If you want a debate I'm up for it

Jirby -

1. Valerie P could not be outed, as she had not been a field agent since 1995...had a desk job at headquarters, even listed CIA company as her employer in 1999 campaign contributions.

2. Richard Armitage, Colin Powell's right hand man, gave her name and the thought that she had recommended her husband be sent on a mission to Africa to Novak. You didn't think Scooter Libby gave her name, did you? And please note that P Fitzgerald knew this before he ever charged Libby...and not with "outing" anybody.

3. If the information was so sensitive, and in the interests of national security (which it was not), shouldn't Novak have stopped it with himself, rather than publishing it for all to see?

4. "put up a big fight to keep anyone from finding out." This is what Obama is doing regarding his birth certificate.

The United States held thousands of prisoners in WWII right here in the US. Not one was ever extended the right of Habeus Corpus because they were our enemy and wanted to kill us. As long as we are at war with Radical Islam then when we capture them they need to stay in prison camps until they give up.

Jlrby,

For once could you post some real info without referencing Rush Limbaugh? The man is an ass.

Once again, quit blaming your pathetic paycheck to paycheck, government assisted life on those smarter than you and willing to take responsibility for their lives.

(see i just called you a loser without even knowing you, but you called people NEOCONS and Rush Limbaugh listeners).

Excuse me all of you Bush haters where were you when Clinton fired 93 prosecuters several which were conducting major investigations into political corruption by several Democratic Congressman.

Ho hum...some people don't get it. See post #1.12 above for an explanation.

Southernman: Here's the difference: Clinton didn't do it specifically for political reasons. If he had, I'm sure the Republicans in Congress would have investigated him for that, in addition to all the other crap they were trying to dig up on him during the several years of investigation (both during and after his administration), spending even more millions than they did on that particular witch hunt. And all that could be pinned on him was the fact that he lied about what should have been a private matter. (Money well spent? Don't think so.) What Bush did resulted in a Justice Department that would back whatever he wanted, and it was pretty much a blueprint for tyranny and definitely set us up for a military dictatorship, if the memos we've been seeing from the Justice Department are any indication. To Bush's credit, he didn't take advantage of that (other than in having his pitbulls smear anyone who dared question him), but the possiblity was definitely there. This is a very dangerous path to travel, and we need to get to the bottom of it. If Bush did nothing illegal, then there should be no problem with looking into this, as it would ultimately prove that he did nothing wrong. There are millions of us who want this investigated. That doesn't necessarily make us Bush haters; it makes us defenders of the Constitution and the country we ALL, both conservatives AND liberals, love.

"put up a big fight to keep anyone from finding out." This is what Obama is doing regarding his birth certificate.

There is still someone complaining about Obama's birth certificate? OK, maybe this will silence you.

Article: http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html

Photo: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/.shared/image.html?/photos/uncategorized/2008/06/13/bobirthcertificate.jpg

So there's an article by FactCheck.org and a photo of it from the L.A. Times. You'll probably be whining and screaming "fake!"...but if it really was a fake, don't you think John McCain and the Republicans would have made a big issue of it last fall, when it would really have counted?

Give it up. This is the most lame complaint about Obama there is...

I'm bettin' we'll get to hear alot of "I can't recall".

Clinton himself lied under oath. His license to practice law was suspended for a year.

kscolorado, I guess Clinton should have refused to testify under oath (like everyone in the Bush whitehouse). Then he would not have had to lie.

No it doesn't or maybe it does probably says you do your job and I'll do mine. or maybe it says I won't be harassed by a bunch of lamo's that do not have the authority to subpoena me or my advisers.

I won't be harassed by a bunch of lamo's that do not have the authority to subpoena me or my advisers.

Do I have to explain everything to you guys???

http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/07/judge_no_full_immunity_for_adv.html

A judge already ruled that they do!

Probably a Dem right?

Southernman, you appear to be a pretty accurate example (even down to your handle) of what has happend to the GOP----and why they've become the minority(as in numbers, not race) party in this country...

Keep quoting FoxNews and Rush...you'll go far!! <;^)

According to the Left it would not be much of a revolution. The left would be attacking the right with a sock full of pennies while the Right would be paying the centrists to beat the left with guns.

Arthur 1

Here you go again - Clinton fired all of his AG's and no dems made much crap of that

1. Every president "fires - lets go" his AG's at the beginning of his administration - Obama will shortly too.

2. Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Carter, Bush 1, Reagan, Bush 2

3. In 50 years only TWO (2) have been fired during and administration - both of these were in Reagans term.

4. Bush fired EIGHT (8) in one day - one of the fired replaced by Roves aide...

Yes - this is not only unusual but unprecedented!

But you'll keep posting this sorry ass excuse how Clinton fired 93.....hell you are from the right why worry about the details.....

As for looking forward - I think it is pretty clear which party needs to spend sometime looking forward - the past was pretty costly for all of us including your Party.

Karl Rove is a traitor POS. You wanna defend him? You wallow in the same trough.

Throw FAST BASTURD in jail!

Cant you people read?

The agreement calls for Rove and Miers, Bush's top political adviser and White House counsel, to testify before the House Judiciary Committee in closed depositions "under the penalty for perjury," said House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, D-Mich. The committee says it also might call the two for public testimony.

Rock Star: Interesting point about Barry Bonds. Have you noticed that the OWNERS are no where to be found in the investigation? It's common knowledge that the owners not only knew about it, but encouraged it. Why are the players being investigated, but not the owners?

realist

since it was 8 ag's bush fired not 16

since you know nothing about the 93 clinton fired - see above post

reality has nothing to do with your post.

And you think you know something about them?

It's funny how the right wingers are still more upset about a stain on a dress than the pointed and deliberate dismantling of our financial markets, banking institutions and the 360,000 young men and women coming back from Iraq with head injuries.

Great comment Rock Star.

What you don't know about Presidential Advisors is amazing. They are protected and have been forever thats what makes this loser of a congress so crazy. If the President or the AG wants to fire a Fed Prosecuter they can precedent or not. Yes it can be for political reasons if that prosecuter is not following the direction of the AG and failing to prosecute crimes like drug violations and immigration issues which basically is why they had to go. That is as political as it gets they should still be telling them to kiss it.

This agreement is about the two branches. As it clearly states neither side wanted to have a judge settle the matter for them so they worked out an agreement so that did not happen. Rove and Meiers are going to testify under oath and be subject to perjury charges if they lie and are later proved to have done so. The attorneys wil testify and so will other familiar with the case. Gonzalez was the head of the office that did this and you remember he had icantrecallitis wwhen he testified.

Southernman: Except they weren't fired for failing to prosecute drug violations or immigration issues. They were allegedly fired because they wouldn't investigate bogus "election tampering" claims or go after people the Bush Administration had targeted when there was little or no evidence that they had shirked their duties or done anything improper. THAT is political, not judicial. And it is illegal.

Randy,

Have you graduated from the third grade yet?

hate to tell you Randy but that jet thing has been debunked so many times it is not funny. You need to clean out that poison email folder on your computer. You know the one with the Obama birth certificate emails in it.

You need to study the tenets of our form of government. US Attorneys are not obliged to play along partisan lines. They were given the choice to go along with the Bush admin or get fired. That is fascism. Look it up, genius.

TX Ray

US Attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President but CANNOT BE FIRED FOR IMPROPER REASONS.

interesting how they found "proper reasons for nine all on the same day"

you might want to check Senator Pete Domenici involvement........

so I guess that is the response to some dumbass conservative......

I repeat - some dumbass conservative....

Those attorneys served at the pleasure of the President and could be fired at will without cause. They are political appointees.

I may be wrong but I believe they worked for the Justice Department and therefore did not "serve at the pleasure of the President". You apparently don't understand the three branches of government any better than W did.

they could not be "fired at will without cause"..

they cannot be fired for "improper reasons"

you know little of what you speak

and I would love to have them investigate those responsible for the Fannie/Freddie especially the Republicans who chaired both of the committees and the republican majority who sat on those committees.........

You two jack A's need to do YOUR homework. The attorneys in question are politically appointed positions. They are appointed by the President. The Justice Department is not the Judiciary Branch either idiot. Still no comment on the near 100 Clinton fired without "cause". Though he didn't need cause to do what he did.

Good grief, b dune. Fannie was run by Franklin Raines from 1998 to 2004...close friend of and economic adviser to Obama. Was paid $90 million, some of it bonus money on misstatements of property values. He "made a deal," but many think he should be in jail.

Eliz Dole and Chuck Hagel in 2003 and these same two plus John McCain in 2005 introduced bills to investigate and REGULATE Fannie by the government. They were blocked by Chris Dodd, who got his own sweetheart loan.

You might also want to view the Barney Frank video of 2004, where he pooh-poohs any notieon that Fanie and Freddia are not perfectly safe.

Or go back farther to Obama's suing Citibank to for ce them to give subprime loans, as one cause of this mess.

Raines never was an Obama advisor so the rest of your rant is garbage. Damn we shot that down way back before Obama was nominated.

Btw Genius F&F were solid in 2004 just like Frank said and he got the information for his comment from guess who? Hint the people who were in charhe of congress...

You also may like to do a google on this little ditty which debunks most of your post. Its a speech by Bush in 2002 long after Clinton left office.

October 15, 2002
President Hosts Conference on Minority Homeownership

George Washington University
Washington, D.C.

after you read this you will see just who actually promoted Minority lending and F&F

DKS

You show your ignorance

1. Clinton did not fire 100 AG's it was 93

2. Every President for 50 years have fired the AG's at the beginning of their term - Obama will shortly

That includes, Reagan, Bushs, Nixons, as well as dems

3. IN 50 years only 2 AG's have been fired during an administration - both in Reagans term

4. Bush fire 9 - some for political reasons..

And get this jag --- I said it before

US ATTORNEYS SERVE AT THE PLEASURE OF THE PRESIDENT BUT CANNOT BE FIRED FOR IMPROPER REASONS.

So do your homework Jackass.....your ignorance just emphasizes your lack of effort to do any research.

KS

Save your "housing memo" for someone who won't research it

1. I don't give a rats ass what Barney said in 2004..

The Committee was run and majority membership was Republicans.
They could send out anything they wanted from committee as it is simple majority and they controlled

2. I don't care what Dodd said...

2003/2004/2005 All Committees were Chaired by Republicans, Majority of Committees were Republican, Majority of Senate was Republican......whats your point?

So who was in Charge of the Senate and Congress in 2004? What did they say? thought so!

And lets see who takes credit for increase and affordability for Minority Housing

George Bush Sep 2004 Republican Convention

"Another priority is to build an ownership society, because ownership brings security, dignity and independence.

"THANKS TO OUR POLICIES, HOME OWNERSHIP IS AT AN ALL TIME HIGH".

He didn't say to Barneys policies or Dodds policies - he said "ours"

Article Jan 20 2004

In a effort to boost/increase "minority home ownership" President Bush asked Congress to eliminate
the down payment for all FHA Loans"....that wasn't requested by Barney or by Dodd but by Bush himself.

Stick to you old worn out it is all Barney and Dodds fault........or Carters or Clintons.

I would never expect someone from the right to ever admit and culpability........

b dune--I notice that after you hand their butts to them, the conservative writers, quoting FoxNews or Rush, dissappear....it's good that you're getting the last word in most of these threads

You're making sense, and they don't have an original thought in their minds, bless their hearts!!!

b

haha, inflamatory, but the most sense I have heard on this board YET.

"Although Bush and President Bill Clinton each dismissed nearly all U.S. attorneys upon taking office, legal experts and former prosecutors say the firing of a large number of prosecutors in the middle of a term appears to be unprecedented and threatens the independence of prosecutors." Gonzales: 'Mistakes Were Made' Washington Post, March 14, 2007

Washington Post? Just the authoritative non-partisan source we've been looking for.

thanks for the response, but it is not unusual. what is consistant is the liberal media bias concerning this act. all presidents do this, it is their right as chief of the ececutive branch, but bush was singled out by the press making this a lead nonstory on the evening news.

amused

this is what is unusual - in 50 years only 2 AG's were fired "during an administration"

not at the beginning - but "during"....guess that is not unusual to you...

do your research and maybe you'll find out it is just the facts .....

and check and you'll see NO AG CAN BE FIRED WITHOUT PROPER REASON.....there is no "right" to just fire without cause.

as it is with almost everything...there are always behind the scenes negotiations that do not necessarily bring out all the truth.
did you not know that even congress and senate votes are negotiated?
you scratch my back and i will scratch your's.