Comments on: Contempt Citations For Rove, Bolten

Senate Panel Slams Bush Aides For Failing To Cooperate In Prosecutor Firings Probe

[realpatriot1]

The one official whi has testified on this matter fully and truthfully explained what was going on
here.

Justice Department official Monica Goodling testified that Rove''s friend Tim Griffith, one of the appointees, was involved in vote caging.

Some of the Rove e-mails that supposedly "disappeared"
were accidentally sent to an anti-bus website with a domain name similar to the RNC site. In those e-mails(which you can view at gregpalast.com) reveal the full nature of this 2004 vote stealing operation.

They were sending voter reg confirmation records to the Jacksonville-area homes of African-America service personnel deployed to Iraq.

These letters were marked "Do not forward" so they wouldn''t be delivered to the soldiers in Iraq. When they came back they removed these voters from the rolls. That means that when these soldiers voted absentee they didn''t know that their votes were being invalidated.

That''s how these gangsters support the troops. They make Hgo Chavez look like Thomas Jefferson.

The best way for the Republican party to regain trust from the American people would be to separate themselves from un-American activities like this.

I won''t be holding my breath waiting for that to happen.

[aaabee-2009]

Wow. I can hear crickets chirping......

[aaabee-2009]

For instance, some Democrats have charged that Carol Lam, the former US attorney in San Diego, was fired due to her pursuit of a wide-ranging public-corruption case that snared a former Republican congressman, Randy "Duke" Cunningham of California.
John McKay, the former US attorney in Seattle, has himself said indications are he was fired because of his refusal to bring voter fraud cases after the 2004 Washington gubernatorial election, which the Democratic candidate won narrowly.
David Iglesias, former US attorney in Albuquerque, N.M., similarly has said he received phone calls from congressional Republicans rebuking him for not pursuing Democrats more aggressively in election-year investigations.
"The dismissed US attorneys have testified under oath and said in public that they believe political influence was applied. They have given chapter and verse and specific examples," said Sen. Patrick Leahy (D) of Vermont, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, at a Thursday hearing. "If they are right, that mixing of partisan political goals into federal law enforcement is highly improper." Christian Science Monitor. http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0330/p01s02-usju.html
At least one of the firings appears to have impeded a federal investigation into prominent Republicans: that of Carol Lam (CA). That is illegal -- obstruction of justice is a felony. http://uspolitics.about.com/od/electionissues/i/attorney_firing_2.htm


Want more? There are tons of links to this.

[aaabee-2009]

The part of the story that US_Infidel neglected to read:

Congressional investigations have focused on whether the Department of Justice and the White House were using the U.S. Attorney positions for political advantage. Allegations are that some of the attorneys were targeted for dismissal to impede investigations of Republican politicians or that some were targeted for their failure to initiate investigations that would damage Democratic politicians or hamper Democratic-leaning voters. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S._attorneys_controversy

The controversy over the firings heightened last month after Iglesias [one of the fired AGs) told McClatchy Newspapers that two members of Congress called him in mid-October to pressure him to complete a corruption investigation of several Democrats before the November elections. parenthasis mine. http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/031007Z.shtml

[aaabee-2009]

The first half of the story that everyone agrees on:

Federal prosecutors serve at the pleasure of the president, after all.

It''s appropriate that they follow the general political priorities of the chief executive who appointed them, say legal experts.

[aaabee-2009]

That''''s the best line of dog squeeze I''''ve heard all week!!! Posted by Infidel_Us at 06:54 PM : Dec 13, 2007

Let me go get the link......

[infidel_us]

So your stance on this issue isn''''t defending the ones who wanted to be ethical, your stance as written is in defense of the ones who were breaking the rules.
Posted by AaaBee at 06:14 PM : Dec 13, 2007

Oh really? And where does your information come from that you KNOW they were fired for being ''ethical''? That''s the best line of dog squeeze I''ve heard all week!!!

[infidel_us]

One nation under God with Liberty and Justice For All.
Posted by AaaBee at 05:21 PM : Dec 13, 2007

Except for commies, socialists, libs, muslims, illegal aliens, flamming ***, and actors. :)

[kansas1946]

Actually, what I would really like is to never see Karl Rove''s face again, and never hear his name spoken. I wish he would just fade into that great black hole where the evil and black-hearted go.

[aaabee-2009]

What is being done here is an attempt to make something out of nothing and get someone on record that can be perjured. Posted by tcoleman12 at 04:35 PM : Dec 13, 2007

What would be better served by your arguement was if you actually read what the issue really is. For years, you empty talkers say the same thing over and over about firing the AG''s. No one with a brain told you you were wrong, because you aren''t. But there you stop. And it is NOT the issue.

The issue is the firing of folks who wouldn''t take pressure from Congressional legislators to do something unethical. Congressional legislators are NOT legally allowed to call AG''s and put pressure on them regarding ANY investigations. These people were fired for not either taking such calls or not taking the "advice" of those who called regarding investigations the AG''s are always doing.

The issue was that AG''s were fired, some of them REPUBLICAN AGs, for choosing ethics over party loyalty.

So your stance on this issue isn''t defending the ones who wanted to be ethical, your stance as written is in defense of the ones who were breaking the rules.

[aaabee-2009]

The three branches must have EQUAL power, but Congress is showing that it believes itself to be above the other two." Posted by SBB2211 at 04:27 PM : Dec 13, 2007

I find your idea of Justice for All rather one-sided.
Cheney''s centralizing power in the non-existing fourth branch of our triune government is not something you find terribly upsetting, why is that?

All this time, the Bush, Cheney, and *** Blossom brand of justice is using the new litter-box methodology of covering all evidences of their suspect activities under a cardboard National Secrets coversheet? Why would they have to hide anything if they had nothing to hide, after all, it is the GOP idol, Ronald Reagan who advocated "transparent government" but that died at the door of Cheney''s Energy Meetings back in 2000, and we haven''t seen open government since.

What Congress is doing is scrambling to keep up with the endless outpouring of scandals and less-than-ethical goings-on of the Bush administration for the past 7 years. They aren''t going to get to the bottom of a quarter of the mess our national capital is in, thanks to the the Fraud, Waste, and Abuse Trio. What once was a Ho'' House is now blood red from war and murder and cronyism and stacking the scales of justice until they tip to benefit one group of people over another.

One nation under God with Liberty and Justice For All.

[formrusmcsgt]

Rove should send the dems a stool sample.

Posted by Infidel_Us at 04:51 PM : Dec 13, 2007

10 to 1 he won''t. They''d find other Repubs DNA......

[infidel_us]

Good thing the 11% approval rating Pelosi/Reid congress have all the other pressing problems of America sorted out. This is really, really important.

What a bunch of arseclowns! Rove should send the dems a stool sample. They deserve no less.

[formrusmcsgt]

Politics pure and simple.

Posted by denn034 at 04:41 PM : Dec 13, 2007

As in refusing to testify was for political reasons? I''m betting it''s more along the lines of destroying tapes...not politics, but rather, obstruction of justice.

[denn034]

Politics pure and simple.

[tcoleman12]

SBB2211...This is not about oversight of the Executive Branch. The President can fire these guys whenever he wants to do so. He could get up tomorrow and fire all the AGs from state ending in the letter A if he wants. That is his authority.
What is being done here is an attempt to make something out of nothing and get someone on record that can be perjured.

[walt1944-2009]

The Great Emperor Bush II is unconcerned about the noises coming from the Whimp-ocrats in the Senate about having Bolten and Rove issued contempt of Congress citations for their role in the 8 special prosecutors affair.

The Great Emperor views anything that the Whimp-ocrats in Congress do as of no consequence since he knows that when the Great Emperor talks tough, the Whimp-ocrats "whimper and cower" in terror. Because of their constant "caving" to the Emperor''s demands, the Great Emperor has no respect for men and women who have backbones of jelly and haven''t the "muscle or nerve" to back up their demands.

SIG HEIL, BUSH!!!

[formrusmcsgt]

If you read it, I AM BOTHERED by Congress (Legislative branch) running roughshod over the Administrative and Judicial branches of our government.

Posted by SBB2211 at 04:27 PM : Dec 13, 2007

Best laugh I''ve had all day. Thanks.

[gkc99]

FROG MARCH TIME FOR A COUPLE OF BIG FROGGIES!

[sbb2211]

nyckate

"why does it bother you that congress wants to fulfill constitutional responsibility of oversight over bush administration??"

I never said that it bothered me. If you read it, I AM BOTHERED by Congress (Legislative branch) running roughshod over the Administrative and Judicial branches of our government. The three branches must have EQUAL power, but Congress is showing that it believes itself to be above the other two.

They demand oversight powers on everything, but where is the oversight of Congress? We have to wait until elections before we can do anything, because Congress WILL NOT police it''s own.