Rove and Mier testimony over US attorney firings released

[Lemon law]

After leading the judiciary committee a merry chase for too many years, quietly, Both Harriet Miers and Karl Rove finally testified. And the the reports are being released now, some 5500 pages according to another link. A hodge podge of direct testimony, various white house emails, and RNC documents.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08...12firings.html?_r=1&hp

As we should all know, it would have been a crime under existing law for Karl Rove, as a non justice department official and a purely political operative to get directly involved in justice department processes, but not a crime to relay the concerns of various republicans up the chain regarding their unhappiness with the performance of certain US attorneys. And since the latter is the Rove position, it may be a devil in the details to prove that Rove crossed the line.

And even though many believe or want to believe that Rove crossed that line, I can't be optimistic after reading this link. But since only some of the real evidence is in the thousands of pages released, I will reserve judgment until those are checked, cross checked, and more information teased out.

But I also suspect that Rove made sure most line crossing activity was verbal and generated no paper trail, so there is always hope the other parties to the conversations will rat him out.

Time will tell.

 

[colonel]

thats a lie, Karl Rove is a true patriot, true American. It's another commi attack against GOP.

 

[Pens1566]

Color me shocked.

 

[spidey07]

Yep. The testimony shows he did nothing wrong or illegal. Just relayed legitimate complaints that were made about attorney misconduct.

 

[PJABBER]

Originally posted by: spidey07
Yep. The testimony shows he did nothing wrong or illegal. Just relayed legitimate complaints that were made about attorney misconduct.

This.

Forget about reading the NYT for stuff like this, the article is full of FUD and old spin.

You can look at the actual transcripts here:

Transcripts

Here is Rove's statement, and it looks accurate based on what I quickly read of the transcripts -

Statement On the Release of Interview Transcripts by the House Judiciary Committee

by Karl Rove
Published: August 11, 2009

I welcome the release of my House Judiciary Committee interviews and accompanying documents. They show politics played no role in the Bush Administration?s removal of U.S. Attorneys, that I never sought to influence the conduct of any prosecution, and that I played no role in deciding which US attorneys were retained and which replaced.

The transcript?s release follows two years of false accusations and partisan innuendoes made by Governor Siegelman and Judiciary Committee Democrats. These have proved utterly groundless.

Rather than relying on partisans selectively quoting testimony or excerpting email messages, I urge anyone interested to review the documents in their entirety. They speak for themselves.

 

[JayhaVVKU]

Question: Karl Rove, great American or THE GREATEST American?

 

[Genx87]

This was such a media driven story it is little wonder nothing came of it.

 

[Skitzer]

This is a non issue .... I mean, who cares ...... seriously.

 

[FerrelGeek]

Originally posted by: Genx87
This was such a media driven story it is little wonder nothing came of it.

Don't tell the libertrolls that. But for the rest of us...

/thread

 

[heyheybooboo]

Isn't odd that the issues publicly asserted by the Bush White House in firing Iglesias never surface in any of their emails?

Even more so the emails reveal that Senator Pete Domenici pressed the Bush White House to fire Iglesias ?

Or that Harriet Miers recalls getting a telephone call from a ?very agitated? Mr. Rove making clear to her that he wanted action taken against Mr. Iglesias ?

In a similar article from McClatchy:

The e-mails also confirmed that former Missouri U.S. Attorney Todd Graves was forced to leave because staffers for U.S. Sen. Kit Bond, R-Mo., wanted him out, not because of professional misconduct. Bond issued a statement Tuesday denying involvement in Graves' firing.

In another 2005 e-mail, then-White House lawyer Richard Klingler said "Karl is fine" with the plan to remove Graves in a deal struck with Bond, which Bond previously has denied making.

But Karl, and of course Alberto Gonzales, don't seem to have any recollection of that.

And then there is that ugly performance evaluation thing:

Ousted U.S. attorneys received positive job evaluations

Although the Bush administration has said that six U.S. attorneys were fired recently in part because of "performance related" issues, at least five of them received positive job evaluations before they were ordered to step down.

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, using authority he gained in March from a little-noticed provision of the Patriot Act, has appointed interim U.S. attorneys from the Bush administration's inner circle. The firings and appointments have raised concerns that Gonzales is politicizing the process.

 

[Patranus]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
And even though many believe or want to believe that Rove crossed that line, I can't be optimistic after reading this link. But since only some of the real evidence is in the thousands of pages released, I will reserve judgment until those are checked, cross checked, and more information teased out.

You can read to official transcripts here.

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: Patranus

You can read to official transcripts here.

Then why does the title of both interview PDFs say "" UNOFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT "" ??

:laugh:

:laugh:

:laugh:

:laugh:

 

[Patranus]

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

Originally posted by: Patranus

You can read to official transcripts here.

Then why does the title of both interview PDFs say "" UNOFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT "" ??

Ok, I guess I should have said copies of the official transcripts.
Still doesn't detract from the validity of the actual data vs a 2nd hand source like the NYTimes.

 

[Lemon law]

I notice ole PJABBER proudly cities the Rove statement of " by Karl Rove
Published: August 11, 2009

I welcome the release of my House Judiciary Committee interviews and accompanying documents. They show politics played no role in the Bush Administration?s removal of U.S. Attorneys, that I never sought to influence the conduct of any prosecution, and that I played no role in deciding which US attorneys were retained and which replaced."

Well riddle me this PJABBER, if ole Karl is so damned thrilled now, how come he fought so hard for all those years from having to testify?

And lest I have to point out, ole Albero G., the white house, and the RNC sent a pile of documents to the Judiciary committee designed to support their cover story of why they fired the US attorneys in the first place, would have worked if the GOP was still in charge of congress, but it did not take much checking and cross checking to prove the cover Gonzales cover story was totally false. And in the process, the now retired Pete DeMedeci got censured by congress for official misconduct and abuse of office for his role in the firings of
Iglesias.

And some of us can take some comfort that Alberto Gonzales and Karl Rove are now radioactive and off any taxpayer payrolls. They may have thrived by operating in the dark, but now their every action is watched and their ability to do damage to this country is greatly reduced. They may escape jail if they hid their wrong doings well enough, or may later get ratted out and go to jail. Time will tell.

 

[PJABBER]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
I notice ole PJABBER proudly cities the Rove statement of " by Karl Rove
Published: August 11, 2009

I welcome the release of my House Judiciary Committee interviews and accompanying documents. They show politics played no role in the Bush Administration?s removal of U.S. Attorneys, that I never sought to influence the conduct of any prosecution, and that I played no role in deciding which US attorneys were retained and which replaced."

Well riddle me this PJABBER, if ole Karl is so damned thrilled now, how come he fought so hard for all those years from having to testify?

And lest I have to point out, ole Albero G., the white house, and the RNC sent a pile of documents to the Judiciary committee designed to support their cover story of why they fired the US attorneys in the first place, would have worked if the GOP was still in charge of congress, but it did not take much checking and cross checking to prove the cover Gonzales cover story was totally false. And in the process, the now retired Pete DeMedeci got censured by congress for official misconduct and abuse of office for his role in the firings of
Iglesias.

And some of us can take some comfort that Alberto Gonzales and Karl Rove are now radioactive and off any taxpayer payrolls. They may have thrived by operating in the dark, but now their every action is watched and their ability to do damage to this country is greatly reduced. They may escape jail if they hid their wrong doings well enough, or may later get ratted out and go to jail. Time will tell.

My, my. How the hope for a smokin' gun seems to keep someone's weary partisan political dreams alive.

Discounting the ad hominem attacks yet another time, the U.S. Attorneys work at the pleasure of the Chief Executive and my understanding is that they can be fired at any time for any reason. It is not like they are union folks, right?

Past Presidents liked to clean out the whole bunch and appoint their own team. That only a few of them were replaced by Bush is some kind of a retention record.

And Obama is likely going to remove a whole bunch more than Bush.

Obama to replace U.S. Attorneys

Hey, liberal Democrat conspiracists - cease this ceaseless lifting up of rock in the baseless hope of finding something, anything, to justify legal action and channel that energy toward something useful. Like the defeat of all legislative initiatives that increase the intrusion of government into our lives and our pockets. Now THAT is a cause well worth fighting for!

 

[MovingTarget]

This should have been done a long time ago. I wonder if this will have any effect on the Don Siegelman case against him...

 

[Lemon law]

The PJABBER point might have an iota of validity if it were not traditional that an NEW INCOMING President has the traditional right to replace the whole set of US attorneys, especially when a change of parties occur, what is unprecedented in US history is firing large numbers of US attorney's in the middle of a presidential term for anything other than official misconduct. And eight of the nine US attorney;s had excellent performance reviews and all nine had been appointed by GWB as he fired the older Bill Clinton appointed set.

 

[Pens1566]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
The PJABBER point might have an iota of validity if it were not traditional that an NEW INCOMING President has the traditional right to replace the whole set of US attorneys, especially when a change of parties occur, what is unprecedented in US history is firing large numbers of US attorney's in the middle of a presidential term for anything other than official misconduct. And eight of the nine US attorney;s had excellent performance reviews and all nine had been appointed by GWB as he fired the older Bill Clinton appointed set.

Beat me to it. I'm sure it will be willfully ignored by usual suspects.

 

[Lemon law]

The other thing to point out, no matter how nutso ole clothe the Statue Ashcroft was, he was light years ahead of Alberto Gonzales in understanding apply Justice department letter and spirit of the law standards.

But GWB fired both Colin Powell and Ashcroft on the principle that one good apple could spoil a whole barrel of rotten ones.

 

[PJABBER]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
The other thing to point out, no matter how nutso ole clothe the Statue Ashcroft was, he was light years ahead of Alberto Gonzales in understanding apply Justice department letter and spirit of the law standards.

But GWB fired both Colin Powell and Ashcroft on the principle that one good apple could spoil a whole barrel of rotten ones.

OK, now that I just read your post for the second time, I am getting that need to pour a second Scotch! I am guessing it is Miller time where you are? :beer:

 

[Lemon law]

PJabber asks, " OK, now that I just read your post for the second time, I am getting that need to pour a second Scotch! I am guessing it is Miller time where you are?"
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well I would be drinking some Obama highlife beer if I had any, beats the hell out of Bush beer.

 

[PJABBER]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
PJabber asks, " OK, now that I just read your post for the second time, I am getting that need to pour a second Scotch! I am guessing it is Miller time where you are?"
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well I would be drinking some Obama highlife beer if I had any, beats the hell out of Bush beer.

Whiskey for my men, and beer for my horses!

:wine:

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: PJABBER

My, my. How the hope for a smokin' gun seems to keep someone's weary partisan political dreams alive.

This guy is a liar, pure and simple - pretty much every word. Let's pick a few points.

Discounting the ad hominem attacks yet another time, the U.S. Attorneys work at the pleasure of the Chief Executive and my understanding is that they can be fired at any time for any reason. It is not like they are union folks, right?

No, they can't. There are various things that would be illegal, various legal protections for, among other things, insulation from the political from corrupting the Justice Department.

While not always successful - among other things, the Attorney General who is in charge is often a political ally of the PResident, sometimes corrupt, as the case with George Bush appointing his personal lawyer - the same guy who helped keep his drunk driving record sealed out of the election campaign - as AG after even the far-right wing John Ashcroft refused to go along with some of their more extreme torture agenda - there are laws that limit his 'at his privilege', even if hard to enforce.

Past Presidents liked to clean out the whole bunch and appoint their own team. That only a few of them were replaced by Bush is some kind of a retention record.

You are lying here in saying that Bush did not purge the attorneys when he became President, and waited until 2006. These hand-picked firings were in addition to the purge.

The purge is what is pretty much unprecedented - previously, any terminations of attorneys were typically uncontroversial for clear misconduct, unlike these.

And Obama is likely going to remove a whole bunch more than Bush.

Obama to replace U.S. Attorneys

Yes, As your own link notes, this is Obama doing what the presidents normally do early in their presidency - it's not hand-picked firings for political reasons years into the term.

Hey, liberal Democrat conspiracists - cease this ceaseless lifting up of rock in the baseless hope of finding something, anything, to justify legal action and channel that energy toward something useful. Like the defeat of all legislative initiatives that increase the intrusion of government into our lives and our pockets. Now THAT is a cause well worth fighting for!

Well, liar, you are in favor of prosecuting everyone involved in the government pursuing its domestic wiretapping program intrsion into Americans' lives, right?

You are opposed to corporate welfare policies practiced by the Republican party (and some Democrats) that dig into Americans' pockets, right?

Wrong, because you are not honest. You post dishonest facts and principles to sell policies that do the opposite of what you claim.

You are a troll and a spammer to boot, as well as unable to remain civil in disagreement on the issues, and so you don't get a detailed response to each of your lies.

The political nature of these attorney firings, the dangerous corruption of the Justice Department that they and the appointment of Alberto Gonzales represent, has been discussed at length here previously. You are a blind apologist and liar for the corrupt interests, and of the low quality sort who can easily be shown wrong with trivially exposed lies and errors, but who attempts to make up for that with 'the big lie' technique' of repeating the lies over and over and ignoring the corrections.

You are a pollutant to the forum, you are sand in its gas tank thwarting the honest people on each side who try to discuss, trolling for preventing that discussion with lies.

 

[JayhaVVKU]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: PJABBER

My, my. How the hope for a smokin' gun seems to keep someone's weary partisan political dreams alive.

This guy is a liar, pure and simple - pretty much every word. Let's pick a few points.

Discounting the ad hominem attacks yet another time, the U.S. Attorneys work at the pleasure of the Chief Executive and my understanding is that they can be fired at any time for any reason. It is not like they are union folks, right?

No, they can't. There are various things that would be illegal, various legal protections for, among other things, insulation from the political from corrupting the Justice Department.

While not always successful - among other things, the Attorney General who is in charge is often a political ally of the PResident, sometimes corrupt, as the case with George Bush appointing his personal lawyer - the same guy who helped keep his drunk driving record sealed out of the election campaign - as AG after even the far-right wing John Ashcroft refused to go along with some of their more extreme torture agenda - there are laws that limit his 'at his privilege', even if hard to enforce.

Past Presidents liked to clean out the whole bunch and appoint their own team. That only a few of them were replaced by Bush is some kind of a retention record.

You are lying here in saying that Bush did not purge the attorneys when he became President, and waited until 2006. These hand-picked firings were in addition to the purge.

The purge is what is pretty much unprecedented - previously, any terminations of attorneys were typically uncontroversial for clear misconduct, unlike these.

And Obama is likely going to remove a whole bunch more than Bush.

Obama to replace U.S. Attorneys

Yes, As your own link notes, this is Obama doing what the presidents normally do early in their presidency - it's not hand-picked firings for political reasons years into the term.

Hey, liberal Democrat conspiracists - cease this ceaseless lifting up of rock in the baseless hope of finding something, anything, to justify legal action and channel that energy toward something useful. Like the defeat of all legislative initiatives that increase the intrusion of government into our lives and our pockets. Now THAT is a cause well worth fighting for!

Well, liar, you are in favor of prosecuting everyone involved in the government pursuing its domestic wiretapping program intrsion into Americans' lives, right?

You are opposed to corporate welfare policies practiced by the Republican party (and some Democrats) that dig into Americans' pockets, right?

Wrong, because you are not honest. You post dishonest facts and principles to sell policies that do the opposite of what you claim.

You are a troll and a spammer to boot, as well as unable to remain civil in disagreement on the issues, and so you don't get a detailed response to each of your lies.

The political nature of these attorney firings, the dangerous corruption of the Justice Department that they and the appointment of Alberto Gonzales represent, has been discussed at length here previously. You are a blind apologist and liar for the corrupt interests, and of the low quality sort who can easily be shown wrong with trivially exposed lies and errors, but who attempts to make up for that with 'the big lie' technique' of repeating the lies over and over and ignoring the corrections.

You are a pollutant to the forum, you are sand in its gas tank thwarting the honest people on each side who try to discuss, trolling for preventing that discussion with lies.

Bravo.

 

[monovillage]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: PJABBER

My, my. How the hope for a smokin' gun seems to keep someone's weary partisan political dreams alive.

This guy is a liar, pure and simple - pretty much every word. Let's pick a few points.

Discounting the ad hominem attacks yet another time, the U.S. Attorneys work at the pleasure of the Chief Executive and my understanding is that they can be fired at any time for any reason. It is not like they are union folks, right?

No, they can't. There are various things that would be illegal, various legal protections for, among other things, insulation from the political from corrupting the Justice Department.

While not always successful - among other things, the Attorney General who is in charge is often a political ally of the PResident, sometimes corrupt, as the case with George Bush appointing his personal lawyer - the same guy who helped keep his drunk driving record sealed out of the election campaign - as AG after even the far-right wing John Ashcroft refused to go along with some of their more extreme torture agenda - there are laws that limit his 'at his privilege', even if hard to enforce.

Past Presidents liked to clean out the whole bunch and appoint their own team. That only a few of them were replaced by Bush is some kind of a retention record.

You are lying here in saying that Bush did not purge the attorneys when he became President, and waited until 2006. These hand-picked firings were in addition to the purge.

The purge is what is pretty much unprecedented - previously, any terminations of attorneys were typically uncontroversial for clear misconduct, unlike these.

And Obama is likely going to remove a whole bunch more than Bush.

Obama to replace U.S. Attorneys

Yes, As your own link notes, this is Obama doing what the presidents normally do early in their presidency - it's not hand-picked firings for political reasons years into the term.

Hey, liberal Democrat conspiracists - cease this ceaseless lifting up of rock in the baseless hope of finding something, anything, to justify legal action and channel that energy toward something useful. Like the defeat of all legislative initiatives that increase the intrusion of government into our lives and our pockets. Now THAT is a cause well worth fighting for!

Well, liar, you are in favor of prosecuting everyone involved in the government pursuing its domestic wiretapping program intrsion into Americans' lives, right?

You are opposed to corporate welfare policies practiced by the Republican party (and some Democrats) that dig into Americans' pockets, right?

Wrong, because you are not honest. You post dishonest facts and principles to sell policies that do the opposite of what you claim.

You are a troll and a spammer to boot, as well as unable to remain civil in disagreement on the issues, and so you don't get a detailed response to each of your lies.

The political nature of these attorney firings, the dangerous corruption of the Justice Department that they and the appointment of Alberto Gonzales represent, has been discussed at length here previously. You are a blind apologist and liar for the corrupt interests, and of the low quality sort who can easily be shown wrong with trivially exposed lies and errors, but who attempts to make up for that with 'the big lie' technique' of repeating the lies over and over and ignoring the corrections.

You are a pollutant to the forum, you are sand in its gas tank thwarting the honest people on each side who try to discuss, trolling for preventing that discussion with lies.

Wow, quite an attack on you PJABBER. I especially liked this part
"The political nature of these attorney firings, the dangerous corruption of the Justice Department that they and the appointment of Alberto Gonzales represent, has been discussed at length here previously."
Meaning that at sometime, somewhere in the forum this topic was discussed and Craig234 thought he'd won. I can't see how he now expects new members to be familiar with every topic ever discussed in this forum over the last 9 or 5 or 3 years. This latest bit of news about Rove stands on it's own and brings the subject back up with new information that should be open to be discussed.