House panel authorizes subpoenas of Bush aides »
Posted by: TechnologyExpert 1 year, 5 months ago592 Comments Report this Story
A House panel on Wednesday defied the White House and authorized subpoenas for President Bush's political adviser, Karl Rove and other top aides, setting up a constitutional showdown over the firings of eight federal prosecutors.
Read Full Story at msnbc.msn.com
Join the Discussion 
+ Add Comment
Comments So Far: 592
-
-
-
100%
GODIMMAD1 year, 5 months ago
?Why has the new govt not done anything but pass non-binding resolutions and investigate everything known to man. I am not a real con, I just want ppl to do things that were promised and get ****** done. So far the dems have not done anything that they promised and done everything that they said ther wouldnt. At least they could do is get the mininium wage passed! Maybe, even, defund the war. Investigate all You Want, you will probally find something, but get something done that really matters to us the people, the REAL AMERICANS!!
Reply -
80%
dandt16121 year, 5 months ago
These people are no better than any of us. They should have to face the music just like any of us would have to do. PERIOD!!
Reply-
100%
Lurch1 year, 5 months ago
>These people are no better than any of us.
You`re giving these arseholes way too much credit. They are much worse than any of us. They deserve to rot in prison and in hell.
Reply-
100%
theido1 year, 5 months ago
I would just like to point out that the Clintons fired all 93 attorneys in March of 03, and gave them 10 days to get out. This is just more BS by the left to take down the Bush administration. Bush should have just told the left to go pound sand, but for some reason decided to play along with their stupid games.
Reply-
100%
ryan6011 year, 5 months ago
President's are allowed to fire US attorneys at the start of their term and replace them with their own appointees. All of the recent presidents have done this (Clinton, Bush the Elder, Reagan, Ford, Carter, Nixon, etc. ) The difference is that Clinton and all the others got Senate approval on each and every one of those attorneys.
Clinton never fired a federal prosecutor for political reasons. THAT is the difference.
Reply-
100%
theido1 year, 5 months ago
If they weren't fired for political reason then why? Clinton was the first president to fire all 93 attorneys at one time.
"Equally extraordinary were the politics at play in the firings. At the time, Jay Stephens, then U.S. Attorney in the District of Columbia, was investigating then Ways and Means Chairman Dan Rostenkowski, and was "within 30 days" of making a decision on an indictment. Mr. Rostenkowski, who was shepherding the Clinton's economic program through Congress, eventually went to jail on mail fraud charges and was later pardoned by Mr. Clinton."
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.ht
Reply-
78%
ryan6011 year, 5 months ago
Your comment doesn't make any sense.
Rostenkowski WAS indicted in 1994, not 1993, so his case was obviously CONTINUED by the new federal prosecutors into the House mail fraud scandal. Also, Rostenkowski pleaded GUILTY to charges of mail fraud, and then served 15 months of his 17 month sentence.
Clinton only pardoned him in 2001, several years AFTER he had already served his jail time.
So where is the corruption?
Reply-
100%
theido1 year, 5 months ago
Never mentioned anything about corruption. Only that it would take the heat off Clinton before anything happened.
Reply-
100%
ryan6011 year, 5 months ago
"Never mentioned anything about corruption. Only that it would take the heat off Clinton before anything happened."
But the case CONTINUED being investigated while Clinton was STILL IN OFFICE!! Rostenkowski was investigated, indicted, charged, tried, and convicted while Clinton was STILL IN OFFICE!!!
What the hell is your point?
Reply-
-
-
-
0%
Justice4All1 year, 5 months ago
I'm jealous. Not because of Monica, but to do it in the Oval office. Now thats cool.
Reply
-
-
-
-
0%
Dave591 year, 5 months ago
Yeah and George W. Bush has screwed this whole country into the deck so hard we may never recover. I see most of the right wing nuts still pull Clinton out when they have nothing else to say. I hate to tell you there butt-monkey but that was done before GWB took office.
Nice try at mis-direction but it doesn't work.
Oh and in case you forgot to look Bill Clinton has better poll numbers NOW than does George W. Bush.
I can't help but think that your head must be inserted in your rectum.
Fan of Karl Rove I presume.
Reply-
0%
theido1 year, 5 months ago
"I see most of the right wing nuts still pull Clinton out when they have nothing else to say."
-It's to easy. You could almost say instead of telling us to not bring up Clinton, that we should do as you say, not as you do.
Its a good trick. By trying to get everyone to ignore the past you eliminate the things that can be used against you.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
100%
IanFraigun1 year, 5 months ago
Wrong Bozo as previously stated all recent presidents including your beloved BUSH fired all 93 at the start of their term.
None of the others including Bush Sr fired any during their administration for failing to follow and support administration political goals as this current incident appears to cover.
Reply-
-
0%
tanglang1 year, 5 months ago
Ian, if you had done your research, you would see that Clinton fired thirty of his newly appointed attorneys during his administration. This came AFTER he fired the initial 93! This is a non issue. Every president has the right to fire his/her attorneys for any reason he/she sees fit.
Reply-
0%
tanglang1 year, 5 months ago
Wow, a negative vote for postint the truth. I guess it does hurt Ian.
Reply -
67%
Lurch1 year, 5 months ago
>...you would see that Clinton fired thirty of his newly appointed attorneys during his administration.
All 30 fired, or did they (some?) just resign/get promoted/etc while Clinton was in office. This totally smells like a right-wing talking point consciously worded to suggest something that didn`t happen.
Not saying he didn`t fire any, but since their replacements were approved by the Senate and no investigations were hindered or created due to that, it doesn`t really matter.
Reply-
0%
miklkit1 year, 5 months ago
Another poster later in this thread says that there were only 3 attorneys fired in 25 years before dumbya. Some one is cooking the books.
Reply -
25%
injest1 year, 5 months ago
All 30 fired, or did they (some?) just resign/get promoted/etc while Clinton was in office.
Good point!! Its true Webster L. Hubbell did resign.........before he went to prison!!
Reply
-
-
100%
questionseverything1 year, 4 months ago
tang is full of beans as per usual...clinton did fire the original 93 but he didnt later fire 30 more...like 3 got fired for misconduct...all i remember is one bit a dancer lol
Reply
-
-
-
100%
johnkamis641 year, 5 months ago
Another of your lies.Did you shove a radio up your ass to get Republican talking points injected directly into your brain?
EVERY president from Eisenhower on;(and quite a few before then) has replaced the appointees from the previous administration.This is referred to as "house-cleaning": and is a tradition.
Come on, if you are gonna lie, at least make it entertaining....
Reply-
-
67%
ryan6011 year, 5 months ago
"Prove me wrong. It was always gradual before Clinton."
Nope, it wasn't. It was always gradual before BUSH.
As insideoutgraphics posted later in this thread:
"The Congressional Research Service has confirmed how unprecedented these firings are. It found that of 486 U.S. attorneys confirmed since 1981, perhaps no more than three were forced out in similar ways - three in 25 years, compared with seven in recent months
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/03/2
Reply
-
-
-
-
100%
mesodude1 year, 5 months ago
Chimper fired all of Clinton's appointees too, if I'm not mistaken. The reason this is so suspicious is because he's let so many go at once--midstream.
Reply -
100%
tanglang1 year, 5 months ago
Ryan,
Why the hell did Clinton, after firing all 93 attorneys, fire thirty more throughout his administration? You morons seem to think this was ok for Clinton, but not Bush. Hypocrites! That's what you all are. Every last one of you. Yoou saying that they only have the power to fire them at the start of their term, is almost as much bs as you saying Clinton never fired any of them for political reasons. During his first term Clinton fired one of his prosecutors that had recently put in jail an ally of the Clinton administration. After firing him, he pardoned the recently convicted criminal. Why is that ok? How can you libs be so blind? You should be furious with your newly elected congress, that so far they have done nothing but waste time and money. I can't wait till us adults are back in control.
Reply-
100%
ryan6011 year, 5 months ago
"During his first term Clinton fired one of his prosecutors that had recently put in jail an ally of the Clinton administration. After firing him, he pardoned the recently convicted criminal. Why is that ok?"
Who are you talking about? Rostenkowski? Cause I've already addressed that one. Read above.
The issue is not that the President fired US attornies. The issue is WHY they were fired. Even if I were to concede that Clinton also fired a US attorney for political reasons, THAT DOESN"T MAKE IT OKAY FOR BUSH TO DO IT ALSO!!
Didn't your mother ever teach you that two wrongs don't make a right?
Your argument is like saying that Carter had the right to spy on the GOP because Nixon did it to the Dems. Grow up!!
Reply-
0%
FredTrev1 year, 5 months ago
after WHY, then the issue will be WHEN they were fired, then HOW, then Who, etc. I would call it strategy and maintenance. In little league football everyone gets to play not so in high school, college and the pros. From what little I know of government it's an "A-game" game. If you're not part of the solution you're part of the problem.
Reply
-
-
0%
injest1 year, 5 months ago
Ryan601
Clueless
President's are allowed to fire US attorneys at the start of their term and replace them with their own appointees.
State the law that says a President is ONLY allowed to fire US attorneys at the start of their term? Can't find it? That's because it does not exist. US attorneys can be replaced at any time for any reason including no reason at all.
All of the recent presidents have done this (Clinton, Bush the Elder, Reagan, Ford, Carter, Nixon, etc.)
Untrue, Only Clinton fired almost all 92 out of 93 US attorneys at the START of his term. Other Pres have replaced all or most US attorneys over the course of their terms. Again it is up to the Pres admin as to whom and when, and that is perfectly legal
Reply-
0%
injest1 year, 5 months ago
Ryan601
Clueless
The difference is that Clinton and all the others got Senate approval on each and every one of those attorneys.
Untrue, Clinton did not seek, get or even need Senate approval before he fired all 92 US attorneys.
Clinton never fired a federal prosecutor for political reasons. THAT is the difference.
Untrue. ALL of the US attorneys were replaced for political reasons, that's kinda why a Pres CAN replace US attorneys, it's a political APPOINTMENT!! ALL POLITICAL appointments are by any definition ARE POLITICAL!!
Reply
-
-
75%
FredTrev1 year, 5 months ago
why did Clinton, Bush Sr., Ford, Carter and Nixon fire their folks? If politics in this forum means stacking your team with folks that think like you or getting rid of folks that'll hold your team back I'm not sure I see the problem. If, instead, politics is some reference to a dark ether where shady folks do shady things I have a problem with that. It has not ceased to amaze me the feigned disgust folks that don't have a clue seem to display toward our own elected government (wheter it's "elected" or elected). It's so much easier for folks to hate their elected officials than to try and understand the context by which these actions are being done.
Reply -
0%
slate1 year, 5 months ago
Cough! Clinton has never done anything that wasn't a political move, anyone suggesting otherwise is either being disingenuous or hasn't paid much attention.
The president doesn't need approval to fire anyone. He could replace his entire cabinet tomorrow if he wanted to. The thing we have here is the Congress is trying to usurp their power by demanding the president do their will in areas they have no jurisdiction.
Everyone knew quit well when the Democrats won last fall that we would be bombarded with these sorts of things. The plan is to create enough guff about the appearance of impropriety to bolster their chances of winning in 08, of course there are many that are willing to fall in line and believe it since they. Bush should stand up as did Clinton when these sort of things are tossed about on a weekly basis.
Reply
-
-
67%
mesodude1 year, 5 months ago
Bush has nothing to hide, right? So why not prove it? Should be simple, right? Just like you neoclowns keep saying about our privacy rights. If Bushco has nothing to hide, let 'em PROVE it.
Reply-
-
75%
ryan6011 year, 5 months ago
"So you wanna go to a guilty until proven innocent system?"
No one is saying that. But the system should not allow or tolerate people deliberately lying to avoid being punished.
Plus, even if Gonzales or Rove or whoever testifies, they can still plead the 5th, right? No one can take that away from them. So mesodude is right, what is there to fear?
Unless, of course, they are afraid of the truth because it MAKES THEM LOOK BAD.
Reply-
0%
tanglang1 year, 5 months ago
Did any of you idiots see Bush's speech yesterday? I guess not. If you had, you would have realized why they should not be underoath. They are council to the President of the United States. There is a reason why we have seperate branches of government. All these scumbag demoncrats are trying to do, is fish for info they can manipulate and use against Bush. It's disgusting.
Reply-
0%
questionseverything1 year, 5 months ago
actually i think its more gonzoles on the hot seat,he is the one that may have perjured himself before congress,certainly he sent an underling that gave incorrect testimony
one of the talking points..they serve at the pres pleasure,does that mean carl roves pleasure ? because tony snow said the pres was nevr told about it
its in testimony that cummings was fired to make way for tim griffin and thats political yet gonzoles tesified he would nevr fire for political reasons...thats really all congress needs to establish need of further ovr site
Reply-
0%
ryan6011 year, 5 months ago
"actually i think its more gonzoles on the hot seat,he is the one that may have perjured himself before congress,certainly he sent an underling that gave incorrect testimony"
Exactly. And that, tanglang, is why Congress is correctly pursuing this investigation. Because they ALREADY have evidence that someone has been lying to them.
Reply
-
-
100%
ryan6011 year, 5 months ago
"They are council to the President of the United States."
WHAT?!?!?!
The president has his own lawyers. They are called the White House Council!!
US attornies are NOT the president's personal lawyers! They are the equivalent of a district attorney, just at the federal level (meaning they prosecute federal cases instead of local or state cases).
Reply -
0%
mesodude1 year, 5 months ago
Condi did it. So what's the harm in having Rove and Meirs do it too? What does Bush have to hide? Any ideas?
Reply
-
-
0%
FredTrev1 year, 5 months ago
another American genius. I think the Pres has a problem with the dems witch hunting instead of doing the business of the people who put them there. If every pres had fired their attorneys in recent history (REGARDLESS OF MOTIVE) why is this one any worse or better? Could it be this pres is trying to do presidential stuff rather than answer stupid questions about stuff every other pres has done? I can't say I drink the coolaid but isn't getting more and more obvious that the dems are doing their own version of politics in this matter? ryan601 you're righ about pleading the 5th (if at the least) doesn't that moot the point the dems are trying to do? Why waste the time only to get to that 5th?
Reply-
-
100%
Lurch1 year, 5 months ago
Fred,
Actually, you do drink the coolaid.
The pres, the WH spokesperson, and the AG lied about the reasons behind the firings and are continuing to lie about cooperating with the investigation.
The Justice Dept has followed with e-mails to the fired attorneys threatening them if they didn`t stop talking to the media and the Dems about this.
You are right about one thing though, this is just `business as usual` for the current Prez. Which is exactly why we the people want all of them, including Bush, to testify in public under oath.
No more making up new rules to avoid accountability or responsibility.
When Bush`s Justice Dept raided Jefferson`s office in `06, Bush et al declared that the pursuit of justice was more important than the consitutional separation of powers and 219 of precedence. After that, Bush has no right to fight this pursuit of justice.
Reply
-
-
-
33%
mesodude1 year, 5 months ago
"So you wanna go to a guilty until proven innocent system?"
Why not? I bet you don't object to that philosophy when it comes to giving up your civil liberties, do you? Anyway, the bigger flaw in your argument is that Bushco has already acknowledged that "mistakes were made." As an American citizen, aren't you even remotely curious to get to the bottom of this? If not, ask yourself why not?
Reply-
100%
theido1 year, 5 months ago
As I said before he should have told the left to go pound sand. My guess is he is trying to play nice with the left, even though they won't play nice back.
Reply-
100%
mesodude1 year, 5 months ago
I see...So these attorneys' careers and reputations are on the line but you're willing to give Bush and friends the benefit of the doubt (even though they've already admitted they handled things poorly)? Got it...
Reply-
80%
tanglang1 year, 5 months ago
Meso, these attorneys know the deal. They knew when taking the job that they could or would be fired for any or no reason. It might suck, but thats how things work. Bush needs to tell the libs that he's tired of trying to reach beyond party lines and work together. He needs to tell them what I would have told them in the first place. Eat a d*ck chumps!
Reply-
80%
questionseverything1 year, 5 months ago
they can be fired for no reason but when justice lied to congress about y(nevr mind slandering the attorneys) that raises a need for further oversight as is congresses responsibility
if they were fired for political reasons then every proscecutor in country is suspect because the jd is on record as wanting bushies
the law not suppose to be dif because of ur political party
that would be discrimination
Reply-
-
100%
BravoSierra1 year, 5 months ago
It is someone's business when the Administration gives performance as the reason. If the administration had simply claimed executive priviledge then the matter would have been put to rest, but they accused at least one of the attorneys of bad performance. That makes it a matter of liable or slander. That's what started this entire thing. They claimed an attorney who had been given an excellent performance evaluation was performing poorly. They made this statement publicly which slanders the attorney. In the course of defending themselves they were caught lying. That openned the door to questioning if for no other reason than to address the slander.
Reply-
-
-
100%
BravoSierra1 year, 5 months ago
Part of the decision of whether to pursue a case when you have limited resources to pursue all cases is to pick the ones you are going to pursue based upon: 1) seriousness of the crime; 2) future threat to society); and, 3) probability of winning the case and getting justice served.
Simply saying they we or were not pursuing case X or case Y is not meaningful without knowing the case load, the evidence available, other cases that presented a greater danger to society etc.
Pursuing two illegal immigrant cases if there was a serial killer and an armed robber to pursue instead would be irresponsible.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
86%
IcCaRus1 year, 5 months ago
"Bush needs to tell the libs that he's tired of trying to reach beyond party lines and work together. He needs to tell them what I would have told them in the first place. Eat a d*ck chumps!"
just remembr, the next Pres WILL be a democrat. will you feel the same way about Presidential power then?
Reply -
0%
mesodude1 year, 5 months ago
Really? They were warned that the their boss might lie about his reasons for firing them and impugn their job performance in the process? Maybe we should ask the rest of those who didn't get fired if they got the same warning then.
Reply
-
-
-
0%
mesodude1 year, 5 months ago
Oh gee...And when these attorney apply for jobs in the future what reason should they give their prospective bosses as to why they were FIRED two years into their employer's second term, Einstein? Or did you forget that Bush's attack dogs LIED that their job performance was the reason they were let go? You neoclowns are freaking insane.
Reply-
100%
FredTrev1 year, 5 months ago
HOW ABOUT POLITICS. THAT WOULD BE THE EXCUSE. If you'd put the bong down and get a real job you'd realize that everything is subjective when it comes to a resume, job app, job intereview, etc. You can't seriously believe these folks are going to be hurting for a gig can you?
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
100%
SantaM1 year, 5 months ago
what do you mean? That is exactly the system that the bush administration and the bush justice department has set up. guilty until proven innocent.
They have repeatedly argued that i should have no problem with them reading my emails and listening to my phone conversations because if i have nothing to hide than i have nothiing to be afraid. guilty until proven innocent.
they continue to assert their 'right' to detain people against their will for upwards of five years now without providing any evidence of their wrong doing, without even ACCUSING them of doing anything illegal... guilty until proven innocent i guess. and they dont even know what innocense they are sopposed to prove.
So i won't lose any sleep over assupmtions of guilt with these clowns. you reap what you sow.
Reply-
0%
theido1 year, 5 months ago
Have they read your emails or listened in on your phone conversations? If you are visiting anti-american websites or your emails are linked to known terrorists I am all for them monitoring you.
Reply-
100%
donald511 year, 5 months ago
Theido, how about American Captain Yee incarcerated in solitary confinement for 76 days, all resulting in no charges and his divorce. How about the innocent German national with the current legal suit against Rummy or the innocent Canadian picked up in New York and wisked overseas for torture (oh, I'm sorry, it wasn't torture, it didn't kill him).
Reply -
0%
faregt1401 year, 5 months ago
theido - - I feel sorry for you. German's were brainwashed to believe Hitler. You will get the last word because you don't sound reasonable to me and I am not going to reply your posting. My e-mails to my wife were intercepted and blocked when I was deployed becuase I was telling her that the war I was sent to was wrong. That was back in February 2003 during OIF1. The e-mails that I send to my friends who were judges were also blocked because I ridiculed them for believing in Bush that Saddam had WMD. I knew then that we would not find any WMD in Iraq and believed everyone in the white house knew the same. Yes, my e-mails have been intercepted between the MOB station somewhere in the USA to my wife and friends somewhere in the USA also. I don't complain because I live a quiet life and don't belong to any one political party. All I do is to serve my nation which I did for 25 years from Granada to Desert storm and finally to this misguided conflict - -So, don't question my patriotism.
Reply-
100%
theido1 year, 5 months ago
"You will get the last word because you don't sound reasonable to me and I am not going to reply your posting"
Congradulations, what do I care? Your situation does not apply to my statement, unless of course you were visiting anti-american websites or emailing known terrorists like I originally said. If you are then guess what? To freaking bad.
Reply-
0%
ryan6011 year, 5 months ago
His point is that it if that kind of power is given to the executive branch without any kind of oversight, then it can and will be abused. As was the case with the people donald51 mentioned, and what happened personally to faregt140.
Or are you to wrapped up in your own ridiculous spin to see anything outside of your obtuse worldview?
Reply
-
-
0%
FredTrev1 year, 5 months ago
faregt140, thank you for your service. If you were a Union soldier back in the civil war how positive would you have felt about Gettysburg and all that carnage? And if you were Oppenheimer, how would you be able to sleep at night hearing all those innocent Japanese screams in your head?
Knowing that you wouldn't find WMD in Iraq puts you ahead of the Clinton administration, most of NATO intelligence and this pres. People try to reconcile this Iraqi endeavor as doing what's right (or wrong) instead of the idea of picking the lesser of two evils. Government, big business and politicians do their job much to the distaste of the general American. Why? Could it be that the going rate for foreign policy, foreign enterprise and foreign relations are priced to where the average American would never want to pay it? I'm reminded of a quote by Maxiums in Gladiator "I've seen the rest of the world and it is dark, Rome is the light".... I assume too much I know...
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
