|
| Author
|
Post |
 
|
|
Public D
F L I N T O I D
|
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/sns-ap-rove-subpoena,0,5707738.story
House subpoenas Karl Rove
By LARA JAKES JORDAN | Associated Press Writer
2:28 PM CDT, May 22, 2008
WASHINGTON - The House Judiciary Committee on Thursday subpoenaed former White House top political adviser Karl Rove to testify about whether the White House improperly meddled with the Justice Department.
Accusations of politics influencing decisions at the department led to last year's resignation of former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.
The subpoena issued Thursday orders Rove to testify before the House panel on July 10. He is expected to face questions about the White House's role in firing nine U.S. attorneys in 2006 and the prosecution of former Gov. Don Siegelman of Alabama, a Democrat.
House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers had negotiated with Rove's attorneys for more than a year over whether the former top aide to President Bush would testify voluntarily.
"It is unfortunate that Mr. Rove has failed to cooperate with our requests," Conyers, D-Mich., said in a statement. "Although he does not seem the least bit hesitant to discuss these very issues weekly on cable television and in the print news media, Mr. Rove and his attorney have apparently concluded that a public hearing room would not be appropriate."
"Unfortunately, I have no choice today but to compel his testimony on these very important matters," Conyers said.
Neither Rove nor his attorney, Robert Luskin, could be immediately reached for comment.
In a May 21 letter to the House panel, Luskin called the subpoena a "gratuitous confrontation," noting that Rove has been similarly ordered to testify by the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Luskin maintained Rove would not testify because of an ongoing legal dispute over whether the White House could claim executive privilege in refusing to publicly share conversations Bush had with top advisers. Instead, he wrote, Rove could discuss the issues with congressional investigators -- but only behind closed doors and without a transcript being made of the session.
"While the committee has the authority to issue a subpoena, it is hard to see what this will accomplish, apart from a Groundhog Day replay of the same issues that are already the subject of litigation," Luskin wrote in the letter, which was released by Conyers' staff.
Conyers also released a May 5 letter showing the Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility is investigating whether Siegelman was the target of "selective, politically motivated prosecutions."
The office, which is the department's internal ethics board, also has been investigating whether politics played a part in the firing of nine U.S. attorneys in 2006.
Results of the joint inquiry into the fired prosecutors, which has been ongoing for more than a year with the department's inspector general, are expected to be released in coming months. |
_________________
http://www.toomuchonline.org/index.html
http://www.hr676.org
http://www.pnhp.org/publications/the_national_health_insurance_bill_hr_676.php |
|
Thu May 22, 2008 3:50 pm |
|
|
twotap
F L I N T O I D
|
[edit] Ethics controversy
In letters sent separately to the House Ethics Committee, the FBI, and the US Attorney's office by two former aides of Conyers, they alleged that Conyers repeatedly violated House ethics rules. The aides allege that Conyers used his staff to work on several local and state campaigns and forced them to baby-sit and chauffeur his children [2]. In late December 2006, Conyers "accepted responsibility" for possibly violating House rules. A statement issued December 29, 2006 by the House Ethics Committee Chairman Doc Hastings (R-Wash.) and Ranking Minority Member Howard Berman (D-Calif.), said that Conyers acknowledged what he characterized as a "lack of clarity" in his communications with staff members regarding their official duties and responsibilities, and accepted responsibility for his actions. In deciding to drop the matter, Hastings and Berman state: After reviewing the information gathered during the inquiry, and in light of Representative Conyers’ cooperation with the inquiry, we have concluded that this matter should be resolved through the issuance of this public statement and the agreement by Representative Conyers to take a number of additional, significant steps to ensure that his office complies with all rules and standards regarding campaign and personal work by congressional staff
Monica Conyers
In February of 2008, details of an exchange between Conyer's wife Monica Conyers and an aide to Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick, DeDan Milton, were made available through the Detroit News[5]. The congressman's wife, serving as the president pro tem of the Detroit City Council, allegedly "made several threatening movements" toward Milton in what he described as "a threatening manner" and also threatened to
get a gun
and shoot him, as well as stating that she "had four brothers" who would
"whup his ass
if she asked them." She allegedly ran at Milton, and had to be restrained by the trustees. Milton was backed up in his recalling of events by David Clark, chair of Detroit's General Retirement System. Milton has filed a police report about the incident.
HEY CONYERS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Hubbell Standard
Hillary Clinton knows all about sacking U.S. Attorneys.
Wednesday, March 14, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT
Congressional Democrats are in full cry over the news this week that the Administration's decision to fire eight U.S. Attorneys originated from--gasp--the White House. Senator Hillary Clinton joined the fun yesterday, blaming President Bush for "the politicization of our prosecutorial system." Oh, my.
As it happens, Mrs. Clinton is just the Senator to walk point on this issue of dismissing U.S. attorneys because she has direct personal experience. In any Congressional probe of the matter, we'd suggest she call herself as the first witness--and bring along Webster Hubbell as her chief counsel.
As everyone once knew but has tried to forget, Mr. Hubbell was a former partner of Mrs. Clinton at the Rose Law Firm in Little Rock who later went to jail for mail fraud and tax evasion. He was also Bill and Hillary Clinton's choice as Associate Attorney General in the Justice Department when Janet Reno, his nominal superior, simultaneously
fired all 93 U.S. Attorneys
in March 1993. Ms. Reno--or Mr. Hubbell--gave them 10 days to move out of their offices.
At the time, President Clinton presented the move as something perfectly ordinary: "All those people are routinely replaced," he told reporters, "and I have not done anything differently." In fact, the dismissals were unprecedented: Previous Presidents, including Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter, had both retained holdovers from the previous Administration and only replaced them gradually as their tenures expired. This allowed continuity of leadership within the U.S. Attorney offices during the transition.
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.
Also at the time, allegations concerning some of the Clintons' Whitewater dealings were coming to a head. By dismissing all
93 U.S. Attorneys
at once, the Clintons conveniently cleared the decks to appoint "Friend of Bill" Paula Casey as the U.S. Attorney for Little Rock. Ms. Casey never did bring any big Whitewater indictments, and she rejected information from another FOB, David Hale, on the business practices of the Arkansas elite including Mr. Clinton. When it comes to "politicizing" Justice, in short, the Bush White House is full of amateurs compared to the Clintons.
And it may be this very amateurism that explains how the current Administration has managed to turn this routine issue of replacing Presidential appointees into a political fiasco. There was nothing wrong with replacing the eight Attorneys, all of whom serve at the President's pleasure. Prosecutors deserve supervision like any other executive branch appointees.
The supposed scandal this week is that Mr. Bush had been informed last fall that some U.S. Attorneys had been less than vigorous in pursuing voter-fraud cases and that the President had made the point to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. Voter fraud strikes at the heart of democratic institutions, and it was entirely appropriate for Mr. Bush--or any President--to insist that his appointees act energetically against it.
Take sacked U.S. Attorney John McKay from Washington state. In 2004, the Governor's race was decided in favor of Democrat Christine Gregoire by 129 votes on a third recount. As the Seattle Post-Intelligencer and other media outlets reported, some of the "voters" were deceased, others were registered in storage-rental facilities, and still others were convicted felons. More than 100 ballots were "discovered" in a Seattle warehouse. None of this constitutes proof that the election was stolen. But it should have been enough to prompt Mr. McKay, a Democrat, to investigate, something he declined to do, apparently on grounds that he had better things to do.
In New Mexico, another state in which recent elections have been decided by razor thin margins, U.S. Attorney David Iglesias did establish a voter fraud task force in 2004. But it lasted all of 10 weeks before closing its doors, despite evidence of irregularities by the likes of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, or Acorn. As our John Fund reported at the time, Acorn's director Matt Henderson refused to answer questions in court about whether his group had illegally made copies of voter registration cards in the run-up to the 2004 election.
As for some of the other fired Attorneys, at least one of their dismissals seemed to owe to differences with the Administration about the death penalty, another to questions about the Attorney's managerial skills. Not surprisingly, the dismissed Attorneys are insisting their dismissals were unfair, and perhaps in some cases they were. It would not be the first time in history that a dismissed employee did not take kindly to his firing, nor would it be the first in which an employer sacked the wrong person.
No question, the Justice Department and White House have botched the handling of this issue from start to finish. But what we don't have here is any serious evidence that the Administration has acted improperly or to protect some of its friends. If Democrats want to understand what a real abuse of power looks like, they can always ask the junior Senator from New York. 
|
_________________
"If you like your current healthcare you can keep it, Period"!!
Barack Hussein Obama--- multiple times. |
|
|
Thu May 22, 2008 5:52 pm |
|
|
andi03
F L I N T O I D
|
| What Alberto Gonzales did and whomever goaded him or anyone else into doing this should be brought forward. There are a lot of things that aren't cleared up STILL!! |
_________________
Build a bridge and get over it! |
|
|
Thu May 22, 2008 7:16 pm |
|
|
Adam Ford
F L I N T O I D
|
quote:
andi03 schreef:
What Alberto Gonzales did and whomever goaded him or anyone else into doing this should be brought forward. There are a lot of things that aren't cleared up STILL!!
Welcome to politics. We've already had Clintons for 16 years and I'm not sure Rose Law Firm has been all the way cleared up. Maybe in another 50 or 100 years the Alberto records will be unsealed. |
|
|
|
Thu May 22, 2008 8:23 pm |
|
|
tricky mutha
F L I N T O I D
|
| If it makes you feel any better last time I checked Alberto Gonzales was looking for a job. As Jim Hightower so aptly put it the former Attorney General is standing at the end of a freeway ramp with a sign “will work for $600.00 per hour.” |
_________________
"Wherever there's a cop beatin' up a guy, I'll be there"- John Steinbeck |
|
|
Thu May 22, 2008 8:35 pm |
|
|
Flinn's Journal
F L I N T O I D
|
Oh, Twotap, did you know that U.S. Attorneys are political appointtees? The 1993 firings were because of the new Clinton Administration of Democrats replacing the Republicans who ran the Federal government for the 12 years of the Reagan/Bush Sr. years. The difference with the Bush Jr. firings which led to all the investigations after the Democrats took over Congress is that the U.S. Attorneys in question were Bush Jr.'s own appointees who were fired midterm for suspected political reasons. That's why Conyers issued the supoena to Rove and why Alberto Gonzales was forced to resign as Attorney General.
Last edited by Flinn's Journal on Fri May 23, 2008 7:45 am; edited 1 time in total |
_________________
I HAVE SEVERED MY TIES WITH FLINTTALK.COM BECAUSE TROLLS CANNOT BE CONTROLLED ON THIS BOARD. |
|
|
Thu May 22, 2008 9:45 pm |
|
|
twotap
F L I N T O I D
|
| Oh, Flinn, If he hired em he should be able to fire em. Conyers should be trying to figure out what to do about his and all his Dem buddys lib policys on denying finding new sources of oil instead of this witch hunt. Maybe he will threaten to get a gun or whup some ass if he dont get answers. |
_________________
"If you like your current healthcare you can keep it, Period"!!
Barack Hussein Obama--- multiple times. |
|
|
Fri May 23, 2008 7:08 am |
|
|
Dave Starr
F L I N T O I D
|
| Political appointees are at will employees. There should be no problem firing them. |
_________________
I used to care, but I take a pill for that now.
Pushing buttons sure can be fun.
When a lion wants to go somewhere, he doesn’t worry about how many hyenas are in the way.
Paddle faster, I hear banjos. |
|
|
Fri May 23, 2008 7:54 am |
|
|
Public D
F L I N T O I D
|
|
|
Fri May 23, 2008 8:29 am |
|
|
Demeralda
F L I N T O I D
|
While they are political appointees, that doesn't mean they are supposed to be used as your own personal harrassment service against your enemies.
Many of these machinations WERE illegal, most particularly the guy fired for not breaking a sealed indictment to give information to Pete Domenici.
Just remember, whatever convoluted logic you use to justify what Bush does better hold up later if someone else does it. You really want an army of "activist" prosecutors wasting their time digging dirt on political opponents?
I thought they'd be too busy with their ridiculous war on drugs... |
_________________
I'm no model lady. A model's just an imitation of the real thing. - Mae West |
|
|
Fri May 23, 2008 8:37 am |
|
|
twotap
F L I N T O I D
|
quote:
digging dirt on political opponents?
Thats pretty funny. I gotta concede victory today cause im too busy with our garage sale. twotap has left the building. |
_________________
"If you like your current healthcare you can keep it, Period"!!
Barack Hussein Obama--- multiple times. |
|
|
Fri May 23, 2008 10:17 am |
|
|
twotap
F L I N T O I D
|
[quote]I thought they'd be too busy with their ridiculous war on drugs...
Or the equally failed and proven stupid WAR ON POVERTY How come you libs aint throwin in the towel on that one.  I have to wonder why you PD and Demeralda types have your panties in such a bunch? Hells bells instead of pissin and moanin about 9 lawyers who probably make more in a month than you do in a year you should be dancing on air. Soon Bush will be history, the repubs vanquished to who knows where, and your dream candidate Barack Hussein Obama  will be taking the reins. Once again the below photo says it all.
quote:
Indeed, being a good party yes-man is more important than protecting law, order, Justice, the Constitution.
Ah yes the constitution, lets see how Baracko abuses that when he starts to push his antigun theme on the nation. The dem party take out what they disagree with and find things that were never there. The great protectors of the constitution. |
_________________
"If you like your current healthcare you can keep it, Period"!!
Barack Hussein Obama--- multiple times. |
|
|
Fri May 23, 2008 4:56 pm |
|
|
tricky mutha
F L I N T O I D
|
| Well Bush and the Republicans have you covered dismissing the fifth and eighth amendments with their calculated policy of torture. This in addition to violating federal statues against war crimes and torture. When “they” come looking for you your little arsenal protected by your precious 2nd amendment isn’t going to stop them from violating your constitutional rights. |
_________________
"Wherever there's a cop beatin' up a guy, I'll be there"- John Steinbeck |
|
|
Sun May 25, 2008 12:24 am |
|
|
Flinn's Journal
F L I N T O I D
|
| Which reminds me, in the second amendment, does the word "people" imply citizens or members of the National Guard which is the "well regulated militia" mentioned in that amendment? That is the legal question for constitutional experts. |
_________________
I HAVE SEVERED MY TIES WITH FLINTTALK.COM BECAUSE TROLLS CANNOT BE CONTROLLED ON THIS BOARD. |
|
|
Sun May 25, 2008 5:44 am |
|
|
twotap
F L I N T O I D
|
Well gee how tough to figure out since every other ammendment refers to the Rights of the People.
quote:
your precious 2nd amendment
I take it you dont participate???
Last edited by twotap on Sun May 25, 2008 7:11 am; edited 1 time in total |
_________________
"If you like your current healthcare you can keep it, Period"!!
Barack Hussein Obama--- multiple times. |
|
|
Sun May 25, 2008 7:08 am |
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Register
Profile
FlintTalk.com Forum Index
> Political Talk
