Bush Orders Rove Not To Testify

[LakeAriel]

Say when....

BBC
Bush orders Rove not to testify

Karl Rove is accused of knowing about the sackings in advance
US President George W Bush has ordered close adviser Karl Rove not to testify before a Senate hearing on the sacking of eight federal prosecutors.
Mr Bush used the executive privilege he has as president to exempt Mr Rove from having to appear.

The US Senate committee is investigating whether the White House arranged the sackings for improper political reasons.

The Bush administration maintains that the dismissals were justified.

"Mr Rove, as an immediate presidential adviser, is immune from compelled congressional testimony about matters that arose during his tenure and that relate to his official duties in that capacity," White House lawyer Fred Fielding wrote in a letter to Democrat Senator Patrick Leahy, and made available to the Reuters news agency.

Mr Rove had been due to testify at a hearing on Thursday morning, along with another White House aide, deputy political director Scott Jennings.

Mr Jennings is still expected to appear but he is not expected testify about the fired prosecutors.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6927206.stm

 

[DawnCt1]

President Bush's mistake was when he took office, that he didn't fire every single one of them, including the Clinton holdovers in other positions. They all serve at the pleasure of the president and they can be gone when he decides. He is the "decider". Secondly, he made it clear that they could answer any questions but not in under oath. They don't really want answers, they want convictions.

 

[yeartolate]

Under oath means repercussions for lying.

Thank God my son does not need to be under oath to know there are repercussions for lying.

But it appears politicians do.

 

[OrlandoMike]

President Bush's mistake was when he took office.

YEP!

 

[yeartolate]

President Bush's mistake was when he took office, that he didn't fire every single one of them, including the Clinton holdovers in other positions.

I am curious, the ones in question....who appointed them?

 

[DawnCt1]

I am curious, the ones in question....who appointed them?

Clinton did and they were allowed to remain in their positions.

 

[DawnCt1]

Under oath means repercussions for lying.

Thank God my son does not need to be under oath to know there are repercussions for lying.

But it appears politicians do.

It isn't about lying or not lying. It is about any president having the executive privilege of consulting with his staff with regard to policy decisions and not having to be compelled to answer. He has offered the opportunity for his staff to answer questions privately and if those asking the questions really wanted answers, they would avail themselves of the opportunity. They don't want answers obviously, they want media/showboating time.

 

[LakeAriel]

YEP!

 

[punkin]

President Bush's mistake was when he took office

YEP!

Nope. Our mistake for putting him there! (No, I did not vote for him but know many people who did and are now extremely sorry).

 

[lindalinda]

President Bush's mistake was when he took office, that he didn't fire every single one of them, including the Clinton holdovers in other positions. They all serve at the pleasure of the president and they can be gone when he decides. He is the "decider". Secondly, he made it clear that they could answer any questions but not in under oath. They don't really want answers, they want convictions.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Bush_administration_U.S._attorney_firings_controversy

Bush administration U.S. attorney firings controversy
From SourceWatch
This article is part of the SourceWatch / Congresspedia coverage of the
Bush administration
U.S. attorney firings controversy
Main article:
Bush administration U.S. attorney firings controversy


In late 2006, the Justice Department fired (or asked for the resignation of) eight U.S. attorneys all previously appointed by President Bush. Earlier in 2006, a provision included in the reauthorization of the Patriot Act allowed these positions to be filled by the administration without Senate approval. In early 2007, hearings were held on the matter in both the House and Senate Judiciary Committee on the firings. Several of the fired attorneys testified that they had been contacted by members of Congress or executive officials about pending cases shortly before their termination. Such contact by members of Congress is a violation of both House and Senate rules.

this says Bush appointed them.

 

[DawnCt1]

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Bush_administration_U.S._attorney_firings_controversy

Bush administration U.S. attorney firings controversy
From SourceWatch
This article is part of the SourceWatch / Congresspedia coverage of the
Bush administration
U.S. attorney firings controversy
Main article:
Bush administration U.S. attorney firings controversy


In late 2006, the Justice Department fired (or asked for the resignation of) eight U.S. attorneys all previously appointed by President Bush. Earlier in 2006, a provision included in the reauthorization of the Patriot Act allowed these positions to be filled by the administration without Senate approval. In early 2007, hearings were held on the matter in both the House and Senate Judiciary Committee on the firings. Several of the fired attorneys testified that they had been contacted by members of Congress or executive officials about pending cases shortly before their termination. Such contact by members of Congress is a violation of both House and Senate rules.

this says Bush appointed them.

That doesn't change the fact that they serve at the pleasure of the president. They can be fired and work at will.

 

[punkin]

That doesn't change the fact that they serve at the pleasure of the president. They can be fired and work at will.

Spin. Assume for a minute that someone from the White House calls one of these "at will" employees and says "I need an investigation started on this Democratic Senator who is causing us a lot of problems, and I want the investigation to end in an inditement or you are fired." Still think there is nothing wrong with that firing?

 

[peachgirl]

That doesn't change the fact that they serve at the pleasure of the president. They can be fired and work at will.

But it does change your claim that they were Clinton appointments. While they "can" be fired at will, they cannot be fired for refusing to engage in illegal or unethical activities.

Secondly, he made it clear that they could answer any questions but not in under oath.

What a joke. If there aren't any repercussions for them lying, there's no point in listening to those lies.

Our mistake for putting him there!

Exactly. You can't blame Bush for taking what was given to him. A vast majority of Americans now realize the huge mistake they made.

 

[LakeAriel]

So Dawn. Will you admit you were wrong? Again.

 

[crazyforgoofy]

YEP!

Hey! Hey! There's coffee all over my keyboard and monitor!

 

[daisax]

Like Bush orders Rove to do ANYTHING. Please!

The Daily Show had a great set of clips of Tony Snow and Bush saying how the firings were not politically motivated, not whatsoever, they were totally based on competence.

Then when evidence came up to suggest that they were great performers with no marks against them in the performance category, they changed their tune to "it's our right, we can do it if we want to for political reasons."

Then at a press conference, reporter asks Snow "What about your statements that the firings were totally based on competence matters and not politics?

Clip of Tony Snow saying "We never said that!"

Video is a wonderful thing.

 

[tw1nsmom]

That doesn't change the fact that they serve at the pleasure of the president. They can be fired and work at will.

It also doesn't change that the president is there to serve the people. It isn't a monarchy and the president isn't immune to any and all laws. There are laws in place to limit the very powers of the president and the framers of the constitution purposely wanted the executive branch to be the weakest branch.

The president isn't allowed to sit in the oval office, break any and all laws, and then claim executive privilege. I only wish that Congress would do what's right and order an impeachment investigation/proceedings.

 

[crazyforgoofy]

It also doesn't change that the president is there to serve the people. It isn't a monarchy and the president isn't immune to any and all laws. There are laws in place to limit the very powers of the president and the framers of the constitution purposely wanted the executive branch to be the weakest branch.

The president isn't allowed to sit in the oval office, break any and all laws, and then claim executive privilege. I only wish that Congress would do what's right and order an impeachment investigation/proceedings.

 

[LakeAriel]

 

[DawnCt1]

It also doesn't change that the president is there to serve the people. It isn't a monarchy and the president isn't immune to any and all laws. There are laws in place to limit the very powers of the president and the framers of the constitution purposely wanted the executive branch to be the weakest branch.

The president isn't allowed to sit in the oval office, break any and all laws, and then claim executive privilege. I only wish that Congress would do what's right and order an impeachment investigation/proceedings.

Again, there have been no laws broken. He can fire the US attorneys anytime, anywhere. Impeachment is the bone that congress is dangling for the moonbats.