« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Rove: Prosecutor Purge Is "Normal and Ordinary"
The Arkansas Times' blog has video of Karl Rove speaking today on the topic of the prosecutor purge. I've typed up a transcript of the remarks, but I'll leave it to readers in comments to point out the many distortions (and some plain lies) in Rove's comments.
He made the remarks during a Q&A session after giving a speech at the Statehouse Convention Center in Little Rock.
Look, by law and by Constitution (sic), these attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president and traditionally are given a four year term. And Clinton, when he came in, replaced all 93 U.S. attorneys. When we came in, we ultimately replace most all 93 U.S. attorneys – there are some still left from the Clinton era in place. We have appointed a total of I think128 U.S. attorneys -- that is to say the original 93, plus replaced some, some have served 4 years, some served less, most have served more. Clinton did 123. I mean, this is normal and ordinary.What happened in this instance, was there were seven done all at once, and people wanted to play politics with it. And it’s served at the disadvantage at the people who…. Look, some of these were removed for cause. Some of them were policy disagreements. One United States attorney refused to file cases… of death penalty case… refused to ask for the death penalty, contrary to policy.
Another United States attorney was doing an otherwise excellent job in the San Diego district. [She] refused to file immigration cases… at the direction of the Attorney General, she was asked to file, and she said I don’t want to make that a priority in my office. Others are (u/i) with performance issues.
But this is the right of any president to appoint people to these offices. They serve at the pleasure of the president. And my view this is… unfortunately a very big attempt by some in the Congress to make a political stink about it. And the question is did they have the same reaction if they were in Congress in the 90’s, or did they have the same reaction if they were in the 80’s. Because every president comes in, appoints United States attorneys and then makes changes over the course of their time.
When asked about whether the administration would nominate replacements for the eight fired attorneys:
…The old mechanism said that if the Congress didn’t act, that in essence a judge would appoint the United States Attorney – we believe that presents some Constitutional challenges and really is not the way that the executive branch ought to be run. But yes, our intention is, for all of seven of these vacancies, to submit a nomination to the United States Congress for their review and confirmation.
Well, I'll take a crack at least one of the distortions. Former U.S. Attorney Carol Lam testified under oath Tuesday that she was never asked by the Justice Department to change her office's handling of border cases. In fact, the Justice Department communicated their satisfaction with Lam's performance on immigration prosecutions in a letter to Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) just three months before she was fired.
Update: The Times blog notes "A more observant attendee spotted interim U.S. Attorney Tim Griffin in the audience. He was sitting in the second row, next to the center aisle." Griffin, of course, is a former aide of Rove's.
Update: Here's a reaction from one of those members of Congress making "a political stink," Rep. Linda Sanchez (D-CA), to Rove's remarks.
Update: And here's a reaction from Clinton’s former chief of staff John Podesta.
Update: TPMm Reader (and Washington lawyer) PF takes a good crack at it:
Taking things sequentially in his statement, the notion that "U.S. Attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president" is true, but irrelevant in this context. Congress is not investigation whether the President has the legal authority to fire these USAs -- it is investigating what factors the President permits to influence his judgment. It is one thing to say "I am legally entitled to do X;" it is quite another to expect that you can do X for nefarious reasons and expect to go unchallenged in the political arena by a coordinate branch of government. Given the supine nature of Congress over the past six years, though, I can understand why Rove believed "because the President says so" is a reasonable excuse.Rove's reliance on "the president can do it" to try to shut down debate, is specious for another reason. The President, for example, has unfettered rights to pardon people. If President Bush started selling pardons, under Rove's logic, Congress would have no right or reason to investigate what the President had done. Many Republicans certainly took a different tack with respect to investigating President Clinton's perhaps-poorly-considered pardon of Marc Rich.
Second, Clinton's firing of 93 U.S. Attorneys was far less insidious than what happened here. Clinton's decision was generally applicable to all U.S. Attorneys -- you were hired by a different administration and I will replace you without regard to the status of any of your ongoing investigations. No one was spared, and thus no single U.S. Attorneys conduct was at issue. Here, however, Bush has not created a rule of general applicability (i.e., at the beginning of his second term seeking resignation of all U.S. Attorneys). Rather, his administration has apparently systematically chosen to replace U.S. Attorneys who were not malleable enough with respect to particular investigations of individuals or entities allied with the Republican party. There is simply no comparison between these two acts.
Comments (57)
Gary Reilly wrote on March 8, 2007 3:26 PM:He looks like a jowly Cryptkeeper.
The architect has lost his touch. George and Karl both will be "consigned to the dustbin of history".
Chesser wrote on March 8, 2007 3:28 PM:Is it too much to ask for a current administration official to refer to a former President as "President Clinton" and not "Clinton"? Leave aside, for the moment, what a sudden, politically suspicious firing of 8 US Attorneys has to do with the normal turnover of USAs by an incoming administration.
Specter and PATRIOT wrote on March 8, 2007 3:30 PM:SPECTER! PATRIOT ACT!
People like Rove will spin this till the end of the world, and get away with it, unless congress properly investigates and get's people under oath at the highest levels.
TPM and all blogs, please, focus on the backstory of Specter and the PATRIOT act now, and call his impartiality directly into question, so he stops stonewalling investigation!
He's the embodiment of 'conflict of interest.' He's essentially investigating himself as his PATRIOT provision was the corner stone of this whole scandal, intentional or not. His sponsoring a fix now, after he got busted, is not the slightest bit sufficient to restore his impartiality to investigate the outcome of his PATRIOT provision.
He's clearly attempting to downplay/stonewall the scandal, and harangued Iglacias, to cover his own ass.
This needs immediate media attention before the media forgets or investigators lose their nerve and let Specter and everyone else off the hook.
Focus on the backstory of Specter and the PATRIOT act now, and call his impartiality directly into question, so he stops stonewalling!
ccinnc wrote on March 8, 2007 3:33 PM:They are running scared.
Legalize wrote on March 8, 2007 3:35 PM:How do you know when Carl Rove is lying? The lips of any member of the Bush administration are moving.
*ZING!*
jason wrote on March 8, 2007 3:43 PM:I am SO glad we have term limits. I don't think I could handle another term of bhush and his cabal.
quinn wrote on March 8, 2007 3:46 PM:.."we believe that presents some Constitutional challenges and really is not the way that the executive branch ought to be run."
This is priceless!!! He could have just as well said "...we don't feel the running the executive branch should be hampered by the Constitution."
Robin Boerner wrote on March 8, 2007 3:48 PM:"But yes, our intention is, for all of seven of these vacancies, to submit a nomination to the United States Congress for their review and confirmation."
There are a lot more then seven. I would like to see a honest and actual account of how many US Attorney's are not US Senate confirmed under the Patriot Act. It took a phone call to Nelson Cohen himself to get him to admit he is one. The DOJ website lies about his status. No asterisk by his name.
Karl Rove lies again!!!!
Here is the link. Check at your states USA...is he/she listed correctly?
http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/offices/index.html
*Denotes Presidentially appointed United States Attorneys (USA)
Nelson P. Cohen, USA
Federal Bldg. & U.S. Courthouse
222 West 7th Ave., #9, Rm 253
Anchorage, AK 99513-7567
Web Site (907)271-5071 (907)271-3224
Federal Bldg. & U.S. Courthouse
101 12th Ave., Rm. 310, Box 2
Fairbanks, AL 99701 (907)456-0245 (907)456-0309
ohiomeister wrote on March 8, 2007 3:49 PM:Good one.
I say, if any of this is true, prove it. Since you have yet to do so, Americans should assume that you are not telling the truth, esp. given the proven outright falsehood regarding U.S. Attorney Lam.
"Look, some of these were removed for cause. Some of them were policy disagreements. One United States attorney refused to file cases… of death penalty case… refused to ask for the death penalty, contrary to policy."
Who? Is there a federal district where one of the fired U.S. Attorney has not asked for the death penalty? I think DOJ keeps stats on that. Potentially some muck to rake here.
At least we know they have the best of intentions. Funny how often their good intentions go awry.
"But yes, our intention is, for all of seven of these vacancies, to submit a nomination to the United States Congress for their review and confirmation."
EddyKilowatt wrote on March 8, 2007 3:50 PM:Forget term limits.
Only impeachment and conviction can restore our nation's honor.
Sorry not to be able to point out the distortions... I think we all know that 7 (8?) in one blow is not "normal and ordinary".
Eddy
quinn wrote on March 8, 2007 3:54 PM:Here we go...I got a good one
From Rove today
"The old mechanism said that if the Congress didn’t act, that in essence a judge would appoint the United States Attorney"
From what I find
"Previously, under the federal code (Title 28, Section 546), if the position of district U.S. attorney became vacant, it could be filled for up to 120 days by an interim appointee selected by the attorney general. What would happen at the end of that 120-day period, if a new appointee (who would likely also be the interim appointee) had not yet been appointed by the president and confirmed by the senate? The old law said the power to appoint an interim U.S. attorney would then shift to the federal district court, whose appointee would serve until the president finally got his own nominee confirmed."
I might be wrong about the the above, but...
In other words, from the old way the interim appointee was from the Attorney General....a political appointee by the President. BUT THEY STILL HAD TO WORRY ABOUT THE CONFIRMATION PROCESS. So they are full of crap when they say the issue is about the judge being the issue. Who can't select an attorney and get them approved in 120 days??
ohiomeister wrote on March 8, 2007 4:01 PM:The stuff about U.S. Attorneys having four year terms is bogus.
Rove says that U.S. Attorneys "traditionally are given a four year term." He then says, "What happened in this instance, was there were seven done all at once, and people wanted to play politics with it." (By people, if you read that as people at the White House, then you can at least chalk up one thing he said as truthful.)
But if U.S. Attorneys are traditionally given four year terms, that means that ALMOST ALL of the terms for all of the 93 U.S. Attorneys in the country should have expired in the past two years! They should all be "done at once."
Has Bush replaced anywhere near 93 of them after four years? No. They've replaced maybe 1/3 of them. He's just making it up as he goes along.
nulla bona wrote on March 8, 2007 4:02 PM:Get Fitzgerald to take over all Abramoff related cases now that San Diego AUSA is removed, before more time goes by. I think that was the whole point of the new language and the subsequent firings. Didn't Rove just imply that administration is behind the new mechanism to replace AUSAs without confirmation?
AltHippo wrote on March 8, 2007 4:07 PM:While this isn't a distortion, I think that the phrase "pleasure of the president" is at issue here. Certainly, Rove could argue that it pleases the president to use US Attorneys to further the aims of the Republican party. In that light, it would be perfectly understandable to fire any USA who investigates a Republican member of Congress.
My understanding is that thus far the president pleasures himself, if that's the expression, in making the appointment. Afterwards, however, the USA is expected to serve the interests of the people over any political party.
Perhaps what Rove et al are saying is that the interpretation of "pleasure of the president" has changed.
Arkansan wrote on March 8, 2007 4:10 PM:I was in the audience today; it was a tough crowd for Mr. Rove, who interestingly isn’t fat. He began his presentation with a joke or an applause line which was met with dead silence. The crowed gave a little after that, offering polite laughter at some idiotic jokes, including one about a mirror in the office he inherited from Hillary in the West Wing.
Rove filibustered through much of the hour long speech, it was more boring than a class on comparative religious theory I took as an undergrad, something I believed impossible until today. He droned on for 45 minutes about the history of the executive, at one point reciting the names of each member of an early president’s cabinet.
The reason he dragged out his remarks was to keep the question period as brief as possible. Questions from the audience were vetted, sanitized, and presented by the sponsor of the event with virtually no follow-up. The first tough question related to the Bush Presidential Library. Yawn. There seems to be some dispute about where they’ll put the book W read as president.
I haven’t watched the video so this may all be out there, but his answers about the US Attorney scandal deliberately mischaracterized the dispute as regarding the right of the president to fire US Attorneys’ at will. Contradictorily, he suggested some of the firings were with cause, one because an Attorney wouldn’t pursue the death penalty, another because the Attorney wasn’t aggressive about immigration. Naturally, he didn’t address the truth of the matter, that many dismissals were because the Attorney would not abuse his or her position.
Overall, Rove seemed much less sinister than I expected. He came across as just a nice, average guy. It’s true what they say about the banality of evil.
meaning of asterisk? wrote on March 8, 2007 4:23 PM:Robin Boerner-
I just went to the link you provided, and counted the number of USA with an asterisk, and got around 72.
Are you saying those are all unconfirmed by congress and awaiting hearings? Sure? If so, that's a lot more than seven.
Granted one was Patrick Fitzgerald, so thay can't all be bad, and I'm sure he'd have no problem with confirmation. Maybe Congress isn't rushing his hearing, already knowing the outcome.
But it's still the principle, and Congress should have the right to call those confirmation hearings. now they don't thanks to Specter and PATRIOT.
Heckuva job Specter!
How many of those 72 are stooges who wouldn't pass confirmation? One is too many. There aren't supposed to be any freebies. Every single one is supposed to be nominated by the Executive, and ratified by Congress. Period.
If the Bush Admin and DoJ is using the PATRIOT act to postpone hearings to circumvent congressional role, that's totally unacceptable, and demonstrates their continued disregard for the spirit of the constitution and division of powers.
That Specter is there as the enabler, again, no more excuses for that rat bastard.
Specter and PATRIOT are the root wrote on March 8, 2007 4:30 PM:"While this isn't a distortion, I think that the phrase "pleasure of the president" is at issue here."
I'll tell you what it doesn't mean!
It doesn't mean a failure to break ethics rules or otherwise knuckle under to unethical political pressure as grounds for dismissal!
Everybody in government, including presidential appointees serving at Bush's pleasure, including the President himself, are still FIRST and FOREMOST Citizens of the US and bound by the Constitution, Laws, Departmental Rules and Customs including Ethics!
We have a nation of laws, not of men. Bush is not king and can't go willy nilly rewriting and bending laws as he chooses, though the Republican congress has enabled him to for long enough.
Anonymous wrote on March 8, 2007 4:36 PM:"I was in the audience today; it was a tough crowd for Mr. Rove, who interestingly isn’t fat."
He's not fat in the huge bulky sense, that would be too embarassing. Cheney is enough fat.
He's just flabby in the totally unhealthy but chronically tense, way that a lot of Republicans are for some reason.
Robin Boerner wrote on March 8, 2007 4:41 PM:Robin Boerner-
I just went to the link you provided, and counted the number of USA with an asterisk, and got around 72.
Are you saying those are all unconfirmed by congress and awaiting hearings? Sure? If so, that's a lot more than seven.
Posted by: meaning of asterisk?
Date: March 8, 2007 04:23 PM
No, I am sure many are confirmed. That is part of the phog. Nelson Cohen is by his own admission, a Patriot Act appointee. He was appointed Augest 22, 2006 over Ted Stevens vocal objections as the FBI was raiding Ben Stevens offices.
The Republicans know he would more then likely not pass the vetting and vote. They lied about his status on the DOJ website and so far he has been left out of the national news stories for some reason.
The only reason I know about him is because my fiancee, John Mitchell has a lawsuit aginst the US Army and Nelson Cohen is the USA. Before him it was interim appointee Deborah Smith and Timothy Burgess. Burgess refused to indict some Republicans and now he is the newest federal judge up here in Alaska. McKay made the news, why not Burgess and Cohen?
If I hadn't followed his appointment, dug deeper, called his office and talked to Cohen myself, I would never have known. I faxed and called every senator on the Judicial Committee and several were unaware of Cohen's status themselves!
Karl Rove is counting on the public ignorance of the public, the press, and the Democrats to keep this scam going. Sure they will get these seven confirmed. How many others already in place will slip thru unconfirmed?
It will take a THOROUGH investigation to root all the criminals in the DOJ out. A good start is to put Gonzales under oath and have him list ALL the Patriot Act Appointees. Then go thru the files of ALL the USA's and compare his testimony to the facts.
StephenH wrote on March 8, 2007 4:43 PM:"Another United States attorney was doing an otherwise excellent job in the San Diego district. [She] refused to file immigration cases… at the direction of the Attorney General, she was asked to file, and she said I don’t want to make that a priority in my office."
Another blatant lie. She said that she was never told her policy on immigration was a problem. That she concentrated on higher-level immigration investigations and prosecutions (rather than just nanny cases) and had the support for that policy.
What's remarkable is how easily and smoothly these people lie. There is never a problem that another lie and a complacent media couldn't remedy. The problem here isn't in the justice department, with the VP or even the president. They're all sociopaths who first got and held on to their jobs because it was so easy for them to lie. Unlike those like Colin Powell, for whom it was not so easy, and so was let go.
sholom wrote on March 8, 2007 4:45 PM:*unprecedented*
Look, comparing to Clinton's firing of 93 is completely irrelevant. The real relavent question, in determining whether this is unprecendented is: how many USA's have ever been fired against their will in the middle of their term by a president who had appointed them.
My understanding, from elsewhere on TPM, that the number is exceedingly small (and that CRS is unable to get an answer to this question from DOJ? Anyone know the status of that)?
(the security code to this post is "poison")
gtash wrote on March 8, 2007 4:49 PM:I agree with Spector and PATRIOT's remarks concerning Arlen. The way he questioned Lam and Iglesias was fishy, and I could see he was trawling for any opening on behalf of Gonzales and the Republicans. The intent seemed to be:
"Oh, you're either psychic or overly sensitive to have felt 'leaned on', Mr. Iglesias---what's that? You were aware of a political rivalry in New Mexico? Maybe you just imagined the pressure..." And for Lam, he kept trying to get her to talk about ongoing investigations in open session as if to trick her into a breech of ethics.
I know Specter is untrustworthy, and he is going to kiss-up to the Admininstration before this is over.
Keith Gore Wiseman wrote on March 8, 2007 5:03 PM:The fat man speaks! Rove has laid low while Scooter gets ready for prison rape. If Karl felt the need to deny publicly, he's guilty and will soon get his prison rape, too. Couldn't happen to a better person.
Keith Gore Wiseman wrote on March 8, 2007 5:03 PM:The fat man speaks! Rove has laid low while Scooter gets ready for prison rape. If Karl felt the need to deny publicly, he's guilty and will soon get his prison rape, too. Couldn't happen to a better person.
Arkansan wrote on March 8, 2007 5:12 PM:Rove was asked about the Scooter verdict today. He said it made him “sad” but that he couldn’t comment further because the matter is before the courts. What’s he worried about, influencing the appellate court by commenting? The investigation and trial are over, he can speak without worry now.
All they have are their lies.
About his size, he isn’t buff by any standard. I was simply surprised that his weight is likely within normal limits. He looks like such a tub on the tube because of his double chin.
mbbsdphil wrote on March 8, 2007 5:12 PM:Karl is a skillful deceiver. Take his, "people wanted to play politics with [appointing new USA's]." Absoutely correct, totally useless. He omitted to say what "people". He implied it was "those guys," when it was his guys all along.
Rove is correct when he says that virtually all USA's are changed between administrations from opposite sides of the aisle. He omits to say how unprecedented these mid-term firings are.
One or more of the laundry list of purported reasons for these firings may be accurate in individual cases - Ryan's firing in SFO should have been for cause, and Cummins firing was clearly to give Griffin the best job he'd ever had but not earned. But the conflicting admitted reasons do not stack up when applied to the most controversial firings like Lam's and Iglesias'.
Like Hannibal Lecter's "desperately random", and Christie's The ABC Murders, the seemingly random does an excellent job of hiding the intended.
Karl claims that Mr. Bush intends to submit these names for Senate approval. Ha. He "intends" to win in Iraq, too. Mr. Bush doesn't do what he's legally required to do, much less volunteer to seek approvals he no longer needs.
I take heart in that Karl had to go to Arkansas to defend his record on legal compliance and civil rights. Had he tried this in Detroit or LA, I'd be worried.
Anonymous wrote on March 8, 2007 5:22 PM:Soylent Karl is eating people. His own people. David Iglesias is the prototype for the new Hispanic, conservative Southwestern Republican party and Karl stomped him into a little green tablet, then washed him down with a TAB. I wonder if any of these new Republicans are going to remember their excellent treatment at the hands of SK and Abu Gonzales?
Miguelito wrote on March 8, 2007 5:25 PM:Normal? Ordinary? Duh, maybe when admidinsrations change.
mbbsdphil wrote on March 8, 2007 5:33 PM:Art. II, section 2, of the Constitution gives the president the power to appoint "inferior" officers like USA's. These used to require majority approval in the Senate for confirmation. The secretive change embedded in Patriot [sic] Act II, gave the power to make interim appointments to the Att'y General, an example of the delegation of authority specifically authorized in section 2. Which makes the legal framework legitimate, if politically unsound.
Congress must expose corrupt reasons or methods to successfully attack these appointments. These might include corruptly influencing ongoing litigation - which Domenici may have done - or, filing litigation without sufficient grounds and for corrupt purposes, such as to disrupt an election. I would add the political embarrassment regarding any attorneys who are obviously unqualified for their work, such as Griffin.
But the Dems have to take that ring out of their nose, or wherever Karl put it these last six years, and let Mr. Cheney know he's no longer the only bull in the ring. I've heard a few snorts, but so far, I've only seen steers, or, in the case of Chokin' Joe Lieberman, a clown.
tip of the iceberg? wrote on March 8, 2007 5:37 PM:QUOTE:
"No, I am sure many [of the 72] are confirmed. That is part of the phog. (sic) Nelson Cohen is by his own admission, a Patriot Act appointee. He was appointed Augest 22, 2006 over Ted Stevens vocal objections as the FBI was raiding Ben Stevens offices.
The Republicans know he would more then likely not pass the vetting and vote. They lied about his status on the DOJ website and so far he has been left out of the national news stories for some reason.
The only reason I know about him is because my fiancee, John Mitchell has a lawsuit aginst the US Army and Nelson Cohen is the USA. Before him it was interim appointee Deborah Smith and Timothy Burgess. Burgess refused to indict some Republicans and now he is the newest federal judge up here in Alaska. McKay made the news, why not Burgess and Cohen?
If I hadn't followed his appointment, dug deeper, called his office and talked to Cohen myself, I would never have known. I faxed and called every senator on the Judicial Committee and several were unaware of Cohen's status themselves!
-- Robin Boerner "
END QUOTE
Hey, does TPM Muckraker know about this? If accurate, sounds like a scoop to me. Email them in case this thread isn't fully read!
It's another angle on this story. How much deeper does the problem go?
PS: focus on Specter and PATRIOT to expose his enabling of the scandal he's now investigating!
Robin Boerner wrote on March 8, 2007 5:48 PM:Here is Ted Steven's opinion from two weeks ago:
http://www.adn.com/front/story/8655273p-8547118c.html
ALASKA'S NEW U.S. ATTORNEY
The Bush administration's appointment of interim U.S. Attorney Nelson Cohen bypassed the normal route in which the president nominates a candidate who is then confirmed by the Senate. Instead, the U.S. attorney general plucked Cohen from Pennsylvania in August and put him into the Alaska job indefinitely. It was done under a little-known provision of the U.S. Patriot Act, Stevens said.
The move upset the senator, who had proposed Alaskan candidates, but he didn't try to undo it. Nine days after the appointment, the FBI raided the offices of six state legislators, including Stevens' son, Ben.
"Because of the circumstance of the investigation, I did not want to get involved. With my son's name involved, that just would not have been proper," Stevens said.
He wasn't sure if Cohen's appointment was related to the investigation, but it was in the "back of my mind."
In the last week, Stevens said, he discussed the appointment with other senators. The same thing has happened in other states, and it skews the balance of power, he said. They likely are going to try to change the law to prevent such indefinite appointments. Stevens said he had nothing against Cohen. "He's just doing his job. He's a career prosecutor."
elrapierwit wrote on March 8, 2007 5:54 PM:WTF?!!! who the hell is Karl Rove to even be addressing this issue?
Why is anyone even interviewing this man, he has no legal role/authority other than to serve the President himself.
It is ridiculous how they have elevated this man to some type of stature where his opinion on this issue is in the least relevant.
To have done so is appalling.
toodles wrote on March 8, 2007 5:56 PM:WTF?!!! who the hell is Karl Rove to even be addressing this issue?
Why is anyone even interviewing this man, he has no legal role/authority other than to serve the President himself.
It is ridiculous how they have elevated this man to some type of stature where his opinion on this issue is in the least relevant.
To have done so is appalling.
NevervoteRepublicanagain wrote on March 8, 2007 7:30 PM:He is an expert at lying and nothing else. He is certainly no Constitutional scholar. He looks at ways of bypassing the Constitutional requirements of the Executive branch so King George can rule without "that gd piece of paper" as the King calls our Constitution. KKKarl lost a lot of weight when he thought he was going to be joinging Scooter. He's still pudgy and out of shape plus he needs to be charged with conspiracy at the least and treason as appropriate.
charles belenchia wrote on March 8, 2007 7:58 PM:It's normal in your twisted world KARL ROVE,,sure turn all justice dept positions into idealogues such as yourself...Would you not call this a dictatorship?? I would and you are a traitor to the American system of govt. You could show Macavelli a few tricks with your lies and sins of omission and your outright lies..There are no words in the english language to describe a creature such as yourself,,,when your off-spring discover what you truly are ,,how will you defend yourself,,lie a little,,hide it with a bigger lie,,then blame it on someone else,,or just say you forgot,,,you may as well take the fifth now and start drinking from a fifth to calm your nerves...............Charles Belenchia
Al in Austex wrote on March 8, 2007 9:34 PM:Hey Kids,
FRANK wrote on March 8, 2007 9:41 PM:I told you that Congressman Sanchez would make us proud. This just getting started . Settle in this will be a sweet ride.And in a larger context this will make it much easier to shut down the Iraqi Debacle. Any thing that makes these criminals look bad helps us shut off the NEO CON agenda from moving forward..
Al in Austex
hey karl,you are going to be a good prison bitch,probably enjoy it too.
Arthur wrote on March 8, 2007 10:59 PM:what does being fired "against one's will" mean? Sorry, folks, but efforts to say firing 93 in a pop, whatever they were working on, is fine, but letting 7 go after 6 years is beyond the pale, is... dumb.How many investigations and prosecutions across the country were affected by letting the entire nationwide staff go? If equal justice under the law is your goal, that's bullshit.Selective outrage will get us all nowhere.
mark wrote on March 8, 2007 11:02 PM:It is not ethical to call a prosecutor to influence a case unless you are Karl Rove, but he has no ethics.
phil james wrote on March 8, 2007 11:22 PM:Nice try turdblossom. This spin will get you about as far as your "Democrats want the terrorists to win" strategy last November.
kate wrote on March 8, 2007 11:55 PM:"When we came in, we ultimately replace most all 93 U.S. attorneys – there are some still left from the Clinton era in place. We have appointed a total of I think128 U.S. attorneys -- "
It's the royal WE that is the most telling thing about this interview. Karl Rove is unelected, unconfirmed, and despised across the land, and yet we must listen to the disdainful WE. WE did this, WE did not do that, WE are utterly indifferent to you out there.
What arrogance. Think how different this would sound if the man had any humility whatsoever . . . here's a clue, Mr. Rove. WE think your boss is the most incompetent idiot ever elected, and WE hold you responsible for foisting him upon people who didn't care to pay attention until it was too late.
WE believe he is personally responsible for half a dozen catastrophic decisions. WE are your boss.
Al in Austex wrote on March 9, 2007 5:15 AM:BushCo needs to be be held accountable for every criminal misdeed done . The upcoming hearings are the start of the checks & balances for restoring the We the People part of our governance.
kal wrote on March 9, 2007 6:03 AM:Again this all about the money --Walter Reed, Abu Gharib, Katrina, even the cleanup at the WTC was about the money. The money --ill gotten profit from the privitzation of our governmnetal infrastructure. Money is Power , money to run Sunni Bad Guys in Lebanon (without oversight ) , money to keep us scared of Usama , money to pay off corrupt politicians to keep the Neo Cons in power...money ,money , & more taited money.
Say Goodnight George ., Karl & most importantly Dick ..
It is axiomatic that Rove never tells the truth unless a prison sentence appears in the offing.
Jim Michie wrote on March 9, 2007 6:57 AM:His job is to spin reality to persuade everyone that the administration is infallible until a scapegoat is needed and then all errors are the fault of the scapegoat.
It's always been extremely "ordinary" for Karl Rove to lie through his teeth, just as it is for the "Liar in Chief" and all the rest of his minions.
Ninbus wrote on March 9, 2007 7:28 AM:And please DO NOT FORGET:
Karl Rove deliberately leaked the name of an undercover CIA agent to several members of the press. The right will try to spin the (St.) Libby Verdict every which way from Sunday, but at the end of the day:
KARL ROVE, SCOOTER LIBBY, RICHARD ARMITAGE and others are traitors to this country and deserve the most severe punishment available.
They won't get it, not in this life, but the wheel of kharma turns slowly and completely.
lost-nacf-gop wrote on March 9, 2007 8:03 AM:After 6 + years of this, one thing's for certain: When Rove says its "normal and ordinary," you know it must be bizarre and unusual.
Timpanist wrote on March 9, 2007 8:19 AM:I wonder if Turdblossom consulted the real numbers before making this statement.
connski wrote on March 9, 2007 11:08 AM:two words: Senate approval.
two more words for new mexico: ex-parte influence
connski wrote on March 9, 2007 11:09 AM:two words: Senate approval.
two more words for new mexico: ex-parte influence
Ann in AZ wrote on March 9, 2007 12:38 PM:If so far eight USAs have been fired for no apparent reason, who would think that Fitzgerald is not an endangered species. He's probably next on the list!
Ann in AZ wrote on March 9, 2007 12:47 PM:What a difference 35 years makes! When Nixon ordered the AG to fire Archibald Cox, the AG, Elliot Richardson, and his Deputy, William Ruckelshaus, resigned their positions in protest. They did this to preserve the independence of the justice system. Now, Bush's aide, Rove, says fire eight US Attorneys who are not playing ball to the degree that the Administration wants them to, and the AG not only fires them, he defends their firing on the basis of "They serve at the pleasure of the President!" This is disgusting and the current government is shameful. If the Congress goes along with this when it's obvious the fired US Attorneys should be reinstated, then they are shameless and shameful, too!
Nell wrote on March 15, 2007 5:31 PM:Robin Boerner, thanks very much for the info! I agree about getting Gonzales under oath (although even that doesn't seem to guarantee the truth).
Ultimately, the Judiciary Committee needs to prepare a database for all the U.S. Attorney districts, with the sequence of all those holding the office for the last six or so administrations. That's the only thing that will provide enough factual background put to rest the ridiculous talking points of the Bush dead-enders.
Robin Boerner wrote on April 6, 2007 3:22 PM:For each U.S. Attorney, it should include date of nomination, date of confirmation, start and end dates in office, reason for departure if not end of term, and where the person went next (and when).
My Fiancee, John R. Mitchell and I have posted some completely outrageous comment in the past few years and want to apologize to this forum.
I’ve been under the umbrella of an illness most people do not talk about. The doctors currently have me under closer supervision and back on a regular schedule of routine medication.
John Mitchell and I have been on a roller coaster ride of medication, professional help and conspiracy theories for years. So needless to say we both have illnesses we will, for obvious reason, not post here today.
Again If you would like more information please write or email me at:
John Mitchell
Jonglly wrote on May 2, 2007 7:14 PM:C/O
Robin Boerner
Po Box 771765
Eagle River, Alaska 99577
Email: Johnmitchell@makethearmyhonest.com
Cell: 907-360-0224
Before buying generic viagra read this.
Jonglly wrote on June 4, 2007 5:26 PM:I've got new info about generic viagra and share with you.
Before buying generic viagra read this.
asim eric wrote on August 9, 2007 2:12 PM:I've got new info about generic viagra and share with you.
Karl Rove deliberately leaked the name of an undercover CIA agent to several members of the press. The right will try to spin the (St.) Libby Verdict every which way from Sunday, but at the end of the day:
KARL ROVE, SCOOTER LIBBY, RICHARD ARMITAGE and others are traitors to this country and deserve the most severe punishment available.
They won't get it, not in this life, but the wheel of kharma turns slowly and completely
gonne collant wrote on October 11, 2007 9:16 PM:Good job. I loved youre site, keep it up.