« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Miers Testifies In US Attorneys Probe -- When Will Rove?
Harriet Miers, the former White House counsel under President Bush, has finally testified, behind closed doors, as part of Congress's investigation of the US attorney firings, reports FOXNews.com.
That raises an obvious question: When will Karl Rove do the same? Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin, told TPMmuckraker last month that he expected Rove to testify in early June. But today Luskin did not immediately return our call.
An agreement securing testimony from Rove and Miers was announced in March. Until then, they had long refused to testify, citing President Bush's claims of executive privilege, prompting House Judiciary chair John Conyers to issue subpoenas, and the House to vote to hold them in contempt.
It remains unclear how much of Miers' and Rove's testimony Conyers will decide to release.
Josh
Zachary
This means nothing to me since it was behind closed doors! If she reveals anything it will be covered up by corrupt politicians in both parties.
June 16, 2009 7:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, dixie, that depends on what's in it for the corrupt politicians.
June 16, 2009 7:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
All of which assumes that the majority of politicians are corrupt -- for which assumption and assertion there are no facts in evidence.
But that is a perfect excuse for not voting, let alone paying attention to what's actually going on.
June 16, 2009 9:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is much less evidence that politicians as a group are honest and aboveboard - as exemplified by holding closed door secret hearings.
June 16, 2009 10:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
You present NONE of that alleged "evidence".
By contrast, there is more evidence, from simply watching, that most are aboveboard. And it is statistically far-fetched to assert that a majority of a group is or would be corrupt.
June 16, 2009 10:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Where have you been all your life?
The "alleged" evidence referred to are, among many other things, all the earmarks placed in federal budgets which are designed to make paybacks for Campaign Donations (bribes).
If you believe that corporations are making 'Campaign Donations' out of the goodness of their hearts with no expectation of any return and against the best interests of the corporate shareholders, I have a great sales pitch for you.
June 17, 2009 6:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
1. "Earmarks" is how the system works -- which system is based upon controlling, not eliminating, greed. I'm all for your elected representatives renouncing earmarks -- all the more for mine to get. And if yours do renounce them, you'll replace them with representatives who WILL bring home the bacon.
It's how the system works -- despite the dirty word into which "earmarks" has been trasnformed by earmark-lusting Republicans.
2. Corporations operate in accordance witht the Constitutional right to petition for redress of grievances. We, even as individuals, have the same right.
It's all well and good to scream about abuses -- just be certain you know what is reality and legitimate, and what is bullshit fantasy generated by trough-hogs Republicans.
Recall all the crap about Congress "bickering"? The correct characterization for that is "democracy," as in "debate".
June 18, 2009 7:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
JNagarya:
Are you really trying to defend the idea that while the system is corrupt, the members of congress who work within this system and control it are not corrupt?
Your second point: "Corporations operate in accordance with the Constitutional right to petition for redress of grievances." is ludicrous given the fact that corporations go far beyond their "Constitutional right to petition for redress of grievances" by bribing members of Congress through making large "Campaign Donations" and arranging "fund raisers" which funnel money to those members of Congress.
.
June 19, 2009 8:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Jackass: the human race has never been perfect. That meansx there is ALWAYS a degree of corruption in human affairs.
It is also the reality that nothing created by imperfect man is perfect; ergo, the "system" is not perfect.
As for the system -- the system of laws, Constitution on down -- being "corrupt": learn to distinguish between POLITICS, on the one hand, and on the other LAW -- they are NOT the samee thing. The failure to distinguish between the two results in blind bashing from an uninformed peanut gallery.
As for the FACT that corporations have the right to petition for redress of grievances: deal with it, because they do have that right.
How they petition is a separate issue.
June 22, 2009 4:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
I do assume that the majority of politicians are corrupt, but that is definitely not an excuse for not voting. If anything, it makes it that much more important that we vote for the least corrupt, and if we find them, the incorruptible.
June 17, 2009 12:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
It isn't possible that the majority be corrupt: the majority of the general population is not corrupt; and our representatives are elected from that general population.
June 18, 2009 7:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
A) Your premise that the majority of us aren't also corrupt might not necessarily hold (it depends on what you mean by corrupt - does the situation have to present itself that demonstrates our corruptness or is potential sufficient?)
B) There's definitely a selection bias towards corruptness, IMO. It seems to me that as politicians progress from local to state to national the tendency to be corrupt increases. This might be a case of power corrupting, or it might be an example of the corrupt lusting after power. Most likely, it's a combination of the two.
June 19, 2009 9:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
That raises an obvious question: When will Karl Rove do the same?
The obvious question I'm wondering about is when will Karl Rove stand trial?
~
June 16, 2009 10:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Come on
Mind as well think of something else now The big O is the same as Bush 1&2 secrets secrets war war war.
What happened to truth and justice.
I think corporate America Bought it
STRIKE THAT..
I know corporate America bought it
"The fact of the matter is that, as late as 1980, the top 1 percent by income in the United States had about nine percent of total national income. But since then, you’ve had increasing concentration of income and wealth to the point that by 2007 the top 1 percent was taking home 21"
and now with bail out money o boy its nice to live in America,
That is unless your average working Joe.
Or sucker 401k holder.
Question: Did they buy it because congress/senate was protecting the small guy?
I know what I think what do you think.
Question 2 is selling out your fellow humans corruption?
June 16, 2009 10:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
The most likely reason for the "closed door" hearing is that Miers would be refusing to answer questions, pleading the fifth, pleading presidential perogative, and, in general, showing a total contempt for congress.
With "We the People" being barred from this meeting, our employees, the members of Congress, can release any "facts" they wish about the results of this hearing and hide the fact that they are posturing and pandering instead of serving the interests of "We the People".
With a total control on what the press is allowed to report, the members of congress in charge can cover up the fact that they are, and have been, totally incompetent in serving the people they are supposed to be representing and, instead, are serving the interests of their class - politicians.
.
June 17, 2009 6:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Has this ever happened before? I don't recall.
June 17, 2009 10:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think it was worth it to allow a closed door testimony just to get an under-oath statement on the record. If she lied, she can look forward to doing some time in the slammer. I doubt she was even all that truthful though. She was always so in love with G. W. that she would throw herself under the train. And surely G. W. would just go ahead and allow her to take the fall. No gentleman there at all.
June 17, 2009 10:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
What?
It is widely well known and/or preceived that the
1) Rockefeller Commission
2) Warren Commission
3) 9/11 Commission
And many or all other 'We the People' Executive, Legislative and Judicial endeavors where all crushed, and allowed corrupt and/or excluded many and/or all relevant Witness's and/or Testimony.
As a reminder, please allow me to quote several recent formidable blog comment replies.
(Every time Obama agrees to continue Bush Administration Policy, he owns it.)
(It is not the actions that undermines our Institutions, it is THE RESPONSE to the action.)
Thank you for your time and consideration.
June 17, 2009 12:12 PM | Reply | Permalink