Comments (36)

oppositionradio wrote on March 12, 2007 1:22 PM:

Perhaps it is time to hear about the San Diego case as well? Duncan Hunter? Ahem... why was Lam chased out?

bob wrote on March 12, 2007 1:30 PM:

at least schumer knows his job. maybe something will come of this. like a republican bloodbath. wheeee!

Frederick wrote on March 12, 2007 1:32 PM:

Will Rove testify under oath?

EH wrote on March 12, 2007 1:34 PM:

Do you think an oath would matter to Karl Rove? I know many here would like to think not, but it's certainly a hot seat to which he isn't accustomed.

az5762 wrote on March 12, 2007 1:36 PM:

What's the record for pardons issued by a president? And, can Bush pardon himself? Part of me asks, why bother? He's just going to pardon all the scum bags anyway. But then I answer myself, even if these people don't actually see the inside of a prison cell ( even if the prison is like club med), at least there will exist a public record of all the lies and thieving. Plus, the idea of Rove & Co. having to answer questions is so thrilling. That they have to sit in front of people and explain themselves will be a wonder to behold.

bob wrote on March 12, 2007 1:36 PM:

but thats the beauty - get him in get him oathed and then ask him as many questions as possible - only one purgery charge need stick - where do we start?

Glenn wrote on March 12, 2007 1:42 PM:

I smell me some "Executive Privilege" claims cooking...

Jeff wrote on March 12, 2007 1:42 PM:

It's about time that the Democrats stood up to Rove. The best way to respond to a bully is punch him right back.

Stuart Wilder wrote on March 12, 2007 1:43 PM:

This would be a great opportunity to ask about Paul Krugman's allegations that NJ US Attorney Chris Christie stirred up dust around associates of Senator Robert Menendez during his campaign to hold his Senate seat. only to drop the matter once Menendez won.

Karl's Unexplained Personal Wealth wrote on March 12, 2007 1:45 PM:

Back it up with some questions about Karl's own ethics -- and his possible personal finaicial benefit from campaign dollars:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/5/2/10177/11404

melior wrote on March 12, 2007 1:50 PM:

How dare these meddling Congressmen interfere with the sacred job of the unlimited executive powerbrokers!

DallasNE wrote on March 12, 2007 1:57 PM:

It is next to impossible to get a Whitehouse aide before Congress based on separation of powers claims. This is precisely why so many functions that used to be handled by Cabinet officers has been moved to the Whitehouse, i.e., eliminate oversight.

Since Rove's duties are purely political I have always wondered by the taxpayers pay his and his staff's salaries and expenses. I can think of no other President that has had someone in a position similar to Karl Rove's. Why, for instance, can't the Chief of Staff take care of this.

For that matter, I can't remember Al Gore having a "Scooter Libby" on staff either.

It is this bloated Whitehouse staff that seems to be at the heart of so much that is wrong. Until we remove this opportunity for abuse the abuse will go unabated.

MEP wrote on March 12, 2007 2:00 PM:

Does anyone really believe that Sen. Schumer has only recently come across info that has caused him concern and consider action. Where the hell have Schumer and the rest been during the last 6 yrs? He and others of his ilk are the reason I will never contribute to the DNC or the DLC ever again. I hope that Jim Webb, Jon Tester and others will continue to speak truth and not wait until it is safe. I welcome the Senator's effort to shine light on the White House but it may be too late.

Anonymous wrote on March 12, 2007 2:01 PM:

Could any of this nonsense track back to Republican Judiciary Staffer Manuel Miranda's infiltration of the Democratic minority's website in 2002/2003? Remember the Novak cited "internal Senate sources" when fingered for using Democratic memos believed to come from that breakin... Sounds a lot like a coincedence from the Libby trial!

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/01/22/infiltration_of_files_seen_as_extensive/

Infiltration of files seen as extensive
Senate panel's GOP staff pried on Democrats
By Charlie Savage, Globe Staff | January 22, 2004

WASHINGTON -- Republican staff members of the US Senate Judiciary Commitee infiltrated opposition computer files for a year, monitoring secret strategy memos and periodically passing on copies to the media, Senate officials told The Globe.

bp wrote on March 12, 2007 2:06 PM:

MEP: While in the minority the Senator could not do much. We should be pushing Schumer and Co to move forward now and postpone the paddling until later.

Richard L. Adlof wrote on March 12, 2007 2:06 PM:

Karl can't testify . . . Not without swearing in on his own (dis)honor. There is no known holy book that won't burst into flames as he approaches . . . Not even a wear-worn, dog-eared copy of Dianetics. Well, maybe they can swear him in on a Wall Street Journal.

OOOOoooo.... INQUIRY: Will he get to testify sitting next to Darth Cheney without having to swear in like his boss did a coupla years ago? Will they be holding hand cuz little Rover will be frightened by the big bad Seantors and Congress folk? Do we hear the thump, thump, thump of bus wheels in his future?

ANYWAY, before the imperial doughboy is brought before Congress Someone has to do an overlay of Districts effected by US Attorney replacements AND Congressional Districts and Senate seats in play during the upcoming 2008 election.

Inquiring minds wanna know . . .

mamameow wrote on March 12, 2007 2:21 PM:

just overheard rove tell the ceo of haliburton, when will you be in dubai? i need to order my airline fare before all the tickets are gone!!!!

MEP wrote on March 12, 2007 2:26 PM:

bp
I am painfully aware that the Dem minority was limited in the legislative venues for pushing back against the WH. If you read the last sentence in my previous post you would have picked up that I am all for "pushing" forward. I will not however forget nor forgive the recent past. How much DLC money and silent support went into the efforts to defeat Webb, Tester and others in the Dem primarys? I'll support John Conyers and Henry Waxman to the bitter end because they at least used the voices to push even when they had no real political power. They showed courage, Schumer relies on politically safe timing.

helmling wrote on March 12, 2007 2:39 PM:

While he's there, I want him questioned about the Plame leak, too.

bob wrote on March 12, 2007 2:48 PM:

MEP:

Only Dems in 'safe' seats can show 'courage'. Thats the way gerrymandering has changed our democracy into a semi-tyrrany. if your not in a safe seat you keep your mouth shut (by and large). Unfortunate but true.

my code word was 'wrong' ha!

MEP wrote on March 12, 2007 3:06 PM:

bob
I agree with you except on the point that only those that are in "safe" seats can show courage. If the founding fathers had bought into that stance where would we be today? It is my opinion that many of our elected officials wait for the humble citizens to get out in front before they have the courage to lead. We can play "what if" for ever. My point was and will remain that I have very little faith in those who have only recently found their voices. You were assigned "wrong" I just got "regret".

KK wrote on March 12, 2007 3:10 PM:

Will these DOJ people be under oath? Why do they keep referring to "interviewing" them?

Peter Principle wrote on March 12, 2007 3:16 PM:

I guess it's time for Karl to lawyer up again.

bob wrote on March 12, 2007 3:24 PM:

any chance to see that pig (need i say his name) oinking under oath to a committee chaired by a pissed off dem with a nutcracter on the desk next to him....sweet payback for twelve years of hell. I have to tivo that.

my word is 'adjust'

jab wrote on March 12, 2007 3:49 PM:

Perhaps they can explore the motivation for putting the provision in the Patriot Act that allowed for circumventing congress on USA appointments. It is likely that this was a plan hatched long ago in Rove's mind--there was pre-meditation.

sholom wrote on March 12, 2007 4:19 PM:

Question: I've gotten some pushback from those citing the Clinton/Reno firing of all 93 USA's. Yeah, yeah, I know it's completely different -- but what I'd like to know is this: didn't Bush also replace all 93 USA's when he came to office? Better yet: can someone find a reliable news source that mentions it?

bob wrote on March 12, 2007 4:36 PM:

This is probably WHY she did it if it is true: i have not been able to find a copy of her order firing them:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/govt/admin/stories/reno122896.htm

None other than Bork decries her actions:

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n16_v50/ai_21123146

I'm still looking for a single news article backing up the firing of all 93 USAs at the same time.

Arkansan wrote on March 12, 2007 4:38 PM:

When Karl Rove was in Arkansas last week he said that Bush had fired almost all the AG’s when he took office or shortly thereafter. That issue is a red herring, a distraction from the real scandal.

bob wrote on March 12, 2007 4:39 PM:

Apparently michael chertoff (yes, him!) was the only republican-appointed dickweed that was not fired:

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MDZmMzQ5Zjg4ZGI1OTgxODA1OWM5YzFjYTRmYTlhNzk=

Note: this article is still trying to indicate the firings were just 'normal political shakeups'

Anonymous wrote on March 12, 2007 5:02 PM:

Arkansan:

The 2000 Plum Book lists all of the Clinton Administration US Attorneys as of near the end of the administration.

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/plumbook/2000/p138-153.pdf

That might be a helpful jumping off point.

taters wrote on March 12, 2007 7:06 PM:

Nail that porcine SOB!

Englischlehrer wrote on March 12, 2007 7:25 PM:

Put him under oath and settle down into it...

Specter + Patriot corruption wrote on March 12, 2007 9:32 PM:

The issue isn't whether one fires USA upon the changing of the presidency. That's normal, Clinton and Bush both already fired all the USA upon taking office.

HOWEVER, normally those new appointments have to be confirmed by a bipartisan congress, so as to weed out the total hacks and politcal hatchet men. Also, it happens by tradition, once, at the beginning of the new President's admin.

The difference this time with Bush is that he's firing his own appointees, specifically becasue they refused to roll over and corrupt thier offices when pressured by Republican Senators and other R. officials, who then complained to Rove and got them fired.

Also, specter's office slipped aprovision into PATRIOT which allowed the admin to postpone appointment hearings indefinily, so the admin could apoint hacks such as Rove's "opposition research" goon into the USA office, which this admin did.

Big difference between firing all the USA as a matter of regular practice at the beginning of a new presidency and having those new appointments pass congressional review, and on the other hand firing a select number of USA for having scruples, becasue of politcal pressure from Rove in the WH, and slipping a provision into PATRIOT so the replacements wouldn't be vetted by congress, and using that to appoint totally unqualified political hatchet men, into ongoing corruption cases such as those stemming from the Cunningham trial, which is investigating several cases of military contracting bribery, prostitution rings, including top CIA officials and several big fish.

Richard L. Adlof wrote on March 12, 2007 10:28 PM:

sholom,

Historically for the last thrity plus years, ALL U.S. Attorneys submit their resignations upon change of Administration. No firing is necessary. Bush 43 had a clean slate in which appoint his choices . . . Heck Bush 41 had a clean slate and he inherited his office from the grand destroyer and Mr Rightwing himself.

The change over firing myth is bogus and a red herring fit only for the wingnuts who cling to Rush's deityhood . . . Please ask anyone using it to refrain from breeding to eliminate their pollution of the gene pool.

Al in Austex wrote on March 13, 2007 5:35 AM:

Well Kids,
It looks like Fred Fielding is going to be busy ,-- very ,very busy over at the White House Bunker ,( ahem )I meant White House Executive Offices.
Would it be possible for one of the fired USAs-maybe Iglesias - to be hired by Waxman to track down all the connecting threads in this BushCo RICO investigation . I mean gosh darn it Congressman Duncan Hunter also received campaign largesse from Brent Wilkes- the same Brent Wilkes that bribed the Dukester ! Please can some one follow the DOD / HSD Earmark Monies ?

xrfov woifvbnpr wrote on September 5, 2007 3:35 AM:

erjbglyzv fcwkqu khoj tgjibo uldatnz nfsvlq parhd