Posted on 07/08/2009 5:29:08 AM PDT by DaiHuy
WASHINGTON - Former Bush White House official Karl Rove was questioned by House Judiciary Committee lawyers Tuesday on any role he may have played in politically motivated firings of U.S. attorneys.
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...
They’ll get Bush impeached yet!
Clinton can/Bush can’t/Obama can..........................
I guess they are to busy with old stuff to work on the Walpin firing.
Who cares if the firings were “politically motivated”? I would expect politicians to be motivated by politics when they execute their political powers. If they were motivated by a desire to cover up crimes, fine. Otherwise, why is the House wasting its time?
I suggest Rove conduct his own personal investigation of the House’s investigation. He can call the investigative body the Rove Select Committee On Wastes of Time. His dog-and-pony show would be every bit as legitimate as theirs.
“I guess they are to busy with old stuff to work on the Walpin firing.”
At least with the Walpin thing there is actual smoke. He might have been fired to cover up crimes. As for Bush, all the more explanation we get is that he didn’t like liberal justices, which I take it was his perogative.
Come to think of it, we don’t so much get any explanation from critics as to why the firings were scandalous. They demand answers, is all. Which on the evening newscast implies to America that: A) Bush needs to give answers (he doesn’t), and B) Bush probably had questionable motives (maybe he did, but it doesn’t matter).
Glad to see they are dealing with the really important stuff. Karl Rove.. BCS bowl games.. Honoring an alleged pedophile..
Holder and his winged minions!
“it is not a good thing for the executive branch of our government to pick and choose the people responsible for bringing criminal charges against others based solely on whether those others belong to a certain political party or not”
I understand the argument, but how to build up a wall between the normal parts of the executive branch and the extra-special justice department? Unless you expect politicians to suddenly become gentlemen and divest it of partisanship, or for politicians to hand power of appointment over to some more or less objective body, I don’t see how you can divest justice of politics.
Since DAs have discretion, there’s no guarantee of purity in the execution of their power. I’ve always been much more bothered by local sharks who prosecute like mad-dogs to get ahead, such as the Duke lacrosse guy. On the federal level, used to be that they had a limited scope. With the rat’s nest of laws now on the books, there’s plenty room for mischief, either in the direction of over- or underkill. The simple fact is that the law has no seperate peace. “Justice” is administered by the government, and hence is political. Even in the Supreme Court, where justices don’t have to worry about being fired, politics play a huge role.
There’s politics and then there’s politics, I guess. There’s firing all the other guy’s lawyers, which I understand. There’s firing the other guy’s lawyers for a more specific reason, like I suppose libs think Bush did (to shield his administration or his administration’s buddies from danger, I guess), which is another matter. Then there’s firing lawyers for a specific reason, to forestall specific wrongdoings, which is wrong.
“Criminal charges should be brought based on the validity of the suspected crime, not based on whether the person being charged is a D or an R.”
There’s one place where that happens. It’s called, I think, Utopia. An island or something.
Winged or horned?
Extremely poor journalism here. By using the phrase "politically motivated" the scribbler assumes something unproven.
The only good thing is it is on PMSNBC, watched by very few thinking people.
If the President has the authority to hire or fire these prosecutors without outside consent, then your objection is moot.
You have expressed dissatisfaction with the President’s authority, not with his actions.
What mitigations would you suggest to try to fix the “problem”? Further politicization through senate approval of the hirings/firings?
Fixed it.
We’ve had patronage hiring and firings since we set up our government. This was all mock outrage from Democrats to fool those who don’t know any better. It’s working pretty well.
I should (and do) apologize for being so strident in my comments.
The prosecutors serve at the pleasure of the President. In order to counterbalance the potential abuse, one would need to take away some portion of that authority and vest it in another branch of the government - contrary to the Constitution.
I do agree that politically motivated prosecutions (not the hiring/firing decision, but the decision to pursue a specific case) should be a chargeable offense.
Of course, the subject of this thread is specifically hiring/firing.
Once again, sorry if I sounded overly strident. I’m grumpy this morning, I guess. (That’s still better than dopey, right?!?)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.