Report: Rove Deeply Involved in U.S. Attorney Firings

Thanks for the info.   But, isn't all in government for political purpose?    I guess thats my inquiry.    It seems for whatever reason, all President Elects, get what they want, no matter why or how.   It also seems that this President, whether you like him or not, is being held to a higher standard.   I guess it would be nice to know the reasons other presidents did what they did and why.    It must be my wanting transparency in government thing.    As to Kim response below,   and what I have been able to find, didn't someone else finally come clear on who did the CIA outing.    There seems to be alot of conflicting statements out there.    I didn't mean for this to turn in to a Pres. Bush Bashing commentary, but I guess thats how it goes.

Thanks greg for asking an honest question, and thanks KF for a clear answer. This is wxactly what this whole issue is about.

I hope they do jail time.

  It also seems that this President, whether you like him or not, is being held to a higher standard.

Not quite. Bush took it upon himself to lower the standard. That may make it look like he's being held to a higher standard. But no, he's just being held to the same standard that all presidents have been held to.

Jimster:   response to the question and comment was nice, but does it have to get down to I hope they go to jail.    Its hard to find a good conversation on Newsvine, and actually discuss without hate involved.   We can make our points without degrading and hate.    When I came on this site, I thought that was what this was about, but I'm learning the hard way.

Why do you feel that it is hating to hope that criminals serve time in jail?

Why do you feel that it is hating to hope that criminals serve time in jail?

I couldn't agree more. Hoping that criminals get caught, prosecuted and imprisoned is not hate, it's justice.

I Didn't even comment on criminality.   If the author stated in their article they were convicted, which, according to law is proven, this makes no one a criminal at this time.    If the article stated the conviction occured, I would think a different way.    Even with Pres. Clinton, I thought it was ridicules but, unless he was convicted, I didn't call him a criminal, immoral maybe, but not a criminal.

But, isn't all in government for political purpose? 

no.  Not where it comes to interpretation of laws and prosecution of criminals.

There's a place for good honest politicking (oxymoron, I know); but what we have here is an attempt to stack the deck in favor of one party using the government as a tool of intimidation.  That's a bad bad thing.

But, isn't all in government for political purpose?

NO!!

Looking at the last eight years, one could perhaps draw that conclusion. The Justice department's independence is imperative to it carrying out it's mission. Yes, the president has several access points, e.g. hiirng USA's, appointing judges, but beyond that the long-long tradition has been to otherwise keep a ethical distance from the executive branch. The reasons why are apparent in what were seeing with this issue. People will abuse power if allowed to, or know that there will be little or no consequence. Or if they think it will remain a secret.

I think we will find more and more instances of unethical application of political pressure thoughout the government. But political tinkering with the Justice Department is the biggest no-no of them all.

Without the distance of justice from politics, there is no justice.

Killfile -

I like your explanation, but perhaps you should clarify that not all government employees serve at the pleasure of the President - only political employees (Schedule C) do.  The President cannot simply ask for the resignation of career civil servants.

To add to your information, and to address a question that Greg apparently has - not only Clinton - but all Presidents replace most of the U.S. Attorneys upon taking office. Of the 93 U.S. Attorneys - Reagan replaced 71 in his first year and 89 by his second year; Clinton replaced 80 in his first year and 89 by his second year; Bush (the elder) replaced 88 in his first two years.  With respect to the present Bush - D. Kyle Sampson, then chief of staff to Atty. Gen. Alberto R. Gonzales, in response to an inquiry by the White House said: "Clinton fired all Bush [U.S. attorneys] in one fell swoop. We fired all Clinton [U.S. attorneys] but staggered it out more and permitted some to stay on a few months." (See: http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/25836/print).

Now - it is out-of-the-ordinary for a President to replace U.S. Attorneys mid-term, which is when most of the subject attorneys were released.  To see how out-of-the-ordinary this was, I point you to http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/RL33889_20070222.pdf.

Again - I don't have an issue with anything you said - I'm just trying to provide some additional information.

I am trying to understand everyone's comments as best I can on this issue, but I have another question.    On what Jimster said, didn't the supreme court in California over rule what they voted on, which required a re-vote and now it may be brought to them again because some didn't like the outcome of the vote.    It seems to me, now you have a vise-versa occurring there.    It seems to me, over the years, all branches of the government over step each other, thus circumventing the very things you are saying now.    If this does occur, why aren't those highly researched to find out if they over stepped their bounds.    THis is turning into a good conversation, and I am learning different views.

On what Jimster said, didn't the supreme court in California over rule what they voted on, which required a re-vote and now it may be brought to them again because some didn't like the outcome of the vote. 

Contrary to popular belief this is not a majority rule country. If the people vote in a particular proposition that doesn't make it legal or Constitutional. The courts have the duty to throw out laws that discriminate. I predict this one will be rightly thrown out too.

and just one last question and then I'll stop.    As to ris8r comment.   is it the fact that the others did it all at once that makes it okay, or is it the doing it over time, instead of all at once, the way they did it (GW) the problem.    Thanks all, I will read now.

Greg -

From what I've read, it seems normal and acceptable for an incoming President to replace U.S. Attorneys.  All of the Presidents have replaced most of them over a span of two years or so, and everyone accepted that as OK.  Bush's replacement of the U.S. attorneys when he first took office didn't attract anyone's notice.

But - it's not normal for a President to replace U.S. attorneys mid-term.  Therefore, when Bush (or rather, Gonzales) did that - it drew attention.  Others asked - "Why did this out-of-the-ordinary thing happen?  Subsequent hearings into the matter led to contradictory testimony by Justice Department officials - which led to further hearings.

Other issues surfaced (or were created) as the hearings progressed - issues related to tweaking of the Patriot Act to circumvent Congressional review and approval of appointments, Congressional subpoena powers, criteria for the appointment of replacement attorneys, influence of the White House on judicial appointments, and others.  In the middle of all this was the question of why the original attorneys were let go - was it because of 'performance' (or lack thereof - which would have been proper grounds for dismissal) - or was it because of 'political' reasons (which would have been improper grounds for dismissal)?

I think you have a good idea when you say that you're off to do some reading.  A lot of reading is needed on this thorny topic.  Good luck.

Killfile -

I just read your message after posting mine. (Note to self: Learn to type faster.)  Your's is a clearer explanation of the matter than mine.  Good job.

Thanks for all your comments.   It gives me something to think about.

Just the discussion I keep looking for on this newsvine for non-partisan thought and comment.    Thanks again.

greg-

On what Jimster said, didn't the supreme court in California over rule what they voted on, which required a re-vote and now it may be brought to them again because some didn't like the outcome of the vote.

Adding to what Doanald said above-

Voters can place anything on the ballot they want. But if the law that results from the proposition isn't constitutional then the Supreme Court can strike it down. That's their job. That's how the constitution remains the guide post of our country. The laws passed by the legislature or via propositions voted on by the people have to pass the constitution test. Calif's Prop 8 will fail that test in my opinion.

What's happening here in Calif is completely normal. It's the way supposed to work.

Sorry about coming back, but, when I pointed to Clinton, and ridicules, I was speaking about the sex scandal situation.   The entire process was ridicules.    Not criminal, but just immoral.    Thanks for your input again.

Calif's Prop 8 will fail that test in my opinion.

I think it will also since it's in direct conflict with the prohibition of discrimination based on sexual orientation. It's discriminatory on it's face and should be struck down.

I think the big issue is, its going to come down to the actual definition of discrimination as to the Constitution, Black (Americans) versus, Gay rights (Americans) and both see it differently.    Its already starting within communities over there.    Black Issues (Americans) , Religious Issues (Americans) , Gay right Issues (Americans).    Its going to explode bigger than we think.

Once we can get people past this fallacy that being gay is a choice, then I think more and more people will see it for the civil rights issue that it really is. I know many gay people and none of them chose to be gay anymore then I chose to be straight. It's just want they are.

To me it has nothing to do with choice or if your born that way.    Its coming down to Constitutional rights.    Is it part of the constitution that, those life styles are constitutionally protected or is it a right period.    Its going to be a long debate.    It's going to come down to is life style included in discrimination as much as gender or a race or is it not. 

It's the equal protection clause.

If one person or group is granted a right, all citizens must be granted that right. In this case, it's the right of having a marriage officially recognized by the state. As it stands now that is only availble to heterosexuals, andthus violates the ewual protection clause.

In addition, as Donald states, it's descrimination based on sexual orientation or gender.

This is not about "life styles" per se.The constitution never mentions "lifestyle" unless happiness is a lifestyle.  It's about equal rights for all.

I agree with equal rights, don't get me wrong.    I am one that goes by what the rule of law and the constitution say, especially with my kids.    If the constitution or law is vague, its hard work changing it.    They have an uphill battle on this issue.    To protest and go through the process, is one thing, but don't get into the violence that has occurred before.   Its not like the old days, when that was the way to do things.    People now-a-days won't put up with it and is a big turnoff, but to state the fact in the courts, passionately, but sincere, gets farther than hate, especially those who will go against you.    If they go through the process, and get the issue settled, great.    Look how long even just the womens rights issue dragged on.    People listen better when you explain instead of tell.   It may not work now, but in the future, who knows.    Its taken this country along time to get here.

greg, if to you it has nothing to do with choice or if you're born that way, then for the sake of argument let's assume that gays are born gay. And in that case, why would it be any different than gender or race or any other attribute that is completely out of one's control?

I can't explain it.    This is all coming down to constituional issues and law over what I think.    I don't know why people are the way they are, but there is a reason, and I think you can't find any human being that can explain it on either side.   Most arguements come down to what you believe.     We only have what we have and if its felt by some, that it needs changing, all I say is go for it  But some of the hate I have seen on this issue, won't get it going any faster.

I can appreciate that pov. However, I don't think it's hate you're seeing from the GLBT community. It's anger. And justified anger at that.

When I saw, in California, the news showing  someone telling people to stay out of their neighborhood, including the Mormons and Christians, it makes me wonder how this will eventually pan out.    It only takes one to get the rest started.    Passion is one thing, telling people that they will, or we won't allow, is another.   It may be justified but anger breads anger.   It will start a divide that will expand.    I will say, I don't agree with it, but thats me.    Can't say its right or wrong, only qoute my beliefs, but that doesn't make it right or wrong either.

The problem is..this could set a very dangerous precedence if the 'legally define with a sense of finality' what constitutes 'discrimination' 

Judges choose vague wording for a reason .  This way there is some interpretation of the wording, so as not to alienate anyone. Secondly, I'm not sure a SC judge could want to be known as 'the one who defined discrimination' . ESPECIALLY, if it doesn't pan out the way he/she hoped.  

Is one born hetersexual?

KL,

Another point that if I were a judge, I would not want to have to actually formulate a concrete answer for.  

I can't help myself, but is one born a "useless eater"?

again, a question that is getting some into hot water.  see video link at upswing's new post.

As to sexual orientation and the constitution, I know it says promote the general welfare but I can't find where it says, in discrimination, sexual orientation.    The problem I see in this issue is, if it comes down to sexual orientation being added, as to discrimination, where would it stop in others wanting to change the constitution to suite their feelings and orientation.    There are some really different people out there, with a weird sense of what they like, that would point to the same issue that is being argued over now.    I read why South Africa put it in their constitution, mainly because gay and lesbians were actually getting killed and harassed by the police and even blackmailed by their citizens as it was originally against the law to be this way.    I don't see sexual orientation, except for some just flat wrong acts, being against the law here in the U.S..    Yes, there are still people out there that discriminate, even though its in the constitution, and there acts are flat wrong.    Back on tract.    I don't mind at all, people of any different orientation trying to change the constitution as that is their right,  but,  it will open up more than this country can handle.    I don't blame or condemn someone on how they are or how they feel, but to change the constitution at all, on this issue, is like opening up a can of worms that is going to keep expanding.    The constitution does say we the people, and does not define, We the people, as to differences but does say discrimination is wrong.    I have relatives, heterosexual, that are not married, have kids,  but are on each others insurance policy, are in each others will and have split everything between them and their kids.    I'm not understanding, if they can do it, is it the companies that are the problem, or the government or people in general.     Why the Gay and Lesbian side of life can't do the same, as this is part of their arguement, I don't understand.    Maybe someone out there can explain it.   

I was one of the first who put out there that Rove was behind the CIA agent outing fiasco.

And you were wrong.

Indy......The blame might have been taken by a stooge for Bush but that certainly doesn't mean that Rove had NO fingers in it. I'll bet my bottom $$$ that he did and will continue to keep it cause YOU can't furnish me any proof PROVING otherwise. The guy who "claimed" responsibility, like I said, is a stooge to protect Bush's bum buddy!

The problem with loading Armitage with all the blame for outing Plame is that there was no reason for him to know her status or link to him having found out Plame was CIA.  The stooge act satisfied those who wanted the Plame outing story to go away.  If Fitzgerald could have linked Armitage to knowing Plame's status the case might be closed.  

Armitage hated Bush and Cheney. Sorry.....does not wash.

I am suppose to prove Rove had nothing to do with Armitage leaking?

When Armitage admitted the leak?

You are desparate.

Well, Since bruce McClellon (sp) has already spilled the beans....publicly...it was actually george Bush that Admited to McClellon that he authorized the "Outting" of Plame.

Scott McClellan - sure enough - here he is telling the story on CSPAN's Book TV from the recent Miami book fair  - YouTube link.  I hadn't see that Studiusbagus.  Thanks.

The Plame scandal was a great way to demonize Bush's critics, minimize their issues, unify the "base" and  put a chill on a mess of reporters the year in the run up to 2004 prez election.  I'm not surprised he was in on it. 

Yeah, and maybe, maybe, if they were well behaved they could have a little library in the prision.

Now, which books would we put in the library?

Now, which books would we put in the library?

My Pet Goat and The Very Hungry Caterpillar (which Bush claims was his favorite childhood book and one of the first books he ever read, even though it was published until he was at Yale) and any number of the various coloring books Bush has finished coloring in.

They already opened the George W. Bush Sewage Treatment Plant or something to that effect.

I mean, do we really need another public building named after this clown? Isn't it bad enough that we have an international airport AND an aircraft carrier named after Reagan?

I mean, do we really need another public building named after this clown? Isn't it bad enough that we have an international airport AND an aircraft carrier named after Reagan?

LOL. They should have called it the Ronald Reagan Corporate Bailout Bill.

Darn it.

That ballot item failed in it's bid to change the seweage treatment plant's name to that of our illustrious president.

Oh, that IS too bad. I didn't know that. Ok, I guess I will go ahead with my plans to name my compost heap after him.

Why? What did your compost heap ever do to you that was so bad?

;-)

Exactly my point...just like Ford pardoning Nixon...I'm sure Obama does not wanna get caught up in criminal malfeasance and treason trials of the past administration.  Its a time waster, a PR nightmare, and could bring him down in opinion polls.

In that particular case the first 2 that should go is Paulson and Cox!!

Rove, Cheney, Bush, Gonzales, Rumsfield and the rest of Bush's cronies should be sent to Gitmo to spend the rest of their lives as its only prisoners.

Mark...you get my vote for Attorney General!

F3

Name the crime and the statute that you could prove Rove guilty of so he would roll over. And no, sorry the everybody knows nonsense is not evidence that will stand up in court.

Independent, it is time to look upon your country and see her.  She is on her knees.  Her ability to continue is in your ability to look and see where some are taking her.  Please. Our time to be who we are and have always been.....is near gone.

I understand now...consitutional protections only apply to people that we like.

So why was Armitage not charged with treason?

You would need to ask the Bush administration about why no one was charged in the disclosure of a CIA operative since no one else has the authority to do so.

Fitzgerald was appointed the prosecutor..not Bush.

Sorry. Admin had nothing to do with Fitzgerald.

Sorry. Admin had nothing to do with Fitzgerald.

Actually Fitzgerald was made a US attorney by Bush, he worked for the Bush administration and was appointed special counsel by them. 

Sorry, but your claim that he had nothing to do with the Bush administration is just ridiculous and it remains in the power of the Bush administration to pursue additional crimes to the extent they believe there is evidence to do so.

Why did not Fitzgerald file treason charges or any charges against Armitage?

Fitzgerald did not bring charges against Armitage because he could not be linked to knowing Plame's covert status.  Without a direct link to that Armitage was no more culpable than Novak.