ChuxxR,

Are you really seeking the truth-wherever that takes you, or is this seeking a pound of flesh? BTW, who has the ultimate and unilateral authority of hiring or firing U.S. Attorneys? Thank you for taking the time to kindly explain.

Sincerely,

Robert Capp

The American people deserve to know if there was any wrongdoing. Rove should be brought to trial.

Robert,

The hiring and firing of US Attorneys should not be based on a political agenda.

BirchBricker,

Under what charges has Mr. Rove been formally charged and have gone through the prelim. hearing stage? After a thorough investigation and a prelim. hearing, then possibly brought to trial. Don't you think? Don't let your hate for the man cloud your sense of Juris Prudence.

Sincerely,

Robert Capp

ChuxxR,

While I might agree that firings should not be based on a political agenda, I repeat, who has the ultimate and unilateral authority of hiring or firing U.S. Attorneys?

Thanks - have a great evening,

Robert Capp

Robert: I am not an attorney... but I suppose - treason, murder of American soldiers, lying to congress, conspiracy to commit murder, numerous grand theft charges, putting American civilians in harms way, contempt, perjury, improper meddling in government affairs, obstruction... & so on & so forth. Take your pick.

BirchBricker,

I asked what charges has Mr. Rove been formally charged - not by you, but by a prosecutor? Am I right that your hate for the man for the alleged crimes you mentioned above has clouded your sense of Juris Prudence? I would guess that Mr. Rove will never spend a day in prison for your accusations above.

Have a great evening,

Robert Capp

Robert,

Rove has been subpoenaed, so he should probably show up. Has your love of the man clouded your sense of Juris Prudence?

Have a fantastically wonderful evening and a glorious weekend,

Joszef Pelikan

I have faith Rove will get his... justice system or not. No one rides for free.

Hey, there's Joszef.

Heya Birch, it was nice to finally meet you.

Mr. Pelikan,

Not at all - are you suggesting that when someone is subpoenaed, that they are automatically guilty? I have no dog in this hunt, other than to shine the light on some possible hate. Aren't you getting tired of all of the hateful divisive hatefulness on the Auburn Journal Blogs?

Have a great evening,

Robert Capp

Professor Capp,

Did I suggest Rove was guilty? I don't see much hatred on the Auburn Journal blogs, and I am not overly bothered by divisiveness. I do however have a low tolerance for pomposity.

Have a great evening,

Mr. Pelikan

You too, Joszef.

Salam.

P.S. lol! "Pomposity"... good one.

Robert,

You're right, he has not and may not be charged.

As I undestand it there are two purposes for his testimony and that of former Supreme Court Justice nominee (eek!) Harriet Miers.

1) Get at the truth of the attorney firings and the incident with the governor

2) Get revenge in the form of humiliating these two in public at a minimum, or at the other extreme eliciting testimony that leads to prosecution and imprisonment (if there really is a God and He loves Democrats).

That's pretty clear. I do hope that the first takes precedence over the second, though. Even though I can't say I feel sorry for Karl Rove. Harriet Miers...well, somebody should feel sorry for her. But I'll take a pass on her, too.

Have a nice evening.

Mr. Pelikan

When it comes to pompousness, so do I! Same with childish sarcasm. I'm no longer teaching at the university, so no need to address me as "professor", but thank you for your thoughtfulness.

Sincerely,

Robert Capp

Hey man,

I call em how I see em ;)

Don't be surprised that in some years in the future, that the same kind of investigation will occur to someone(s) in the Obama administration - it is called "retribution" and we will get to see it in action for years to come. Even if it is un-warranted. It stems from the "we won, get over it" mentality. It all rests on what party is in charged and the amount of hyper-partisan attitudes that exists at the time.

Robert Capp

Karl Rove ignored subpeonas from the House Judiciary Committee. Claiming "Executive Privledge" under an umbrella cast by the last administration did nothing for his credibility. His arrogance and disdain for constitutional law is his downfall. We do not need law men acting like they are above the law. He is at least guilty of obstruction of the law. Justice for all, remember?

He is presumed innocent, until proven guilty - come on ChuxxR, haven't you ever seen "Law and Order"? ; >)

Who has the ultimate and unilateral authority of hiring or firing U.S. Attorneys?

Robert Capp

RC, congress has the ultimate authority. Rove was instrumental in getting attorneys fired and he did not need congressional approval. If you really follow this matter then listen to what comes up in the hearings. Your man Karl is toast.

RC, congress has the ultimate authority. Rove was instrumental in getting attorneys fired and he did not need congressional approval. If you really follow this matter then listen to what comes up in the hearings. Your man Karl is toast.

I'm not sure what it is that you are trying to say Mr. Capp, but it couldn't be that Karl Rove wouldn't have had enough influence?!! Have you ever done any research on Rove? You should, it's really surprising because his name pops up in EVERYTHING.

Robbert,

"Don't be surprised that in some years in the future, that the same kind of investigation will occur to someone(s) in the Obama administration - it is called "retribution" and we will get to see it in action for years to come. Even if it is un-warranted. It stems from the "we won, get over it" mentality. It all rests on what party is in charged and the amount of hyper-partisan attitudes that exists at the time."

I won't be surprised. Rove's subpoena is not an exercise in hyper-partisanship, in fact it is an investigation as to whether Rove himself acted in a hyper-partisan and unethical manner. Rove was subpoenaed well before the November election and does not stem from a "we won, get over it mentality". Rove's "we are in power, get over it" attitude was clearly demonstrated when he ignored prior subpoenas (citing executive privilege) while maintaining that he never discussed the firing of US attorneys or political prosecutions with the president (which contradicts his executive privilege claim).

I am interested to see how this plays out.

I say they should subpoena the 4 hour documentary that PBS did last year as evidence. They had the documents, testimony and a slew of other bites that could lead a 5th grader to convict them. So blatant was corruption that it shocked me that Rove and everyone concerned even attempted to get away with what they did. This started a number of years ago and is tied to many things, most importantly, the orchestrated decision to invade Iraq. If I had not worked for very high-profile political people and seen the arrogance and corruption that I witnessed, it would have been hard to believe what I saw on PBS. Anybody know which one I am talking about? I forgot the name of it

Mr Capp - You obviously have not done your homework. This news is fantastic and many may come tumbling down!!!

The level of hatred by the left is overwhelming. It must really suck to be so hateful.

Lets see.. Bill Clinton not only lied under oath, he instructed others to lie under oath and conspired to deceive the courts. THAT was OK and he is a hero. Karl Rove has not been proven to have committed any crimes, and he is a "Criminal At Large".

Yep. Pure, unadulterated hatred.

If Rove is ever convicted, I will hold him in the same level of contempt that I hold Clinton. But till then, I will consider him innocent.

There are still people who think Hitler was a good man. Some unlucky souls are so gullible... they will perceive a friend for a foe. It's sad.

I'm simply being a realist. Read my post from yesterday at 9:17. I think the Dems do want to get to the truth of the matter (see my comments, below) but of course they are also motivated by the idea of putting "Bush's Brain" on the stand and asking him a slew of embarassing questions and otherwise turning him on the skewer. I don't think Congressman Wexler would lose sleep if Rove ultimately finds himself a guest at a federal hotel.

But let's move on to the more important question: Is the attorney-firing issue worth investigating?

Robert, you have asked over and over again on this string whether President Bush had the authority to fire the attorneys at will. The short answer: Yes. The long answer: Yes, but. The "but" includes the question of motivation. If the firings were politically motivated rather than performance motivated then there is a potentially serious problem. The problem is whether the president has the constitutional authority to use the Executive Branch as an arm of his political party. We know that, from a legal perspective, the political and governing activities in the White House and within executive branch agencies have to be separated. Who here can forget about the charges that Al Gore performed fundraising activities while on official government time and using government facilities and equipment?

So yes, the president can appoint and fire U.S. attorneys at will but I don't think he has the power to do so if the reason is to further the power of his political party. That's the issue here and it is a very, very legitimate issue.

I await your response.

Miuwtant: How do you prove political motivation?

Do you really expect Karl Rove to get on the stand and say "So, Bush and I were discussing political strategy and I told him "Hey, lets fire a bunch of Clinton appointees!" and he said "That would be a political move...OK, lets do it!!!" ???

I doubt it.

Rational - Yes, I have hatred. Hatred for evil, hatred for greed, hatred for corruption and every evil committed before a God who loves each and every human He put forth upon the face of Earth. Do I hate His creatures? The answer is no, but I hate what we do, especially towards each other. I have no contempt for Rove, Clinton or any others whose hands have oppressed and caused so much grief to others, especially those who are least able to defend themselves. Only pride and arrogance would convince those who had the ability to corrupt a nation, believe they would not be found out, in the end.

It is hard, in this country, to tell the good guys from the bad, because the information has been carefully, and sloppily orchestrated. We have been kept busy with our own gain, so much so, that we will side with those who oppress in order to serve ourselves. All one has to do is seek truth, no matter what that truth tells us and have the courage to face it. It is only then that we will see change that will not destroy us. You can call evil good and find anyone innocent that you want. I pray you seek truth...it is a pearl of great price

Miuwtant - "Is the attorney-firing issue worth investigating?"...oh yeh! The firing of the attorneys is the direct result of an administration that was hell-bent on an agenda that was trying to disregard all legal and moral obligation to this country. It is the stuff behind the invasion of Iraq, the formation of Guantanimo Bay as well as many other concentration camps set up by our government around the world and a variety of other atrocities. If this investigation ever gets going full boar, all the secrets will come out and it will shock our nation! Yes, the evidence is out there and barring any legal manuevers, once brought into the light, has a great potential for discovery. It will put an end to the lies we have been told concerning "the compromise of national security". The players really meant "the compromise of my security"

How do you prove motivation? Isn't that about the stupidest question you could have asked?

Motive is critical to most criminal trials. In the case of perjury, for example, unless you can prove motive you can't convict. Yet Scooter was found guilty of perjury because his own statements didn't line up with other facts. He didn't have to admit that he lied.

Same here. If there is a basis for a criminal charge it won't be dependent on Karl Rove admitting that the firings were politically motivated. It will rely on some of those e-mails that may not have been erased after all. Or memos that survived the shredder. And the testimony of other people. And the bald facts - seven (or was it eight?) U.S. Attorneys fired mid-term for no discernible performance reason.

I don't know if there's proof but the prima facie evidence suggests the firings were politically motivated. If that's a crime -- and I think it is for reasons explained above -- then this issue may get taken up by the Justice Department and the usual process will unfold.

Will you ever see clearly or are you going to go through the rest of your life with those partisan shades pulled down over your eyes? Can you ever look at things rationally? I doubt it.

Oh, and none of the attorneys in question were Clinton appointees. They were ALL appointed by GWB.

R_T seems to have forgotten that Bill Clinton was completely acquitted. There was no conviction, no impeachment and a verdict of not guilty on obstruction charges.

Do you suppose R_T recalls when during the Clinton hearings House Speaker Livingston was forced to resign from the Congress when Livingston's own marital infidelity came to light?

Livingston replaced Newt Gingrich who also had a secret ongoing extramarital affair during the Clinton hearings. Henry Hyde chaired the prosecution.

Hyde had an extramarital sexual affair with Cherie Snodgrass who was married to another man with whom she had had three children.

The perjury charge against Clinton was defeated with 55 votes against conviction.

Polls conducted during 1998 and early 1999 showed that only about one-third of Americans supported Clinton's impeachment or conviction which was correctly viewed as a GOP political setup and smear campaign designed to obstruct or take down a very popular Democratic president.

Take heed, President Obama.

I sense a disturbance in the Force.

~

Why could that be ?

~

The U.S. Attorneys firing scandal.... who was involved in that ? Could it have been our Republican ex Congressman, one John T. Doolittle, who was under investigation by the Dept. of Justice at the time U.S. Attorney Carol Lam was working on the indictment of one Dept of Defense contractor named Brent Wilkes ?

~

Didn't ex Republican Congressman Doolittle come back to the district in early 2007 and try to blame her firing (which was also orchestrated by Daryl Issa in the state's Republican contingent) on the usual boogeyman of being "soft" on ee legal ay lee ins ?

~

How does that tie into the Clinton Impeachment ?

Congressman Doolittle boasted afterwards that Clinton was finished as a politician for the rest of his life because of what had been done to his reputation.

~

So many aquaintences of Doolittle are behind bars at this point. It's a wonder how soundly he sleeps at night, having never been formally exonerated and with Abramoff and Wilkes still in the pokey, and the Kevin Ring trial still to come.

~

Funny how some of the same people who were giving money to Doolittle's defense fund were also giving money to get McClintock elected to replace him.

Rove was working hand in glove with Jack Abramoff to run an entire stableful of these Republican Congresspeople on the donations of Abramoff's lobbyist's clients. It is a well known phenomena that if one has an entire group nationwide of people organized and engaged in criminal conduct it's a RICO conspiracy, if they all fear prosecution and all work together to thwart any investigation, as one goes down they all go down. Why do you think Cheney, Bush, even Laura Bush came out here to CA 04 so many times in 2006 to fundraise, to prop up one Republican Congressperson otherwise known for not doing much? As long as he stayed in office he was a co conspirator sworn to silence.