Senator Leahy will supboena Rove
Think Progress is reporting that Sen. Leahy will get Karl Rove to testify in Congress regarding the attorney purge, whether he is willing or not:
“Frankly, I don’t care whether [White House Counsel Fred Fielding] says he’s going to allow people or not. We’ll subpoena the people we want,” Leahy said. “If they want to defy the subpoena, then you get into a stonewall situation I suspect they don’t want to have.” Asked whether he’ll subpoena Rove, Leahy answered, “Yes. He can appear voluntarily if he wants. If he doesn’t, I will subpoena him.“
Rove has been like a cat with nine lives in his ability to stay out of trouble in the Bush Administration, much of which he had a direct hand in. Hopefully, he’s used up his last one. There’s still hope for this scenario:
UPDATE: Republicans have blocked Rove’s subpoena. Gotta protect Bush at all costs. Remember, party loyalty trumps loyalty to the Constitution with these people. From Americablog:
Today, at the Senate Judiciary Committee markup, authorization for subpoenas was approved for several Department of Justice officials: Mike Elston, Kyle Sampson, Monica Goodling, Bill Mercer, Mike Battle. Republican members of the committee blocked the authorization for subpoenas for White House officials, namely Harriet Miers, Karl Rove, and William Kelly.
March 15th, 2007 at 3:57 pm
Subpoenas? Very exciting…I just wonder, will Karl show up? I mean, the guy has been hiding under a rock for a long time…http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDaRFf7Cd6M
Karl, where aaarrreee you? LOL, from Americablog.
March 23rd, 2007 at 2:53 am
I’m sorry, what crime has been committed in the firing of those attorneys?
Maybe I’m a little dense here, so please explain it to me.
March 23rd, 2007 at 8:52 am
Little dense? You’;re awful easy on yourself. The crime wasn’t the firing of the attorneys. THe crime was DOJ officals lying to Congress about them being performance related when the evidence shows they were politically motivated, in some cases the attorneys investigating other Repubs and the White House, and GOnzales saying he didn’t know anything about it when he did. It’s not unusual for attorneys to be replaces under a new administration. Clinton Bush I and Reagan all did similar things.
Lying to Congress is a crime. Or is it only a crime if you’re a Democrat? Try crawling out from under the Townhall/FOXNEWS rock and you might learn something.
March 23rd, 2007 at 9:59 am
The firings were performance related. These U.S. attorneys were not pursuing voter fraud cases… allegedly perpetrated by democrats by the way. Besides, even if they were not performance related, the prez can fire them anyway; those attorneys serve totally at the discretion of the president. As far as firing any attorneys who were investigating the White House, which ones were they? What were they investigating?
You do know don’t you that Clinton fired an Arkansas U.S. attorney who was looking into Clinton’s real estate shenanigans don’t you?
Try crawling out from the Daily Kos/CNN rock and you might learn something.
March 23rd, 2007 at 11:28 am
Aw jeez..GOP’s definition of ‘voter fraud’=minorities voting. Carol Lam was investigating Duke Cinningham… PAtrick Fitzgerald (Libbygate) was on the list, too. Apparently, most of the attorneys on the list had HIGH numbers of convictions, the performance issue wasn’t brought up until after this came to light. ANd if Clinton did what you said, that’s wrong, too. Maybe if you assholes had gone after that instead of the blow job, you would have gotten somewhere.
Bush can do no wrong in your eyes, just like you, he’s a poor little victim, boo-fucking-hooo. You probably shit your pants on 9-11, too. My dog has a better grasp of the issues than you do. I’m not even going to bother talking to you about this any more. You’ll lose. Cons always end up losing, because your vision of reality is a made-up one, because you’re so fucking scared of everything. Wanna talk about something else, fine, but I’m done with this. Save it for the mouthbreathers over at LGF, they’ll agree with you. I don’t have to prove shit to you, because you could see a film of Bush fucking a small boy on the White House lawn and you’d spin it as ‘Bush cares about children’. And when the convictions come down, and Gonzales is out of there, you’ll whine again about how he was a victim. Because you people are professional victims. Your lives are so miserable and the world is so big and scary that it must be those liberals’ fault, right?
Done.
March 23rd, 2007 at 4:21 pm
Spoken like a truly unhinged moonbat who, having lost the argument, can do nothing but bluster and throw out ad hominem slime.
You really are good at parroting the left’s talking points. Investigating voter fraud does not equate to trying to stop minorities from voting, unless it’s minorities who are engaging in voter fraud. So you have a problem with trying to stop voter fraud? Is that it?
If you actually ever read my blog, you will see that I disagree with Bush on about 90% of what he does. I disagree with him on government spending, his handling of illegal immigration, his handling of the War in Iraq, you name it. But you are one of those narrow-minded leftists who try to pigeonhole me as a Bush worshiper.
In this case, I will defend Bush about these Attorney firings. He had every right to do it, whether it was for job performance or because he didn’t like the way the part their hair in the morning. You still didn’t name a single investigation that Bush was trying to derail by firing any of these attorneys. All you could do was insult me and huff that the argument is over like a child in tantrum mode.
You’re pathetic.
March 23rd, 2007 at 5:00 pm
Unhinged? Well, today I agree with you. I’m at the end of one of my famous insomnia weeks and have little patience for debating wingers right now. I was wrong on the ad hominems, I’ll grant you that. It’s not typical of me.
And it’s not parroting a talking point.. the GOP has a well known history of investigating voter fraud which curiously always seem to be in heavy minority districts. Really funny, considering all of the dirty tricks they employ at the polls such as voter intimidation and such. And the investigations in NM actually showed undervotes from Hispanic voters. If there was any fraud going on, I doubt it was coming from the Dems.
Carol Lam was investigating Duke Cunningham, convicted him and was expanding her investigation to other Repubs, when she ws then fired. Paul Charlton.. about to investigate Repub Rick Renzi, also refused to prosecute bogus obscenity charges, and insisted on personal confessions being recorded. David Iglesias gone after he refused to investigate bogus voter fraud claims from Domenici. Iglesias did do an initial investigation and found the claims were without merit. Frederick Black (reassigned)was expanding investigation into Abramoff.Robert Conrad Jr. replaced right before he was to investigate Republican Charles Taylor in a case involving a loan scam.
Also, many of the above attorneys were given good performance reviews. So the initial story doesn’t hold water. And there’s all those emails and stuff that show a concerted effort from the White House to get rid of attorneys not deemed ‘loyal’ enough.
So, yeah, I admit I lost my marbles there for a minute. And for what it’s worth I apologize. And it seems that you’re one of those people who Bush is not conservative enough. Fine, I was wrong there, too. And that ‘s that.