Re: Hillary did it and had no authority

Post #278,455 by Seamus 3/16/07 1:49:58 PM Reply	Re: Hillary did it and had no authority Karl did more than consult, read the emails and read between the lines and you should see that Karl wanted the firings and they happened. I didn't like what Hillary did, but to compare travelgate to the firings of the attorneys is unjustified. If the white house hadn't got the section into the patriot 2 act, I doubt they would have tried this stunt. Or if they did, the people they nominated to replace the attorneys would have been different. Seamus
Post #278,458 by bepatient 3/16/07 2:05:15 PM Reply	What emails are you talking about? The "latest" (not even from Rove) On Jan. 6, 2005, an assistant White House counsel forwarded an e-mail with the subject line "Question from Karl Rove" to Kyle Sampson, then chief of staff at the Justice Department. The e-mail noted that earlier that day, Karl Rove stopped by the counsel's office to ask "how we planned to proceed regarding US Attorneys, whether we were going to allow all to stay, request resignations from all and accept only some of them, or selectively replace them, etc." [link\|http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-070315rove,1,7614897.story?coll=chi-newsnationworld-hed\|http://www.chicagotr...wsnationworld-hed] So Harriet threw out this idea to sack all of them. There was some discussion...and then Rove poked his head in and asked if they had decided? My universal "read between the lines" translator must be broken. This is still a case of the democrat's Pavlovian response to Karl Rove. Sorry. Thats all. Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry._{Adrian Belew}
Post #278,461 by bepatient 3/16/07 2:18:11 PM Reply	Copy of email [link\|http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/sampsonrove-email/\|http://www.talkingpo...ampsonrove-email/] Still don't see it doing anything but proving Karl was checking on Harriet's recommendation. But, of course, what did he know and when did he know it...(lather lather lather). Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry._{Adrian Belew}
Post #278,464 by drewk 3/16/07 2:27:40 PM Reply	Plausible deniability Bill, I think what's happening is that people "know" that when Rove asks a question, it's not just a question. Same as when Hillary "fired" the travel staff. There are people who don't technically have any legal authority behind what they're asking, but they seem to get their way. In this specific case, it may very well be true that Rove was simply asking for information. But in a culture where people wield influence that goes beyond their job description, where orders are passed by implication, and everyone likes it that way[1], you can no more prove who didn't order something than you can prove who did. [1] I'm not talking about this administration. I'm talking about the whole Beltway world. === Kip Hawley is still an idiot. === Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link\|http://DocHope.com\|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats]. [link\|http://DocHope.com\|http://DocHope.com]
Post #278,479 by Another Scott 3/16/07 3:36:52 PM Reply	Yup. My impression is that much more is going on than is stated explicitly in the e-mails. Things don't usually percolate in big organizations for nearly 2 years without someone pushing it. Harriet Miers doesn't seem to me to be a person who would be pushing these things - she strikes me as someone who does what she's asked. Who asked? Well, who stood to benefit from the changes? Friends of Karl, perhaps? People worried about losing the House and Senate in close races, perhaps? IOW, the need to follow the trail wherever it leads. Don't, at this point, accept that it was Miers and Samson's fault because they were freelancing (or something). Cheers, Scott.
Post #278,492 by bepatient 3/16/07 4:05:35 PM Reply	This is exactly what starts it ppl read the headline. Don't read the emails. Don't apply it to everyday in a HUGE org. A suggesting is made..and by all accounts it was made by Harriet...but it could have been anyone considering they were just getting started with 2nd term, that they do a second term purge. Most don't like the idea..ask for alternatives. One of the leaders and assistants to the Pres (KR) checks on status by poking his head in a door. Lacky shoots off an email saying "bossman stopped by and asked" And what was the headline? "Karl Rove Was Involved in Firing of Attorneys, Email Shows" 'Rove was in the middle of this mess' Its Rove...so its SCANDAL. Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry._{Adrian Belew}
Post #278,497 by drewk 3/16/07 4:22:21 PM Reply	Isn't it also possible Rove is an un-elected political operative. As such he has no legal authority in anything. But people quickly learn that he has the backing of the president and other powerful administration officials. Eventually, his "requests" are little different from "orders" except without the accountability. People who understand the way Washington works know to only document the things that make them look good, or cover their own asses. As long as no one can prove who was behind something, no one can ever be held to account for it. Washington has worked this way for a long time before the current crew came to power. So like I said, it's possible that you're absolutely right, and that Rove had nothing to do with it. But do you really believe it couldn't have happened the other way? === Kip Hawley is still an idiot. === Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link\|http://DocHope.com\|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats]. [link\|http://DocHope.com\|http://DocHope.com]
Post #278,500 by bepatient 3/16/07 4:33:37 PM Reply	On this matter if I were to give odds...99.9 to .1 that Rove initiated this. >thats< how unlikely I think it is. I certainly think he knew...it was a term change, he's a key advisor on the President's staff...and as such I would expect him, as part of his JOB, to follow up on key initiatives in each of the big exec branches, including Justice. I would also certainly EXPECT cronyism and a suggesting to the folks doing the replacing that "I have a friend"...and yes..I would expect the lacky to consider this important to act on..since Karl is pretty close to the boss. However, I believe with near certainty that is the complete extent of his involvement. He asked the question. Now we have a week of press coverage of him doing his job. (but its a SCANDAL). Starting to make me pine for more coverage of Anna Nicole. Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry._{Adrian Belew}
Post #278,503 by drewk 3/16/07 4:57:03 PM Reply	Shut your mouth Nothing should make you pine for more coverage of her. === Kip Hawley is still an idiot. === Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link\|http://DocHope.com\|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats]. [link\|http://DocHope.com\|http://DocHope.com]
Post #278,505 by Seamus 3/16/07 5:46:51 PM Reply	Miers did not start it From what I have seen in the coverage her suggestion to fire them all was made in Feb 2005. The start of the mess goes back to at least Jan 2005. For the last 6 years Rove has been intimately involved in policy and politics. One of his former employees gets a district in Arkansas and all he did was poke his head in the door? That is BS. I don't know if he started it, but he was involved in it. I would guess his goal in being involved with this was related to the 2006 elections and the voting demographics. I do believe that 'voter fraud' gets translated to keeping republican voters voting and derailing non-republican voters by state and local republicans and Rove knows this. Seamus
Post #278,472 by lincoln 3/16/07 3:09:16 PM Reply	E-Mails show Rove's Role in Attorny Firings New unreleased e-mails from top administration officials show that the idea of firing all 93 U.S. attorneys was raised by White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove in early January 2005, indicating Rove was more involved in the plan than the White House previously acknowledged. The e-mails also show how Alberto Gonzales discussed the idea of firing the attorneys en masse while he was still White House counsel \ufffd weeks before he was confirmed as attorney general. The e-mails put Rove at the epicenter of the imbroglio and raise questions about Gonzales' explanations of the matter. [...] The e-mail exchange is dated more than a month before the White House acknowledged it was considering firing all the U.S. attorneys. On its face, the plan is not improper, inappropriate or even unusual: The president has the right to fire U.S. attorneys at any time, and presidents have done so when they took office. What has made the issue a political firestorm is the White House's insistence that the idea came from Miers and was swiftly rejected. White House press secretary Tony Snow told reporters Tuesday that Miers had suggested firing all 93 attorneys, and that it was "her idea only." Snow said Miers' idea was quickly rejected by the Department of Justice. [link\|http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=2954988&page=1\|ABC News] lincoln "Chicago to my mind was the only place to be. ... I above all liked the city because it was filled with people all a-bustle, and the clatter of hooves and carriages, and with delivery wagons and drays and peddlers and the boom and clank of freight trains. And when those black clouds came sailing in from the west, pouring thunderstorms upon us so that you couldn't hear the cries or curses of humankind, I liked that best of all. Chicago could stand up to the worst God had to offer. I understood why it was built--a place for trade, of course, with railroads and ships and so on, but mostly to give all of us a magnitude of defiance that is not provided by one house on the plains. And the plains is where those storms come from." -- E.L. Doctorow Never apply a Star Trek solution to a Babylon 5 problem. I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a *Citizen* of the United States. [link\|mailto:golf_lover44@yahoo.com\|contact me]
Post #278,475 by bepatient 3/16/07 3:25:51 PM Reply	They don't show that at all. Thats why I attached the email. Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry._{Adrian Belew}
Post #278,600 by lincoln 3/17/07 1:04:45 PM Reply	You must have better sources than ABC News, right? They talked about NEW emails - ones (plural) that you're not talking about. lincoln "Chicago to my mind was the only place to be. ... I above all liked the city because it was filled with people all a-bustle, and the clatter of hooves and carriages, and with delivery wagons and drays and peddlers and the boom and clank of freight trains. And when those black clouds came sailing in from the west, pouring thunderstorms upon us so that you couldn't hear the cries or curses of humankind, I liked that best of all. Chicago could stand up to the worst God had to offer. I understood why it was built--a place for trade, of course, with railroads and ships and so on, but mostly to give all of us a magnitude of defiance that is not provided by one house on the plains. And the plains is where those storms come from." -- E.L. Doctorow Never apply a Star Trek solution to a Babylon 5 problem. I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a *Citizen* of the United States. [link\|mailto:golf_lover44@yahoo.com\|contact me]
Post #278,608 by bepatient 3/17/07 1:55:33 PM Reply	I guess I do. Since the "new" email was the one that I linked to. Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry._{Adrian Belew}
Post #278,476 by Seamus 3/16/07 3:28:30 PM 3/16/07 3:29:58 PM Reply	Rove was the person people were looking to ok this From farther down the Chicago Tribune article you linked to: 'Sampson wrote that as a political matter, "senators likely would resist wholesale (or even piecemeal) replacement of U.S. Attorneys they recommended. ... That said, if Karl thinks there would be political will to do it, then so do I."' That is what I meant be reading between the lines. Reading between this is definietly subjective, but I believe that if Karl wasn't backing this, then it probably wouldn't have happened. Seamus Edited by Seamus March 16, 2007, 03:29:58 PM EDT Expand All History
Post #278,477 by bepatient 3/16/07 3:32:33 PM Reply	BS KR is the political advisor to the President. Its HIS JOB to judge the political aspects of these decisions. None of this points to him doing anything but asking about a plan that had been put forward to replace all 93...which all accounts say he and others opposed...and him them poking his head into someones office saying "whatever happened to...". People reading into this that it was all his idea are all "hearing bells" Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry._{Adrian Belew}
Post #278,504 by Seamus 3/16/07 5:36:11 PM Reply	It is not BS It is my opinion. It is based on the belief the Rove is more than a political consultant, he also has influence on policy as well: [link\|http://www.newshounds.us/2006/04/19/breaking_mcclellan_resigns_rove_gives_up_policy_position.php\|http://www.newshound...licy_position.php] Byline: Dan Froomkin "When President Bush gave longtime political guru and senior adviser Karl Rove the additional title of deputy chief of staff for policy a little over a year ago, it was the ultimate expression of Bush's failure to make a distinction between politics and policy." [link\|http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0NTQ/is_2006_April_20/ai_n16346299\|http://www.findartic...l_20/ai_n16346299] Original article from the Washington Post in April 2006. Giving him the title just made it more formal. Seamus
Post #278,508 by bepatient 3/16/07 6:17:33 PM Reply	Guesswork, guesswork and more guesswork you should be a reporter. Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry._{Adrian Belew}
Post #278,512 by Seamus 3/16/07 6:53:59 PM Reply	If I was a reporter I would avoid putting these types of opinion into print for fear of losing access to high ranking officials. Then let me ask you who was the person that pushed this? If it wasn't Rove then who was it? You try to be independent and critical of all sides equally, but you don't think Rove was involved in this, you are being naive. Seamus
Post #278,527 by bepatient 3/16/07 8:14:31 PM Reply	Define "involved" If that means...did he know they were planning to either replace all or some of the attorneys during the second term...then yes, he was involved. If that means he was the one to institute said plan. No. I don't think him "involved". If that means...Karl Rove reviewed each file and decided that these 8 had to go (the over-riding implication in all of this) I again say no, he wasn't involved. Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry._{Adrian Belew}
Post #278,578 by Seamus 3/17/07 10:00:10 AM Reply	like this Rove was the person the local officials went to make sure something was done about the ags they didn't like. Rove probably kept it from happening until after they lost the 2006 elections because he didn't want to chance it and he really thought they would keep both houses. After the 2006 election he started looking to 2008 election. Or he kept it from getting to the president until after the 2006 elections. I do tend to believe the president actively agreed to the firings, but no way to prove it. To me he is involved because he is the main conduit for getting a presidential decision. Seamus
Post #278,583 by bepatient 3/17/07 11:02:45 AM Reply	then no. and you have to completely ignore the "scathing" email reality to make that determination. Unless, of course, Karl Rove became a Judge while we weren't looking. Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry._{Adrian Belew}
Post #278,585 by Another Scott 3/17/07 11:21:54 AM Reply	We may know more next week. [link\|http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002788.php\|TPMMuckracker]: [Conyers wrote:]"The White House Counsel's office advised us this afternoon that the White House would not be providing documents to the Committee, or providing the White House's position with respect to the Committee securing the testimony of White House officials today. This is contrary to earlier expectations that the Committee would receive these answers and documents today and is, therefore, very disappointing. The Counsel's office has assured me that they will continue to work in good faith to get answers to those questions by early next week. Despite those assurances and my continued hope that the White House will resolve these questions in a cooperative fashion, the Committee must take steps to ensure that we are not being stonewalled or slow walked on this matter. I will schedule a vote to issue subpoenas next week for the documents and officials we need to talk to. Allegations that our criminal justice system has been undermined by partisan politics and that the Congress was deceived about these activities are among the most serious this Congress will consider and we expect immediate answers." We'll see what happens. Cheers, Scott.
Post #278,615 by Seamus 3/17/07 6:39:52 PM Reply	Can you point me to the scathing email reality you are refering to? If it was the email you linked to at the beginning of this thread, that email shows how involved Gonzales was in determing the mechanics of the firings, what it doesn't show is was pushing this at the white house. Could have been Gonzales, but I think Rove is still the much more likely candidate. Either way, the white house pushed through set section in the 2nd patroit act that allowed them to do this and they used it. Congress needs to be alot more determined not to let legislation slipped through like this again. Seamus
Post #278,622 by bepatient 3/17/07 9:46:39 PM Reply	So now you agree with me? The email that created all the stir is the one I linked. So now, you see, why I question what all the stir is about? And again, the fact that the act was rubber stamped by D and R alike seems to be dismissed because it was "slipped in there". Round and round we go. Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry._{Adrian Belew}
Post #278,653 by Seamus 3/18/07 6:38:19 AM Reply	No I don't Because I am not sure what you believe. Who pushed the firings through? I believe that without Rove's approval it wouldn't have happened. It looks like they were trying to swing the voting towards the republicans in certain states - elections are Rove's area and I don't believe anyone in this administration steps on his toes, except shrub. Could have been Gonzalas, but I don't think so. He has his issues regarding the blocking of investigations that might bite him in the ass. Unfortunately, Congresses has probably let way too legislation be voted on without their intimate knowledge of the details. This is a long term issue to get congress to take responsibility for the legislation they pass. The firings are an immediate issue. It may have been legal, but the ags need to be able to do their jobs without worrying that they will lose their job if they chose the law over politics. Seamus
Post #278,665 by drewk 3/18/07 9:23:03 AM Reply	If not Rove, who did push it? === Kip Hawley is still an idiot. === Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link\|http://DocHope.com\|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats]. [link\|http://DocHope.com\|http://DocHope.com]
Post #278,619 by jb4 3/17/07 9:20:49 PM Reply	is /iz/ - verb is /ɪz/ \ufffdverb 1.\t3rd pers. sing. pres. indic. of be. \ufffdIdiom 2.\tas is. as1 (def. 25). [Origin: bef. 900; ME, OE; c. D is, ON es, er, G, Goth ist, L est, Gk est\ufffd, OCS jestĭ, Skt asti] There. I hope we've settled that! jb4 "It's hard for me, you know, living in this beautiful White House, to give you a firsthand assessment." — George W. Bush, when asked if he believed Iraq was in a state of civil war (Newsweek, 26 Feb 07)
Post #278,623 by bepatient 3/17/07 9:47:47 PM Reply	It'd be funny if it wasn't sad. Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry._{Adrian Belew}
Post #278,467 by JayMehaffey 3/16/07 2:33:35 PM Reply	They are already backtracking on Harriet The White House is already backtracking on saying Harriet Miers had the original idea of removing them all. Now memories are hazy, and nobody is sure who's idea it was. This is still a case of the democrat's Pavlovian response to Karl Rove. Sorry. Thats all. If you where talking about Gonzales you might be right, the scandal was brewing for several days before Rove's name was associated with it. My read is that that Congress started out irked at Gonzales for taking advantage of an obvious loophole in the PATRIOT act to bypass the normal Congressional approval. But once they began to investigate it became clear that this was a big problem. Six officials removed from office might not seem like much, but US Attorneys are major officials and are supposed to be free from political influence. It is very rare to remove any before their term is up, except when a president takes office when tradition allows him to accept the traditionally offered resignations from any and all. Plus, it appears that several of those removed from office where removed for prosecuting Republicans or refusing to prosecute Democrats. And that is major league contemptible behavior. Jay

Welcome to IWETHEY!