Schumer Demands Rove Testimony in US Atty scandal

[maddezmom]

Schumer Demands Rove Testimony in US Atty scandal
By Rebecca Carr | Monday, March 12, 2007, 02:03 PM


New York Democratic Sen. Charles E. Schumer, leading the investigation of the mass firing of U.S. attorneys around the country, is now turning to the top tier of the White House for answers.

Schumer wants Karl Rove, the president’s senior adviser, to appear before the Senate Judiciary Committee to answer questions about the abrupt dismissal of David C. Iglesias, the top prosecutor from New Mexico.

McClatchy’s Washington Bureau reported over the weekend that Rove assured state Republican Party Chairman Allen Weh that Iglesias would be “gone” after concerns were raised about the speed in which he was investigating a state Democrat before the fall election.

“The more we learn, the more it seems that people at high levels of the White House have been involved in the U.S. attorney purge,” Schumer said.

Recent disclosures reveal that Rove talked to Weh before any public announcement of the firing was made and that Rove talked about Igleisas to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and the White House Counsel Harriet Miers, Schumer said.

more: http://www.statesman.com/blogs/content/shared-blogs/washington/washington/entries/2007/03/12/schumer_demands.html

[TheLeftyMom]

1. Good luck with that Charlie

They are still acting as if the Pukes were in power, ignoring the Congress.

Of course, I don't see the Congress really rallying to back up Schumer either, or Waxman, or Reid -- so maybe its nothing more or less than they deserve.

[maddezmom]

6. how so?

So do you think he shouldn't have demanded Rove's testimony? :shrug:

I'm confused, when they do speak out we criticize and when they don't speak out we do the same. What do we want?

[HereSince1628]

8. Sure Rove should testify, it's just that based on the past 6 years

we all wonder how likely it is that you can get a WH official up there under oath.

[maddezmom]

10. of course it's going to be a battle

but should we not cheer on those that want to battle? I'm with Waxman, Schumer, Leahy and any others that at the very least on the record for trying. :)

[spotbird]

13. A battle for its own sake is useless

Rove's testimony wouldn't change a thing. Yeah, they should seek it, but they should devote most of their energy to fixing the fucking problem. If that isn't the priority, why not?


Fight the Republicans who want to keep the law. Figure out a way to force the confirmation of the new USA's. Do something that matters!!!!

[Supersedeas]

16. Dan Bartlett is warming up that Executive Privilege argument

[Bitwit1234]

2. Hot damn sock it to em

I'd love to see Waxman get rove under oath...and I hope they televise it this is something the public has been waiting for - for six years...hoooooooooohaaaaaaaaaaaa. Sic me Waxman.

[shraby]

3. It's time for the

:popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn:

[rodeodance]

4. no fibbing around this time Turdblossem!! (took him 5 trips to Friz before

he weaseled out of it)

[waiting for hope]

5. Waxman has been a very busy

boy lately....can he be paid overtime?

[David Zephyr]

7. Sen. Charles E. Schumer!

Thanks, Chuck! :thumbsup:

[spotbird]

9. Testimony is nice

it will be great sport to watch if it happens, so what?

The law needs to be changed today. The Democrats must demand the immediate reinstatement of the fired USA's or the immediate submission of the names of the interim Attorney's for confirmation.

Everything else that is not substantive is theatrics to appease those at home who want real action. Well, the window dressing is no longer enough. It is time for hard work, not dramatic grandstanding signifying nothing.

[wake.up.america]

11. Rove is going nowhere except to say, "No."

[spotbird]

12. Exactly,

this is a non issue. Even if he came, he'd just have amnesia, and he isn't going anywhere. It a fun, but meaningless, game to pretend otherwise.

The Democrats have enough information to act forcefully, now. If they don't do it then it must be because they don't view the firings as a problem. There is no other conclusion.

[MGKrebs]

17. That's a very "black and white" view of the situation.

Do you see everything with such clarity and simplicity, or just this particular issue?

There are many other possible conclusions, and even if I don't know specifically what they are, I can imagine that there are some.

And what does "act forcefully" mean anyway?

Why can't we just encourage these guys when they do something right instead of setting the bar higher and higher so that they can never succeed, and in fact we find criticism even in their attempts to do the right thing?

It's just amazing. This is DEMOCRATIC Underground, Dems finally have majorities after what, 12 years?, they've been the majority for all of 2 months, and the animosity here towards them is enough to take your breath away. This place is turning into a centralized location to slam Dems. Who needs Freakrepublic, we do it first and better.

You are taking the information of a prominent Senator putting an evil WH advisor on the spot to either answer questions or duck them, and turn it into evidence that "they" don't care about the issue at all. Why are you even here? What is the point of such a post and opinion? Do you distrust the Dem party so much that you wish to infect others with your distrust and effect the destruction of the Party? There is no other conclusion.

[spotbird]

19. Forcefully means

now, today, this instant pull every maneuver available to require the confirmation of the new USA's and get the legislation to end this outrage passed. It is possible if they use the Republican play book, it is past time they do it.

If DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND means uncritical, thoughtless, drone like support of passive behavior when the stakes are high what is the point of the discussion forum? It it just to be cheer leaders? A Freerepublic for the Democrats? Is that what we're reduced to now?

Thanks for your concern about my personal life. No, I'm only stubborn when it matters most. You may not understand that some things are wrong, just objectively wrong. The Republican behavior in the AG scandal is an example of frank abuse of power, there is nothing to compromise. It simply must be stopped.

[MGKrebs]

20. No, DU doesn't mean drone like support, but

it also doesn't have to mean creating "no other conclusion" but criticism for acts that are, after all, essential to democracy and justice. You are advocating (I think) that Dems use the Reich wing fascist tactics to achieve their ends. That was what I thought we were trying to defeat!

[spotbird]

21. I am advocating no such thing.

It is possible to take a firm stand without illegal behavior. Think of the civil rights movement.

[kimmerspixelated]

15. But if he refuses,

it will certainly make him look worse than he already does, won't it?

[usregimechange]

14. Does it mean he will subpoena him?

[Eurobabe]

18. I want to see that pasty FUCK sweat on C-SPAN!!

[Eugene]

22. AP: Democrats Seek Rove in Attorney Firings

Democrats Seek Rove in Attorney Firings
Democrats Seek to Question Rove About U.S. Prosecutor Firings

By LARA JAKES JORDAN

WASHINGTON Mar 12, 2007 (AP)— Congressional Democrats on Monday singled
out presidential adviser Karl Rove for questioning about the firings of eight
federal prosecutors and whether the dismissals were politically motivated.

The demands to question Rove signaled anew Democrats' shifting focus beyond
the Justice Department and toward the White House, in the inquiry.

Last week, House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, D-Mich., said he
would seek to interview former White House Counsel Harriet Miers and deputy
counsel William Kelly for insight on their roles, if any, in the firings.

Rove emerged as the Democrats' newest target after weekend news reports said
the New Mexico Republican Party's chairman urged Rove to fire David Iglesias,
then the state's U.S. attorney.

-snip-

Full article: http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=2944977