Rove Deposed In U.S. Attorney Probe

WASHINGTON — Former Bush White House official Karl Rove was questioned by House Judiciary Committee lawyers Tuesday on any role he may have played in politically motivated firings of U.S. attorneys.

Committee Chairman John Conyers, D-Mich., confirmed Rove's closed-door appearance through a committee spokesman who was not authorized to be quoted by name.

The committee has been seeking answers on who created the list of federal prosecutors who would lose their jobs. Conyers has suspected the trail led to the White House but couldn't prove it. Former President George W. Bush asserted executive privilege for Rove and former White House lawyer Harriet Miers and refused to let them testify.

An agreement was struck in March between Rove's lawyer and the committee for Rove, who was Bush's top political adviser, to testify on the prosecutors' firings, as well as the prosecution of former Gov. Don Siegelman of Alabama. Siegelman, a Democrat, has alleged that his prosecution was pushed by Republicans, including Rove.

The agreement called for Rove to testify "under the penalty for perjury," Conyers has said. The committee could release the transcripts afterward, but the agreement also allowed for public testimony.

Nine U.S. attorneys were fired. An internal Bush Justice Department investigation concluded that political considerations played a part in at least four of the dismissals.

Rove's appearance before the Judiciary Committee was first reported Tuesday night by the Web site Politico.

Comments

[madtom]

03:11 PM on 07/08/2009

Depositions today, depositions tomorrow, depositions FOREVER!

The Bushies will BEG for a prison cell in The Hague!

[TaxDayMan]

05:15 PM on 07/08/2009

Isn't that legal harrasment, Lib?

[expired]

02:18 PM on 07/08/2009

Once again, Nothing will come of this.

[TaxDayMan]

05:16 PM on 07/08/2009

Maybe because there is no crime other than beating the Libs in two presidential elections?

[RoveRoveRoveYourBoat]

01:46 PM on 07/08/2009

...life is but a dream!

[TaxDayMan]

01:28 PM on 07/08/2009

I will ask again "What law (Title, chapter, and verse) of US Code did the Bush Administration violate in firing those 9 US Attorneys? You say its illegal so quote, you will have to in a court of law!"

Well, Libs!

[jsgaetano]

01:32 PM on 07/08/2009

Hatch Act.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hatch_Act_of_1939

[TaxDayMan]

01:39 PM on 07/08/2009

Excuse me that law applies to "civil servants" NOT presidential appointments.

READ:"Section 7324 of The Hatch Act provides an exemption to the ban on political activities to:

(i) an employee paid from an appropriation for the Executive Office of the President; or
(ii) an employee appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, whose position is located within the United States, who determines policies to be pursued by the United States in the nationwide administration of Federal laws."

Such as US Attorneys. Libs, LoL!

[TaxDayMan]

01:47 PM on 07/08/2009

Next?

[Amunaka]

01:32 PM on 07/08/2009

What are you talking about..


Section 502 of the PATRIOT Act reauthorization, which was first drafted in July of 2005 and finally signed in March of 2006, changed the law regarding the appointment of U.S. Attorneys.

-- by June, they were already moving to replace unwanted prosecutors.

The intent of the law was to ensure continuity of law enforcement when federal prosecutors are lost in terrorist attacks or other crises.

Under it, the attorney general would be permitted to appoint replacements, indefinitely, without Senate confirmation.

What prosecutors have been lost in a terrorist attack or other crises

[Oldsop]

01:19 PM on 07/08/2009

Most people (except for biased legal techies) do not care about this subject. Why is this even being discussed?

[TaxDayMan]

01:33 PM on 07/08/2009

Because, Libs want to get Karl "I beat you in two presidential elections" Rove! Libs, LoL!

[HowietheScreamer]

03:37 PM on 07/08/2009

At the end of the day, it was Karl that led your party to the utter disaster it's in now. So why do you still kneel before the fat one and suckle?

[Amunaka]

01:04 PM on 07/08/2009

Okay I really don't know why this isn't getting thru....try one more time


wgsalter
approvalpending

Wrong....


"FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

WHITE HOUSE AND JUSTICE DEPARTMENT
BEGIN U.S. ATTORNEY TRANSITION

3/14/2001

WASHINGTON, D.C. - Continuing the practice of new administrations, President Bush and the Department of Justice have begun the transition process for most of the 93 United States Attorneys.

Attorney General Ashcroft said, 'We are committed to making this an orderly transition to ensure effective, professional law enforcement that reflects the President's priorities.'

... Prior to the beginning of this transition process, nearly one-third of the United States Attorneys had already submitted their resignations. The White House and the Department of Justice have begun to schedule transition dates for most of the remaining United States Attorneys to occur prior to June of this year."


http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2001/March/107ag.htm

[TaxDayMan]

01:15 PM on 07/08/2009

Of course it its getting through it does serve the Libs, LoL! Any more then

"United States Attorneys are appointed by, and serve at the discretion of, the President of the United States, with advice and consent of the United States Senate."

Gets through!

[Amunaka]

01:19 PM on 07/08/2009

Huh...?

In the summary portion of the email, Sampson lays out his recommendation to use a legal loophole to install replacements without Senate confirmation

"I am only in favor of executing on a plan to push some USAs out if we really are ready and willing to put in the time necessary to select candidates and get them appointed -- It will be counterproductive to DOJ operations if we push USAs out and then don't have replacements ready to roll immediately.

*****In addition, I strongly recommend that as a matter of administration, we utilize the new statutory provisions that authorize the AG to make USA appointments.... we can give far less deference to home state senators and thereby get 1.) our preferred person appointed and 2.) do it far faster and more efficiently at less political costs to the White House."*****

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002742.php

[bayviking]

12:35 PM on 07/08/2009

Wipe that smirk off your face, you computerized fraudster.

[judiNJ]

12:14 PM on 07/08/2009

NJ US Attorney Christopher Chistie's name was on that list until he started a bogus investigation of Senator Robert Menendez who was running for the senate in the 2006 election. Luckily, we knew it was bogus and Menendez was elected. Now Christie is running for Governor. I have not forgotten!

[SamEllison]

12:21 PM on 07/08/2009

That's right judi, charges against the future Sen Menendez were bogus and never should have been brought especially during an election.
It has Rove's MO all over it.

[SamEllison]

02:04 PM on 07/08/2009

Why the sunscreen?

[Matthew Benzor 1]

11:59 AM on 07/08/2009

Behind closed doors people what you are witnessing is secrecy that needs to stop we are free country unless it comes to the freemason secret society Elite's like Karl Rove and his buddy the SKULL AND BONES MEN Bush

[kdlaiusa]

11:48 AM on 07/08/2009

Is Rove getting a150 years jail sentence?

[Telemachus]

01:10 PM on 07/08/2009

Sooner or later.

[TaxDayMan]

01:16 PM on 07/08/2009

A liberal wish, LoL!

[ConjureMan]

11:37 AM on 07/08/2009

What's the point? The current Justice Department will do absolutely nothing with the info. Thus, our discovering what took place will just makes us nuts....What a flop Holder(ie Obama) have turned outt o be on this subject.

[Pagoas]

10:59 AM on 07/08/2009

they should've told karl that he was going to be probed years ago if they wanted him to show up.

[Heavy]

11:02 AM on 07/08/2009

JeffGannon would be jealous.

[garymc8]

10:36 AM on 07/08/2009

Will he still be a political pundit FROM JAIL?

[edwcorey]

11:44 AM on 07/08/2009

He has nothing to fear. The DOJ is still a Bush bastion. http://harpers.org/archive/2009/07/hbc-90005308

[brandnewstuff]

10:30 AM on 07/08/2009

The intentional corruption to aid RUINING THE CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISON

[dems08]

10:12 AM on 07/08/2009

Walpin was all the rage in conservative circles, right up until the "controversy" appeared baseless, and White House detractors were forced to move on.

... the Washington Post has published the documents turned over by the Corporation for National and Community Service to a Senate committee reviewing the White House's firing of AmeriCorps IG. Conservatives had charged that the IG, Gerald Walpin, was canned for going too hard after an Obama ally.

We've taken a look through the documents, and it's fair to say they offer a pretty clear picture of how and why the CNCS board lost confidence in Walpin. They jibe closely with what the White House and the board have already said -- to us, among others -- about the deterioration of the relationship between the IG and his agency. And they also make clear that this deterioration had begun long before the Obama administration existed. [...]

The problem is, these folks keep crying "wolf" without thinking it through.

Conservative bloggers and talk-radio hosts are constantly finding scandalous schemes and outrageous abuses relating to the White House.

Some are transparently ridiculous, and some take a few seconds on Google to debunk, but either way, they shout a lot of nonsense. And as a result, it's easy to start ignoring them.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_07/018947.php