Karl Rove blows off subpoena

[Wild-Bill]

Link (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,379621,00.html)

"Former White House adviser Karl Rove defied a congressional subpoena and refused to testify Thursday about allegations of political pressure at the Justice Department, including whether he influenced the prosecution of a former Democratic governor of Alabama."

http://www.foxnews.com/images/392960/3_61_071008_rove.jpg

Now is that the face of a guilty man with something to hide?? ;)

[Dont Hurt Me]

No surprise, the administration seems to be above the law in everything they do. The same draft dodging Rove who outed out a CIA agent. Good thing Im not king because he and the whole administration would be behind bars.

I wonder what Pelosi will do if anything. We have a broken Govt folks at the federal level. Time to give the power back to the states because Washington isnt worth a S....

[it5five]

I wonder what Pelosi will do if anything.

She will do absolutely nothing. If the Democrats don't lose any seats this November, they really need a new Speaker of the House. Preferably one that isn't completely spineless.

[Dont Hurt Me]

Someone like Webb would be good, Democrats are spineless and are not holding anyone accountable. Lets face it they are all bankrolled by the corporations. Even Obama is starting to talk as a corporate puppet.

Washington is Broken.

[solvs]

He can just claim executive privilege as he has been, even though it doesn't really work that way, because no, they won't do anything about it. The Dems earn their spineless label. And Congress is earning it's single digit approval rating (http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=69088). Though they're still preferred at 47% compared to 34% for the GOP. I assume they think they'll skate in to office and not have to work for it, which is a mistake IMO when they should be capitalizing on the record lows of Bush's approval ratings, and how over 80% of the country thinks we're on the wrong track. Especially with the GOP trying something right out of Karl's playbook to regain power, redistricting (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/07/gop-looks-to-redistrict-i_n_110632.html).

Anyway, apparently he's going to be debating John Edwards (http://thinkprogress.org/2008/07/04/john-edwards-to-debate-karl-rove-in-buffalo/) in Buffalo on Sept. 26th, that should be interesting.

[iShater]

Why are we surprised that he did and that nobody is doing anything about it? :confused:

[solvs]

Why are we surprised that he did and that nobody is doing anything about it? :confused:

We actually really aren't.

That's what's so sad about this.

[mactastic]

Someone like Webb would be good, Democrats are spineless and are not holding anyone accountable. Lets face it they are all bankrolled by the corporations. Even Obama is starting to talk as a corporate puppet.

Washington is Broken.
Well, one big problem is that Webb is a Senator, not a Congressman. Kinda hard to be Speaker of the House when you've been elected to the other chamber.

And I doubt anyone is surprised by Rove's maneuver. I would expect that Obama will make extensive use of the executive privilege powers handed to him by the Bush administration - and I would expect that Republicans will support that use lest they desire to be called hypocrites...

[obeygiant]

"It is unfortunate that Mr. Rove has failed to cooperate with our requests," Conyers said in a statement.

"Although he does not seem the least bit hesitant to discuss these very issues weekly on cable television and in the print news media, Mr. Rove and his attorney have apparently concluded that a public hearing room would not be appropriate. Unfortunately, I have no choice today but to compel his testimony on these very important matters."

Democrats have pushed hard to get senior White House officials, including Rove, to testify on the prosecutor purge and other issues, only to be rebuffed or run into legal challenges from the Bush administration and Justice Department.

For instance, House Judiciary has approved criminal and civil contempt citations against former White House Counsel Harriet Miers and White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten seeking information on the U.S. attorney firings. The two officials, citing an executive privilege claim by President Bush, had refused to comply with the panel's subpoenas. DOJ refused to bring a criminal contempt case against Miers and Bolten, so othe Judiciary Committee filed a civil contempt lawsuit against them.

The Senate Judiciary Committee subpoenaed Rove on the U.S. attorney firings, but citing Bush's privilege claim, he refused to appear. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) has declined to bring a criminal contempt citation to the Senate floor.

House Republicans have repeatedly dismissed the Democrats' subpoenas as political stunts, including the Rove subpoena today. They note that White House Counsel Fred Fielding has offered to allow Rove, Miers and other top Bush aides to be interviewed by the committee, but only behind closed doors and with no trancript of the conversation being kept.

“Mr. Rove voluntarily offered information that was requested, but Judiciary Committee Democrats refused his offer, proving once again that they are not really interested in the facts." said Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), ranking member of Judiciary, in a statement released today. "Therefore, Committee Republicans will demand that Jill Simpson—who has made unfounded accusations against Karl Rove—be called to testify at the hearing. In the meantime, Committee Republicans will accept Mr. Rove's offer of voluntary information, choosing responsible oversight over partisan games."Politico (http://www.politico.com/blogs/thecrypt/0508/House_Judiciary_Committee_subpoenas_Karl_Rove.html)

Unless they bring a Criminal Contempt lawsuit against Rove, they won't get him...on the stand that is.

[Ugg]

Unless they bring a Criminal Contempt lawsuit against Rove, they won't get him...on the stand that is.

The fact that he offered to testify stands against him. There's no law stating that testimony has to be in secret. He'll have his turn in the court, I've no doubt about that.

[Daveman Deluxe]

“Mr. Rove voluntarily offered information that was requested, but Judiciary Committee Democrats refused his offer, proving once again that they are not really interested in the facts." said Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), ranking member of Judiciary, in a statement released today. "Therefore, Committee Republicans will demand that Jill Simpson—who has made unfounded accusations against Karl Rove—be called to testify at the hearing. In the meantime, Committee Republicans will accept Mr. Rove's offer of voluntary information, choosing responsible oversight over partisan games."

This troubles me greatly. The Republicans are saying that he agreed to testify, and that the Democrats are playing silly games. Of course, Mr. Rove only agreed to testify if it were in secret and not under oath. There are important reasons that these hearings should be public and under sworn oath. I would never feel comfortable taking his testimony at face value unless I knew that he had the threat of perjury charges ostensibly keeping him honest, and I know the Democrats feel the same way--which is why they're insisting on a proper hearing..

[solvs]

Looks like he took off for a few days:

Karl Rove Flees the Country (http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/91181/)

Though O'Reilly seems to think he shouldn't bother having to stand in front of the House (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/07/17/billo-tells-karl-rove-who-in-their-right-mind-would-want-to-go-in-to-a-house-committee-which-is-just-a-dog-and-pony-show/), though he doesn't even seem to get why Rove has been summoned. :rolleyes:

[Kashchei]

The fact that he offered to testify stands against him. There's no law stating that testimony has to be in secret. He'll have his turn in the court, I've no doubt about that.

Yes, but he'll undoubtedly not be able to recall any potentially incriminating information. This seems to be the M.O. of this lot.

[Dont Hurt Me]

Well, one big problem is that Webb is a Senator, not a Congressman. Kinda hard to be Speaker of the House when you've been elected to the other chamber.

And I doubt anyone is surprised by Rove's maneuver. I would expect that Obama will make extensive use of the executive privilege powers handed to him by the Bush administration - and I would expect that Republicans will support that use lest they desire to be called hypocrites...
Whoops, your right but what I meant is the democrats need some tougher people then the wimps like Pelosi and Reid. Spineless. Obama needs a Webb as VP but he said he wasnt interested. Still its interesting that Rove can just ignore this? It looks like the President and all his men are above any law or checks and balances. Makes me wonder what Congress is for if the President and his men can declare them self king. Has anyone heard of any follow up here or are they running away with their tails between their legs.

[és:]

Now is that the face of a guilty man with something to hide?? ;)


No, it's the face of Kelvin MacKenzie morphing into Harold from neighbours.

[Thomas Veil]

Looks like he took off for a few days:

Karl Rove Flees the Country (http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/91181/)The chutzpah of Turdblossom and his mouthpiece in that video is amazing.

And why is it every time Republicans are asked to testify, it's off-the-record, not recorded, not under oath, etc.?

Maybe Bill Clinton should have made such demands when being questioned about Monica Lewinsky. Then the Republicans would never have been able to maneuver him into a lie.

Oh, I forgot: that option available only to members of the "right" party. :mad:

[solvs]

It's even worse than you'd think:

Rove Threatened GOP IT Guru If He Does Not 'Take the Fall' for Election Fraud in Ohio, Says Attorney (http://www.bradblog.com/?p=6214)

Bush seems to be doing this with Cheney too:

Closing the Door (http://www.newsweek.com/id/146651)
President Bush asserts executive privilege rather than turn over Cheney’s FBI interview regarding Valerie Plame (http://murraywaas.crooksandliars.com/2008/07/16/president-bush-asserts-executive-privilege-rather-than-turn-over-cheneys-fbi-interview-regarding-valerie-plame/)

[Thomas Veil]

Gee, I wish I was above the law. :mad:

[BoyBach]

Though O'Reilly seems to think he shouldn't bother having to stand in front of the House (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/07/17/billo-tells-karl-rove-who-in-their-right-mind-would-want-to-go-in-to-a-house-committee-which-is-just-a-dog-and-pony-show/), though he doesn't even seem to get why Rove has been summoned. :rolleyes:


What a fine and upstanding pair of "patriots" Messrs. O'Reilly and Rove are. :rolleyes:

[iJohnHenry]

Well just you wait 'till Georgie Porgie lines up his pens for Executive Pardons at the end of his term.

Fun times.

[solvs]

Iowa City woman, others arrested for attempting citizen's arrest of Rove (http://www.gazetteonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080726/NEWS/345314465/1006/news)

[Thomas Veil]

Iowa City woman, others arrested for attempting citizen's arrest of Rove (http://www.gazetteonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080726/NEWS/345314465/1006/news)Nice try...and I really empathize with them and admire their nerve.

But without a sympathetic law enforcement branch, they had no chance of accomplishing anything.

If they were really trying to get Rove charged, it was pointless. OTOH, if they were merely trying to draw attention to the way Rove thumbs his nose at the law, well then, this made the news, so I guess it succeeded.

[Much Ado]

Will there ever be accountability in US politics again?

[leekohler]

Will there ever be accountability in US politics again?

After this administration, how could there be?

[SMM]

ROVE THREATENED GOP IT GURU IF HE DOES NOT 'TAKE THE FALL' FOR ELECTION FRAUD IN OHIO, SAYS ATTORNEY

From The Brad Blog (http://www.bradblog.com/?p=6214)

Letter Sent to Attorney General Mukasey Requesting 'Protection for Mr. Connell and His Family From This Reported Attempt to Intimidate a Witness' After Tip from 'Credible Source'

UPDATE: OH AG Reportedly Asked to Provide Immunity Protection...
Karl Rove has threatened a GOP high-tech guru and his wife, if he does not "'take the fall' for election fraud in Ohio," according to a letter sent this morning to Attorney General Michael Mukasey, by Ohio election attorney Cliff Arnebeck.

The email, posted in full below, details threats against Mike Connell of the Republican firm New Media Communications, which describes itself on its website as "a powerhouse in the field of Republican website development and Internet services" and having "played a strategic role in helping the GOP expand its technological supremacy."

Connell was described in a recent interview with the plaintiff's attorneys in Ohio as a "high IQ Forrest Gump" for his appearance "at the scene of every [GOP] crime" from Florida 2000 to Ohio 2004 to the RNC email system to the installation of the currently-used Congressional computer network firewall.

Connell and his firm are currently employed by the John McCain campaign, as well as the RNC and other Republican and so-called "faith-based" organizations.

In a phone call this afternoon, Arnebeck could not publicly reveal specific details of the information that triggered his concern about the threats to Connell. The message to the IT man from Rove is said to have been sent via a go-between in Ohio. That information led Arnebeck to contact Mukasey after he found the reports to be credible and troubling.

"If there's a credible threat, which I regard this to be," he told The BRAD BLOG, "I have a professional duty to report it."

Attempts to reach Connell for comment late this afternoon were not successful.

The disclosure from Arnebeck comes on the heels of a dramatic announcement last week, made at a Columbus press conference, announcing Arnebeck's motion to lift a stay on the long-standing King Lincoln Bronzwell v. Blackwell federal lawsuit, challenging voting rights violations in the 2004 Presidential Election in Ohio.

The motion was made following the discovery of new information, including details from a Republican data security expert, leading Arnebeck towards seeking depositions of Rove, Connell, and other GOP operatives believed to have participated in the gaming of election results in 2004. A letter [PDF] was sent to Mukasey at the same time last week, asking him to retain email and other documents from Rove...

"Mr. Rove's e-mails from the White House to the Justice Department, the FBI, the Pentagon, Congress and various federal regulatory agencies are obviously relevant to the factual issues that we intend to address in this case," Arnebeck wrote last week to the Attorney General. "We are concerned about reports that Mr. Rove not only destroyed e-mails, but also took steps to destroy the hard drives from which they had been sent."

In his email to Mukasey today, Arnebeck writes: "We have been confidentially informed by a source we believe to be credible that Karl Rove has threatened Michael Connell, a principal witness we have identified in our King Lincoln case in federal court in Columbus, Ohio, that if he does not agree to 'take the fall' for election fraud in Ohio, his wife Heather will be prosecuted for supposed lobby law violations."

"This appears to be in response to our designation of Rove as the principal perpetrator in the Ohio Corrupt Practices Act/RICO claim with respect to which we issued document hold notices last Thursday to you and to the US Chamber of Commerce Institute for Legal Reform," the Ohio attorney writes, before going on to link to The BRAD BLOG's coverage of his press conference last week and requesting "protection for Mr. Connell and his family from this reported attempt to intimidate a witness."



Just when you think this POS cannot sink any lower, up pops a story, which dispels that. There is no punishment too severe for Rove. Tri him, convict him of the hundreds of crimes he is guilty of (that should add up to several life sentences), and put him in 'general population' of a federal maximum security prison.

[Dont Hurt Me]

What a fine and upstanding pair of "patriots" Messrs. O'Reilly and Rove are. :rolleyes:
So true, both eager for war as long as they arent the ones who have to fight it. Both never served a day of their life in the military.

[leekohler]

Well, well...let's see what happens.

The House Judiciary Committee has voted to hold former White House strategist Karl Rove in contempt of Congress for ignoring a subpoena to testify.

Voting along party lines Wednesday, the committee said Rove broke the law by failing to appear at a July 10 hearing on allegations of White House influence over the Justice Department, including whether Rove encouraged prosecutions against Democrats.

The committee decision is only a recommendation, and it was unclear whether Speaker Nancy Pelosi would allow a final vote.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/sns-ap-rove-contempt,0,1054695.story

[bradl]

From TFA:


Rove has denied any involvement with Justice Department decisions, and the White House has said Congress has no authority to compel testimony from current and former advisers.


Apparently the White House didn't read the portions (bold for emphasis) of the Constitution stating that each Branch of government may use the system of Checks and Balances on the other, via a given set of means. Congress can surely, and by law, compel testimony. That's why that system is in place. it sure as bloody hell used it during Iran-Contra.

BL.

[SMM]

From TFA:

Apparently the White House didn't read the portions of the Constitution stating that each Branch of government may use the system of Checks and Balances on the other, via a given set of means. Congress can surely, and by law, compel testimony. That's why that system is in place. it sure as bloody hell used it during Iran-Contra.

BL.


Oh, they read them for sure. They just ignored them. To really understand this, it is necessary to understand Dick Cheney, the executive President of the US.

Cheney's political career began during the Nixon administration. Although a relatively small player then, he was moving up. He was dismayed by the fall of Nixon. Nixon was forming the "Imperial Presidency (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_Presidency)". Fortunately for America, Congress was not inclined to surrender its oversight role, and the federal courts still believed in the Constitution, and the rule of justice. Cheney tried to persuade anyone who would listen (he was not a 'player' yet), Nixon should ignore Congress and the Courts. There were a few others in his administration who felt the same, but were not given so because of Cheney. Nixon wavered, considering to ignore the courts. A Constitutional crisis lingered on the horizon, like a mid-west thunderstorm.

It was Goldwater who went to Nixon. He told him that, even among republicans, there would not be enough votes to keep him from being impeached. Nixon caved, and the showdown was averted. Cheney was pissed. He looked for an opportunity to put his beliefs into practice. None presented themselves during his stint in the Ford, or Reagan administrations. He was given a chance under Bush I. But Bush senior was not as taken with Cheney as his son would be.

Bush I was told by Cheney, he did not need to get Congressional approval for the first Gulf War. This became a major topic of debate within his administration. Cheney wanted him to ignore Congress. Bush I compromised by seeking Congressional approval (which he received by a huge margin), but also noted his position, this was really not required.

With the election (sort of) of GW, the world changed. Cheney was now in a position to implement the "Imperial Presidency" (IP) to its furthest extreme. What is important to note, one cannot believe in the IP and the Constitution. They are mutually exclusive. Those supporting the IP, see a very small role of Congress, in all matters relating to foreign affairs. In other words, even though the Constitution clearly states the roles of the Executive and Legislative branches, those believing in the IP, simply do not accept this.

This has led us to where we are today. Executive Privilege (EP) has become a ruse for this administration (and its former/current members) to simply assert, "We make the law, and we are above it". America is no longer ruled by a constitutional government. We live in a dictatorship. I believe many Americans realize this, but do not wish to acknowledge it. This Country will not be healed, until those brought this upon us, are brought to justice.

[hulugu]

....This Country will not be healed, until those brought this upon us, are brought to justice.

I agree with this. I'd like to see some people tried. At Slate.com (http://www.slate.com/id/2195892/), they have an interactive venn diagram showing how WH officials are tied together in the various scandals.

It might be fun to see what kind of logical contortions these guys will get into once a Democrat takes their throne. All of the sudden an imperial presidency will seem like a very bad idea.

[SMM]

I agree with this. I'd like to see some people tried. At Slate.com (http://www.slate.com/id/2195892/), they have an interactive venn diagram showing how WH officials are tied together in the various scandals.

It might be fun to see what kind of logical contortions these guys will get into once a Democrat takes their throne. All of the sudden an imperial presidency will seem like a very bad idea.

I tried to download this and post it here. It is a little challenging at first, to discern what is being shown. It quickly makes sense though.

[hulugu]

I tried to download this and post it here. It is a little challenging at first, to discern what is being shown. It quickly makes sense though.

I just used Grab because I couldn't figure out a way to get it to show here. What's most interesting is how Alberto Gonzalez is the pivot point for each of these bad acts.

Of course, he and Cheney will just throw their aids to the wolves and hope Shrub can pardon everyone in January.

[bradl]

Sudden outbreak of common sense??

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/C/CONGRESS_CONTEMPT?SITE=NVLAS&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT


A federal judge on Thursday rejected President Bush's contention that senior White House advisers are immune from subpoenas, siding with Congress' power to investigate the executive branch and handing a victory to Democrats probing the dismissal of nine federal prosecutors.

The unprecedented ruling undercut three presidential confidants who have defied congressional subpoenas for information that Bush says is protected by executive privilege. Democrats swiftly announced they would schedule hearings in September, at the height of election season.


Irony of it all: The federal judge in question was appointed by Bush.

BL.

[Dont Hurt Me]

That will teach him.:D

[leekohler]

Sudden outbreak of common sense??

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/C/CONGRESS_CONTEMPT?SITE=NVLAS&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT



Irony of it all: The federal judge in question was appointed by Bush.

BL.

Well, he must be an "activist judge". I'm sure that's what we'll hear from Bush. And don't bet for one second Rove will end up on the stand.

[bradl]

Well, he must be an "activist judge". I'm sure that's what we'll hear from Bush. And don't bet for one second Rove will end up on the stand.

That all depends on 2 things, both of which I think will happen:

1. the Blues maintain majority in the House of Representatives. All 435 seats are up this year, and I'm thinking the Blues will keep it. It's been because things have been split pretty much 51/49 in both sides of Congress that things have been stagnant, because one party stalls the other. If the Blues keep more of a majority over the Reds here, things will get interesting.

2. The blues keep majority of the Senate. This is even stickier because of it being one person who left the Reds that the Blues got control. But if the Blues keep it,

The subpoenas can be reissued after January when Bush's lackeys finally get the hell out of town.

Obama definitely called one thing right. He or Hillary would be a better President than McCain; any three of them would be a better President than George Bush.

BL.

[SMM]

Well, he must be an "activist judge". I'm sure that's what we'll hear from Bush. And don't bet for one second Rove will end up on the stand.

It has happened many times before, a conservative judge is appointed, yet they do not make rulings, based on a political agenda. They take their responsibilities seriously. Recent examples on SCOTUS are Sandra Day O'Connor and Anthony Kennedy.

As for Rove never ending up on the stand, we shall just have to wait to see. Much will depend on whether the Democrats pick up more Congressional seats. When Congress gave up the right to appoint special prosecutors, it hamstrung them. But, it is understandable why it happened. Nobody wanted another Ken Starr. What a friggin loser. :mad:

[hulugu]

... Nobody wanted another Ken Starr. What a friggin loser. :mad:

Another fine Republican endeavor. ;)

[solvs]

For White House, Hiring Is Political (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/31/washington/31capital.html?_r=1&ref=us&oref=slogin)

Kinda of a "duh, we know most of this already", but some new info as well. Not that it'll go anywhere. Here's that "proof of wrongdoing" you didn't seem to see was there Pelosi. That even some here don't see. Run with it. Not like Bush is Mr. Popularity lately, and your numbers are so low because of what you aren't doing, not what you are. :rolleyes:

[solvs]

More on the DOJ issue:

The Goodling Report: How Aides Took Control of DOJ Hiring (http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202423529642#)

And:

Justice Department Subpoenas Its Former Lawyers In Civil Rights Probe (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/08/06/justice-department-subpoe_n_117285.html)

[solvs]

Stating the obvious:

Justice Department: Bushies’ hiring practices broke the law (http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/16354.html)

Couple of days old, but it gives a rundown of this particular scandal.

Who could be involved and how (as well as the coverups):

U.S. Attorney Scandal Probe Enters White House Circle (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/08/07/white-house-nightmare-sce_n_117548.html)

And while Mukasey agrees the system has failed (http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/08/mukasey_to_bar_association_the.php) (it has (http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=11030)), he won't do much (http://www.newsday.com/news/politics/wire/sns-ap-mukasey-lawyers,0,1499825.story) about it (http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/mukasey-will-not-prosecute-in-doj-hiring-scandal-2008-08-12.html). Looks like they'll also escape any damage from the Plame thing (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080812/pl_nm/usa_cheney_plame_dc).

[solvs]

Looks like the civil sector will have to fill in for the Justice Dept:

Lawsuit Filed Against Gonzales & DOJ Officials (http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=5587585)
Six attorneys rejected from civil service positions at the Justice Department filed a lawsuit today against former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and three other top officials for allegedly violating their rights by taking politics into consideration in the hiring process.
Will see how this plays out.

Rove is still free.

[ohforfckssake!]

So Congress cites Rove for contempt if he asserts executive privilege. What then? Are they going to get a US Attorney to prosecute him? Oops -- USAs are executive branch officials under the control of the President, who is not obligated to take action, and indeed, may exercise prosecutorial discretion as is his wont.

It's also called separation of powers, and Congress can do f-all about it. They know the game. Partisans on both sides need to calm down and appreciate theatre for what it is...

[ohforfckssake!]

Yawn. As if DOJ hirings weren't heavily politicized during the Clinton era. In fact, career DOJ attorneys who are Dems are still heavily entrenched, and outnumber GOP careerists by 5-3 or something, even after hiring aggressively from party loyalists recently. Hysterics over something your own side was guilty of, as usual...

[solvs]

Yawn. As if DOJ hirings weren't heavily politicized during the Clinton era. In fact, career DOJ attorneys who are Dems are still heavily entrenched, and outnumber GOP careerists by 5-3 or something, even after hiring aggressively from party loyalists recently. Hysterics over something your own side was guilty of, as usual...
This has already been debunked. Clinton didn't hire and fire right in the middle of his terms, and especially didn't do what the Bush administration is being criticized for, like going mainly after Republicans for political gain. As a matter of fact, Clinton and Reno frequently butted heads. You're also ignoring that separation of powers is suppose to provide balance so no side has too much power, not that Congress can do nothing against the Executive. See Clinton's impeachment.

You can't honestly be trying to say what the DOJ has been doing is ok though can you?