I am sick to death of these powermongers "refusing" congressional subpoenas... just arrest this a*****e like you would a common citizen...

On one hand they need to answer subpoenas provided they are legal just like any other person. Avoiding the issue makes them look bad. They should answer the summons and simply say that firing the people is within their rights. The reason is immaterial.

Firing the attorneys is not illegal, but refusing a legal subpoena may be. It would be near ironic for someone to refuse a subpoena to avoid answering for a non-crime only to be convicted of the crime of ignoring the subpoena.

Bush fires 7 or 8 attorneys. He claims it was because they weren't performing their job properly, weren't following guidelines set down. Perhaps that is the truth. Perhaps it isn't. In any case, they serve at the president's pleasure. He can fire them for any (or even no) reason.

He did wait until they had worked for him for a while, giving him the chance to see how well they worked.

It is far from uncommon for a president to fire some of the federal attorneys.

What was a bit uncommon, was when Clinton upon taking office fired 93 attorneys, an unprecedented number, including an attorney who was investigating him and the Whitewater scandal and replaced him with a former student of Clinton.

That got rid of a troublesome individual and gave Clinton 93 people who were very grateful and were indebted to him.

No one batted an eye. Even firing a person who was investigating him didn't cause any concern because it is within the president's right to do so.

Ahh... but you see... they have professed over and over again that the President had nothing to do with these firings... that he knew nothing about it... so the "Executive Privlidge" Rove claimed doesn't hold water...

We aren't talking about Clinton here, or even Bush... we are talking about a political aide who was subpoenaed by Congress to testify... he refused... just outright refused to show... that is a crime, a felony i believe and they should arrest him and hold him until such time as he WILL testify... Congress has that authority and they should use it...

I'm not sure Contempt of Congress is a felony.

Some cultures will use the same word but each culture will attach it's own additional meanings. Take the word "untouchable" and it's use in the US and in India. Each culture has added enough implied meaning to the word that they now are like separate words.

Rarely are we presented with a case that can reunite both meanings. For this I thank you Karl Rove, a cultural uniter!!

As I said, he should answer the subpoena if that if is a legally binding one. If is it binding and he ignores it, he should face whatever penalty is ascribed to that offense.

That is what makes the thing ironic.

The firing is not illegal or even unethical.
Refusing the summons to avoid answering to the charge is silly. If they'd simply testify, they would show they were in their rights.

His refusal to answer meanwhile may make him liable for prosecution provided it is crime to do so.

Not really uncommon at all. Because these are political appointments, nearly all new Presidents install "their people" into these positions. Bush Jr. replaced 90-something of them when he first took office as well, and nobody batted an eyelash about it, because it's pretty much expected.

What makes Bush's later firings unusual and noteworthy is that many of them had been receiving excellent performance reviews, and yet it was publicly claimed they were fired for "poor performance". These people knew they served "at the pleasure of the president" and could be fired for any reason, and it probably never would have become an issue if they'd been told "we're firing you to give the job to someone else". But they took exception to having their professional reputations sullied by public claims of "poor performance" when the reviews said otherwise.

These guys were fired because they wouldn't do someone's dirty work, plain and simple and frankly, I'm more worried about the activities of the ones who WEREN'T fired!

According to [link]news.yahoo.com
"http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/20080710/pl_bloomberg/akdydlkwmrvy;_ylt=AjrDpsWyQs7Bk_GuFJ8vrRGs0NUE"[/link]

The subpoena was more than just the firing of the lawyers... its also researching whether the prosecution of several democrats was politically motivated... IE... the Bush administration fires the lawyers who wont lean on Democrats unfairly and gives the jobs to people who are more on keel with their own ideals... these lawyers then agressivly persue litigation against Democrats on trumped up charges...

Whether or not this is criminal is irrelevant... it IS a crime to ignore a subpoena... if he wanted to claim executive privlidge, he should have shown up at the hearing, said so. and then refused to answer any questions... regardless of your political affiliation, you CANNOT ignore a Congressional subpoena...

Ah, good point. One I was unaware of. Thanks for sharing that.

Yes, sometimes talk radio gets it wrong or at least they only give you part of the truth.

ha ha, true. Quite true.

Don't get me wrong, I hold no respect for this sad use of precious proteins, but I have to admit that Mr. Rove does have a hypertrophied pair.

He'll probably refuse to show up at his own funeral.

"The White House has cited executive privilege, arguing that internal administration communications are confidential and that Congress cannot compel officials to testify."

That's mysterious. Also, I forgot how do quote from internet articles... :/