It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Common Good
Well by what I see, he is already condemned, so it is no suprised to me he said no, people have already made up their mind without giving the man a trial.
Not defending any of the mans actions, but I at least think he should be tried before being condemned.
Originally posted by jam321
I think it is a waste of taxpayers money. This will be dragged out for years to come. You would think at this point Congress would be more interested in fixing the economy.
Hmm a waste of taxpayer dollars to uphold the law.
Conyers had rebuffed a compromise last year floated by Rove’s attorney, Robert Luskin, to have Rove testify in private or respond in writing to the committee’s inquiries about the Siegelman case, as well as the firing of nine U.S. Attorneys.
Rove and his counsel wanted to ensure a back door deal. Thats why they wished for a private meeting.
Originally posted by rapinbatsisaltherage
reply to post by Blaine91555
How about Clinton
What about Clinton? I'm upset with all the "loopholes" he used to get around the constitution but that happened when I was nearing the end of elementary. If I had the chance I would have been just as angry as I am now and bashing him too.