Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Conyers from 2003 on Rove:

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
The Straight Story Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-10-05 09:47 PM
Original message
Conyers from 2003 on Rove:
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Hoeffel) for his consideration, and I commend him on the special order that brings him to the floor of the House of Representatives at this hour.

Mr. Speaker, I will finish the letter that I sent to Karl Rove calling for his resignation.

``Recent reports indicate that you told the journalist, Chris Matthews, and perhaps others, that Mr. Wilson's wife and her undercover status were `fair game.' Evan Thomas and Michael Isikoff, Newsweek Magazine, October 13, 2003. Since these initial allegations have arisen, neither the White House nor your office have denied your involvement in furthering the leak. Repeated press inquiries into this matter have been rebuffed with technical jargon and narrow legalisms, instead of referring to the broader ethical issues. Indeed, in the same article, it appears a White House source acknowledged that you contacted Mr. Matthews and other journalists, indicating that `it was reasonable to discuss who sent Mr. Wilson to the African country of Niger.'

``It should be noted that these actions may well have violated 18 U.S.C. section 793, which prohibits the willful or grossly negligent distribution of national defense information that could possibly be used against the United States. The law states that even if you lawfully knew of Mr. Wilson's wife's status, you were obliged to come forward and report the press leak to the proper authorities, not inflame the situation by encouraging further dissemination.''

Another section of the law, 18 U.S.C. section 793(f) is used for the basis of that remark.

``Larger than whether any one statute can be read to find criminal responsibility is the issue of whether officials of your stature will be allowed to use their influence to intimidate whistleblowers.

``Over three decades ago, our great Nation was scarred by an administration that would stop at nothing to smear and intimidate its critics. I do not believe the Nation will countenance a repeat of such activities. For your role in this campaign, I would ask that you resign immediately.''

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for his cooperation.

http://www.house.gov/abercrombie/fa.iraqwatch.october.h...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
WhoWantsToBeOccupied Donating Member (413 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-10-05 10:15 PM
Response to Original message
1. I love John Conyers so, so much
A true hero
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
orleans Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-10-05 10:19 PM
Response to Original message
2. i love conyers but obviously this letter did little good.
at least he takes a stand.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paineinthearse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-05 05:39 PM
Response to Original message
3. John Conyers is a genius
But I am at a loss trying to understand the level of support to this and other JC-related posts.

Generally a core of people vote and get them onto the "greatest" page, but they do not generate much discussion.

:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Straight Story Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-05 08:08 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. Maybe his shock value has wore off :)
In other words, people trust him enough that he will do the right thing they just glance at a thread and go 'ok, he is kicking butt'. It is when people don't do what we expect them to do that we generate a lot of response (like msm in a way as well, they seem to cover things which are not expected on a daily basis).

I dunno, maybe I am wrong, just my 2 cents.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 25th 2024, 07:33 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC