You had a moment there Martha to put the kibbosh on his b.s. but you lost it.
My frustration with the Sunday political talk shows is through the roof. The guests rarely, if ever, include Progressives, and if they do, they are outnumbered by ConservaDems, conservative Republicans, or "moderates," so their voices are minimized, if not ignored completely (scroll).
That said, there are moments of truth and even levity that make their way into what passes for "debate."
"There's certainly an irony in having Karl, who is the Michael Jordan of politicizing the executive branch. You know let's go back to the firing of nine attorney generals during the Bush years, now being outraged... U.S. Attorneys, sorry..."
Here is some context, via the ABC transcript:
STEPHANOPOULOS: There's some question about whether Fox News, I think Karl Rove, actually got the subpoena or not. The Justice Department has a record of it being sent. Fox News said...
ROVE: Well let's be clear though. The -- Paul is referring to 9-13.400. These are the guidelines from the Department of Justice itself. It says, "The Department attorneys should take all reasonable steps to attempt to obtain the information through alternative sources, or means. They must first attempt negotiations with the media, aimed at accommodating the interests of the trial of grand jury with the interests of the media", they made no such attempt. "They must also precede any requests to subpoena the telephone toll records by having negotiations with the affected media", none of which they did.
These are the guidelines with the -- which the attorney general himself is responsible for...
ROVE: Well, look yes. I -- I do think so. He's got two problems. One problem is, when he signed the Rose affidavit, he did not abide by his own guidelines. Second, the defense they're offering for it, which was offered by Jay Carney that we're, conflating a subpoena with a prosecution means that what they said -- this was, remember of a criminal conspiracy when they sought the subpoena from the third judge they attempted to get it from, and finally got it from, was not where they didn't really intend ever to prosecute him.
So they were lying to the judge. And then the third one is -- the third problem he has is, on the 15th of May, he says before the House of Representatives under oath, in front of the Judiciary Committee, this is something I'd never contemplate. And on the 17th we learned that he did the Rosen -- the -- the Rosen...
PLOUFFE: I don't think he should go over this. I think if anything, he's guilty of over-zealously trying to uphold the law. And I think we all -- I think this is going to be a helpful process, which is how do we balance in -- in 2013, some of these guidelines go back to 1980 before the internet and email. How do we balance the need to protect national security and secrets, and our interests with the public's right to know, and investigative journalism? I do find out curious that the loudest Republican voice is now calling for the attorney general to go.
Were the same ones a year ago saying, we weren't investigating leaks strongly enough. They wanted a special prosecutor, because they said U.S. attorneys would not be tough enough. And so I think their objections lay less in the principle and substance of this, than almost a Pavlovian response. That if they have an opportunity to take political shots at the administration and the president, they'll...
HUFFINGTON: There's certainly an irony in having Karl, who is the Michael Jordan of politicizing the executive branch. You know let's go back to the firing of nine attorney generals during the Bush years, now being outraged... U.S. Attorneys, sorry...
HUFFINGTON: You know, I agree with you that Holder has to go. But there is a certain irony in the Republican doing...
Here is the entire segment and more: