Karl Rove cited for contemp

[Jeepers]

So are you this passionate about other non-Bush politicians who have suspectingly committed some crime? Even if Rove did do something wrong, why do you and others insist on convicting someone before they are tried?

There are plenty of politicians on both sides of the aisle who deserve to be jailed.

You are held in contempt.. you dont get tried with contempt... Rove ignoring congress is what he is being cited for.. he has already committed the infraction... christ... please.. is there anyone leaning conservative out there that knows what that matter between your ears if for...

 

[editec]

Having contempt for Congress is no crime...unless they notice, of course.

 

[42Presidents]

So Kirk, Shogun, and Jeepers, you just ignored the question. And how quick you are to label. What a shame.

So passionate over someone you don't even know as if they slept with your girlfriend or something. Again, where is that passion when its someone from the other side of the aisle?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

You are held in contempt.. you dont get tried with contempt... Rove ignoring congress is what he is being cited for.. he has already committed the infraction... christ... please.. is there anyone leaning conservative out there that knows what that matter between your ears if for...

Actually no he hasn't. Bush used executive Privilege to exempt him. Congress is meddling with executive power as usual. So when was the last time Bush ORDERED a member of Congress to come Testify before him? Oh wait thats right the three branches are separate and can not do that. I remember now.

 

[midcan5]

Rove is lower than pond scum but he feeds the fools fantasies and will probably be exonerated by the nitwit the same fools elected.

Truthdig - Reports - Rove’s Sad Legacy

"One of the things Congress would like to ask Rove is whether the administration’s extreme partisanship extended even to the Department of Justice—whether U.S. attorneys were fired for political reasons, and whether Rove was involved in those decisions. Congress would also like to know why Rove and others in the White House political office conducted their business not through the White House e-mail system—which would have opened their communications to scrutiny—but through e-mail accounts at the Republican National Committee, which seems to have misplaced the messages in question."

 

[42Presidents]

Rove is lower than pond scum but he feeds the fools fantasies and will probably be exonerated by the nitwit the same fools elected.

Truthdig - Reports - Rove’s Sad Legacy

"One of the things Congress would like to ask Rove is whether the administration’s extreme partisanship extended even to the Department of Justice—whether U.S. attorneys were fired for political reasons, and whether Rove was involved in those decisions. Congress would also like to know why Rove and others in the White House political office conducted their business not through the White House e-mail system—which would have opened their communications to scrutiny—but through e-mail accounts at the Republican National Committee, which seems to have misplaced the messages in question."

Why is this even an issue and why are our tax dollars being spent to ask ridiculous questions like the one you state above? Who cares?

As if not every President before Bush hasn't made decisions or influenced the hiring or firing of U.S. Attorneys based on their political affiliation. Clinton did it before Bush, as did the 1st Bush, Reagan, and so on. Everyday, members of Congress make descisions that are bias, based on partisanship, or simply because they don't like someone else in Congress or the White House. They are not getting dragged in front of hundreds of representatives and questioned about their motives. Get over it. That is politics and its not going away.

What you really want is a government that is pristine and does everything the right way and let's all jump on a unicorn and hold hands ... Of course, you only want this if it agrees with your agenda. So if it doesn't agree with your agenda, you want to enforce your agenda and make people agree with you. And that leads to ... Lenin, Stalin, Zeo Mao Zedong, Hitler.

 

[Gunny]

So are you this passionate about other non-Bush politicians who have suspectingly committed some crime? Even if Rove did do something wrong, why do you and others insist on convicting someone before they are tried?

There are plenty of politicians on both sides of the aisle who deserve to be jailed.

Kirk likes to keep things simple. Republicans - evil and should be put in Jail. Democrats - Angels sent from Heaven.

'Cause he's all smart like that ...

 

[Gunny]

And Midcan views the world through the same coffee stir.

 

[Jeepers]

So Kirk, Shogun, and Jeepers, you just ignored the question. And how quick you are to label. What a shame.

So passionate over someone you don't even know as if they slept with your girlfriend or something. Again, where is that passion when its someone from the other side of the aisle?

Ignored what question.. he is not innocent.. he ignored a congressional subpeona ..

Are you seriously that fucking dense...

 

[Shogun]

So Kirk, Shogun, and Jeepers, you just ignored the question. And how quick you are to label. What a shame.

So passionate over someone you don't even know as if they slept with your girlfriend or something. Again, where is that passion when its someone from the other side of the aisle?

Given the direction that Rovian politics took the Us feel free to get defensive this side of hindsight. Again, I posted evidence regarding Contempt of Congress. Spare me your silly little martyr routine. Rove is not above the law regardless of how many executive privileges you think king george should have.

 

[Shogun]

Kirk likes to keep things simple. Republicans - evil and should be put in Jail. Democrats - Angels sent from Heaven.

'Cause he's all smart like that ...

If rove had nothing to hide then he should have walked proudly into the congressional hearing. Isn't that your logic when it comes to wire tapping?


AGAIN, I posted info on Contempt of Congress. Feel free to offer something in rebuttal a little more interesting than crying about liberals picking on conservatives.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

If rove had nothing to hide then he should have walked proudly into the congressional hearing. Isn't that your logic when it comes to wire tapping?


AGAIN, I posted info on Contempt of Congress. Feel free to offer something in rebuttal a little more interesting than crying about liberals picking on conservatives.

It won't fly because President Bush has exerted "Executive Privilege" Congress has no Authority to compel him, any more then the President has the power to compel Congress to do as he wants.

 

[Chris]

It won't fly because President Bush has exerted "Executive Privilege" Congress has no Authority to compel him, any more then the President has the power to compel Congress to do as he wants.

Bush will be gone soon.

 

[Shogun]

It won't fly because President Bush has exerted "Executive Privilege" Congress has no Authority to compel him, any more then the President has the power to compel Congress to do as he wants.

"To read the Article II powers of the President as providing an absolute privilege as against a subpoena essential to enforcement of criminal statutes on no more than a generalized claim of the public interest in confidentiality of nonmilitary and nondiplomatic discussions would upset the constitutional balance of 'a workable government' and gravely impair the role of the courts under Article III."

Regarding Nixon's use of executive privilege.
Executive privilege - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The privilege that allows the president and other high officials of the executive branch to keep certain communications private if disclosing those communications would disrupt the functions or decisionmaking processes of the executive branch. As demonstrated by the Watergate hearings, this privilege does not extend to information germane to a criminal investigation.
executive privilege - legal definition




It's going to be an interesting standoff. My guess is that Bush's supreme court won't let him down.. again. But we'll see. Clinton and Nixon found out that EP is no blank check.

I DO, however, find it extremely hilarious that, given that EP is no where in the Constitution, conservatives who usually hop on the "strict Constitutionalist" bandwagon with any other issue will defend the practice like a pro-choicer defending RvW privacy.


Anyone wanna take bets on how Scalia rules despite the usual rhetoric?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

"To read the Article II powers of the President as providing an absolute privilege as against a subpoena essential to enforcement of criminal statutes on no more than a generalized claim of the public interest in confidentiality of nonmilitary and nondiplomatic discussions would upset the constitutional balance of 'a workable government' and gravely impair the role of the courts under Article III."

Regarding Nixon's use of executive privilege.
Executive privilege - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The privilege that allows the president and other high officials of the executive branch to keep certain communications private if disclosing those communications would disrupt the functions or decisionmaking processes of the executive branch. As demonstrated by the Watergate hearings, this privilege does not extend to information germane to a criminal investigation.
executive privilege - legal definition




It's going to be an interesting standoff. My guess is that Bush's supreme court won't let him down.. again. But we'll see. Clinton and Nixon found out that EP is no blank check.

I DO, however, find it extremely hilarious that, given that EP is no where in the Constitution, conservatives who usually hop on the "strict Constitutionalist" bandwagon with any other issue will defend the practice like a pro-choicer defending RvW privacy.


Anyone wanna take bets on how Scalia rules despite the usual rhetoric?

Congress does not have the authority to interfere in the Executive, just as the Executive has no authority to interfere in Congress.

It may just go to the Supreme Court, A district Court has ruled against the President.

 

[Shogun]

Actually, congress has a responsibility to check the president in a balance of powers. Nixon learned this and I'm betting half the people who are complaining now didn't do so when Clinton tried to use EP about an oval office blowjob.


And, again, given that EP is not found int he constitution, how is your support for it any different than a pro-choicers support for RvW privacy?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Actually, congress has a responsibility to check the president in a balance of powers. Nixon learned this and I'm betting half the people who are complaining now didn't do so when Clinton tried to use EP about an oval office blowjob.


And, again, given that EP is not found int he constitution, how is your support for it any different than a pro-choicers support for RvW privacy?

And the President is there to check power of Congress. We have a three tiered Government. Each with powers and limits. Congress does not get to meddle in the executive anymore than the executive gets to meddle in Congress.

 

[Shogun]

And the President is there to check power of Congress. We have a three tiered Government. Each with powers and limits. Congress does not get to meddle in the executive anymore than the executive gets to meddle in Congress.

THAT is what the third power will judge.


Again, can you compare your support for the Scotus product of EP to the RvW product of privacy? If Scalia can be so strict about his Constitutional standards when it comes to abortion then how can he not rule in kind to this issue involving an executive power that is nowhere in the constitution?

 

[Care4all]

Congress does not have the authority to interfere in the Executive, just as the Executive has no authority to interfere in Congress.

It may just go to the Supreme Court, A district Court has ruled against the President.

where do you get this opinion or yours?????????????

if it involves criminality, there is no hiding behind executive priviledge???? why do you think the constituion even would protect such through EP?

 

[Chris]

where do you get this opinion or yours?????????????

if it involves criminality, there is no hiding behind executive priviledge???? why do you think the constituion even would protect such through EP?

If Rove shot somebody, Bush would claim executive priviledge.

If Cheney shot somebody...........oh...........wait.........