Karl Rove cited for contemp

[Shogun]

now you guys are just jumping the shark.

 

[Chris]

Court rules White House aids must testify......

White House aides not immune from subpoenas, judge says - CNN.com

 

[Jeepers]

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.

Okay... by your theory.. then what in tarnation could the Supreme Court do.. What power does the Supreme court have over the executive... Maybe we should have settled Bush v Gore with a cage match..

Seriously guys.. do some research before you open your tiny little mind and decide to type something...

 

[42Presidents]

Okay... by your theory.. then what in tarnation could the Supreme Court do.. What power does the Supreme court have over the executive... Maybe we should have settled Bush v Gore with a cage match..

Seriously guys.. do some research before you open your tiny little mind and decide to type something...

You continue to miss the point I've already made. Who cares? No laws have been broken (at least not yet) so why is tax money being spent on this. This is partisan politics and a waste of money.

Congress is only trying to catch Rove in a lie so they can turn that on him and throw him in jail. Again, if partisan politics came into play over the firing or hiring of U.S. Attorneys, why is that such a big surprise? As if every President (or their cabinet) hasn't done the same thing.

Because you don't like someone, you try to find ways to trap someone into doing something wrong. That is supposed to be illegal but its done anyway.

 

[Shogun]

actually, being in contempt of congress is just as viable as contempt of court.

again, if rove has nothing to hide then let him stroll in with grand fashion and answer a few questions.

 

[Care4all]

You continue to miss the point I've already made. Who cares? No laws have been broken (at least not yet) so why is tax money being spent on this. This is partisan politics and a waste of money.

Congress is only trying to catch Rove in a lie so they can turn that on him and throw him in jail. Again, if partisan politics came into play over the firing or hiring of U.S. Attorneys, why is that such a big surprise? As if every President (or their cabinet) hasn't done the same thing.

Because you don't like someone, you try to find ways to trap someone into doing something wrong. That is supposed to be illegal but its done anyway.

it is ILLEGAL IN US LAW to require any gvt employee being intervued for hire express their political view....these are not cabinet positions that were being vetted but jobs in our JUSTICE DEPT, monica admitted or damn near admitted she did this when questioned before congress....

firing DA's midstream, to keep justice from being served is also ILLEGAL....

there are enough potential illegalities coming forward that makes rove's supoena by congress valid and his contempt of such, precisely that, contempt of congress which is also breaking the law....imho!

if there is nothing to hide that was or is illegal, then there will be nothing for him to LIE about or nothing for him to be ''caught in''....he can also still plead the fifth, in defense of not incriminating oneself....

if there is nothing to hide that was illegal, he should testify and help congress get to the bottom of this once and for all imo...

 

['ol Perfessor]

[

"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,

Why do you think Janet, ( big as a planet) Reno fired all of them when she waddled into office? Was that not political? the 'ol perfessor

 

[42Presidents]

it is ILLEGAL IN US LAW to require any gvt employee being intervued for hire express their political view....these are not cabinet positions that were being vetted but jobs in our JUSTICE DEPT, monica admitted or damn near admitted she did this when questioned before congress....

firing DA's midstream, to keep justice from being served is also ILLEGAL....

there are enough potential illegalities coming forward that makes rove's supoena by congress valid and his contempt of such, precisely that, contempt of congress which is also breaking the law....imho!

if there is nothing to hide that was or is illegal, then there will be nothing for him to LIE about or nothing for him to be ''caught in''....he can also still plead the fifth, in defense of not incriminating oneself....

if there is nothing to hide that was illegal, he should testify and help congress get to the bottom of this once and for all imo...

To me, its an entrapment ploy. They did it to Scooter Libby and they are going after Rove too. I don't doubt Rove has something to hide as anyone would who doesn't want to share their entire life story with Congress and have it plastered all over the news. This is a political witch hunt and you know it.

It's just plain and utter hatred for Rove and Bush and the Dems are pulling all the stops to try and nail them.

I seriously doubt anyone made a candidate express their political view during an interview. They wouldn't need to. They can find out that out by other means. Much Ado about Nothing!

 

[Jeepers]

You continue to miss the point I've already made. Who cares? No laws have been broken (at least not yet) so why is tax money being spent on this. This is partisan politics and a waste of money.

Congress is only trying to catch Rove in a lie so they can turn that on him and throw him in jail. Again, if partisan politics came into play over the firing or hiring of U.S. Attorneys, why is that such a big surprise? As if every President (or their cabinet) hasn't done the same thing.

Because you don't like someone, you try to find ways to trap someone into doing something wrong. That is supposed to be illegal but its done anyway.

What is it that we think rove has done wrong?

 

[Chris]

To me, its an entrapment ploy. They did it to Scooter Libby and they are going after Rove too. I don't doubt Rove has something to hide as anyone would who doesn't want to share their entire life story with Congress and have it plastered all over the news. This is a political witch hunt and you know it.

It's just plain and utter hatred for Rove and Bush and the Dems are pulling all the stops to try and nail them.

I seriously doubt anyone made a candidate express their political view during an interview. They wouldn't need to. They can find out that out by other means. Much Ado about Nothing!

Do you even read the newpaper?

Seriously? Do you?

Politics dictated Justice Dept. hires -- baltimoresun.com

"What is it about George W. Bush that makes you want to serve him?" Goodling asked at least some candidates, according to the joint investigation by Justice's Office of Inspector General and Office of Professional Responsibility. Others were asked about their views on abortion and gay marriage.

 

[Care4all]

To me, its an entrapment ploy. They did it to Scooter Libby and they are going after Rove too. I don't doubt Rove has something to hide as anyone would who doesn't want to share their entire life story with Congress and have it plastered all over the news. This is a political witch hunt and you know it.

but they didn't do it to scooter libby, it was the special prosecutor, picked by ashcroft i think, when he recused himself from the case....patrick fitzgerald, NOT Congress....on that?

... and Libby, as an excellent lawyer himself... who took an oath to uphold the law, knew the law and should not have lied under oath for any reason, nor for anyone..... imho

he took his chances when doing it and they paid off, he'll get his full pardon on president bush's exit, i'm certain!

i don't believe congress can ask rove any questions not germane to the subject, though i could be wrong?

care

 

[42Presidents]

What is it that we think rove has done wrong?

You tell me. And for the record, I'm no admirer of Rove. I just don't like seeing our taxpayer money wasted on witch hunts.

 

[42Presidents]

Do you even read the newpaper?

Seriously? Do you?

Politics dictated Justice Dept. hires -- baltimoresun.com

"What is it about George W. Bush that makes you want to serve him?" Goodling asked at least some candidates, according to the joint investigation by Justice's Office of Inspector General and Office of Professional Responsibility. Others were asked about their views on abortion and gay marriage.

I read plenty and I'm not impressed. Frankly, in my opinion, these are trivial charges. So many of our laws are broken today throughout our country and people could give a darn. But when you take a law and politicize and use it to gain traction against another political party, then that law becomes as important as a murder charge or child abuse.

It's politics as usual and again, I believe a waste of taxpayer money. Why is it that these laws are risen to a higher standard but federal laws like illegal immigration is diminished and laughed at?

As I stated earlier, I don't doubt that every past presidency before Bush hasn't based their hirings and/or firings based on party affiliations or other political points of reference. The only reason the Dems care is because its an opportunity to go after a Republican. If all politicians were being held to equal standards, maybe I would be encouraged to go after those in the Justice Department that abused their authority, but its not equal.

What I would like to hear from those of you like Jeepers, Shogun, and Kirk is if the tables were turned, would you express the same passion going after individuals such as Rove, Gonzales, or Bush if they were Democrats?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

it is ILLEGAL IN US LAW to require any gvt employee being intervued for hire express their political view....these are not cabinet positions that were being vetted but jobs in our JUSTICE DEPT, monica admitted or damn near admitted she did this when questioned before congress....

firing DA's midstream, to keep justice from being served is also ILLEGAL....

there are enough potential illegalities coming forward that makes rove's supoena by congress valid and his contempt of such, precisely that, contempt of congress which is also breaking the law....imho!

if there is nothing to hide that was or is illegal, then there will be nothing for him to LIE about or nothing for him to be ''caught in''....he can also still plead the fifth, in defense of not incriminating oneself....

if there is nothing to hide that was illegal, he should testify and help congress get to the bottom of this once and for all imo...

They were not fired midstream all of them ALL of them had finished the original 4 years appointed.

 

[42Presidents]

but they didn't do it to scooter libby, it was the special prosecutor, picked by ashcroft i think, when he recused himself from the case....patrick fitzgerald, NOT Congress....on that?

... and Libby, as an excellent lawyer himself... who took an oath to uphold the law, knew the law and should not have lied under oath for any reason, nor for anyone..... imho

he took his chances when doing it and they paid off, he'll get his full pardon on president bush's exit, i'm certain!

i don't believe congress can ask rove any questions not germane to the subject, though i could be wrong?

care

Yes, your correct. Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald led the charge, but only after ridiculous pressure by Dems in Congress to initiate an investigation. An investigation which turned up nothing relating to why the investigation was started in the first place. But yes, Libby screwed up by supposedly lying about something which he said he didn't lie about. And if you recall, the Jury ruled against Libby in favor of testimony by Tim Russert. We still don't know for sure if the guy actually even lied but its assumed he did.

But the Dems were relentless in that charge over something that I thought from Day 1 was nothing. Give me a break, some in the GOP may be vicious but I don't believe they would purposely put a CIA agent in harms way because the Ambassador husband communicated a message that didn't agree with the White House. But the Dems went after that like a dog to a bone and just pressed and harped until something came out of it. A total and relentless witch hunt just to bring someone down. That is vicious and heartless.

 

[Chris]

I read plenty and I'm not impressed. Frankly, in my opinion, these are trivial charges. So many of our laws are broken today throughout our country and people could give a darn. But when you take a law and politicize and use it to gain traction against another political party, then that law becomes as important as a murder charge or child abuse.

It's politics as usual and again, I believe a waste of taxpayer money. Why is it that these laws are risen to a higher standard but federal laws like illegal immigration is diminished and laughed at?

As I stated earlier, I don't doubt that every past presidency before Bush hasn't based their hirings and/or firings based on party affiliations or other political points of reference. The only reason the Dems care is because its an opportunity to go after a Republican. If all politicians were being held to equal standards, maybe I would be encouraged to go after those in the Justice Department that abused their authority, but its not equal.

What I would like to hear from those of you like Jeepers, Shogun, and Kirk is if the tables were turned, would you express the same passion going after individuals such as Rove, Gonzales, or Bush if they were Democrats?

"What is it about George W. Bush that makes you want to serve him?"

 

[Chris]

WASHINGTON - Former Justice Department officials broke the law by letting Bush administration politics dictate the hiring of prosecutors, immigration judges and other career government lawyers, according to results of an internal investigation released yesterday.

For nearly two years, top advisers to then-Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales discriminated against applicants for career jobs who weren't Republican or conservative loyalists, the Justice report found.

At times, their search for GOP activists to fill judgeships threatened to clog courts and potentially delay deporting illegal immigrants, the report said.

The federal government makes a distinction between "career" and "political" appointees, and it's against civil service laws and Justice Department policy to hire career employees on the basis of political affiliation or allegiance.



Yet Monica Goodling, who was Gonzales' counselor and White House liaison, routinely asked career job applicants about politics, the report concluded.

"What is it about George W. Bush that makes you want to serve him?" Goodling asked at least some candidates, according to the joint investigation by Justice's Office of Inspector General and Office of Professional Responsibility. Others were asked about their views on abortion and gay marriage.

 

[editec]

it is ILLEGAL IN US LAW to require any gvt employee being intervued for hire express their political view....these are not cabinet positions that were being vetted but jobs in our JUSTICE DEPT, monica admitted or damn near admitted she did this when questioned before congress.

Didn't the courts just hand down a decision this week that the Bush interpretation of executive immunity for his staff was overreaching?

Apparently they are of the opinion that Rove does not have that immunity.

If my understanding of that ruling is correct (and I didn't read the decision, but only heard something about it on the radio) then it looks to me like Rove is either going to testify before Congress or go to jail.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Didn't the courts just hand down a decision this week that the Bush interpretation of executive immunity for his staff was overreaching?

Apparently they are of the opinion that Rove does not have that immunity.

If my understanding of that ruling is correct (and I didn't read the decision, but only heard something about it on the radio) then it looks to me like Rove is either going to testify before Congress or go to jail.

Or, The Administration will appeal. But hey lets just forget that process.