Karl Rove cited for contemp

yawn



The House of representatives is not a court... more 'Evil Bush' smoke blowing by Nazi Pelosi and crew

go figure :rolleyes:

Why do you continuously go out of your way to proclaim your stupidity? Does coming acrossed as an idiot somehow make you feel better... Maybe youre saying "I am living in bliss"... cause .. you know... thats what ignorance is...
 
I's about as useful as me citing you for contempt of intellgent posts.

Not very closed-minded judgemental nor partisan of you to convict the man without a trial.:cuckoo:

Speaking of closed minded, judgemental, and partisan....
 
Why do you continuously go out of your way to proclaim your stupidity? Does coming acrossed as an idiot somehow make you feel better... Maybe youre saying "I am living in bliss"... cause .. you know... thats what ignorance is...

Hmmm... stating the facts makes someone coming "accrossed" as an idiot... then I guess since you do exactly the opposite, you must be a freakin' genius
 
Contempt of Congress
Definition

Congress has the authority to hold a person in contempt if the person's conduct or action obstructs the proceedings of Congress or, more usually, an inquiry by a committee of Congress.

Contempt of Congress is defined in statute, 2 U.S.C.A. § 192, enacted in 1938, which states that any person who is summoned before Congress who "willfully makes default, or who, having appeared, refuses to answer any question pertinent to the question under inquiry" shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and subject to a maximum $1,000 fine and 12 month imprisonment.

Before a Congressional witness may be convicted of contempt, it must be established that the matter under investigation is a subject which Congress has constitutional power to legislate.

Generally, the same Constitutional rights against self-incrimination that apply in a judicial setting apply when one is testifying before Congress.

Contempt of Congress | LII / Legal Information Institute
 
Hmmm... stating the facts makes someone coming "accrossed" as an idiot... then I guess since you do exactly the opposite, you must be a freakin' genius
What you meant to was that congress doesnt have constitutional authority to subpena or imprison but..it is an implied power backed by judicial precedent... Please stop trying to grandstand with your idiotic notions of applicable trivia...
 
What you meant to was that congress doesnt have constitutional authority to subpena or imprison but..it is an implied power backed by judicial precedent... Please stop trying to grandstand with your idiotic notions of applicable trivia...

I stand corrected.. shogun shows it being penned in 1938..
 
Try looking at the separation of powers doctrine

The precedent is not on the side of Congress in this matter

Actually, it is. Congress wouldn't provide the trial, the judicial branch would do that... However, Contempt of Congress is as viable as purgery before congress is prosecutable.
 
Contempt of Congress
Definition

Congress has the authority to hold a person in contempt if the person's conduct or action obstructs the proceedings of Congress or, more usually, an inquiry by a committee of Congress.

Contempt of Congress is defined in statute, 2 U.S.C.A. § 192, enacted in 1938, which states that any person who is summoned before Congress who "willfully makes default, or who, having appeared, refuses to answer any question pertinent to the question under inquiry" shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and subject to a maximum $1,000 fine and 12 month imprisonment.

Before a Congressional witness may be convicted of contempt, it must be established that the matter under investigation is a subject which Congress has constitutional power to legislate.

Generally, the same Constitutional rights against self-incrimination that apply in a judicial setting apply when one is testifying before Congress.

Contempt of Congress | LII / Legal Information Institute

I guess the Retired Gynecology Sargeant was wrong.

What a surprise!
 
rove_arrested.jpg
 

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.
 
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.

Not according to Sealybobo, Kirk and Jeepers. These three are partisan hacks of the worst sort.
 
Not according to Sealybobo, Kirk and Jeepers. These three are partisan hacks of the worst sort.

dude. I posted evidence. Spare me the labels. The ONLY way rove will be impervious is if somehow the president fandangles something akin to his magical signing statements. Otherwise, Rove is not above the law.
 
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.

If Rove did something wrong? This guy has done nothing but wrong since he became an adult.


Karl Rove - SourceWatch
 

Forum List

Back
Top