masterblaster72 0 #1 July 10, 2008 from here: QuoteWASHINGTON - Former White House adviser Karl Rove defied a congressional subpoena and refused to testify Thursday about allegations of political pressure at the Justice Department, including whether he influenced the prosecution of a former Democratic governor of Alabama. Rep. Linda Sanchez, chairman of a House subcommittee, ruled with backing from fellow Democrats on the panel that Rove was breaking the law by refusing to cooperate — perhaps the first step toward holding him in contempt of Congress. ... Rove had been scheduled to appear at the House Judiciary subcommittee hearing Thursday morning. A placard with his name sat in front of an empty chair at the witness table, with a handful of protesters behind it calling for Rove to be arrested. A decision on whether to pursue contempt charges now goes to the full Judiciary Committee and ultimately to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. House Republicans called Thursday's proceedings a political stunt and said if Democrats truly wanted information they would take Rove up on an offer he made to discuss the matter informally. ... The White House has cited executive privilege, arguing that internal administration communications are confidential and that Congress cannot compel officials to testify. Rove says he is bound to follow the White House's guidance, although he has offered to answer questions specifically on the Siegelman case — but only with no transcript taken and not under oath. ... I mean, why should he testify under oath? It's not like he's going to lie or anything. Being a former white house aide, "turd blossom" should just be trusted to tell the truth behind closed doors with no transcript, right? Curious to hear opinions. Be humble, ask questions, listen, learn, follow the golden rule, talk when necessary, and know when to shut the fuck up. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #2 July 10, 2008 QuoteA decision on whether to pursue contempt charges now goes to... ultimately to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Would that be the Nancy Pelosi, in charge of Congress, who now has the lowest approval rating ever in the history of the country, at just 9%? That Nancy Pelosi? Talk about turd blossoms... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnnyD 0 #3 July 10, 2008 QuoteQuoteA decision on whether to pursue contempt charges now goes to... ultimately to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Would that be the Nancy Pelosi, in charge of Congress, who now has the lowest approval rating ever in the history of the country, at just 9%? That Nancy Pelosi? Talk about turd blossoms... What does that have to do with the fact that Rove is refusing to testify? Right, nothing at all. He should be treated exactly the same as anyone else who refuses. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #4 July 10, 2008 QuoteQuoteA decision on whether to pursue contempt charges now goes to... ultimately to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Would that be the Nancy Pelosi, in charge of Congress, who now has the lowest approval rating ever in the history of the country, at just 9%? That Nancy Pelosi? Talk about turd blossoms... Mighty quick redirect there shooter. That's fodder for another thread. Besides, if you have a problem with the nasty nomer then take it up with "The Deciderer". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
masterblaster72 0 #5 July 10, 2008 QuoteQuoteA decision on whether to pursue contempt charges now goes to... ultimately to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Would that be the Nancy Pelosi, in charge of Congress, who now has the lowest approval rating ever in the history of the country, at just 9%? That Nancy Pelosi? You forgot to mention that she's working to take away your right to bear arms. That b.tch!! So do you think your fellow Texan Karl Rove should be arrested for being in contempt of Congress? Not that I expect you to answer the question -- I was just posing it rhetorically. Be humble, ask questions, listen, learn, follow the golden rule, talk when necessary, and know when to shut the fuck up. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #6 July 10, 2008 Quote So do you think your fellow Texan Karl Rove should be arrested for being in contempt of Congress? For the record, yes. They've gotten away with contempt for everyone for far too long. They can't wait until after the elections to do something because after Obama wins, Israel will attack Iran. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #7 July 10, 2008 I'm taking both sides here. First - Rove should have appeared and refused to answer questions he felt asked for privileged info. Just flat out not showing IS contempt - plain and simple. On the other hand, the Congress turned this into a political stunt. Protestors in the witness box calling for his arrest? WHAT??? How does a politician deal with contempt of Congress? By acting in a contemptible manner. These are the leaders of our country. Pass the Tylenol... My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #8 July 10, 2008 QuoteI'm taking both sides here. First - Rove should have appeared and refused to answer questions he felt asked for privileged info. Just flat out not showing IS contempt - plain and simple. On the other hand, the Congress turned this into a political stunt. Protestors in the witness box calling for his arrest? WHAT??? How does a politician deal with contempt of Congress? By acting in a contemptible manner. These are the leaders of our country. Pass the Tylenol... Political stunt - just as it was with Nixon, Reagan and Clinton. "In contempt of Congress" - big whoopty-do... there's no legal liability to being "in contempt of Congress", which is a good thing, or they'd have to arrest most of the country, based on recent polls.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BillyVance 35 #9 July 10, 2008 Karl Rove is an asshole. He's just nearly as bad as Dick Cheney. Don Siegelman was no saint and he was governor of my state, but IMO he did an okay job overall. If Rove has something to hide, he should be forced to testify. He's not serving the Bush administration anymore is he? If not, he's got no immunity to hide behind does he?"Mediocre people don't like high achievers, and high achievers don't like mediocre people." - SIX TIME National Champion coach Nick Saban Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #10 July 10, 2008 I'm sure Bush will invoke executive priviledge, but until he does, Rove has no basis for insisting on a private, unrecorded appearance. If the GOP are tired of Democrat lead dog and pony shows on CSPAN, they can look forward to 2010, or look back fondly to the 90s. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheAnvil 0 #11 July 11, 2008 So they want to know if Karl Rove, a political advisor, had any role in the White House directing federal prosecutors, who are political appointees, to prosecute certain cases? And they want to know if Karl Rove, a political advisor, had any role in the White House choosing to fire certain political appointees? They need his testimony for that? Dear God. Does anyone WONDER why Congress has a single digit approval rating? With all the work to be done, they've apportioned time for such shenanigans. Dear God. Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChasingBlueSky 0 #12 July 11, 2008 Quote So they want to know if Karl Rove, a political advisor, had any role in the White House directing federal prosecutors, who are political appointees, to prosecute certain cases? And they want to know if Karl Rove, a political advisor, had any role in the White House choosing to fire certain political appointees? They need his testimony for that? Um, why not? You are smart enough to figure it out Vin While you are at it, read this http://www.slate.com/id/2193365/_________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Channman 2 #13 July 11, 2008 > What does that have to do with the fact that Rove is refusing to testify? Right, nothing at all. He should be treated exactly the same as anyone else who refuses. He should continue to refuse to testify. It's time to put these pin heads in their place. I've never seen one man piss so many people off, but it brings a smile to my lips. Crap, I'm suppose to be in a self imposed Time Out, but I had to respond to this stupid thread. Come up with better discussions this stuff is getting boring. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheAnvil 0 #14 July 11, 2008 Nice article by one of the fired prosecutors. In his book, this guy claims that a Senator called him and asked him to indict several high ranking democrats. If he didn't go public immediately, then he's an idiot. An absolute moron. This guy has no credibility. (Note: he didn't go public immediately) Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #15 July 11, 2008 Quote So they want to know if Karl Rove, a political advisor, had any role in the White House directing federal prosecutors, who are political appointees, to prosecute certain cases? And they want to know if Karl Rove, a political advisor, had any role in the White House choosing to fire certain political appointees? They need his testimony for that? Dear God. Does anyone WONDER why Congress has a single digit approval rating? With all the work to be done, they've apportioned time for such shenanigans. Dear God. Are you claiming that advisors in the Bush administration lack information about what is happening in the branch of government in which they serve?Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChasingBlueSky 0 #16 July 11, 2008 Quote Nice article by one of the fired prosecutors. In his book, this guy claims that a Senator called him and asked him to indict several high ranking democrats. If he didn't go public immediately, then he's an idiot. An absolute moron. This guy has no credibility. (Note: he didn't go public immediately) Well clearly because he didn't go public immediately that removes all credibility. Good to see you are using the Bush spin lines now, thought you were better than that._________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #17 July 11, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteA decision on whether to pursue contempt charges now goes to... ultimately to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Would that be the Nancy Pelosi, in charge of Congress, who now has the lowest approval rating ever in the history of the country, at just 9%? That Nancy Pelosi? You forgot to mention that she's working to take away your right to bear arms. That b.tch!! So do you think your fellow Texan Karl Rove should be arrested for being in contempt of Congress? Not that I expect you to answer the question -- I was just posing it rhetorically. If he really IS in contempt of congress? Then yes, he should be arrested. I do not think that is the case however. It is interesting to me to see the flip flops when it comes to stealing power and seperations of powers (between the branches of gov) debates on this site I will have to say though"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #18 July 11, 2008 Quote If he really IS in contempt of congress? Then yes, he should be arrested. I do not think that is the case however. Apparently they're giving him five days. Four too many if you ask me. http://judiciary.house.gov/Media/PDFs/Conyers-Sanchez080710.pdf Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #19 July 11, 2008 QuoteQuote If he really IS in contempt of congress? Then yes, he should be arrested. I do not think that is the case however. Apparently they're giving him five days. Four too many if you ask me. http://judiciary.house.gov/Media/PDFs/Conyers-Sanchez080710.pdf Meaningless in the context of my point"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChasingBlueSky 0 #20 July 11, 2008 btw, since it hasn't been mentioned.....Rove made sure he was out of the country yesterday._________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
masterblaster72 0 #21 July 11, 2008 Quote "In contempt of Congress" - big whoopty-do... there's no legal liability to being "in contempt of Congress" To parrot you, cite please? Be humble, ask questions, listen, learn, follow the golden rule, talk when necessary, and know when to shut the fuck up. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
masterblaster72 0 #22 July 11, 2008 Quote Crap, I'm suppose to be in a self imposed Time Out, but I had to respond to this stupid thread. Come up with better discussions this stuff is getting boring. So you took a break from your "self-imposed Time Out" to post in a "stupid" and "boring" thread. Says a lot about your willpower. Be humble, ask questions, listen, learn, follow the golden rule, talk when necessary, and know when to shut the fuck up. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #23 July 11, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuote If he really IS in contempt of congress? Then yes, he should be arrested. I do not think that is the case however. Apparently they're giving him five days. Four too many if you ask me. http://judiciary.house.gov/Media/PDFs/Conyers-Sanchez080710.pdf Meaningless in the context of my point How so? It's a letter to Rove's lawyer saying that he's full of shit and Rove has five days to appear. Seems meaningful to me, especially when you consider that the Judiciary Committee is pursuing a contempt case through a civil court dealing with Josh Bolton and Harriet Miers. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #24 July 11, 2008 QuoteQuote "In contempt of Congress" - big whoopty-do... there's no legal liability to being "in contempt of Congress" To parrot you, cite please? Thanks for the info - I was not aware (and couldn't find) any law supporting it.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
masterblaster72 0 #25 July 11, 2008 Quote Thanks for the info - I was not aware (and couldn't find) any law supporting it. Anytime pal. Be humble, ask questions, listen, learn, follow the golden rule, talk when necessary, and know when to shut the fuck up. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
