Rove doesn't rove to congress

Rove doesn't rove to congress (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

philosophy -> Rove doesn't rove to congress (7/11/2008 9:49:09 AM)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7500455.stm ......maybe Rove is legally correct or maybe he isn't......but this seems to me to give the perception that a government is above the law.

pahunkboy -> RE: Rove doesn't rove to congress (7/11/2008 12:31:02 PM)
He IS NOT correct! If you or I ignored a sunpeuna - we would be in contempt. congress is US, well the elected rep of the people- so Rove is defying the will of the country. This sets a strange precenet if it sticks.... you know how you see the grillings where they plea the 5th- plea the 5th pleathe5th? Well then,why show up? after all is is inconvenient. The trouble is the public till, public laws of the land are at stake. Even if I get called for jury duty- I dont just say it isnt something I can do..... I must show up and in person state the situation. this premise turns the entire legal system upside down.

Archer -> RE: Rove doesn't rove to congress (7/11/2008 12:45:08 PM)
It's hardly the first time someone claimed executive privledge to avoid testifying before congress. It's been used by presidents and their staff many times by both parties. Otherwise you cripple the ballance of power and tilt it far to much towards the Legislative Branch. Criminal prosecutions other than impeachments need to take place in the judicial branch not the legislative.

philosophy -> RE: Rove doesn't rove to congress (7/11/2008 1:06:10 PM)
...i am sure you're correct Archer. It's just that there really does seem to be a steady stream of stories like this. Including the VP attempting to suggest that he is above the constitution.

Thadius -> RE: Rove doesn't rove to congress (7/11/2008 1:46:12 PM)
As Archer said, executive privledge is important of the balance of power. This is definitely not the first administration to use it. Imagine how much less would be done, with a super majority in both houses of Congress, and the president belonging to the opposite party. Not only that, but most of these hearings are more for granstanding than any actual investigative purposes.

philosophy -> RE: Rove doesn't rove to congress (7/11/2008 2:38:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Thadius As Archer said, executive privledge is important of the balance of power. This is definitely not the first administration to use it. Imagine how much less would be done, with a super majority in both houses of Congress, and the president belonging to the opposite party. Not only that, but most of these hearings are more for granstanding than any actual investigative purposes. ...i'm sure you're correct about how most administrations get up to this, and i fully accept that there has to be some sort of check and balance. However, this specific issue does seem to have some substance to it, the sacking of those attorneys has a fishy smell to it. There is a bunch of unsubstantiated evidence suggesting that it was done in a partisan way. Surely it ought to be thoroughly investigated? Come out with a conclusion one way or the other. If the White House has nothing to hide on the issue what's wrong with letting their people testify under oath?

Thadius -> RE: Rove doesn't rove to congress (7/11/2008 2:51:15 PM)
In theory it sounds great to just have them come and clear things up... but then you get to the slippery slope of allowing your people to be called to congress anytime congress gets a bug up their respective asses. Just as a point of reference, there was the same type of "issue" during the Clinton years, with some prosecutors being fired for what appeared to be partisan reasons. Not to mention other offices having their entire staffs replaced. I am all in favor of "sunshine" laws, but I also understand that some things should remain confidential, such as conversations between a lawyer and client, or even a president and his confidants. If something illegal occured, it will come into the light of day, and should be prosecuted. Congress just doesn't seem like the proper place for such investigations (save a few specific exceptions).

philosophy -> RE: Rove doesn't rove to congress (7/11/2008 3:04:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Thadius In theory it sounds great to just have them come and clear things up... but then you get to the slippery slope of allowing your people to be called to congress anytime congress gets a bug up their respective asses. ...fair enough. Clearly there has to be a line drawn somewhere. However, what with blanket immunity for telecom companies that may or may not have broken the law, Scooter Libby having his prison term written off, Dick Cheney suggesting that no independent body has oversight of his work, hasn't the line got drawn too far in the other direction?

Leatherist -> RE: Rove doesn't rove to congress (7/11/2008 3:09:51 PM)
I love this. It may actually piss off congress enough that they draft legislation to deal with this sort of stonewalling. Thank you Carl!

bipolarber -> RE: Rove doesn't rove to congress (7/11/2008 3:12:49 PM)
I'm waiting for January 19th... when Bush admits his administration has been a pack of criminals, by issuing pardons to everyone... just to make sure they get away with their rape of the country.

Leatherist -> RE: Rove doesn't rove to congress (7/11/2008 3:17:57 PM)
We'll see how that flies-with Obama stepping up to the podium to take the oath of office.

Thadius -> RE: Rove doesn't rove to congress (7/11/2008 3:19:02 PM)
I expect any pardons to be issued closer to Christmas and or New Year's Day... holidays seem to be the best time to do these sort of things. People are distracted. Oh and what ever happened to Sandy Berger?

Level -> RE: Rove doesn't rove to congress (7/11/2008 3:43:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: philosophy http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7500455.stm ......maybe Rove is legally correct or maybe he isn't......but this seems to me to give the perception that a government is above the law. He's an ass. I hope they throw the book at him (or at least a table, or chair).

bipolarber -> RE: Rove doesn't rove to congress (7/11/2008 3:48:54 PM)
Rove is one of the pack that I'd like to see beaten with a baseball bat... or possibly shot in the stomach, and we all get to watch him bleed to death slowly and painfully on TV.

Thadius -> RE: Rove doesn't rove to congress (7/11/2008 4:01:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bipolarber Rove is one of the pack that I'd like to see beaten with a baseball bat... or possibly shot in the stomach, and we all get to watch him bleed to death slowly and painfully on TV. Good to see our resident pacifists, encouraging diplomacy. While I would like to believe the above was meant to be satire, or at least in a humerous way, it just shows that some of the things DA says about enjoying watching certain people get what he believes they have coming, is not that far from how you feel about certain people. Wait, I forgot it is fasionable these days to wish for death and physical harm to Republicans... as many posts at the Huffingtonpost show. Irony makes the world go round, Thadius

Vendaval -> RE: Rove doesn't rove to congress (7/11/2008 4:36:58 PM)
Rove and the like should be held accountable for their actions either in court or before Congress.

Thadius -> RE: Rove doesn't rove to congress (7/11/2008 4:45:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Vendaval Rove and the like should be held accountable for their actions either in court or before Congress. I completely agree that ALL should be held accountable for their actions... it is when I see a clear slant favoring either political party that I raise my eyebrow. Both sides are just as dirty in their various dealings.

Vendaval -> RE: Rove doesn't rove to congress (7/11/2008 4:54:03 PM)
Of course, party affiliation should not be a free ticket to illegal activites. quote]ORIGINAL: Thadius quote: ORIGINAL: Vendaval Rove and the like should be held accountable for their actions either in court or before Congress. I completely agree that ALL should be held accountable for their actions... it is when I see a clear slant favoring either political party that I raise my eyebrow. Both sides are just as dirty in their various dealings.

Owner59 -> RE: Rove doesn't rove to congress (7/11/2008 6:59:19 PM)
Can someone be pardoned for a charge that hasn`t been filed ? There`s reams of evidence of criminal wrong doing and plenty of time after the new year to connect the dots.

farglebargle -> RE: Rove doesn't rove to congress (7/11/2008 7:38:43 PM)
The real question is: Does executive privilege extend to a topic the President never knew about. Apparently they want to ask some questions about some guy named Don Siegelman or something. Unless Bush gave the orders to do what got done, then does the concept of Executive Privilege even come into play? Can "EP" protect one against the consequences of PERSONAL MALFEASANCE in an un-official act?

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125