Reply With Quote
This sucker is not above the law.
He needs to see the inside of a prison cell.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080710/.../rove_subpoena
He is such a c*cksucker. The guy has done so much damage to this country... To bad lynch mobs are frowned upon these days..
This sucker is not above the law.
He needs to see the inside of a prison cell.
Why? Because he didn't go before a kangaroo court to listen to a bunch of blowhards degrade him and Bush. Good for Rove.
I think Bush ought to hold hearings on Congress and their hearings. How bout that?
So, if top ranking Democrats ignore congressional subpoenas you'll have the same at ude?
So the United States Congress is a kangaroo court? So I guess now we can ignore subpeonas if we don't like who is issuing them!! Woohoo!!!
Please, ray, for chrissakes...
I understand what youre saying, and I may even agree with you to an extent...but the United States House of Representatives is not a "kangaroo court".
What would happen to you if you refused to show up for a subpeona? Care to guess?
They could prosecute Rove today and be well within their cons utional rights to do so.
Personally, I think they should prosecute him. I mean, theres arrogance, then theres Bush Administration arrogance. Refusing to even show up to a Congressional subpeona?! Are you ing kidding me?!
You and I couldnt do that. Bill- ing-Clinton couldnt do that. Nor could any number of previous staff members, politicians, etc thru the ages of this country....whether they worked for the President, the Speaker or a ing janitors assitant. No one can do that.
But Rove can. I'd kick you off your cane. Not because I think Rove is a ing crook (all of them are, some more overt and brave I guess, which passes for patriotism these days) but because no matter the grounds for a subpeona from Congress, if you are subpeonaed....YOU GO.
End of story.
Agreed.
All those sucker, Republicans and Democrats alike, HAVE TO show up if subpoened.
THEY ING HAVE TO!!!
So you felt exactly the same way about the Whitewater and Lewinski investigations of course.
This congress has already poven itself to be a joke. I loved how oil company repusentatives put them in their place. Not as bad as Howard Hughs did years back, but they stood their ground and told congress it was congress' fault!
This congress and their hearings just want one-sided media exposure.
They are worse than kangaroo's
They are rats.
Demonrats.
Little bit of a difference. Congressmen are not part (or was a part) of the Executive branch of the government.
No we can't. See my reply above.So the United States Congress is a kangaroo court? So I guess now we can ignore subpeonas if we don't like who is issuing them!! Woohoo!!!
Normally I would agree. But in this instance it is nothing but a fishing expedition.
And you are wrong as two left feet. The courts have ruled that there is such a thing as executive privilege and the Presidents political decisions on his appointments are none of the Congress business. Especially the HR. The Senate has some say only in so much as to give consent.
Like peewee said, the only reason anyone is making a fuss about this is that it is Rove. And part of the Bush administration.
By the way, when did Bill Clinton ever appear before a HR hearing?
So if a Republican congress subpoenas aides to a Democratic President, you'll be just cool with those aides ignoring the subpoenas?
I really should bookmark this thread.
I can't believe that it should ever just be up to the subpoenaed party to decide for himself whether or not to comply with a subpoena issued by a co-equal branch of the government. I'm sure that such a belief would be something that xray would have balked at had it been undertaken by a non-Republican President.
This notion that the Executive is not ever answerable to the other branches of government has truly reached unseen levels of absurdity and arrogance.
Curiously, during his lengthy investigation into President Clinton, former Independent Prosecutor Kenneth Starr argued at some length to federal courts that there are significant limits on executive privilege and the right of the President to keep advisors from testifying -- in any venue, presumably -- about matters being investigated by other branches of government. I suppose that 10 years and a swing in the composition of Congress can change any ideologue's view of such privileges, though.
How many of Clinton's aides were made to appear before such a hearing? Oh yeah, 31 of Clinton's aides testified on 47 different occasions without ever refusing a subpoena. Bush has allowed only 1 of his aides to testify while resisting at least 3 other invitations to have aides testify before Congress -- he is, apparently, the only President since Nixon to claim such a right. Remarkably, it fits perfectly with the Imperial Presidency notion and Cheney's bent efforts to exalt the Executive (and its many unelected cons utents) above all other branches of the federal government.
In any event, your reference to Bill Clinton is way off the mark. This isn't Congress asking the President or even the Vice President to testify -- it's Congress commanding that an unelected bureaucrat show up, even if it's just to avoid questions or to invoke his Fifth Amendment rights.
Hey you brought Bill Clinton up. Not me.
And you are saying that the President cannot consult with any political aide without his consultation being subject to scrutiny by the other branches of government. If I am not mistaken this is all about him firing four or five, maybe a couple of more, of his Assistant Attorney Generals. Who serve at his pleasure. Like Ambassadors and others.
Give me a break. Didn't Clinton fire all of them and make new appointments?
You're full of .
NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW.
Not a ing person is.
Not me, not you, not a Congressman, not even The President.
If that's the case, then he should go to Congress and tell them just that.
What's he afraid of?
And, why are you defending him?
I've heard of party loyalty, but this is bull and you know it.
It's people like you that are turning this country to .
Party before country, huh?
Horsefeathers. I responded to your post, which mentioned Clinton.
I'll admit, however, that the juxtaposition is fairly unavoidable at this point. Congress was, I hear, undoubtedly correct in investigating every possible complaint about Bill Clinton's personal life; Congress is, however, (I hear) acting inappropriately when it tries to investigate complaints about the use of executive power by the current President.
I'm saying that when Clinton consulted with his political aides, Republicans and their operatives (including General Starr) argued quite vociferously that invocation of executive privilege was improper. Now, executive privilege is so strong that it justifies wholesale ignorance of subpoenas? That's a curious turn of events -- one that seems purely political.
What ever. The courts will sort it out.
Good to see you giving up so easily.
For what it's worth, one court already has sorted out an issue like this one -- when Starr investigated Clinton -- and said that the aides could be made to testify.
Of course, what good is precedent any more?
And the legislative branch is not above the executive branch.
If they have sufficient reason, the Supreme Court will back them up. Until that happens, it's all smoke and mirrors. They are not the court. Shouldn't they now bring this matter to the Supreme Court if there is any merit?
They should take Rove's suggestion. But... That's not what they want... They want the world to see congress asking Rove pointed questions in a manner that gets no cross-examination. Such planned one-sided sessions make for good propaganda with properly asked questions.
You lib s should be ashamed of yourselves.
Oh but wait... You lib s don't believe in the Cons ution, Bill of Rights, integrity, liberty, etc. except when it suits your agendas!
Even as unwarranted as such a supeana is, look what it did for them The demonrats demoncraps will now all talk about this issue in the media.
Mission Accomplished. Make Rove and the Bush administration look bad without relevant fact, because you lib s eat it up like candy.
So, you're saying that the Legislative Branch doesn't have the power to do this?
off.
You just want this shifted to the SC because it is a conservative court with ties to the current administration.
Try that on someone else.
Well, but if the branches are equal that doesn't mean that one can just ignore the other when it damned well pleases. If you imbue either branch with that power, you're making it superior and the Cons ution clearly does not contemplate that sort of heirarchy in the federal government.
I'm sure we'll see some sort of legal action -- but it likely won't reach the Supreme Court before President Bush leaves office and will, accordingly, become moot.
There would be no Republicans on the committee to lob softballs at Rove and try to make him look better? Really?
Liberals aren't the ones calling others by childish names. Besides, Liberals are simply playing by the rules that were established 10 years ago. Are you saying the rules applicable to Bill Clinton are not applicable to George W. Bush?
And, apparently, this White House doesn't believe in precedent. Or the notion that it is merely a co-equal branch of government. Such quaint ideas, I know. . . .
If Rove had simply complied with the subpoena and refused to answer questions, this would be a non-issue. By choosing to contend that this White House is above the law, it's Rove and the Administration who've made this a significant issue. It's Rove and the Administration who are begging for media attention. It's Rove and the Administration who are making themselves appear arrogant, defiant, and imperial.
Whatever happened to the notion of accepting responsiblity for the consequences of your actions?
Hey, at least it's given you a chance to wax witty with your comical variations of the words "liberal" and "democrat."
Embrace the bright side of things, my friend.
yeah, we hate that "of the people, by the people and for the people" .
you can't qualify that before the hearing. we'll all be able to decide whether it's warranted by his reponse to questions.Even as unwarranted as such a supeana is, look what it did for them The demonrats demoncraps will now all talk about this issue in the media.
relevance will be revealed during and after questioning. why wouldn't you like to see rove shove their faces in it?Mission Accomplished. Make Rove and the Bush administration look bad without relevant fact,
They have some power to do it, but only with cooperation. The senate can deal with impeachment, but since Rove is no longer in the executive branch, if he could, he cannot be impeached now.
They are not above the Executive Branch. The executive in my opinion had just reason to refuse. Now it is a court matter. Congress is not the court. Especially the House of Representatives. The senate would have more a right to try such a thing the House.
Please tell me, where in the cons ution does it allow the House of Representatives to subpoena a member of the Executive branch.
Watching too much TV?
This Congress couldn't possibly have any basis to investigate potential wrongdoing by this Administration or the bureaucrats who serve it. None.
[/conservarepublicanbushophile]
Oh, a witch hunt...
No evidence to make your case until you tie the witch up and burn her at the stake...
If there is evidence of something wrong in the Executive branch, it is the senates responsibility to bring it to light. The House of Representative has no power to do so, unless I read the cons ution wrong.
Did I?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
