What is Digg?81 Comments
- bepeace, on 07/10/2008, -5/+42Arrest. Start the process. Congress is too spineless for impeachment, they've cut off sunlight into spying with FISA, insist that we treat Rove and all the rest as the criminals they surely are.
- Channel, on 07/10/2008, -6/+31If they act to charge him now, he'll just be pardoned.
- dixiechicks, on 07/11/2008, -3/+21"Equal justice under the law?" Laws will continue to remain meaningless unless the are enforced...even for people like Karl Rove. What exactly is there to fear about arresting him? Will he bite? Throw a fit? Pout? Call his mother? Take us off his Christmas card list? Why do we even care what he thinks?
As long as we ascribe any kind of perceived power to Rove, he will think he has it. Last I checked, he's an ordinary citizen. Let's treat him like one. - rald84, on 07/11/2008, -2/+17Presidential pardons appear not to apply to a civil contempt procedure like the above, since it is not an "offense against the United States" or against "the dignity of public authority."
oh the irony if Rove files a habeas petition.
MacCracken filed a petition of Habeas Corpus in federal courts to overturn his arrest, but after litigation, the US Supreme Court ruled that Congress had acted constitutionally, and denied the petition in the case Jurney v. MacCracken.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_Congress - Elranzer, on 07/11/2008, -4/+18"The claim that Mr. Rove and the White House make is that high-level aides to the president are totally immune from compelled congressional testimony."
Basically, Rove is saying he is above all of us, and We the People are just serfs. - mrcoderga, on 07/11/2008, -7/+19"Our country's Founders provided the power of impeachment to prevent the subversion of the Constitution. President Bush has subverted and defied the Constitution in many ways. His defiance and his subversion continue.
Failure to impeach Bush would condone his actions. It would allow him to assume he can simply continue to violate the laws on wiretapping and torture and violate other laws as well without fear of punishment. He could keep the Iraq War going or expand it even further than he just has on the basis of more lies, deceptions and exaggerations. Remember, as recently as October 26, Bush said, "Absolutely, we are winning" the war in Iraq--a blatant falsehood. Worse still, if Congress fails to act, Bush might be emboldened to believe he may start another war, perhaps against Iran, again on the basis of lies, deceptions and exaggerations.
There is no remedy short of impeachment to protect us from this President, whose ability to cause damage in the next two years is enormous. If we do not act against Bush, we send a terrible message of impunity to him and to future Presidents and mark a clear path to despotism and tyranny. Succeeding generations of Americans will never forgive us for lacking the nerve to protect our democracy.
Former Congresswoman Elizabeth Holtzman is the author of The Impeachment of George W. Bush."
http://www.commondreams.org/views07/0126-24.htm - egoherodotus, on 07/11/2008, -0/+12Yeah. Now that you mention it, the Constitution along with Checks and Balances are pathetic.
- edrift101, on 07/11/2008, -5/+16Doesn't leaving the country pretty much scream - "I'm guilty as *&%$"
If you see Karl Rove - PUNCH HIM IN THE FACE! - inactive, on 07/11/2008, -6/+16I don't understand how he can claim executive privilege, unless he thinks he was the real prezident
Anyways, you can just tell he is guilty in this video:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=cdFjJlVGDec - anillop, on 07/11/2008, -0/+9You can only be pardoned when a conviction is made not while a trial is still underway. As long as the conviction comes after W is out of office it will have a chance of sticking.
- Altotus, on 07/11/2008, -0/+8Note that there's no formal "executive privilege". The term refers to a gentleman's agreement to leniently offer a certain level of privacy in the Executive's deliberations and day-to-day activities. Basically, it's regarded as courtesy not to micro-manage.
"Executive privilege" isn't a legal defense, it's simply a polite request to drop the subject. In every case where a president has tried to assert executive privilege as a legal defense, it's been denied on the grounds that there's no legal basis for it.
The Supreme Court doesn't really need to rule on it, and it won't even make it that far if nobody arrests Rove. The Speaker of the House has the authority to have the Sergeant-at-Arms of Congress (Wilson Livingood) mobilize police to arrest Rove and keep him in the capital jail until either he testifies, or he files a habeus corpus petition -- who then gets to decide on whether he's being held legitimately. - EvilLordBanana, on 07/11/2008, -1/+8and you become dumber everyday it seems
- Rocketman1882, on 07/11/2008, -0/+6The good thing about Rove not showing up is that it's pissing off Congress according to Robert Wexler. Impeachment is being considered. Lots of articles on Reddit.
- wwwonka, on 07/11/2008, -3/+9this is SUCH a core American check and balance that Karl Rove is basically pissing on the constitution. To me his acts are more of terrorist threat to the core of the United States than any other action, violent or not. I am neither liberal, nor conservative, Republican, nor Democrat. I am an American with a conscious, and this country is divided, broke, and at it's most crucial fulcrum ever to survive. A timeless Rome civilization we are not.
- UltraDavid, on 07/11/2008, -0/+5It sure does, Neognostic. But that's in a world where the laws matter and aren't just playthings to be ignored when inconvenient, and it doesn't seem like we live in that world anymore.
- neognostic, on 07/11/2008, -0/+4newsmax? You would be better off using coloring books for your citations.
- KaivenTor, on 07/11/2008, -2/+6"The claim that Mr. Rove and the White House make is that high-level aides to the president are totally immune from compelled congressional testimony." I'm sorry, when did this BS begin again? Last I checked, ANYONE in the federal government could be called in for testimony to Congress.
- neognostic, on 07/11/2008, -0/+4Since he was a political adviser and not a legal adviser doesn't that keep him from claiming EP?
- hivoltage815, on 07/11/2008, -0/+4you obviously can't be logical and are blinded by party lines.
How effect have the Dems been since they got control of congress 2 years ago? enough said.
Our government just all around sucks. All the intelligent people in the world are just plain too smart to become politicians. - SpamBurger, on 07/10/2008, -5/+8If they don't act now while its a hot topic they will never be able to but, as Channel said, he will just be pardoned or have his sentence commuted.
- facttech, on 07/11/2008, -0/+3It would be nice if this were true, but it's not. The established case law allows the President to issue pardons in advance of the trial or even indictment. The most famous example of this is Ford's pre-emptive pardon of Nixon -- totally wrong, and totally Constitutional. Read up on this yourself, and you'll see what I mean.
The only way to nullify the pardon power is to impeach everyone who would issue pardons first. Impeachments cannot be pardoned. If this administration is not impeached, you can pretty much guarantee that blanket pardons will be issued for all wrongdoing during it, and justice will be completely denied. - minimitable, on 07/11/2008, -3/+6Neocon agitator trolls become more pathetic every day. Now STFU.
- awesomeric, on 07/11/2008, -0/+3but thats why this particular source is buried, he wasn't talking about the story, just the source
- haydesigner, on 07/11/2008, -0/+3Part of me still hopes that there is some big, secret plan by the democrats in Congress to impeach Bush and Cheney in his final days, so he can NOT pardon all the crooks he calls friends.
- wrxpert, on 07/11/2008, -0/+3Welcome to the no fly list.
- hivoltage815, on 07/11/2008, -0/+2Hate to break it to you, but our union has been in peril for quite a while. Ever since corporations started paying off politicians, the country's best interests have been ignored.
Maybe your right, maybe its time for a revolution. The candidates we've got running sure as hell have nothing to offer us. - EarlOfLade, on 07/11/2008, -2/+4If Americans do not use the second amendment for what they claim it is for and get rid of these criminals, it just goes to show that the second is just a bad excuse in order to own a shiny penis extender.
Never in the history of the union has it been in a bigger peril than today. But the criminals writes books and gives speeches and makes millions rather than making number plates for your cars. - aidave, on 07/11/2008, -0/+2I agree, Republicans are all that. So what? Your insult doesn't change the fact that Democrats won't do ***** and are cowards.
- dcshiderly, on 07/11/2008, -0/+2Actually, it's Congress' job to watchdog the President. They're the only body with the power to remove him from office, remember? Rove is deliberately ignoring a subpoena. Were it you or I, we'd be dragged in front of the committee by force of arms. It's just that Conyers has so many skeletons that he doesn't dare making a move less he risk his future electability. I say fire him next term anyway for having no courage and lacking discipline in wielding his power. If he'd been a more upstanding citizen, he'd have nothing to fear in the first place.
- bsmeteronhigh2, on 07/11/2008, -2/+4It's like this...blah, blah, blah... Pointless posturing by politicians promising prosecution pre polls when pardons-a-plenty are promised per President.
- jbrand45, on 07/11/2008, -2/+4The President isn't the only one who can claim Executive Privilege. Top members of the Executive branch of the legislature can try to invoke this Privilege.
""Mr. Rove, as an immediate presidential adviser, is immune from compelled congressional testimony about matters that arose during his tenure and that relate to his official duties in that capacity....""
Unfortunately the Supreme Court is the only entity that can decide whether or not Rove can really be blanketed under the claim of EP. - inactive, on 07/11/2008, -0/+2Rove isn't going to tell them anything..What a freakin waste of time and money..Wasn't McClellan's testimony supposed to blow the lid off ?/ Didn't happen, did it ?? More election year politics
- johndavidjack, on 07/11/2008, -0/+2Yeah, armed revolution against the US Government. See how far that gets.
I'd bet 75% of diggers don't own/know how to use a firearm. Plus when the big guns come out, they'd run away with their tails between their legs.
I'm sorry, this whole mess of a government is a big ***** sandwich, and we're all going to have to take a bite. - jbrand45, on 07/11/2008, -1/+3Unfortunately, failing to comply with a Congressional Subpoena will usually not ended up with the person being arrested. They can potentially found to be in Contempt of Congress, which is not the same thing as Contempt of Court. With “Court” you can be fined (sometimes heavily) and placed in jail (sometimes for quite a while). With “Congress” nothing really happens.
The courts can try and overturn or enforce Congressional subpoenas, but they usually do not, instead choosing to declare them “political questions” and leaving them out of the judicial system. - hivoltage815, on 07/11/2008, -0/+2Rove is probably a brilliant guy because he knows he doesn't have to do *****. But it still shows a legacy of corruption and lack of accountability from the Bush administration. Whether the truth is unveiled in a legal manner or just in the court of public opinion, either way is not a good result for them.
- clutchdude, on 07/11/2008, -0/+2Do you mean something more on the line of what Phil Gramm did?
Conspire with his wife who worked for Enron to subvert the people with a law no one really understood the global implications of? - screamingjoker, on 07/11/2008, -3/+5In Roman times, abusers of power were buried alive upside down with their feet sticking out of the ground. Yet despite this punishment Rome as a Democratic Republic (as is the US), still devolved into an imperial dictatorship through continued abuse of power. Do you think a subpeona or threat of a little jail time would be enough to avert gross abuses of power, especially where there is so much personal gain and so little accountability?
In the end, the Roman Senate tried to restore their great empire back to a Democratic Republic, by killing Julius Cesar on the floor of the Senate 4 years into his hostile takeover of the government. They thought (as many do today), get rid of the "new man" and his cronies, and you will restore the nation to its former glory. But alas, the damage had already been done, the "new way" of corruption, power abuse, and easy wealth were too great a temptation for men in power, and so Rome slid into dictatorship. - rz8472, on 07/11/2008, -5/+6Knowing how spineless congress is, they'll probably send him a card to "pretty please" come and think that it will be enough. The only question is - will the card have the Care Bears on the cover or the 'I-Choo-Choo-Chooose You' train.
- kholburn, on 07/11/2008, -0/+1He might be able to be pardoned if it were a court case but if it were an impeachment or contempt of congress pardoning may not be possible.
IANAL of course. - Changa, on 07/11/2008, -3/+4The law only applies to OTHER people.
- Briandt75, on 07/11/2008, -4/+5And Republicans are ignorant neanderthals that make blanket statements. Put that in your pipe, douchebag.
- notSLICK, on 07/11/2008, -2/+3he need to be met by federal marshals at the airport when he returns and put behind a steel door in a tiny concrete room like other people who blatantly defy the rule of law by not showing up.
it may be time to make a new flag.
because this administration has soiled the stars and stripes.
maybe the time has come to bring back 'don't tread on me'.
also, i know there is some right minded individual with a large calliber long rifle that can put poor karl out of his (and our) misery. - diggydougie, on 07/11/2008, -1/+2Just don't let him back in. Good riddance.
- growler1, on 07/15/2008, -0/+1All he'd have to do is fulfill his obligation to Congress and testify. If Congress has authority in the matter, then they ought to be able to exercise it.
You can't use the constitution for toilet paper and then expect to hide behind it when you need it. - trickyt, on 07/11/2008, -1/+2If you check into the Siegelman case, you'll find it's a lot more insidious than you're indicating. The picture I got was more than innocent, but far less than corrupt.
- TsuruchiBrian, on 07/11/2008, -1/+2"By ignoring the Judiciary Committee subpoena, Karl Rove and the White House once again showed their utter disregard for our system of checks and balances, for Congress as a co-equal branch of government, and ultimately for the American people."
Apparently Congress also shows disregard for Congress being a co-equal branch of government as well. They seem to be under the impression that, despite being Democrats elected to stop the Bush Administration from being total dicks, they are in fact completely subservient to the Bush administration and the executive branch.
Who could really blame Rove for thinking he can step all over congress. Everyone else does it. - itzac, on 07/11/2008, -0/+1If he'd been a more upstanding citizen, he'd probably not have been elected...
- GutterBall1200, on 07/11/2008, -1/+2Send him to Guantanamo!!!
- 140Suffolk, on 07/13/2008, -1/+1The fired US attorneys. Are you girls STILL on that one? How many times do you have to be told -- US attorneys are POLITICAL appointees. They serve at the whim of the president. They can be fired for any reason. Or no reason. But certainly if they don't follow the wishes of the president that's a good reason for them to be fired.
-
Show 51 - 82 of 82 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is