Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.
Expert: Rove's Executive Privilege Won't Stand up in Court
rawstory.com — NYU professor says Bush power claims 'wider than Nixon'. "If I was the president I wouldn't be too worried about this Congress either..The fact that they have taken no action against Karl Rove almost a week after he refused to even show up to assert his privilege, makes it seem like they're willing to take it on the chin and avoid taking action."
MakiMaki- 1368 diggs
- digg it
- papastout, on 07/17/2008, -7/+55Rove's Executive Privilege Won't Stand up in Court?
Little weasel will have to testify, and all we're going to hear is "I Don't Recall"- SaMdeR, on 07/17/2008, -13/+6lol reminds me of Bill Gates constantly saying "I don't recall" during the big suit against msft.
- vinod1978, on 07/17/2008, -1/+16Nah, it won't even go that far. He'll never show up, and if anything DOES happen BushCo. will pardon him.
t's a win/win situation for Rove.- RichG13, on 07/17/2008, -3/+11One of the reasons Congress may not be in any hurry to pursue this. Maybe they're waiting until Bush is out and he can no longer pardon ROVE.
- PJ1967, on 07/17/2008, -1/+11@RichG13 I'm not holding my breath that this Democratically controlled Congress will do anything even after Bush is out. Worst Congress Ever!
- jasong21, on 07/17/2008, -2/+3I say wait to get Rove. Congress needs to delay the trial and time its completion with his guilty conviction after Bush's stupid ass term is up that way he has now power to pardon him. Is that even possible?
- DooM, on 07/17/2008, -2/+5The problem being that if Bush thinks everything will come out he can simply pardon everyone even before they're convicted of anything. Thinking of Ford's pardon of Nixon here.
- vinod1978, on 07/17/2008, -1/+2@jasong21 - Honestly, whether or not Rove serves time is not as important as getting him in and seeing that he is a bold face liar. Of course I want him to pay for his actions, however if he is convicted of any wrong doing that will be enough to destroy his reputation, and get him out of politics for good. That is the result I'm looking for whether or not Bush pardons him.
Even though I'm a democrat, I have to say that I can not believe that democrats in Congress are thinking that they should wait before they bring him up on official charges so they don't have to worry about Bush pardoning Rove. They haven't shown any balls in the past 7 years - I can't believe they would start now.
- didiman, on 07/17/2008, -12/+3why would he...congressional hearings are nothing more than circus acts. He has offered to answer any questions they may have in writing, that should be sufficient. Instead the moronic democrats want to have a dog and pony show in front of the cameras to feel important.
- forceeffect, on 07/17/2008, -2/+4I really hope not.
- empraptor, on 07/17/2008, -0/+2don't know much about this myself. but would he perjure himself one way and not the other?
- oldgal, on 07/17/2008, -0/+8You mean like the republicans did with Clinton? On the other hand it probably is much more heinous to mess around with an intern than to lie the country into a war, out a CIA agent, totally politicize the Department of Justice.....ad nauseum
- vinod1978, on 07/17/2008, -0/+2@didiman - "...in front of the cameras..."
Umm....no. It's not the cameras that they want - every single major new network would report on it whether or not it was televised. How many people will actually watch the hearings on TV? Very little.
Rove has only accepted to to be questioned as long as it is not UNDER OATH. What does that say? That means that he knows he will lie, and he doesn't want to be charged with perjury. Your theory is complete and utter *****. Please go back to watching Fox News, and follow your precious leader that you believe has been appointed by God. - maanwi, on 07/18/2008, -0/+3He should've appeared because you are legally compelled to do so after being subpoenaed. Answering questions in writing is not an option when you've been ordered to appear. By rights, he should be in jail.
- jstancom, on 07/17/2008, -2/+4They need to put him under oath. These "informal talks not under oath" should not stand. Rove is clearly not letting Congress do its job, which is oversight and accountability. This definitely merits a formal discussion under oath. Any less would not seem legitimate. Also, his testimony on this issue needs to be in the Congressional record. He needs to be arrested and sent forth to the Judiciary committee under guard and put under oath. He is in clear contempt.
A regular citizen would have to do the same. How can "executive privilege" be declared when Rove is no longer in the government? Could the president protect anyone under executive privilege? There still has to be at least a hearing or trial. No one is above the law.
The line has to be drawn. If Congress actually grew a pair, I am sure their approval rating would increase significantly.- jstancom, on 07/17/2008, -1/+1Actually, there is no debating that Clinton committed perjury. However, he was impeached and found not guilty by the Senate, despite his clear violation of the law.
But Rove is now a private citizen and in contempt of Congress. He cannot be impeached. He will be tried in the US Court system if found guilty of crimes.
You are comparing two different situations.
- jstancom, on 07/17/2008, -1/+1Actually, there is no debating that Clinton committed perjury. However, he was impeached and found not guilty by the Senate, despite his clear violation of the law.
- whatknight, on 07/17/2008, -6/+36another failure of "democracy." makes me wonder why we're exporting it to other places.
- TurboSquid, on 07/17/2008, -5/+10Democracy is alive and well in America, those with money and influence use it to "elect" who will best serve their interests. Why would they then just stop there, why wouldn't they want to spread their hard bought American democracy to other nations where their private interests could be better served.
NSA will kick down my door in 5, 4, 3 .... - vinod1978, on 07/17/2008, -5/+9It makes the entire WORLD wonder why we are trying to export it to other places...
There are not many things the civilized can agree with Chavez about, however his Devil & Hitler statements regarding Bush and this Administration are right on par - and much of world believes this - they just say it more politely. - Mootabolife, on 07/17/2008, -2/+4We trade democratic principles for oil. Simple really.
- bjornski, on 07/17/2008, -0/+2Depends a bit on semantics there.
If you mean "gave them up" in exchange for oil, I agree. If you mean "exchange" them for oil, you just aren't paying attention.
- bjornski, on 07/17/2008, -0/+2Depends a bit on semantics there.
- XanderDee, on 07/17/2008, -1/+4America was a Republic. That means the rule of law is king not the losers you elect.
- TurboSquid, on 07/17/2008, -5/+10Democracy is alive and well in America, those with money and influence use it to "elect" who will best serve their interests. Why would they then just stop there, why wouldn't they want to spread their hard bought American democracy to other nations where their private interests could be better served.
- Surferess, on 07/17/2008, -4/+31I bet they will find some way to get this guy off. He is a slippery bastard! Even if he is prosecuted there is a guaranteed presidential pardon in it for him.
- minorthreat, on 07/17/2008, -5/+3wait till Mid January next year..
- ChristPissed, on 07/17/2008, -7/+18Waterboarding should be considered as an alternative reply to the weasel response of "I dont recall".
- Nintendesert, on 07/17/2008, -1/+5See, waterboarding is OK with everyone, as long as it is against someone you don't like.
- floorman56, on 07/17/2008, -2/+1Please show me where Congress out lawed water-boarding
Yea that's what I thought
- floorman56, on 07/17/2008, -2/+1Please show me where Congress out lawed water-boarding
- Nintendesert, on 07/17/2008, -1/+5See, waterboarding is OK with everyone, as long as it is against someone you don't like.
- jbenson2, on 07/17/2008, -6/+31Rove's Executive Privilege Won't Stand up in Court? He's done a damn good job so far. The dumbocrats in Congress have no spine and will fold once again like a cheap suit.
- kiwiboyus, on 07/17/2008, -7/+13And by using the name "dumbocrats" can I assume you actually voted for the criminals currently in the Whitehouse?
They all need to be put in chains. - twiztidsinz, on 07/17/2008, -5/+6Yeah... we need to get those dumbocrats out of office... they just make it harder for the Warmongicans to do their job of policing the world.
- grovest4life, on 07/17/2008, -4/+2Barely the just are more hesitant to bend over for Bush than the repugs but not by much.
- orangefly, on 07/17/2008, -1/+9i prefer "fold like superman on laundry day"....
- floorman56, on 07/17/2008, -3/+6So when Bill used Executive Privilege it was right and just?
1993 - to block an inspection of Vince Foster’s files after his suicide
1994 - to block turning over documents from its ethics review regarding Agriculture Secretary Mike Espy
1995 - to block lawyer’s notes from conversations with Hillary Clinton
1996 - to block turning over documents relating to arms shipments from Iran to Bosnia
1996 - to block turning over a memo by FBI Director Louis Freeh criticizing the drug policy
1996 - to block turning over documents subpoenaed concerning Haiti police violence
1996 - to block turning over Travel Office documents
1997 - to block turning over campaign finance related records
1997 - to block testimony of Bruce Lindsey concerning James Riady - campaign finance
1997 - to block turning over documents pertaining to cancellation of an Indian casino
1998 - to block testimony of Paul Begala - filegate
1998 - to block grand jury testimony of Bruce Lindsey and Sidney Blumenthal - Lewinsky
1998 - to block grand jury testimony of Bruce Lindsey (”attorney client”) - Lewinsky
1998 - to block Secret Service testimony - Lewinsky (new privilege, “protective function”) - Lewinksy
1998 - to block answers to 2 questions Hillary Clinton (”spousal privilege”) – Whitewater- twiztidsinz, on 07/17/2008, -5/+2Because Bush has been so much better...
- beesaretasty, on 07/17/2008, -4/+3Nope. Even though Bush likes to make crazy ass arguments which usually have logical flaws such as either you're for the war in Iraq or your for terrorism, I'm not buying it. Both can be wrong in your case floorman56.
- LukasSmith, on 07/17/2008, -4/+6Lol floorman you will be buried. These dumbocrats think good government ended with Clinton. Obviously they are too stupid to know good government never started in the first place.
- kiwiboyus, on 07/17/2008, -7/+13And by using the name "dumbocrats" can I assume you actually voted for the criminals currently in the Whitehouse?
- notanidiot, on 07/17/2008, -5/+7I imagine its a bit difficult to do anything to him when he's not in the country. We can't go arresting people in other countries. He's gotta come back sometime, and if not, what beats exile?
- vinod1978, on 07/17/2008, -3/+5Well - we can have him extradited, but if we didn't put in behind bars when he was in jail - there is no chance that we'll go out of our way when he's not even in the country.
- dupswapdrop, on 07/17/2008, -1/+3Send in a seal team they can find anyone, oh wait they can't find benny.
- vinod1978, on 07/18/2008, -0/+2If we actually used the seals instead of Afghan troops to initially look for him he probably would be dead by now, but it was a really stupid military blunder. We decided to send only Afghan troops in the caves because they knew the layout of their land better. Both UN & Afghan teams should have went to look for him...I can't believe that this point isn't even being discussed as one of the biggest military blunders of this Administration.
- cheesehead, on 07/17/2008, -1/+3Wait a minute doesn't the American Government still practice extraordinary rendition, or kidnapping when it pleases them?
- Ljay90, on 07/17/2008, -7/+48How the ***** does someone WHO ISN'T A MEMBER OF THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH have EXECUTIVE privilege!?
- vawksel, on 07/17/2008, -2/+1Because while he was in office Bush and him made laws to protect themselves, even after they are both out of office.
- Thuktun, on 07/18/2008, -0/+2How do members of the Executive Branch make laws without them first going through the Legislative Branch? They can't.
Granted, though, Bush seems to think he can ignore ones he doesn't like with signing statements. Or apparently by simply asserting Executive Privilege. - vawksel, on 07/19/2008, -0/+1Thuktun,
How do we go to war without declaring an act of war via the rules of the constitution? We can't, but we did.
Bush uses his "Executive Privilege" to make laws ALL THE TIME to protect him and his staff, and even attempts to ensure the laws will protect them once they are out of office.
I don't know why I get dugg down, it is absolutely true.
- Thuktun, on 07/18/2008, -0/+2How do members of the Executive Branch make laws without them first going through the Legislative Branch? They can't.
- vawksel, on 07/17/2008, -2/+1Because while he was in office Bush and him made laws to protect themselves, even after they are both out of office.
- forceeffect, on 07/17/2008, -8/+4Finally some frakkin' check and balance in our country, if only a little bit. At least it's something, which is more than this Administration is used to.
- forceeffect, on 07/17/2008, -5/+1Oh wait. I was being sarcastic.
- paulot, on 07/17/2008, -3/+56Rove to Congress: Tell me how my ass tastes.
- krnldmp, on 07/17/2008, -4/+2A Congress weak enough to take that from one man isn't strong enough maintain the country. I can guarantee you that. If this corruption continues for much longer Rove is going to find the Chinese determining how to prosecute him under law.
- gonediggin, on 07/17/2008, -1/+1ahaha salty
- douggmc, on 07/17/2008, -18/+4I'm as displeased with the dolt in the Whitehouse and his dumbass cronies as everyone ... but is anybody else sick and tired of getting this crap for the website "rawstory.com"? It's like the TMZ.com or Faux News ... but for liberals.
- forceeffect, on 07/17/2008, -6/+10Timesonline.co.uk had a big article about Bush "yellow-lighting" Israel to attack Iran. What was on the front page, big and with a picture, of MSNBC.com and Fox News? Brad and Angelina had twins.
We should be glad there are news organizations out there that actually report things that really matter, right?- vexingmodstwo, on 07/17/2008, -1/+4You know why that wasn't on MSNBC or Fox? Because it was a load of *****.
- vinod1978, on 07/17/2008, -3/+7Considering the basis of the story is from MSNBC - I don't really care if the story showed up on rawstory or not.
- FredFredrickson, on 07/17/2008, -4/+4Why does it matter where it came from, so long as it's credible?
- vinod1978, on 07/18/2008, -0/+1Well his point is that it is not credible because of the source. But that is BS since rawstory basically said the exact same thing that MSNC said.
- rearlgrant, on 07/17/2008, -3/+4I agree. I wish people would take the time to post the original source rather than some ad-supported consolidator.
- bjornski, on 07/17/2008, -0/+3Actually, some of the discussions on those other blogs can be entertaining too.
- rearlgrant, on 07/17/2008, -0/+1True.
- forceeffect, on 07/17/2008, -6/+10Timesonline.co.uk had a big article about Bush "yellow-lighting" Israel to attack Iran. What was on the front page, big and with a picture, of MSNBC.com and Fox News? Brad and Angelina had twins.
- ProjectGSX, on 07/17/2008, -5/+10Ill believe it when I see it. This guy is slippery as hell.
- t4m5t3r, on 07/17/2008, -4/+9when are people going to realise, ITS THE SAME PEOPLE, Bush has got away with all this with their help, their just as much to blame as him, the whole point of congress is to be the voice of the people to prevent some greedy dictator taking over, and thats exactly what happened, (although its not as if Bush is the one charge, just look at him ffs)
But nothing will happen as its all one big corrupt group, even the potential replacements for bush are only there because the people in charge allowed it, the two partys are just to keep the lemmings happy!!
and why bother with JUST this guy, when its ALL of them !!- oldhick, on 07/17/2008, -0/+1No, no, no! They are SOOOOOOO different. The two parties couldn't be more different! /s
- vanebeard, on 07/17/2008, -3/+21Does this mean that if Congress subpoena's me, then I don't have to show up either?
Awesome!- cvindustries, on 07/17/2008, -0/+4Like you'll ever get a subpoena.
That reminds me of the Seinfeld episode where Jerry and George are arguing over who is more "bomb worthy" when Jerry gets a mysterious package one day. - vexingmodstwo, on 07/17/2008, -3/+4Depends. Do you work for the Executive Branch as an immediate advisor to the President?
- nicc, on 07/17/2008, -0/+3Rove doesnt....any more.
- vexingmodstwo, on 07/17/2008, -4/+2nicc, the subpoena is for actions he took while he did work for the President. Try to keep up, k?
- jayfish, on 07/17/2008, -1/+6Um, all testimony on the subject thus far has indicated that Bush wasn't involved in this case so privilege does not apply. You don't get blanket privilege simply because you work for the President. Try to keep up. ...k?
- CryRightardCry, on 07/17/2008, -2/+4Uh, Executive Privilege isn't a real legal thing.
It's a concession by Congress. There is no protection in the Constitution for a President who lies to the people.
Since it's just a nicety between Congress and the Prez, it's hardly something Rove can claim.
The Bush regime is going to make a big mistake pushing the "executive privilege means I can do anything" routine, since it's not a real legal right of any kind.
Vexingmodstwo, it's obvious you think you are clever on this issue, but you FAIL.
You are defending criminals who are hiding from Congress. - keymanjim2, on 07/18/2008, -3/+1There's also no authority granted in the Constitution for congress to issue subpoenas.
Cry about that. - jayfish, on 07/18/2008, -0/+3@keymanjim2keymanjim2
They cannot usurp the power of the other two branches of government or the Constitution itself w/o amendment but the Constitution gives Congress the power to do basically anything it want's as long as it passes a bill that says it can and said bill is signed into law by the President. - keymanjim2, on 07/18/2008, -2/+2And, to date, they haven't done that.
So, no authority.
- cvindustries, on 07/17/2008, -0/+4Like you'll ever get a subpoena.
- vexingmodstwo, on 07/17/2008, -4/+14Hmm... One of Clinton's speech writers thinks Rove's claims won't hold up in court. And?
- PolishLogic, on 07/17/2008, -1/+10Yes...clearly worthy of front page news.
/s - Midtowner, on 07/17/2008, -0/+2What's the difference between the situation where Bill Clinton claimed executive privilege? Most of these kiddos are probably too young to remember all of that.
I actually agree with what the NYU Prof said. Executive Privilege doesn't work to cover up the evidence of a crime, so in theory, the Bush WH should fail here.
I say "in theory" because we'll never know. In order for Congress to get a declaration that executive privilege doesn't fly here, they're going to have to haul Rove before the D.C. Circuit and make the case that they have reason to believe that the information which is claimed to be privileged is necessary for the prosecution of a crime -- the court would then order Rove to testify, we'd have indictments, etc.
There is just about no way in hell that this process could work itself out by January 18th of next year, so really, the issue is moot. Unless we're going to start using the office of the Presidency to search for and prosecute crimes of the previous administration (that'd be a hoot), this is a dead issue.
As for Executive Privilege not being a 'legal thing' as one Digger said, he should know that the courts only have a narrow set of circumstances in which they will involve themselves in a dispute between the executive and legislative branches. There's not a lot of case law on the subject because courts avoid the issue on purpose.
- PolishLogic, on 07/17/2008, -1/+10Yes...clearly worthy of front page news.
- OliveStreet, on 07/17/2008, -3/+8Yes, the executive privilege will stand up because, as a nation, we don't care what our federal government does or what crimes those in the government commit. All we care about are reality shows and the latest goings-on with Paris Hilton
*So pissed off with country right now ....* - IgorUnchained, on 07/17/2008, -4/+5To let an unelected toad like Rove lie to the people, the dem lead Congress should be ashamed.
Rove claims executive privilege, but also says that he didnt have any conversations about any of this with the White House. Executive Privilege....even at it's most abused, is to protect the counsel the Executive Branch gets. If they didnt get any counsel on this matter, then Rove has no Executive Privilege.
You also have to show up to the hearing to claim Executive Privilege. Al Capone couldnt leave the country during an investigation while saying "I plead the fifth" as he boards his private jet. It doesnt work like that, unless your country is co-opted by the worst kind of crooks and liars on both sides of the aisle.
Go back to bed, America......your government has it all figured out. Hey, I hear they have a new version of American Gladiators on tv now!- FredFredrickson, on 07/17/2008, -4/+6All of congress should be ashamed - not just the Democratic portion. But if you had to blame one party, I'd blame the Republicans - they consistently and unilaterally vote against the will and freedoms of the people who elected them, making it difficult for Democrats to do anything, as all it takes is one or two dissenters, and the Republicans get their way.
- UltraDavid, on 07/17/2008, -3/+3Really, cause I think I'd blame the Democrats. It's one thing to do something wrong that you think is right, but it's quite another to allow and even further something wrong that you're damn well aware is wrong. The Democrats don't have enough power in the Senate to pass everything they want, but they do have enough power to make sure that nothing passes that they don't like, and yet plenty of nonsense has passed anyway. And while they don't have enough power in the fully body, they do have power in individual committees, and yet they've let themselves get run over in committee as well.
Inexcusable, in my opinion. - IgorUnchained, on 07/17/2008, -0/+3I dont disagree.....but that is why we have a 2 party system and checks and balances.
The two party system doesnt work when McCain, Obama, and Bush all have the same ideas on Iraq (for example). Checks and Balances dont work when unelected cronies get to flip congress the bird and leave the country when they are under investigation.
The only thing worse than a Democrat is a Republican. 89% of the country cant be wrong on Congress....regardless of their political affiliations. - FredFredrickson, on 07/17/2008, -1/+2Here's my (over) simplification:
You've got 51 Democrats and 50 Republicans in a room, and they've got to vote on whether or not Americans should continue to have free speech.
50 Republicans vote against free speech.
50 Democrats vote for it.
1 Democrat dissents, and votes against it, and America loses free speech.
And then you blame all the Democrats for ***** America. Do you see your fallacy now? We should be holding everyone who votes against the will of the people responsible, not just the dissenters of the Democratic party, and certainly not just that party. - IgorUnchained, on 07/17/2008, -1/+1I see your logic, but I disagree with the analogy.
It is more like having 50 Republicans and 51 Democrats in a room, and they cant recognize that this administration is responsible for: Lying their way into war, the Plame affair, Warrantless Wiretaps, Torture, Failures in infrastructure/Katrina, etc.....and NONE of them do ANYTHING to bring justice to the people who voted them in (dems in a landslide) in the false hopes that the troops would be home by now. - UltraDavid, on 07/17/2008, -0/+3Yeah, if that's how it was, then I'd agree with you, but it's not. Did you catch the votes on FISA? Nearly half of all House and Senate Democrats voted for it, including the Democratic Speaker of the House. This is especially remarkable considering that the Democrats didn't have to let the bill onto the floor in the first place.
If you have 51 Dems and 50 Reps, and the Dems allow a bill banning free speech to reach the floor and then 22 of them vote for it, well, it's obvious that you don't have a problem with a single turncoat legislator, you have a serious, party-wide problem on your hands. - floorman56, on 07/17/2008, -0/+250 Republicans vote against free speech.
50 Democrats vote for it.
1 Democrat dissents, and votes against it, and America loses free speech.
But only if the President signs off on it
If he doesn't with a 50/50 there is not enough for a override
You still have free speech
but if he did
Then you go to the Supreme Court . who says free speech is in the bill of rights and congress has no power to change that and reinstates free speech
You still have free speech
If they didn't
We still have Guns - vexingmodstwo, on 07/17/2008, -0/+1I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you know there are 100 Senators, not 101. You're including the VP as the tiebreaker, right?
- FredFredrickson, on 07/18/2008, -0/+1UltraDavid, obviously that's what's really going on, but if 35% of the Democrats vote for FISA and 100% of Republicans, isn't it obvious where the real problem lies?
- UltraDavid, on 07/17/2008, -3/+3Really, cause I think I'd blame the Democrats. It's one thing to do something wrong that you think is right, but it's quite another to allow and even further something wrong that you're damn well aware is wrong. The Democrats don't have enough power in the Senate to pass everything they want, but they do have enough power to make sure that nothing passes that they don't like, and yet plenty of nonsense has passed anyway. And while they don't have enough power in the fully body, they do have power in individual committees, and yet they've let themselves get run over in committee as well.
- twiztidsinz, on 07/17/2008, -2/+3Why do people like you have to ***** up a good argument by adding something retardedly stupid and condescending at the end?
You afraid of making good comments that you feel the need to derail at the very end?- IgorUnchained, on 07/17/2008, -4/+1Because people like you know more about the Yankees than about political process....but you are good at calling people out on the interwebs.....so you have that going for you....which is nice.
- twiztidsinz, on 07/17/2008, -1/+2Considering that I never liked watching sports growing up... and as I got older abhorred them for the fact that the highest paid people in this nation are entertainers (and dont get me started on Hollywood and the people who seemingly dedicate their lives to knowing everything about everyone famous) rather than spending money on things like EDUCATION good job at being so uninformed.
Keep on trainwrecking!
- FredFredrickson, on 07/17/2008, -4/+6All of congress should be ashamed - not just the Democratic portion. But if you had to blame one party, I'd blame the Republicans - they consistently and unilaterally vote against the will and freedoms of the people who elected them, making it difficult for Democrats to do anything, as all it takes is one or two dissenters, and the Republicans get their way.
- didiman, on 07/17/2008, -21/+6i find it hilarious rove gets whiny liberals all riled up...he's my hero
- SOS84, on 07/17/2008, -5/+11And you can thank the Republican component of congress for blocking any attempts to hold the dictator and his cronies accountable for their actions, which include crimes against humanity.
- moxley, on 07/17/2008, -2/+4You know what? I am so tired of people saying "It's the republicans."
It's not just the republicans, it's the ***** democrats too. There are a handful of congresspeople who are uncorrupted from both sides - Ron Paul, Russ Feingold being two examples, and there are more.
Both of these parties have got to go.- SOS84, on 07/17/2008, -3/+1While this is certainly true, the GOP has taken things to the next level and are worse than the Democrats ever would be, you can't deny that.
- moxley, on 07/17/2008, -2/+4You know what? I am so tired of people saying "It's the republicans."
- MalaysianMafia, on 07/17/2008, -4/+7and people are surprised that congress' approval rating is so low? maybe if they did some actual checking and balancing instead of sitting there and being the executive branch's bitch their ratings would go up...
- FredFredrickson, on 07/17/2008, -5/+12I hope they throw the book at that son of a bitch. It doesn't matter what your political ideologies are - you can't ignore the goddamned law.
- futurekill, on 07/17/2008, -0/+2"you can't ignore the goddamned law."
Unfortunately that has become more of an ideal than a fact in recent years... - vexingmodstwo, on 07/17/2008, -0/+2Separation of Powers is part of the law and you seem to be ignoring it.
- futurekill, on 07/17/2008, -0/+2"you can't ignore the goddamned law."
- drmobutu, on 07/17/2008, -3/+5They're biding their time...if they indict and convict him now, Bush will just pardon him.
Wait until next year, however, and he does hard time...Rove's best bet is to take a permanent vacation. Maybe he can stay with the Saudis, like Idi Amin did...- MommaKatz, on 07/19/2008, -0/+1exactly, and it's the same reason Obama voted yes on FISA. If we let them have congressional immunity we get what we need, but criminal charges don't fall under congressional immunity.
- vinod1978, on 07/17/2008, -3/+5I hate Bush to an extent that I myself can not fully comprehend, but one thing is true. He's got some balls. Congress needs to get a pair. If they really want to show the American Public that democrats can actually change the way Washington works then they should go to an extreme here and put him in the jail in below Congress (which is allowed by law). I know it may sound ridiculous but if democrats want to win the election, and do NOTHING at a time where 80% of the population dislike Bush, Chenney, & Rove what message does that send to the voting public? They are basically saying - "Sorry, Rove doesn't want to stand up in Congress. We have a multidtude of legal remedies that we could use to force him to talk, but we are going to continue to leave our balls in a jar sitting on the desk of the oval office." ***** Pathetic.
- jordanlgta, on 07/17/2008, -5/+4I saw him on O'Reilly last night. O'Reilly actually went after him and called Rove out on some things, but you won't see that on digg of course...I mean what are you kidding... *laughs*
- nycmac247, on 07/17/2008, -2/+2fake so that you can say that - he wasn't grilling him / best lies have a little truth so its not obvious to _true believers_ (note that same thing happens with obama-ites)
- Intercon, on 07/17/2008, -0/+1Exactly wrong. It was a ***** puff piece. Can you please stop lying to obfuscate things, you swine!
- nycmac247, on 07/17/2008, -2/+2fake so that you can say that - he wasn't grilling him / best lies have a little truth so its not obvious to _true believers_ (note that same thing happens with obama-ites)
- Valthan, on 07/17/2008, -3/+9Seems more like the current congress is more willing to take it in the ass than on the chin
- Aadain, on 07/17/2008, -3/+3I'm really starting to wonder if it is really the *Democrats* in Congress that have dropped this ball on this. I mean, Congress isn't 100% Democrat, they are just barely over 50%. Wouldn't it be more likely that some Republican, that is very much in bed with Rove/Cheney/Bush/etc, is sitting on the committee that is in charge of retrieving/enforcing congressional subpoenas and that he is really behind Rove getting away with this? I know the popular game is to blame ineffective leadership on the Democrats, but the Republicans have a lot of tools at their disposal to prevent/delay actions since they still have a large minority in powerful positions. And wouldn't it just be icing on the cake if they could do all this quietly and let the Democratic majority appear to be the ones sitting on their hands, even though their hands have been tied by bureaucratic red tape?
- IgorUnchained, on 07/17/2008, -2/+5No, the "popular game" is to call of the Republicans "corrupt criminals"....because they are. The "new game" is not being a cheerleader and calling them how you see them regardless of the donkey or the elephant that they serve.
The Democrats CANT just stop the war and bring home the troops...even if they wanted to. There are alot of things like that, that they still get blamed for. That said, they really arent making an effort. There are a handful in the House and a few in the Senate, but they are all essentially playing politics and "the people" are suffering as a result. They arent "representing" anything that the American people believe in, and the Republicans were bought and paid for years and years ago.
- IgorUnchained, on 07/17/2008, -2/+5No, the "popular game" is to call of the Republicans "corrupt criminals"....because they are. The "new game" is not being a cheerleader and calling them how you see them regardless of the donkey or the elephant that they serve.
- mikedoth, on 07/17/2008, -1/+4Forget congress, lets vote on it and see what happens. Oh right, we can't.
- UltraDavid, on 07/17/2008, -1/+5Taking it on the chin? If I had to label an area of the body where Congress was volunteering to take it, I think I'd mention somewhere else.
- ScoobyNew, on 07/17/2008, -2/+7"The fact that they have taken no action against Karl Rove almost a week after he refused to even show up to assert his privilege, makes it seem like they're willing to take it on the chin and avoid taking action."
I somehow think the expression "take it on the chin" no longer refers to a punch but, a moneyshot if ya know what I mean.
Hey Congress! Would you like a warm washcloth? - hangingchad, on 07/17/2008, -4/+6DEMOCRATS...GROW A PAIR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
- RetlawST, on 07/17/2008, -2/+4I almost wonder if congress is sitting on their hands on these issues until Bush is out of office so pardons CAN'T be issued. That way charges can stick without having to worry about Bush giving his friends get out of jail free cards.
- UltraDavid, on 07/17/2008, -0/+2Wish I could believe that anything they do is directed at holding anyone in this administration accountable for anything, but in reality I think that's laughable. They're not sitting around in order to punish these criminals later, they're sitting around because of politics and worries that serious inquests into the administration's crap will turn up some serious crap on the part of the Democratic leadership as well.
- rearlgrant, on 07/17/2008, -6/+6Those who can only tl;dr can move on.
I got this response from Senator Murray, and I thought it was ok.... I liked the 3rd to last paragraph. If it doesn't happen, I won't be voting for her next time.
From: "Senator@murray.senate.gov"
Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2008 11:35:36 PM
Subject: Response from Senator Murray
Dear Mr. Grant:
Thank you for contacting me about impeachment proceedings for President Bush or members of his Administration. I appreciate hearing from you about this serious issue.
As you know, Congress may remove the President, Vice President, and any Civil Officer of the United States from office through the impeachment process. According to the Constitution, the House of Representatives may impeach an official on charges of "Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors" (Article II, Section 4) to remove the individual from office. Only two sitting Presidents have ever been impeached: Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton. No sitting President has been convicted and removed from office.
Recently, Washington state legislators in Olympia introduced resolutions that called for the impeachment of President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney. State Senator Eric Oemig (D-Kirkland) was the sponsor of this resolution, Senate Joint Memorial 8016. However, since State Senator Oemig's resolution was at the state level, it would have had no binding impact on the impeachment proceedings at the federal level. The State Legislature adjourned without taking action on this legislation. In addition, Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) has introduced House Resolution 333 (H.Res. 333) in the U.S. House of Representatives, which calls for the impeachment of Vice President Dick Cheney. The U.S. House of Representatives is the only legislative body with the authority to begin impeachment proceedings of the Executive Branch.
I share your serious concerns and frustrations with the direction that President Bush and his Administration have been taking our country, both at home and overseas. I am troubled that Congress has been denied a chance to hold hearings and to bring accountability to this Administration. Now that Congress is under new leadership, we finally have that opportunity, and Congress is using the oversight process aggressively to get the facts to help our country move forward. We have held more oversight hearings of the Administration's handling of the Iraq war in the first few months of the Democratic control of the Congress than the Republicans did since the war began.
I believe the best way to alter the direction that our country is headed in is to focus on fixing the current problems. At both the state and federal levels, there are many issues that require our attention, discussion, and action, and will require the President's active involvement. I am concerned that progress on health care, education, and veteran's care would all be put on hold and would not be fixed if Congress solely focused on impeachment proceedings.
Be assured, I believe that the Congress must hold the Administration accountable for their actions and decisions, and I look forward to the upcoming hearings and investigations that are occurring in the 110th Congress.
Thank you for sharing your views on this matter with me, and I will be sure to keep your thoughts in mind as the actions of President Bush and his administration are reviewed.
I hope all is well in //deleted//.- krnldmp, on 07/17/2008, -3/+1Buried because everything can wait until after impeachment.
- vexingmodstwo, on 07/17/2008, -2/+2She's basically telling you, like we've all been telling you, that the ***** articles Kucinich put forward aren't impeachable offenses and / or have no evidence to back them up.
But you're too stupid to realize what she's actually telling you.
- Stevanoski, on 07/17/2008, -6/+5Executive privilege will hold up until the court becomes stacked with activist Leftist judges.
- Intercon, on 07/17/2008, -0/+1Ahhhh..... those pesky activist lefty judges! At it again!
- Intercon, on 07/17/2008, -0/+1Ahhhh..... those pesky activist lefty judges! At it again!
- OffPiste, on 07/17/2008, -11/+4I can't wait to see Rove stick it to the libtards in Congress. This is what CSPAN is for!! ***** the dimm-o-rats. Frickin cowards who privately cheer each time an American is killed in combat.
- delrin500, on 07/17/2008, -4/+6how about you suck off your shotgun and drill an oil well dumb ass...
- UltraDavid, on 07/17/2008, -1/+3Well, I think this guy's trying for satire, he's just not that great at it. Wait... dudeface, you don't happen to work at a major New York-based magazine, do you??
But even if he is messing around, it's still true that it's become acceptable in some political circles to enjoy seeing high-ranking officials break and hold out contempt for the law. Outrageous.
- markgl, on 07/17/2008, -4/+3dog and pony show. thats all this crap amounts to.
- futurekill, on 07/17/2008, -2/+8Bunch of pussies we have working for us...
- ralph12c41, on 07/17/2008, -6/+7OMG..an opinion from a Professor at NYU, that bastion of objective thinking. Some leftist nut job offers an opinion and rawstory goes wild, feeding the liberals here on Digg. Anyone want to wager Rove never sets foot in a court room in this matter?
- UltraDavid, on 07/17/2008, -2/+1Just because I don't think Rove will ever be busted doesn't mean I don't think the law isn't with him. What the law says and how it's applied are two very different things, it seems.
- delrin500, on 07/17/2008, -1/+4I can't believe these total F*%$ing COWARDS!!! COWARDS!!!!
These Neo-cons don't even have a leg to stand on and they still don't do anything. I don't understand what the problem is here. They should all be removed.. Congress.. These thieves in Office ... EVERYONE - goldendome92, on 07/17/2008, -5/+4Rove is the Man!
- kd1s, on 07/17/2008, -2/+3It is up to we citizens to enforce the law when the branches of government fail to act. As such I issue a warrant for the arrest and detention of Karl Rove. He shall then be immediately whisked before Congress and compelled to testify. Failure to do so will result in penalty of torture and then death.
- keymanjim2, on 07/18/2008, -2/+1That was just stupid on so many levels.
- XanderDee, on 07/17/2008, -2/+4Until the American people realize that they have a rouge government that does not represent them he will continue to get away with what ever he wants to get away with.
9% Concessional approval.
21% presidential approval.
That's a rouge government people wake up. Do you have wait until the dollar collapses? Do you have wait until you are in a concentration camp? MY GOD!- MommaKatz, on 07/19/2008, -0/+2sorry - loved your response up until you said something about waiting for the dollar to collapse. Uh, we're there - people just don't want to admit it yet! Some countries are refusing to take USD, people!! If you don't like what our rougue govt is up to people - get out there and DO something about it!
(not directed at you XanderDee, just to all the whining)
- MommaKatz, on 07/19/2008, -0/+2sorry - loved your response up until you said something about waiting for the dollar to collapse. Uh, we're there - people just don't want to admit it yet! Some countries are refusing to take USD, people!! If you don't like what our rougue govt is up to people - get out there and DO something about it!
- krnldmp, on 07/17/2008, -0/+1His lawyers know that.
- thecatcantalk, on 07/17/2008, -2/+5Even though I've voted Democrat and/or Green all my life, I'm thinking maybe I'll just vote a straight Republican ticket in every election coming up, to teach the Democratic Party an unforgettable lesson about what voters do to lying sacks of ***** who don't follow through on their campaign promises.
Gutless, brainless, horse-whipped cowardly trash, every last one of them. Let's just hang them all, and start over from scratch.- MommaKatz, on 07/19/2008, -0/+1and what the hell does that do for our country?!? Gee, let's teach the Dems a lesson by trashing our country more and ensuring that our children have even less of a chance of turning things around. Brilliant ***** idea, why didn't I think of it?
Oh, that's right. Being spiteful and stupid doesn't solve anything. I am the last person to cuss on this site or yell at someone, but that was just too ridiculous NOT to comment on. Grow a brain!!
- MommaKatz, on 07/19/2008, -0/+1and what the hell does that do for our country?!? Gee, let's teach the Dems a lesson by trashing our country more and ensuring that our children have even less of a chance of turning things around. Brilliant ***** idea, why didn't I think of it?
- unfairunbalance, on 07/17/2008, -1/+2Enemy within is in the White House and Congress. They will not do the will of the people instead of the corporate banking establishment. We need to kick all the traitors out of Washington D.C. now. Armed Forces personnel, you have taken an oath to fight all enemies foreign and domestic. Do your job. Save what is left of our Nation.
- amightywind, on 07/17/2008, -6/+7Karl Rove is a political genius. He should not cooperate with a leftist witch hunt. What is his crime? Winning 2 elections?
- cesig, on 07/17/2008, -5/+4How about threatening national security for political gain? If you're going to comment on politics, pay attention.
- vexingmodstwo, on 07/17/2008, -0/+4Do you even know what he's being subpoenaed for?
- cesig, on 07/17/2008, -5/+4How about threatening national security for political gain? If you're going to comment on politics, pay attention.
- UltimatrixmaN, on 07/17/2008, -6/+3What a smug, pudgy, little *****.
I hope someone stabs him in an alley.
Executive Law Powers don't stop Random Violence. - MikeJohnson1981, on 07/17/2008, -2/+4Dear Congress,
Grow some ***** balls! - LukasSmith, on 07/17/2008, -6/+5Yeah this is soooo believable. The expert is a Democratic Congressman. I wonder what he has against Bush? Oh wait, everything. Buried as propaganda.
- Roger_Ramjet, on 07/17/2008, -1/+4This from the same nutroots who popped champagne corks in the hopes that Rove would be indicted ... which he WASN'T. Isn't BDS a wonderful thing?
- TheSwashbuckler, on 07/17/2008, -2/+2With the current spineless Democratic Congress we'll never find out as they'll never take it to court.
- jellygraph, on 07/17/2008, -3/+2I say throw him in jail. Why bother asking questions? We are know he's a criminal and a smug one at that.
-
Show 51 - 56 of 56 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2008 —
Content posted by