digg

Join DiggAbout

Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular Elections 2008 content on Digg.

See the original image at politico.com

Karl Rove refuses to appear before House Judiciary panel

politico.com — Karl Rove, former White House deputy chief of staff and President Bush's top political adviser, is refusing to appear before the House Judiciary Committee to testify on "politicization" within the Justice Department. Rove had been scheduled to appear next Thursday, July 10.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • Noods, on 07/03/2008, -44/+19Besides...of what importance is the judicary?
    • Noods, on 07/04/2008, -1/+14/sarcasm
    • LukasSmith, on 07/04/2008, -12/+2Innocent till proven guilty. Maybe some of you Digg.com anti-bush spammers should learn this since you pretend to be upholding American values. IF he has nothing to say he has nothing to say. Like most Digg.com rants these conspiracies begin with theories and end with the same theories without proof. There are political figures in high office that would love to make this administraion suffer for crimes they "think" have been commited. Until there is proof, administration members can walk free just as any citizen in America. Another point since I know many of you are also Obama fanatics. Obama himself has stated that he has no desire to pursue crminal charges if elected. He states he will "search for proof of wrongdoing." but does not expect to be prosecuting any former administration for crimes. If you don't believe me ask him. Look on his website. Read his speeches. Clear as day he has no real intention of pursueing crminal charges.
      • ichbeineinrcg, on 07/04/2008, -0/+13"IF he has nothing to say he has nothing to say."

        Then he can show up at the hearing, be sworn in, and tell them he has nothing to say.

        And really, Lukas, it's Karl Rove. Of course he was in it up to his neck--that's what he did the entire time he was guiding Bush. Suggesting otherwise takes a ton of wishful thinking or very little common sense.
      • solistus, on 07/04/2008, -0/+10Since you clearly have such a deep understanding and respect for our legal system, you are no doubt aware that a judiciary subpoena is legally binding. Refusing to be sworn in is a federal crime. Whether you believe Rove _was_ a criminal, he is now beyond a shadow of a doubt. Of course, because his crony buddies don't give a ***** about the law, don't expect him to be forced to testify, which is what the law actually calls for. Due process probably went out the window 8 years ago. If not, it went out right about the time Bush pledged his respect and support for whatever judgment was passed down by the court to Scooter Libby, then promptly commuted the sentence. In his defence, he probably didn't expect any branch of government to enforce the law against his will, so he didn't expect a sentence at all.
      • rearlgrant, on 07/04/2008, -0/+8Innocent until proven guilty -- And how do we find out if someone is innocent/gulty. It's generally called due process, but "I suppose its ok to believe one individual if he follows our agenda." And thumbing your nose at Congress is probably the best way for an individual to express his respect for due process.
      • jpate86, on 07/04/2008, -0/+5ichbeineinrcgichbeineinrcg nailed it. "Then he can show up at the hearing, be sworn in, and tell them he has nothing to say." I think he also started to touch on a valid point about how Rove is neck deep in this stuff. Is it unreasonable to think that he won't testify because he might know some stuff that would be incriminating? Is that really illogical? If they really have nothing to hide, just go there, give your testimony, and crush all suspicions. That would be the end of it. But instead, they are choosing to fuel they fire by acting like they have something to hide. And also, Rove will not testify and he will not have to deal with any repercussions because of it. If you or me were handed a judiciary subpoena and we refused to be sworn in, do you think we wouldn't get nailed for it? At the end of the day, Rove is an American citizen just like me and he should have to stand up to the same legal system I do. If he doesn't want to testify, that is fine, but he should also deal with the consequences. Is that unreasonable?
      • LukasSmith, on 07/05/2008, -7/+1What would b the the point of Karl Rove swearing in to say he has nothing to say. I get the impession that Karl Rove is being called to testify not because there is a ton of evidence lying around but because there is little or none. I think I recall a witness has the right against self incrimination. Judging as Rove would have nothing to say, then there is no evidence. His time was wasted and Democrats get to use his silence as yet another political weapon on digg.com. Since I highly doubt Rove would incriminate himself he would walk free. So the point of this show? none. And speaking of which when was the last time you were called before a house Judiciary committee. I would bet the rules are slightly different. Because let us not forget who rules in the house. Democrats. So yeah I bet Rove is just dying to go get trashed by Democrats in a setting where they can trash him for hours give speeches whatever they want without actually getting any evidence or accomplishing anything. Committees are a stumping ground for poltical parties not a means of justice.
      • solistus, on 07/05/2008, -0/+3LukasSmith: you clearly have no clue how the legal system works. You don't get to NOT SHOW UP because of the 5th Amendment. You can refuse to answer specific questions. There is NO situation in which someone physically able to obey a subpoena is entitled to ignore it instead. Whether you think there's political motivations or not, whether you think Rove _should_ have been issued a subpoena or not, the fact remains: he has been issued a subpoena by Congress, and failure to comply with that subpoena demonstrates blatant disregard for the law.

        "And speaking of which when was the last time you were called before a house Judiciary committee. I would bet the rules are slightly different. Because let us not forget who rules in the house. Democrats."

        No, actually, the Constitution and federal law apply equally to all American citizens, at least in theory. The party in majority has no bearing on whether or not you have to follow a subpoena. You don't get to pick and choose which Constitutionally mandated processes you want to follow based on which party is in charge of the process. The primary difference between you or me and Rove in this case is that, if one of us refused to show up, the laws would actually be enforced.

        Remember the line your neocon buddies have been spreading to justify warrantless wiretapping? If he truly has nothing to hide, what's he so afraid about? And, unlike warrantless wiretapping, the law has been followed here down to the letter.

        Also, claiming there is little to no evidence of wrongdoing at this point is absolutely laughable, but given how long you've continued twisting the handful of facts you have some grasp on to pretend your position here is reasonable in regards to the law, I'm pretty sure debating your politics would be fruitless.
      • Caffeinate, on 07/07/2008, -0/+2If this was an ordinary American, or even an American with less powerful friends, this wouldn't be tolerated for even a second - they would just drag his ass off to jail until he decided to comply.

        Yet more evidence that there are no consequences for unlawful behavior in this country as long as you know the right people. Disgusting.
      • CryRightardCry, on 07/07/2008, -1/+2LOL
        Geez, we need a crowbar to get your lips off his ass.
        So let's see if I got this right...
        You say it's pointless to question him, he has nothing to say. Hey rightard shill, that's NOT how it works. I understand your confusion, you rightard asshats don't know anything about how things work.
        I know you like to pretend no crimes were commited, but you also refuse to let anyone prove it.
        I can't imagine anything as unethical or immoral than these pathetic arguments.
        You are a sad little rightard shill, desperate to keep the truth of Rove's conduct hidden.
        If he has nothing to hide, let him testify. Isn't that the same moronic logic you ***** use when you support spying on Americans? "If there is nothing to hide, why won't he testify"?
        Well, in this case we KNOW Rove is a filthy piece of *****, and we want him held accountable for his actions.
        An unethical dishonest coward like you wouldn't understand that.
        Hey, why haven't you enlisted yet coward?
        Ladies and gentlemen, Lucassmith, right wing extremist/GOP shill. Notice his willingness to abandon ALL judicial processes and honesty and TRUTH, as long as it leaves his little KarKar safe from prosecution.
        How can you fool yourself into believing you aren't a pathetic piece of *****, Lukas?
  • Enendar, on 07/03/2008, -16/+331Lock him up
    • bhavinp, on 07/04/2008, -14/+19Feed him to the pigs!!!
    • JekJob, on 07/04/2008, -6/+81Waterboard him.
    • mwaleed86, on 07/04/2008, -6/+13Get him ***** by michael jackson!
    • growler1, on 07/04/2008, -1/+21Let him try running McCain's campaign from behind the bars of the holding cell.
    • oldgal, on 07/04/2008, -0/+4It takes the Justice Dept. to get him locked up...and that's gonna happen?
    • sotose, on 07/04/2008, -2/+6"Begun, the Clone War has."
    • LeeSoong, on 07/04/2008, -0/+7Maybe he really did appear before House Judiciary panel ?

      You have to remember, his kind does not show up on film or reflect in mirrors . . .
    • cl2yp71c, on 07/04/2008, -0/+2...and throw away the key.
  • provost, on 07/03/2008, -13/+206this is what the Sargent at Arms is for. Put him in the basement holding cell in contempt. Why is it that some people think that a subpoena from congress is no big deal? Congress needs to stop letting these idiots tell them no. If I refused to show up to court, what would happen? nothing? I get a letter saying please? I can just tell them 'I will show up, but I won't go on record and noone can be around to hear my testimony.
    b.s.
    • SlipperyFox, on 07/04/2008, -0/+9I was interested to learn that at one time Congress had a sort of "private police" who's job it was to drag people who refused to appear, kicking and screaming, to testify.

      Time to reshuffle the balance of power.
      • provost, on 07/05/2008, -0/+2its pretty interesting alright.. Thats their Sargent at Arms. they have their own jail in the basement of the building to store them in as well. I believe the terminology is 'inherent contempt' to be able to send the people after them and lock then in the basement.

        honestly, i dont know what they have it for if it isnt used for something exactly like this. They still have to outstanding subpoenas that have been thrown to the wayside other than rove.
    • rinpoche, on 07/09/2008, -0/+1The current Sergeant at Arms of the House is a 31 year veteran of the Secret Service - Wilson Liningood.

      Yeah Wikipedia!
  • Stevanoski, on 07/03/2008, -84/+17Rove rules, good for him, another win for the good guys! Dem.s only care about prosecuting those that disagree with them, do nothing about skyrocketting energy prices or terrorism.
    • yellowcakewalk, on 07/04/2008, -13/+66Were you born an idiot, or did you study? You sure are good at it. Rove is breaking the law, that's why he must be arrested. Is there any part of that you can't understand?
      • Stevanoski, on 07/04/2008, -61/+15The only law he broke was thinking differently than you fascist on the Left. But I thank you for responding with out calling names and such, shows you set standards that are above the average Leftist digger.
      • bjornski, on 07/04/2008, -12/+44Steve, do you check under your bed for communist environmentalist Islamofascists each night too? Sleep with your gun under your pillow so the liberal tax police can't sneak in and strip your house during the night?

        Paranoid, scared and unbalanced. You really need to change your prescription.
      • Stevanoski, on 07/04/2008, -54/+8bjorn, isn't that the name of that crazy lady that beats up minimum wage earning airport security people?

        I challenge you to read the comments of the Leftist here on digg. Then tell me who is paranoid, scared and unbalenced. Take only OTC for occasional aches and pains from my runs over the mountain.
      • GovernmentSp00k, on 07/04/2008, -7/+48"Rove rules" ? What is this, Beavis & Butthead do politics? Christ the guy is a 1st rate con man, professional liar and a thief. Certainly nothing to aspire to for any person of integrity. Karl Rove was more involved in the unmasking of operative Valerie Plame than the White House originally indicated. Treasongate was only the beginning, a mere tip of the iceberg. Yet here you are, defending him and calling him a good guy like he's your family or something. What, pray tell, is good about this person? You sure support some strange bedfellows. Left vs right has nothing to do with it. Both parties are false paradigms. Both parties break the law, commit high crimes against American citizens and get away with it with no accountability. A thief is a thief regardless of preferred party affiliation. Karl Rove should have been locked up behind bars in federal prison a long time ago.
      • chicofaraby, on 07/04/2008, -5/+24"thank you for responding with out calling names "

        Says the guy who called you a "fascist" in the preceding sentence.


      • KennMac, on 07/04/2008, -5/+14"But I thank you for responding with out calling names and such, shows you set standards that are above the average Leftist digger."

        About 2 hours later:
        "bjorn, isn't that the name of that crazy lady that beats up minimum wage earning airport security people?"
      • Stevanoski, on 07/04/2008, -28/+5I think facsist is a descriptive of those that want to take every freedom from me. Chico has no life except to follow me around responding to my comments, Quite flattering. I think asking if Bjorn is the same name as a crazy lady is not necessarily name calling.



        26thmarine, could not have said it better, well done.
      • zombies187, on 07/04/2008, -2/+9Which operatives have been outed by dems and why has Bush done nothing about it?
      • SpinningHead, on 07/04/2008, -2/+14"The only law he broke was thinking differently than you fascist on the Left."
        Um....was it the dems who said, "you're either with us or against us"? Apparently you also think congress should only have the power to check and balance the executive when its a republican congress and a democratic executive.
        Also, your brainwashing shows in the way you call the left fascists. Fascism is the far right and communism is the far left. Read a book.
      • kreneskyp, on 07/04/2008, -2/+17@26thUSMC26thUSMC : "a theif is a theif, okay, then arrest all of congress.."

        strawman. While congress may be guilty of crimes that is completely tangential to this matter. It does not lessen what rove has done, or remove congresses duty to investigate crimes of this magnitude.

        @ StevanoskiStevanoski : "I think facsist is a descriptive of those that want to take every freedom from me"

        Ad Hominem and Ironic. Just because you think you know what a word means, doesn't change its real meaning. You're just using it for effect. Rove is being accused of being involved in subverting the separation of powers that ensure our freedom.
      • Stevanoski, on 07/04/2008, -24/+3"The only law he broke was thinking differently than you fascist on the Left."
        Um....was it the dems who said, "you're either with us or against us"

        That is what I am talking about, the only "law" Rove broke was to think differently than Democrats. Thank you for making my point.
      • Elranzer, on 07/04/2008, -1/+14Sometimes I wonder why Democrats have the monopoly on intellectuals' votes. Then I read comments by people like Stevanoski and 26thUSMC and I wonder no more.
      • bjornski, on 07/04/2008, -1/+8Asking if Bjorn is a female name is like asking if Steve is one too.

        Are you truly that stupid, Steve?

        Wait.... Don't answer that. You already have.
      • twiztidsinz, on 07/04/2008, -0/+7To finally answer Stevanoski's question and hopefully quell his bewilderment: No, it's not Bjorn that is the crazy singer, its Bjork.
        Now Steve, could you please go take your meds?
      • FelixDeluxe, on 07/05/2008, -0/+3Hey she's not crazy, she's just a cheeky little pixie.
      • bjornski, on 07/05/2008, -3/+3No, she's nuts. Cute, but nuts.

        But hey, crazy girls are the best in bed. I'd date Bjork.
      • ironiridis, on 07/05/2008, -1/+4That is what I am talking about, the only "law" Rove broke was to think differently than Democrats. Thank you for making my point.

        Well, then we can call this whole thing off, then! Good thing, too, because we have all sorts of people to punish for being gay and wanting privacy. Busy busy!
    • enki25, on 07/04/2008, -3/+19I believe there are republicans out there who know the basic facts around the major conservative positions today, like the one discussed in this article. Obviously, you are not one of them, you're a mindless troll. Why is it that you never hear from a the other kind of republican? It seems like even republicans on TV pretend to be like this idiot, just chanting moronic talking points instead of making legitimate arguments. Why?
      • Stevanoski, on 07/04/2008, -27/+2But you can dispute not one of them, very telling for an idiot like me to completely flummox you. Says more about you than me.
      • ironiridis, on 07/05/2008, -0/+8Steve, raise a point that someone can dispute with a straight face. Then we'll talk.
    • EarlOfLade, on 07/04/2008, -3/+12As if it was a surprise that the right wingnutters worship criminals, but thanks again for reminding me that right wingers has become a synonym for criminals.
      • rexblade, on 07/04/2008, -2/+7We cant play this right and left division anymore. Corruption knows no side.
      • lougoose, on 07/04/2008, -0/+3Rex...of course it is not 100%, but right now, it seems pretty unbalanced.
    • Clydesdale, on 07/04/2008, -5/+11Moron
      • Stevanoski, on 07/04/2008, -14/+3Quite insightful and well thought out reply Clyde, with leaders of your caliber the Left will soon rule the world.
      • Clydesdale, on 07/05/2008, -0/+3I rather think it was concsise and to the point. Anybody who thinks Rove is, in anyway, a 'good guy' is a moron.
    • twiztidsinz, on 07/04/2008, -1/+5Another quality post by Stevanoski.
      • bjornski, on 07/04/2008, -1/+6I wonder how many McCain points he's collected so far.
      • SpinningHead, on 07/04/2008, -0/+7Probably more than he can count....literally.
  • Berkana, on 07/04/2008, -16/+128Let me guess. . . the executive branch and the department of justice (now packed with Bush cronies) will refuse to enforce charges of contempt.
    • bjornski, on 07/04/2008, -15/+42And any deposition would be nothing but hours and hours of "I don't recall" anyway, with absolutely no actual enforcement for contempt. Everything just being written off as "bad memory", or "senior moments".

      If waterboarding isn't torture, let's get a little bit more than "I don't recall" from some of these people. It's no more serious than a college hazing. Like a swim team prank.
      • Berkana, on 07/04/2008, -8/+43Looks like the Reich-wing bury brigade is out today.
      • twiztidsinz, on 07/04/2008, -0/+6That made me chuckle..... then I was sad :-(
    • mOdQuArK, on 07/04/2008, -0/+10"Intrinsic" contempt of Congress doesn't depend on executive branch or department of Justice for enforcement. It's not exactly considered good manners to go around the executive branch like that, but frankly speaking, using this power is WAY overdue.
    • principle, on 07/07/2008, -0/+1Bush’s overthrow of the U.S. government has been in the open ever since Mukasey said that he would not obey Congress in opposition to the President. Congress has to call their bluff, else the coup d'état will be complete.
  • dupswapdrop, on 07/04/2008, -9/+146 Karl Rove why is he not in jail now?
    • carpespasm, on 07/04/2008, -2/+20because the justice department is full of people who he gave jobs?
    • WTFppl, on 07/04/2008, -3/+5He was in jail for treason, Bush commuted his sentence!
    • Pillage, on 07/04/2008, -3/+4because the congress either have no evidence or no spine.
      • mikelieman, on 07/05/2008, -0/+3Or the Loyal Bushies have been unlawfully spying on them collecting blackmail for the past 6 years?
  • SheilaNoya, on 07/04/2008, -9/+122I can't wait for this image to become a reality:

    http://www.geekpro.com/images/political/rove_arres ...

    • demonic, on 07/04/2008, -4/+12that's not rove, he's not fat enough
  • pintomp3, on 07/04/2008, -7/+113lock him up for contempt.
    • Skooma714, on 07/04/2008, -3/+8That's only in a court. The House Judicary Panel is part of the legislature.
      • shakbhaji, on 07/04/2008, -0/+5He can be held in contempt of Congress.
      • Naieve, on 07/04/2008, -0/+4I hold myself in contempt of Congress perpetually.

        They deserve my contempt.
  • FrankHope, on 07/04/2008, -8/+152These Neocons act as if they are above the law.
    • Skooma714, on 07/04/2008, -1/+51Apparently they are.
    • bosssmiley, on 07/04/2008, -1/+29To paraphrase Leona Helmsley: "Only the little people obey the law."
      • blackinthmiddle, on 07/04/2008, -1/+5I thought she said, "Only the little people pay taxes"?
      • Qeveren, on 07/04/2008, -0/+8Hence, "paraphrase"?
    • freezeout, on 07/04/2008, -1/+16based on the last 8 years I just presumed they were
    • rexblade, on 07/04/2008, -1/+22Anytime someone declares executive privilege rather then answer the question of those who supposedly chose him. Id say thats a good sign ***** ain't right.
    • Naieve, on 07/04/2008, -0/+3The House Judiciary Committee is not a Court of Law. They Legislate, not Adjudicate.

      I don't agree with using government offices for political purposes, but truthfully the pot is calling the kettle black.
    • Symbolism, on 07/04/2008, -1/+3They don't respect american laws, because they don't see them as gods law. these neo cons are religious nuts who need to get some common sense beat into them with a sledge hammer.
    • mesasone, on 07/04/2008, -0/+7To quote Judge Dred: I AM THE LAW.
    • newguy96, on 07/05/2008, -0/+3uh, because they are above the law. they oversee the money paid to those who write AND enforce the laws.

      Rove is far above any of the enforcers or the law makers.

      Hes like the illuminatis Butt-boy.

      he likes anus and sack flavor.
  • P8triot1, on 07/04/2008, -8/+79I think these neocons have themselves convinced they love America, yet see no problem in trashing our country for their selfish gain and power.
    • Skooma714, on 07/04/2008, -1/+27America is their plaything and personal piggy bank and its residents are their servants.
    • unique172, on 07/04/2008, -1/+5They just love this country because they can trash it and get away with it. It's a selfish love.
    • ceredron, on 07/04/2008, -0/+4They've only convinced us. They're just charading, and not very well, at that.
  • JekJob, on 07/04/2008, -6/+43Let's just hope that Congress has the balls to DO something about this.
    • keymanjim2, on 07/04/2008, -13/+2It's an election year. The democrats are thumping their chests for votes while Rove is kicking them in the nuts.
      Like everything else the democrats do they'll rewrite the word "justice" to further their political ambitions.
      If I was Rove I wouldn't show up for the witch hunt either. He can't be forced to testify against himself and he has no reason to think that the democrats would ever try to punish him for not providing fuel for their fire.
    • Skooma714, on 07/04/2008, -0/+7Yeah! Just like they did with our troops in Iraq!
    • sambapati87, on 07/04/2008, -1/+13Don't expect this congress to do much of anything, about anything, ever.
    • newguy96, on 07/05/2008, -0/+3i think we all know the answer to that. Congress' balls-size is in the negatives...
  • jbenson2, on 07/04/2008, -14/+41The democrats are going to cave once again, just like they caved time after time on their promise to stop the war. Just a bunch of spineless politicians. No wonder they are despised more than President Bush.
    • enki25, on 07/04/2008, -2/+18They aren't. Congress is, but Congress /= Democrats. I definitely agree that the Dems aren't doing enough, but to claim that they are worse than the people actually creating these problems is naive.
      • ninjacob, on 07/04/2008, -8/+2It's naive to think that the Democrats didn't create the problems too.
      • xceptionaly, on 07/05/2008, -1/+2*****. The democrats were practically fellating Bush & Co on a daily basis back during "Mission Accomplished" when the war was supposedly going to "pay for itself" in oil revenues. Only now that it's biting them in the ass are they saying "Oh, but this war is illegal" and "Oh, the poor troops" and "Oh, the poor Iraqis!" That's funny though, they didn't seem to give a ***** about any of that when they thought they were going to make a political power-play, did they? And apparently they still don't care enough to stop it or at least put up a fight like they promised us."Those big, mean, evil republicans took us for a ride. Let's put a stop to this," they said. And when we elected them, they just got right on board with the rest of them. At least when we elected Bush, we KNEW we were letting a retarded chimp cowboy put his finger on the big red button, but this is a whole new league of deception and self-preserving politics.
    • lessspam, on 07/04/2008, -1/+14You call them Democrats but once they all make it into the Beltway they all become the same party - the Opportunistic Back-slapping Washington Welfare party. It's only one party.
      • humptyz, on 07/04/2008, -1/+6I like Republicrats better.
      • rreppy, on 07/17/2008, -0/+0If you can't see the difference between the war-mongering, antiscience, anti-environment, pro-torture, constitution-shredding GOP and the Democratic party, then you are just an idiot. Really. Where have you been for the last 8 years?
    • glenguthrie, on 07/04/2008, -1/+11With such a narrow majority in the Senate, what else could the Democrats do? They could revoke the war authorization bill, but the President would simply ignore it. They could end or decrease funding for the war, but President Bush would veto the bill. The only real option is to NOT send a war funding bill to the President and let current funding expire. However, while this is transpiring, the Democrats take a huge public relations beating (not to mention waste a lot of time) and eventually one or two of the Democrats who currently give them their thin majority will buckle under the pressure and cross the line to vote on a Republican version of the war funding bill (which the President would sign into law). The "spineless" Democratic leadership realizes that this scenario will play out and decides to use their small amount of leverage to include some MUCH NEEDED items that Republicans have long opposed (like the minimum wage increase). Something is better than nothing.
      • sulthernao, on 07/04/2008, -0/+61 or 2? Democrats have 49, GOP has 49, 2 Independents. One of those Independents is Lieberman. Then there are at least 5 Democrats who are pretty much DINOs. And then there are another 20-30 who are too cowardly to do anything.
      • TWGMichael, on 07/04/2008, -0/+3Evil only needs for good people to do nothing.
    • TWGMichael, on 07/04/2008, -0/+4Has it occurred to you that this might be exactly what they want, that being why they refuse to oppose it? Silence is agreement.
    • rreppy, on 07/17/2008, -0/+0NO-ONE is despised more than "President" Bush. - Unless it's his puppetmaster, cheney.
  • KyleRayner, on 07/04/2008, -4/+35Wow. Wish I was so above the law that I could just ignore anything the courts had to say.
  • sclifford, on 07/04/2008, -5/+20I hope the Judiciary Committee has him dragged before them in chains.
    • rreppy, on 07/17/2008, -0/+0Absolutely! I want congress to send in the National Guard if necessary; surround Rove's house with tanks, lob a few incendiary rounds into his bedroom if necessary, then handcuff this bastard and frog-march him to the Judiciary committee LIKE ANY OTHER AMERICAN.
      ... If he resists, shoot him.
  • SuckMyDigg, on 07/04/2008, -4/+10'He would appear in private, without taking an oath, and without transcripts.(paraphrased)' So basically if you don't put your hand on a bible and mumble some words before someone asks you questions in court, then it's perfectly okay to lie your ass off?
  • londubh, on 07/04/2008, -3/+22Maybe someone in Congress will write Another Sternly Worded Letter™
  • banderwocky, on 07/04/2008, -3/+9Oh turd blossom, the circus continues!
  • FlaNative, on 07/04/2008, -10/+27We can thank Nancy Peloci for this; I do not blame Karl Rove.
    Nancy Peloci started this "issue" we she took impeachment "off the table".
    Why should any Bush crony appear, if Congress does not do its job and impeach Bush??
    • SalaciousCrumb, on 07/04/2008, -0/+7You know what, as bat-***** crazy as that comes off, I actually agree completely. If the leadership did what the Dem voters really wanted, it would be fabulous. At least when Russ Feingold says he's opposed to something, he votes against it (i.e. FISA), unlike the other spineless pols.
    • oldhick, on 07/04/2008, -1/+4Why the hell do you get dugg down for making sense while if someone says something pointless like "neocons hate America" they get dugg up? Congress isn't going to do anything 'cause they're all in bed together.
  • kreatre2007, on 07/04/2008, -26/+7I'm glad he's doing this. Congress needs to concentrate on more important things than their witch hunt against the Bush administration. Why not work on allowing the oil companies to drill for oil so our gas prices will start coming down. I'm sure a lot of Bush haters will digg me down for this so, go ahead. I see Congress for what it has become -- a bunch of bitter children who never got over the fact that Gore LOST in 2000 by 537 votes. Nailing Karl Rove for some contrived conspiracy isn't going to do a damned thing for the country.
    • swrostmore, on 07/04/2008, -3/+2Of course you have no problem with a political party using the Department of Justice to influence elections in their favor.
      • kreatre2007, on 07/04/2008, -4/+1How did Bush use the Justice Dept. to influence elections??? By the way... With every incoming president, all U.S attorneys are fired. The only difference with Bush is that he waited a few years to get rid of them. It's customary and completely legal. The U.S. attorneys work at the pleasure of the president. If they are not carrying out the agenda of the president, they get canned. That's the way it's supposed to be. Clinton fired all of the U.S. attorneys when he took office. No one hounded his advisors for it. No one wasted time with pointless hearings.
      • swrostmore, on 07/04/2008, -0/+5"How did Bush use the Justice Dept. to influence elections???"

        By pressuring US Attorneys to investigate Democrats during elections, and firing those US Attorneys who refused.

        "With every incoming president, all U.S attorneys are fired."
        Reagan fired Carter's attorneys. Clinton fired all Bush Sr.'s attorneys. When the White House changes parties, its common and expected for the US attorneys appointed by the previous president to be replaced. Bush Jr. firing his own attorneys has nothing to do with this.

        "Clinton fired all of the U.S. attorneys when he took office. No one hounded his advisors for it."

        This is simply false. Republicans raised a huge stink about it.
      • kreneskyp, on 07/04/2008, -1/+1Bush has been president for almost 8 years. During which there was a general election and mid-term election. The fact that the lawyers might be fired at the end of his term is irrelevant, they've already been there long enough to cause harm if that was their goal
    • devzer0, on 07/04/2008, -2/+7*Nailing Karl Rove for some contrived conspiracy isn't going to do a damned thing for the country.*

      It would make me feel good.
      • kreatre2007, on 07/04/2008, -4/+1Then you need to get a life.
      • rexblade, on 07/04/2008, -0/+4If its contrived then he should have nothing to worry about. We are and always have been a republic. No one should be above the law.
      • Jlaugh, on 07/05/2008, -0/+1Karl Rove should hang for treason.
    • KyleRayner, on 07/04/2008, -1/+7"Why not work on allowing the oil companies to drill for oil so our gas prices will start coming down."

      What, in ten years? How about working on fixing the piece-of-worthless-crap dollar, and reigning in the speculators instead?
      • SalaciousCrumb, on 07/04/2008, -2/+3"What, in ten years?"
        Yeah, same reply Dems gave in the 80s, 90s and early 2000 when they blocked attempts to drill in ANWR.
      • KyleRayner, on 07/04/2008, -2/+5Do you honestly think that wouldve prevented the 50% increase in oil prices so far this year? Get real.
      • kreatre2007, on 07/04/2008, -2/+210 years??? Nice liberal talking point. Well, I've got news for you... The price of oil that you see reported by the media is the futures price due to speculation. If the oil companies are allowed to drill here in the U.S. and start increasing supply, the speculated future price will go down. Then, we will see a slow decline in the price of gas. I can't believe that no one understands this. I learned all about this in a high school economics class 20 years ago!!! The liberals don't understand how the economy works so, they spout this idea that drilling now won't help. Well, if we never drill that can only make the situation worse in the future.
      • SalaciousCrumb, on 07/04/2008, -1/+1"Do you honestly think that wouldve prevented the 50% increase in oil prices so far this year? Get real."

        So if we had been drilling since the 80's, that would have driven the price up from $1 to $1.50.
        Prevented - no.
        Ameliorated -- yes.
    • thawkth, on 07/04/2008, -1/+3Of course, because the United States' most urgent need is cheaper energy and more convenient shortcuts that make life easier for big oil and short circuit the burgeoning attempts at alternative energy sources!

      It is NOT the restoration of our constitution, the checks and balances, and the Rule of Law.

      Screw Justice! Give me cheap gas!
      The market IS working, btw. Just look at what's happened just this year! You mean to tell me by the time drilling domestically would begin to make a dent in oil prices, we wouldn't have anything remotely competitive! Wind and Solar are getting there, Nuclear IS there.
      Hell, look at computers or the genome sequencing efforts. Not everything scales so well, this I understand...But if we put the effort we should into this endeavor rather than looking for solutions that maintain the status quo, I truly believe the human race capable of doing grand things.

      Short circuiting the rule of law and plain moral decency has turned this nation into a bunch of beaten and broken cynics who believe our salvation must come from big business and we are incapable of doing anything ourselves.



      People like you need to go ***** yourselves. Seriously.
      • oldhick, on 07/04/2008, -0/+1Neither of the two parties is going to return "the rule of law" and the limitations put in place by our Constitution. There's just too much money and power for anyone in one of the two parties to care.
    • enki25, on 07/04/2008, -2/+5Letting oil companies drill in the US may have an impact on gas prices 10 years from now. Why don't you concentrate on more important things, like the fact that a single political party in this country used the power of its office to turn the machinery of law enforcement in this country against the people. If Democrats had hired/fired US Attorneys based on political affiliation you'd be ***** your overalls in anger right now.
      • oldhick, on 07/04/2008, -2/+1Why don't you concentrate on learning a thing or two... The Patriot Act wouldn't have passed with out the Dems. Both parties are complicit if not actively engaged in turning our law enforcement against its own people. If the Dems really believed that the Neocons were using the Justice Department to swing elections they'd actually do something about it.
        They're all in bed together and this is simply for show. And apparently the show works on people like you...
    • Hypersapien, on 07/04/2008, -0/+6Drilling for more oil won't make the gas prices start going down.
      • oldhick, on 07/04/2008, -2/+1So, doesn't mean it shouldn't be done.
      • kreatre2007, on 07/04/2008, -2/+1Sure it will. Do you even understand how the economy works? Increased supply ALWAYS makes the price go down. If the speculators know that the supply will be increased, then the futures prices go down. It's simple Economics 101.
      • Hypersapien, on 07/05/2008, -0/+2kreatre, that only applies in a free market where the prices aren't being artificially inflated.

        The fact is that we have enough oil. Lack of oil isn't what is keeping the prices high. The fact that the gasoline companies can get away with it and we (private citizens) can't do anything about it is what is keeping the gas prices high.
    • chili555, on 07/04/2008, -0/+3And how about working on---and passing---a coherent national health care policy? And how about taking drug use in baseball off the agenda? And how about a coherent solution to the alternative minimum tax? And how about approving line item veto for the President in the budget? And how about putting an end to pork and earmarks? But our Congress is deadlocked in partisan politics. Congress used to be about what's good for the country and her people. Now it's about, if you sit on the other side of the aisle, we hate you.
      • SalaciousCrumb, on 07/04/2008, -0/+0Oh come on. Don't be naive.
        Congress has NEVER been "about what's good for the country and her people".
        Remember, it was legislators that brought us 54'40 !!!
        Take the time to read the Federalist Papers -- Congress is DESIGNED for self interested deadlock, otherwise they would could cause even more trouble.
  • HiddenCanuck, on 07/04/2008, -5/+18You can do that? That's brilliant!

    Thank goodness Justice is blind and impartial, because I know i would be afforded the same privileges.
  • devzer0, on 07/04/2008, -4/+20Please, please: grow a sac and lock this ***** up! Let Bush pardon him. I dare you *****.
  • SalaciousCrumb, on 07/04/2008, -27/+6So this is a perfect example of why Digg has gone down the crapper. All you little Obama-ites who would rather bitch & moan instead of actually reading either the Constitution or the basic, relevant statutes dealing with interaction between the Executive & Legislative branches.
    Hopefully, after Nov 4 you idiots will go back to your watercolors and eating crayons.
    • thawkth, on 07/04/2008, -1/+9So, attack people who feel Rove should be tossed somewhere dark without actually quoting anything? Good one.

      True conservatives hate Rove more than many Obama supporters, by the way. The constitution has yet to be tossed away so willfully by any other political advisor I can think of.
      • SalaciousCrumb, on 07/04/2008, -8/+2Umm... I took the time to RTFArticle, which sort of clued me in on the the fact John Dingle and his cohorts are banging their heads up against executive privilege, which even the ludicrously liberal 9th circuit would uphold. If someone did not read it and have no access to a wiki that explains executive privilege, its not my responsibility to hold their hand.
        I have no dog in the fight about who hates Rove more, I just know Digg was a whole more informative and a lot more enjoyable before it was overrun by Bush haters & Obama zealots.
      • midagedman, on 07/04/2008, -1/+1I think you're right. This story is a perfect example of the Executive Branch vs. the Legisaltive Branch. If the one party controls the a branch of Congress (e.g., House / Judiciary committee), while the other controls the Executive branch, it will produce this kind of "stepping over the line." This was true when the Republican controlled Congress impeached Clinton and is true today.
    • chicofaraby, on 07/04/2008, -1/+2Good luck with that.
    • twiztidsinz, on 07/04/2008, -0/+1You know.... I -would- go back to my crayons and watercolors... But unfortunately, Bush was already eating the paste and chewing on the crayons when I got there.
  • dexter411, on 07/04/2008, -11/+4We all know that what America needs right now is to adjudicate a possible crime linked to politicization by politicizing the inquiry.
  • alvarezg, on 07/04/2008, -4/+14Lock him up in Guantanamo.
  • bsmeteronhigh2, on 07/04/2008, -2/+8Hmmm. He doesn't show up and life goes on. Or, he shows up, claims the 5th and life goes on. Yep, big difference. Oh, our fearless leaders would use the time on C-Span to ask questions that are basically mini speeches,and not really questions, so the few voters who are watching could see how they were "tough" on Rove and they could have photos taken for their re-election campaigns. Am I underwhelmed by it all? Me and about most of the country.
    • Pillage, on 07/04/2008, -4/+2or shows up testifies and the leftists claim he lied and go off on how evil he is.
    • rreppy, on 07/17/2008, -0/+0 You're not seeing the big picture. This is a terribly important precedent being set. If Rove gets away with this, then any future president can claim that any of his people are above the law, above investigation, and above prosecution.
      You may as well buy your little brown-shirt uniforms and jackboots right now and practice yelling, "Sieg Heil, Mr. President!!"
  • LOGIKonline, on 07/04/2008, -4/+25Seems like everyone is pissed off about supposedly "more important" things. Last time I checked... the constitution is the only dam thing worth saving; as everything else seems for sale. When that document goes, nothing else will matter.

    It is about time Americans start realizing the importance of integrity and justice. Everyone is accountable for their actions.

    Make that ba$tard appear.
  • RidgeWalker76, on 07/04/2008, -3/+10Rove is a coward at heart, I know it seems like it is taking forever, but I hope he can feel the noose tightening.
  • freezeout, on 07/04/2008, -5/+5why go after Rove now? Bush will just pardon him anyway

    best to wait it out, then lock him up after his friends have left the WhiteHouse
  • cambob76, on 07/04/2008, -3/+12Hang him high.
  • savagesteve13, on 07/04/2008, -2/+19BTW John McCain has unofficially hired Karl Rove as an advisor.....word of warning if you think McCain will be any better
    • MuskokasFinest, on 07/04/2008, -0/+4Source?
      • rearlgrant, on 07/04/2008, -0/+2Ok -- but first, I'll make an admission. I'd probably vote for McCain over Obamma, but the leadership of the Republican party has lost it's way. And a vote for McCain is a vote to keep Bush's appointees, down to the political officers in the regional offices of the National Park Service, in power. I won't vote for people who see Rove's and Yoo's worldview as something the U.S. should aspire to.

        http://rawstory.com/news/2008/McCain_says_hed_be_g ... There is additional stuff if you MSN Live Search for it. This article is the earliest I could find.

        This morning's NYT has an ok commentary about my more general point.
        http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/04/opinion/04krugma ...
    • thelawenforcer, on 07/04/2008, -1/+1ofcourse he did, i would too, the guy is a genius... an evil one, but nonetheless he gets things done.
  • defektiv, on 07/04/2008, -2/+8lets get it right this time? arrest his stupid goofy ass.
  • mrzack, on 07/04/2008, -9/+8Karl Rove knows that 9/11 was an INSIDE JOB. The govt did it.
  • Anzat, on 07/04/2008, -2/+11This is the perfect excuse to put him in solitary confinement until after the election.
  • Aero347, on 07/04/2008, -2/+7It doesn't matter because Rove is going to jail, unless he can be proven innocent. Saying he won't appear in court might as well be a guilty plea. I don't care if it was Mother Teressa that committed the crime, if you break a law made to keep you in check, then you WILL be punished to the full extent of the law. I've decided this because I can vote, and don't leave it up to politicians to do my thinking for me.
  • pampusik, on 07/04/2008, -5/+6Face it, Karl Rove is above the law. Now, bow to your king.
  • PALMARY, on 07/04/2008, -2/+3Karl Rove offers our country the "ANTI-UTOPIC", this will be more meaningful if you first consider "DYSTOPIC"...and consider the matter from there. Are "flag lapel pins", the new symbolic "center piece" of our nationalist fascism?
  • DVmaker, on 07/04/2008, -1/+20This is *****. If i so much as don't show up for a seat belt ticket, they'll come nab my ass.
  • dadavexx, on 07/04/2008, -1/+7Bury the bastard !
  • marthat, on 07/04/2008, -1/+9I love all the comments posted...When are we, as the American public going to rise up and say enough of this and DEMAND that he is brought before committee. I agree with what you all say but I am sick of being powerless while the bastards of this administration continue to walk all over us and trample the Constitution....It is an "Animal House" moment. Bluto had it right, "Are we going to take this laying down...NOT ME!!!! Womer Dead, Neidermayer Dead, Rove dead" Take him in front of Congress NOW!!!!!!
    • SalaciousCrumb, on 07/04/2008, -8/+2When are you, the American public, going to take an 8th grade civics course?
      Idiot.
  • IsmailOo, on 07/04/2008, -1/+13What a *****, I hope he goes to jail.
    • SalaciousCrumb, on 07/04/2008, -10/+1For what? Please, please, please name anything that can be construed as a crime that he has committed. Find a link to the Federal register, find the law he has broken, and post it.
      Otherwise, go back to eating mud and playing WoW.
      • ShadowFox06, on 07/04/2008, -0/+5Eating mud? Wow, you're horrible with comebacks.
      • SalaciousCrumb, on 07/04/2008, -3/+0"Eating mud? Wow, you're horrible with comebacks."
        Its what 4 year olds do when they aren't whining about things they dont understand, like executive privilege, regardless of the party in power, or doing silly things like posting hagiographies of Obama.
      • NorthMass, on 07/04/2008, -0/+3"go back to eating mud" That was the worst comeback i have ever heard and I am brutally awful with comebacks in real life.
  • OffPiste, on 07/04/2008, -12/+5Good for him!! Stick it to those Fascists.
    • azAZ09, on 07/04/2008, -1/+4you seem a little confused by who the fascist is
  • MrFurious2k, on 07/04/2008, -14/+3This is why the left appears insane. They'd squawk insatiably if Bush were requiring part of the Congressional staff to appear before him to discuss their private meetings with a Senator. However, they think nothing of intruding into executive privilege on a witch hunt to criminalize their political enemies. By acquiescing, Bush would be forfeiting executive privilege and thereby make it easier in the future for the other branches to exceed their authority.

    The Republicans learned a hard lesson with the impeachment of Bill Clinton. Despite Clinton’s actions being found illegal, the Republicans were politically motivated. The Democrats vowed to do the exact some things to the Republicans if given the opportunity.

    Now the Democrats are looking to violate executive privilege. They’re foolish to think the Republicans won’t take their opportunity to turn that around in the future. This is how dictatorships work. They criminalize their political enemies and lock them up. I’m not saying its good policy to let criminal acts by politicians go unpunished, but let’s be serious here. Does anyone actually believe that anything is REALLY going to happen? Do you believe that even if they had a dog and pony show that they’re really going to find some illegality?

    If the answer is no, then why are the Democrats wasting time doing this? They ought to be working on fixing the serious problems rather than solidifying their power.
    • ceredron, on 07/04/2008, -3/+4***** You. Don't preach about ***** "executive power" and "lessons" and "power struggles". This is about the bringing down of ***** justice on a man who has led this country in circles and committed some of the worst acts on a global scale a politically powerful man has ever committed. Shut up about Democrat Republican you retarded hivemind prick, this is about JUSTICE.
      • MrFurious2k, on 07/04/2008, -3/+2...thus proving my point about looking insane.
      • FelixDeluxe, on 07/05/2008, -0/+1Just being angry doesn't mean you're insane.

        Just talking calmly doesn't mean you're rational.
  • ShadowFox06, on 07/04/2008, -1/+9Doesn't seem to difficult to arrest the president. I am sure he violated AT LEAST ONE rule.

    As chief law enforcement officer of the Senate, the Sergeant at Arms is charged with maintaining security in the Capitol and all Senate buildings, as well as protection of the members themselves. The Sergeant at Arms serves as the executive officer of the Senate for enforcement of all rules of the Committee on Rules and Administration regulating the Senate Wing of the Capitol and the Senate Office Buildings and has responsibility for and immediate supervision of the Senate floor, chamber and galleries. The Sergeant at Arms is authorized to arrest and detain any person violating Senate rules, including the President of the United States.
    • Rapter09, on 07/05/2008, -0/+2The day the Sergeant at Arms arrests the President of the United States - and the guy actually deserves it, and isn't apart of some coup - is the day that Freedom has officially been won; because that's a pretty ballsy thing to have in your job description.
    • savagesteve13, on 07/08/2008, -0/+1Since when has this administration even cared about the constitution or federal law? Don't expect the jew-infested congress to do anything about it.
    • rinpoche, on 07/09/2008, -0/+1Dude - how do I get that job?

      And can he arrest people for violating any rule - like parking violations?

      I'd just like the job for one day. After I arrested a bunch of people, they'd throw me out anyway.
  • WTFppl, on 07/04/2008, -5/+2Rove was already in jail...So what's new!
  • thuimeeha, on 07/04/2008, -6/+1http://tinyurl.com/5z85hd
  • STPZ, on 07/04/2008, -1/+4Back in the good ol' days when someone seemed like they weren't going to appear in front of Congress when requested the Congressmen would go out and detain the man and tie him up in the basement at Congress until his appearance date...but now there's asbestos down there....dam
  • zephyear, on 07/04/2008, -1/+6i love how everyone defending rove here is starting with you "you democrats, leftists, liberals, ect"

    have you ever considered that rove is a terrible ***** human being who has corrupted our government to the core and done worse things than anyone involved with nixon did?

    maybe, just maybe, it's not just the left who hates him. maybe you know, libertarians and conservatives hate him too.
    • rreppy, on 07/17/2008, -0/+0Good Point. Any patriotic American with a lick of sense should hate him, too. This guy is to the USA what Goebbels was to the Third Reich.
  • crackberri, on 07/04/2008, -7/+2Liberals are too STUPID to solve our gas predicament. You go Karl!
    • honesttussey, on 07/04/2008, -2/+4YEA! You go Karl! Go straight to hell!

      crackberri, please accompany him.
  • deadfrank, on 07/04/2008, -1/+6spit roast the *****
    • FelixDeluxe, on 07/05/2008, -0/+0But who would want to eat... oh hang on, you mean... oh dude!
  • bshock, on 07/04/2008, -1/+3Perhaps we could create a group to perform a citizens arrest and drag this piglet bodily into Congress? Granted, even if we got him there, he'd just clam up. But at least we'd have fun roughing him up in the process.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 84 of 84 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.