What is Digg?297 Comments
- aliengoods, on 10/12/2007, -23/+292If he didn't have anything to hide, why would he have a problem with testifying under oath?
Just another reason you right wing fanboys can go ***** yourselves. - rmwest2001, on 10/12/2007, -20/+241Have these people any shame whatsoever?
Now, why Can't Karl testify under oath? Are we simply expecting him to lie? - Shiftgood, on 10/12/2007, -23/+200I think its time we get out the torches and pitchforks.
/not a metaphor - Skeptic1970, on 10/12/2007, -4/+103It is more about the transcripts. Rove will not testify if they record or transcribe his testimony. If you can not make an official record of what was said you can not prove that anyone lied. Very simple.
People should not be afraid of their government, Government should be afraid of the peolpe. - thewump, on 10/12/2007, -9/+92@GenghisCon
Wiretap his ass? Dude - that whole "Rove talks out his ass" thing is just a figure of speech. - dtd00d, on 10/12/2007, -10/+89Your search- SCUMBAG -did not match any documents.
Did you mean...
-George W Bush?
-Karl Rove?
-Bush Administration?
-RIAA?
-anicejew?
Suggestions:
* Make sure all oaths are fulfilled correctly.
* Try different political parties.
* Try more general impeachment. - GenghisCon, on 10/12/2007, -13/+90Oh look. Here comes the "but..but..Clinton" crowd. Get some new material, moron.
- escheriv, on 10/12/2007, -7/+77Yes, there is. The man is a complete political genius. An evil genius, but a genius nonetheless.
I would like to meet him one day just to shake his hand, compliment his mastery of the political machine, and then punch him in the face what he's done to the country. - Nougat, on 10/12/2007, -7/+71Lying to Congress is a crime, yes, but without a transcript (the full story is that they can be interviewed "in private, not under oath, without a transcript") there's no proof. Anything that anyone would want to bring to trial would be hearsay.
This is just a way for the administration to protect itself from prosecution. - wcasey, on 10/12/2007, -3/+65By the way, this title is horribly misleading. Bush said Rove wouldn't testify under oath, and wouldnt testify in public hearings... but Leahy, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said that wasn't good enough. Leahy wants public hearings under oath for the sake of accountability.
- an0nymous, on 10/12/2007, -6/+67Tony Snow - Op-Ed - St. Louis Post-Dispatch, March 29, 1998 :
(HEADLINE: "Executive Privilege is a Dodge")
Most of us want no part of a president who is cynical enough to use the majesty of his office to evade the one thing he is sworn to uphold -- the rule of law. - EntropyMan, on 10/12/2007, -22/+75Lying to congress is already a crime, isn't it? What should swearing on a bible have to do with it?
- dupswapdrop, on 10/12/2007, -7/+55WATER BOARD HIS ASS!
As dead eye dick says " whats the problem it's only a little water? " - antifolkhero, on 10/12/2007, -7/+49Of course. They'll give you water but they won't let you drink it. Its like a bad magician. "Within this hat is a rabbit. Take my word for it. No need to see it. Its in here. That's all you need to know."
- jellygraph, on 10/12/2007, -8/+49Dear U.S. citizens and citizens of the world,
In these times of terrorism, it is vital for you to give up some of your rights and privacy in order to make the world safe... from evil-doers.
But I'll be damned if we have to follow the same standards we force onto everyone else. Hell, don't even expect us to tell you the truth. Go ***** yourself, people of the world. Seriously... every night I dream about tearing up your votes, drowning your puppies, dead Iraqis and martial law.
And you know what the great thing is? You are all so pathetic, you won't do anything about it. Where's your precious democracy now, bitch? Har har har har har!!!
Your truly,
George 'Jesus' Bush (aka Dubya Cartman) & the death squad administration
PS. We are better than you. - chopenik, on 10/12/2007, -6/+46Well Yeah. This is the same as Bush and Cheney being questioned about 9/11 not being under oath and both being in the same room at the same time.... Not to mention this was a closed door session with the 9/11 comission. It's all a big joke. Everyone knows they're all crooked.
- thefirelane, on 10/12/2007, -4/+44>They can do that.
Then testifying under oath shouldn't be a problem then, should it? - Unbathed, on 10/12/2007, -6/+44Where can I get a Waterboard Rove tee shirt?
- Unbathed, on 10/12/2007, -6/+44Here's what's wrong with that. They (the administration) put a clause into the Patriot Act allowing the President to appoint DAs without Congressional approval. Gonzales told Congress that there was no contemplation of using the power, it was just so that if something catastrophic happened (anthrax attack?), there would be no vacuum with no one authorized to prosecute. Then, they used the power to fire seven DAs to punish them for investigating corrupt Republicans.
- GenghisCon, on 10/12/2007, -16/+53They should illegally wiretap his ass. Give him a taste of his own medicine.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -9/+44"Lying to Congress is a crime, yes"
Funny, that. Especially considering that Congress lies to the American people all the time. THAT should be illegal. - drsnooks, on 10/12/2007, -6/+41"I would like to meet him one day just to shake his hand"
Make sure you check your watch afterwards - GenghisCon, on 10/12/2007, -24/+58@Charlotte
Don't you get it you dumb *****?
Clinton and what he did or did not do is completely irrelevant. It doesn't matter. That was 10 ***** years ago. Step into the 21st century. - LtJimDangle2, on 10/12/2007, -1/+35@heffae
"...severing the American people."
That is the best, most accurate typo I have ever seen. - M0b1u5, on 10/12/2007, -10/+41There's a word for people like this: SCUMBAG
- nullity, on 10/12/2007, -1/+31"Now, why Can't Karl testify under oath?"
I'm pretty sure it's because his hand would burst into flames if he touched a bible... - mikepictor, on 10/12/2007, -17/+44I think the case is that if he isn't under oath, he can refuse to answer certain questions, or give limited answers, or just dictate when the questioning is over. It may not be about lieing.
- bcos, on 10/12/2007, -7/+33Are you really that ***** retarded?
- powerpants, on 10/12/2007, -1/+26@Bamont
"That's all you Leftist bitches do, talk *****, write in your blogs on the internet - and that's all it ever comes to."
Irony: Complaining in an online forum about people who complain in online forums. - bcos, on 10/12/2007, -15/+39Just further shows that
THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION IS THE WORST IN HISTORY. PLEASE DIE. - ChumpChief, on 10/12/2007, -2/+24Is this one of those famed RMDs (rabbits of mass destruction)?
- thcobbs, on 10/12/2007, -3/+25That's just stupid.
If there is one thing we SHOULD expect from our elected officials and their staff it's honesty. And if getting them under oath is the only way to do it, then they should be under oath as soon as they take the job. - Nougat, on 10/12/2007, -4/+26No, they fired some attorneys without cause on the back of a clause slipped into the PATRIOT Act at the last minute, granting the Atty General power to fire US Attorneys without cause and replace them indefinitely with appointees without any congressional oversight. Recently, that power was revoked by a landslide vote in the Senate.
Was it legal for the attorneys to be fired and replaced with handpicked appointees? Yes, because the administration is modifying the law to suit their whims, under the table, without regard for the interest of Congress or the citizenry. It's basically, "We can do anything we want because we say we can." - heffae, on 10/12/2007, -1/+22It's because in Washington the only thing that is apparently illegal is perjury. Nixon was not almost impeached for being an accessory to breaking and entering it was for lying about it. Clinton was impeached not for adultery but for lying under oath. Scooter Libby outed an undercover CIA operative a crime that skirts close to treason and the only charges that stick are perjury.
So as long as you are not under oath you cannot commit perjury and their for apparently can't be found guilty of any crime - Robotsu, on 10/12/2007, -4/+25Why? For a simple reason: Congress is made up of a bunch of freaking cowards, that is why.
And the lead for this entry is misleading: Bush was expected to not let one of his most trusted political advisors (a man whom everything ranging from economic policies, election campaigns, and of course DoJ attorney positions gets filtered through) take the stand. The amount of damaging information a man in his position would hold for ANY president is obvious.
The real story here is that Congress is going to LET them get away with this. They have the power to subpoena, and if Bush and Rove refuse, to find him in Contempt of Congress, which will then take them to a trial. These are fundamental muscles that congress has, let's see if all the atrophy of the last decade or so has made them too weak.. - Nougat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+20You're wrong on pleading the fifth amendment. That's used when you don't want to incriminate yourself. It's been superseded by "That's a classified matter of national security," which accomplishes the same end result without the suggestion of self-incrimination.
- feintnate, on 10/12/2007, -9/+29Karl's religious beliefs keep him from being judged by any mere mortal
- powerpants, on 10/12/2007, -1/+21@Charlotte Web
"Oh, right... just like when President Clinton committed perjury in a civil suit against him! Yeah, I totally agree!"
Perjury is a serious offense and Clinton was impeached for it. Moreover, the trial was a hideous public spectacle that dragged on, and on, and on. What was your point again? - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+22kosmox is exactly right, actually. The law hasn't actually been violated here-- remember, that's why they slipped that provision into the PATRIOT Act. Congress is investigating as a way to expose the corruption of the executive branch so that it can be remedied. It's not a criminal investigation.
What the administration is afraid of is that one of two things will happen:
1) Rove and Miers might lie under oath, which at this point would very easy to prove, and they'd go to jail. That wouldn't be the end of the investigation, either.
2) Rove and Miers might *not* lie under oath. Then we'd have them on record, admitting to the staggering depth of the corruption of the administration. That, of course, would also not be the end of the investigation.
They're hoping that Congress blinks and doesn't issue subpoenas, and the whole thing will more or less go away. If Congress does issue subpoenas, and Rove and Miers continue to resist, there's a fair chance we'll see a Supreme Court decision that weakens executive privilege. These people *love* executive privilege-- remember, a lot of them are from Nixon's crew.
There's been a lot of big talk from the President's people, but I'm betting that they'll blink first. Typically, Presidents would much rather "voluntarily" give Congress what it wants than be forced to do so. - omatsei, on 10/12/2007, -4/+24That's no ordinary bunny! He's got ..... He can leap .... Look at the bones!
- porcupus, on 10/12/2007, -4/+23When they tap wires they tell us, "If you have nothing to hide, then don't worry"
When there is a push for these guys to testify under oath, "This is unacceptable and I will not let it happen"
Bush can not use his "it's a matter of national security" Because if he does he proves the wrongdoing.
Firing select attorneys that have previously been reviewed and passed with flying colors and then warning of a political backlash when we want questions answered.
This is an outrage people.
Hell if Clinton had to testify under oath about his personal life, there is no reason these losers shouldn't when they are talking about political corruption.
Is it me, or whenever Bush uses the term politics, if you just change "Politics" to "lies" everything makes more sense. - mikelieman, on 10/12/2007, -2/+21Then Rove he can sit in Jail for Contempt by defying the subpoena.
I expect the Supremes would rule just like they did when Nixon and Clinton tried the "Executive Privilege" scam. - EntropyMan, on 10/12/2007, -1/+20@caketank,
You're incorrect. The law has likely been broken. There are existing laws, not dismantled by the PATRIOT act, covering good old Obstruction of Justice, Prosecutorial Misconduct, etc.. which address cases of powerful parties trying to control criminal investigations/prosecutions of themselves or their friends.
If it can be shown that the DOJ fired even one US Attorney to obstruct justice against GOP bigwigs or affect an election against Democrats, that's impeachable for whomever gave the order. Note article #4 of Nixon's impeachment articles.
That's why the firings should more properly be called the "Midterm-Massacre," in deference to Nixon's firing of Archibald Cox. - GenghisCon, on 10/12/2007, -1/+20Yeah, but I'm sure you loved it when they wasted millions of dollars going after Clinton for getting a blowjob, didn't you?
- NineOfSwords, on 10/12/2007, -2/+21If they had just fired the attorneys like Clinton and left it at that it would not have been as big of a problem. (Still a problem since the timing of the firings is very questionable considering these prosecutors were starting to investigate various Republicans). They didn't do that, they made up a bunch of lies about the 8 attorneys performance.
For example: "In another case, a top Justice Department official who oversaw the dismissals said he had never even reviewed the performance of a prosecutor who was summarily removed, Daniel K. Bogden of Nevada." ("New E-Mail Gives Details on Attorney Dismissals", NYTimes, 20 Mar 2007).
The political masters in the White House decided they could slime the reputations of the fired attorneys to cover their political motivations. They made up non-existent performance reasons and thought they could get away with it.
It important to remember that if the Republicans were in charge of congress this would never have seen the light of day. The FBI's abuse of the Patriot Act would not have been dealt with. Just to name a few.
"If fascism ever comes to America, it will come wrapped in an American flag."
Huey Long - EntropyMan, on 10/12/2007, -2/+20Where do these "so he fired a few attorneys" people keep coming from? Under what rock does not seem like a crime to fire prosecutors in the middle of cases as a way to get cases dropped for your friends?
Nixon fired ONE attorney investigating top Republicans and it earned him a impeachment article. Timing and context is everything. Bush did it 8 times over. I think the US Attorney Scandal is the wrong title. I'm calling it the "Midterm Massacre" in deference to the original "Saturday Night Massacre." - JJayUK, on 10/12/2007, -2/+19@Charlotte Web
I think there's rather a large canyon between bringing a country to war under false pretences, and saying you didn't ***** someone when you did.
Democrats have the last 6 years of Bush's administration's lies, atrocities and failures to cite. All you have is Bill Clinton denying he got a blow job. Good luck with it. - Pootle4rthur, on 10/12/2007, -2/+19do you not read the news?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+18I'd like to know why Rove isn't under a bus.
- ProxyContin, on 10/12/2007, -2/+17After all the lying, hypocrisy and just plain wickedness, why do people still support Bush & Co.?
-
Show 51 - 100 of 297 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is