John K: This is revenge. The only thing Rove is guilty of is beating Democrats in elections. And for that the Democrats have sworn to hunt him to the ends of the Earth to get their revenge. This was a party line vote. That is also called a political prosecution.
John K.,Such a sensitive soul. Maybe you can deliver Karl a 'care package' whenever he is ultimately put in jail...And who said conservatives don't have feelings? Hungering and thirsting for righteousness' sake! Youe are an example for all of us.
rove is not above the law and he IS in contempt of congress for ignoring a subpoena. to NOT hold him to account for that simple act, would indeed have been political.this isn't about beating democrats. this is about breaking the law.
John K:Vote caging is illegal. As is outing NOC agents. That's just to name two often forgotten transgressions by Herr Rove. While I generally loathe the Democrats only slightly less than the Rethuglicans, the only people playing party politics in this situation re: Rove are the Rethugs.
As Josh Marshall notes:Can we note that Karl Rove is now working as an outside advisor to John McCain? So shouldn't McCain be asked about today's developments?Yea, shouldn't he?
The contempt citation was generated by Mr. Rove's refusal to appear before Congress to ask questions from representatives of the people who paid his salary (he was a political operative, but his salary was still paid by the taxpayers for six years).There is nothing novel about the legal proposition that one must appear to assert a privilege if one wishes to rely on that privilege. By thumbing his nose at Congress and refusing to appear to assert privilege, Rove earned his contempt citation and, if necessary, arrest by Congressional marshals.Whether Mr. Rove can avoid answering questions by asserting privilege is a different question, and a question for another day. First, however, he must comply with the subpoena that commands him to appear before Congress.One would expect that Mr. Rove should desire to resolve this issue before a new administration -- whose views regarding the nature of privilege and Mr. Rove's reliance on any privilege may differ markedly from the current administration's positions -- reaches the White House.But, from my observation, Mr. Rove is good at hardball electoral politics and lousy at just about everything else. If he rope-a-dopes this into an Obama administration, that might not be so bad.
John K: You do know who should be indicted for voter fraud, ACORN. They have been convicted in WA for that very subject. All Rove did was beat Democrats at the very game, using the very rules they play. And he won. So what do Democrats do? Why they hunt him down and use the justice dept and the marshals with guns to go after him. This is a political prosecution in the same manner as Robert Mugabe.Which proves another point that liberals are not opposed to guns, they just want to be the ones who have them. LMAO Do I know liberals or what?
John K:So essentially, what you are saying is, just because someone else does it makes it ok, so long as he represents your interests? Hmmm, that doesn't very much sound like a conservative to me. It sounds more like a sociopath whose only concern is getting his way, rather than abiding by the rule of law. If ACORN has in fact been found guilty of vote caging (which I doubt), they should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. There is no greater crime against democracy than to suborn the democratic process. And to answr your question, no doubt meant to be rhetorical, but nonetheless begging a non-rhetorical answer, no, you don't know liberals. You are simply guilty of lacking a moral compass, and feeling the need to project your own moral shortcomings upon those with whom you disagree. Hmmm... sounds like pretty much everything I have heard coming out of the White House and Faux News for the past 8 years...
John K: The facts of the case is that ACORN, using taxpayer money, was found guilty of faking voter registrations in Seattle. That is a fact. Yet the left defends those folks and attacks Rove for what? Winning an election against Democrats over and over and over again. Come down to Earth.
John K: Now let's get real on Rove. That vote was a party line vote in committee. In my opinion a political prosecution. Now it goes to the House which will be in session for about three more weeks till they adjourn to campaign. Then they come back in Sept for a couple of weeks. And even if they vote on it, it still has to go to the justice dept which then has to decide if they want to pursue it. Of course, Rove can stop this entire process simply by showing up and taking the 5th, (You lefties do understand he has a right to defend himself with the 5th amemdment? Or will you deny him that right also). Then it is up to the govt to decide if they will pursue the case. Which means evidence. Of course there is the sidebar about separation of powers. Now Rove does have these rights, eh liberals? And all this has to happen by Nov 2nd. Fat chance of that.So enjoy your self orgasm because that is about all you are going to get.LMAO Rove so owns you lefties he must have been one himself at some time.
John K:Here's what I will say about the ACORN case. Post independent links to the story... essentially what I am saying is, screenshot or it didn't happen, and you're just blowing smoke. You'll have to pardon me if I don't take your word for it. And I remain by my original comment regarding it, if it in fact does exist. If they were in fact suborning the democratic process, they should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Period. Somehow, I doubt you will make such absolute claims about those whom you support. I always love how Rethugs love to be morally dogmatic when it comes to people with whom they disagree, yet are strangely morally relativistic about their own behaviors and the behavior of those they support... case in point, Rove. If you have to break the law in order to win elections, then you aren't winning... you're cheating. But I am betting you don't have a problem with disenfranchising literally thousands of legally registered voters in places like Ohio and Florida. All that matters is that you win. Typical sociopath. Either you want better for our country (and that means playing by the rules), or you're a fascist, and the only thing that matters is that you get to clap your hands and jump up and down like a spoiled 5 year old when you get your way, even if you didn't earn or deserve it.And regarding the vote, yes, it was a party line vote. I guess that has nothing to do with the fact that, essentially, the Rethuglicans are, and have been for a very long time (at least since 1994, and I would argue that it goes back to when they sold out the Reconstruction for the interests of Big Business) rotten to the core. The fact that they voted against bringing someone who is plainly guilty of contempt to justice (aside from his multitudinous crimes otherwise) is simply more evidence of this. What more should we expect from a party whose Presidential candidate and his wife were deeply embroiled in the S&L debacle of the late 80's? Do as I say, not as I do, should be the Rethuglican party line... oh wait, it already is. Need I point to people like Ted Stevens (it's a series of tubes!), Larry Craig (I was just taking a crap, I swear!), David Vittner (I did not have sexual relations with that woman... but she did provide me with a hooker!), Mark Foley (I love me some house pages... especially the young boys!), Ted Haggard (Homosexual sex is wrong... er, except when I do it...)... You, along with your comrades in sociopathy, are hypocrites of the first order. What saddens me most is that there are some legitimately decent, good conservatives in this country with whom I honestly disagree in a respectful way, yet we disagree respectfully, and honor the democratic process and the rule of law. You, however, are not one of those. you're a joke, and a disgrace to the cause of true conservativism everywhere. In truth, it is people like you and Rove who will toll the deathknell of the Rethuglican party for the next generation to come. Personally, I think it cannot come too soon.
I am inclined to believe that it would be better for Rove to continue to dodge the subpoena. Bigger Democratic majorities would make it easier for Congress to exert its will with respect to Mr. Rove. Plus, I would prefer that he testify next February, when an Obama administration could instruct him that the executive branch of the United States government no longer asserts the privilege on which he ostensibly relies.
Actually The Siegelman (sic?) or the Ohio Voter Fraud case is a better one for which to wait. I'd make a citizen's arrest myself, were it not for the plight of those poor Iowans who just recently got arrested trying to do such themselves.
John K: Don't for a second take my word for ACORN found guilty of voter fraud in Seattle. Look it up. LOL LOL The truth will set you free. At least it will get your head out of the sand. Then explore Ohio and more voter fraud by ACORN. The real reason Sen. Kerry did not contest Ohio in 2004 was that if he had the massive voter fraud in Ohio by ACORN would have ment he lost the state anyway. Here I am, the lone voice, speaking truth to power.
John K: D--voter fraud does not really upset you. You only get upset when someone else does it and beats your candidates. LOL LOL LOL D--You are losing.
m d- rove's people will never let that happen, as refreshing as it would be to see.this will be handled before january, one way or another. he'll likley assert his 5th amendment rights, which is what he should have done originally.but instead, his hubris forced him to act above the law, rather than embrace his constitutional rights.oh... wait... they don't give two shits about the constitution. my bad. that explains it all.
John K. Actually, you haven't spoken one bit of truth since I started reading this blog a few days ago. I looked up the ACORN story. And yes, they were found guilty. And they are paying for it, as they should be. You keep making excuses as to why Rove shouldn't be forced to testify. Why is that, exactly? Are you trying to say that since he's a Rethuglican, he's above the law? I'm curious. You keep spouting out all this nonsensical bullshit, but have yet to make a cogent point or bring in one bit of actual proof to bolster any of your positions. I know you're intellectually dishonest, but truthfully, are you that stupid as to think that innuendo and assertion are sufficent placeholders for actual reasoned and well-argued positions? It's obvious you listen to a great deal of talk radio.
John K: WHAT? D-- you got to be kidding me? At 7:56 PM yesterday you said I was lying. Then you looked it up. D I was right! LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL And you hate that. LOL LOL LOL
John K: So as regards Rove, yes, he does have a 5th amendment right. Not to worry, once the Democrats take over they will make sure that does not apply to conservatives. But D and cathcatz have already convicted the guy. They haven't heard a word of testimony and Rove is as good as convicted. LMAO Rights only apply to the left when it suits their purpose.
Post a Comment