• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Rove agrees to be deposed under oath after three subpoenas

P/N said:
So now it's not OK to fire people you hire? What lame point are you trying to make here?
Exactly!

I don’t see the big deal here. Obviously the law exists only to be enforced at the pleasure of the president. If the people he hired ain’t pleasuring him, then he’s got every right to fire them and hire people that will do the job right. I swear, all that “objectively enforce the law” crap is outside the job description of a federal prosecutor and, if they swing that way, it is more of something they should be doing in their free time. It’s definitely not something they should be doing while they’re on the clock and the president has every right to fire them for trying to pull such shenanigans while taking the tax payers’ dollars.
 
Well, it's not clear from your post... are you for or against wasting the country's $$ trying to nail Rove with a perjury charge?

Perjury seems to be the "in" charge to nail someone on when they haven't been able to make their case for the real crime. I don't want Rove nailed for perjury.

I want him nailed for using his position, and power, to conduct conspiracies for political purposes going after Seigelman (sp?), the Wilsons, etc. :mrgreen:
 
Last edited:
Perjury seems to be the "in" charge to nail someone on when they haven't been able to make their case for the real crime. I don't want Rove nailed for perjury.

I want him nailed for using his position, and power, to conduct conspiracies for political purposes going after Seigelman (sp?), the Wilsons, etc.
Tax evasion and hypocracy seem to be the "in" thing from people on the other side. BTW your signature is a lie.
 
Tax evasion and hypocracy seem to be the "in" thing from people on the other side. BTW your signature is a lie.

Hey, a 2 sentence post. :applaud
 
I've always wondered why the investigation that actually had a driving force behind it is into one of the single lamest scandals that the nation has faced since a President was taken to court over a hummer. If I had to rank things that the Bush Administration should be investigated for, a bunch of lawyers getting fired would barely make it into the top hundred

I recall when this broke and Leon Panetta was on CNN... before he could hook up with Clinton and his cronies, he said "if true it was over" for Clinton.

Why the change by so many?

My reasoning is such:

I don't think lying under oath in a court of law is lame.

I don't think a President denying an individual her right to a fair trial trivial.

I don't think a President who's party introduced these laws to protect females from sexual predators should be exempted from them.

Or do Democrats have special rights that protect him from lying in court under oath?

Or protect their perverts, predators, and brothel owners?

Was Sen. Packwood exempt?

Clinton was on a path to destroy Lewinski... if not for Clinton leaving his Pumpy-diddly juice all over her dress... she'd be long destroyed. The Clintons started the smear campaign... campaign of personal destruction they are so masterful at... too bad it did not run for a few days more.
 
Last edited:
Hey, a 2 sentence post. :applaud

Well, we know you libs.

On another thread we had one of your brethren complain an article was sooooooooo long.
All 909 words.

We know you folks have a difficult time focusing... hence the brevity.

I think one reason you folks gleefully chanted "yes we can" is because you were proud of being able to remember the entire text.

Hope.
Change.
Unite... dittos.
 
If I had to rank things that the Bush Administration should be investigated for, a bunch of lawyers getting fired would barely make it into the top hundred
I'll bite....what would be your top 5?
 
I love it when people quote Wikipedia, it almost invalidates their point right off the bat.

This is a witch hunt and nothing more. Were these same people just as upset at Clinton when he did this? This is a waste of taxpayer money. The attorneys served at the pleasure of the President, it's just that simple.

When did Clinton fire the US attorneys that he himself appointed? Please point this out, as I don't remember it happening.

So now it's not OK to fire people you hire? What lame point are you trying to make here?
Crickets chirping as you avoid the question...centrist :roll:
 
The Clintons started the smear campaign... campaign of personal destruction they are so masterful at... too bad it did not run for a few days more.

You know, those of us who've been around for more than one or even two presidencies understand this game. Karl Rove didn't invent the politics of personal destruction. The Clinton's were probably far more expert than he. And they didn't invent it, either. It's an ancient game. The Romans, Greeks and Sumerians played it I'm sure.

What's so troublesome to me about what's going on right now is the a new precedent is being established. And that precedent would be to follow administration officials AFTER THEY'VE LEFT OFFICE in attempts to destroy them. It's one thing for the Congress to play hardball with the executive branch. It's another thing altogether for Congress to play hardball with private citizens who've successfully maneuvered through the scheming and game-playing while in Washington and are now out of power. The Democrats wanted Rove. They wanted him badly. They could never touch him. Game over. At least, that's the way the game used to be played.

It's a dangerous precedent they're trying to set. One they may well regret later if they go down this path...

:roll:
 
I'll try to find the article. I read that this is why Obama is creating duplicate cabinet posts or czars. To protect them from ever having to testify, by using the executive privelage defense.
 
I'll try to find the article. I read that this is why Obama is creating duplicate cabinet posts or czars. To protect them from ever having to testify, by using the executive privelage defense.

Will this suffice?

Sen. Byrd questions Obama's use of policy 'czars'
By NOELLE STRAUB,
Published: February 25, 2009


Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.), who for decades has battled White House power and championed congressional clout, is questioning President Obama's appointment of "czars" to oversee key policy areas, including energy and climate.

"The rapid and easy accumulation of power by White House staff can threaten the Constitutional system of checks and balances," Byrd wrote in a letter to Obama. "At the worst, White House staff have taken direction and control of programmatic areas that are the statutory responsibility of Senate-confirmed officials."

Byrd specifically cited the creation of a new White House Office of Energy and Climate Change, which is headed by Carol Browner. He also noted new offices for health reform and urban affairs policy and the appointment of White House staff to coordinate on technology and management performance policies.

He also listed numerous examples from the administrations of Presidents Richard Nixon and George W. Bush of officials who directed policy as White House assistants.

"Too often, I have seen these lines of authority and responsibility become tangled and blurred, sometimes purposely, to shield information and to obscure the decision-making process," Byrd wrote.

Byrd, who carries a copy of the Constitution with him and often cites it in floor speeches, said the czars are not accountable to Congress or to Cabinet officials and rarely testify before congressional committees. He said they often "shield the information and decision-making process behind the assertion of executive privilege" and too often "have been allowed to inhibit openness and transparency, and reduce accountability."
...

Sen. Byrd questions Obama's use of policy 'czars' - NYTimes.com
 
You know, those of us who've been around for more than one or even two presidencies understand this game. Karl Rove didn't invent the politics of personal destruction. The Clinton's were probably far more expert than he. And they didn't invent it, either. It's an ancient game. The Romans, Greeks and Sumerians played it I'm sure.

What's so troublesome to me about what's going on right now is the a new precedent is being established. And that precedent would be to follow administration officials AFTER THEY'VE LEFT OFFICE in attempts to destroy them. It's one thing for the Congress to play hardball with the executive branch. It's another thing altogether for Congress to play hardball with private citizens who've successfully maneuvered through the scheming and game-playing while in Washington and are now out of power. The Democrats wanted Rove. They wanted him badly. They could never touch him. Game over. At least, that's the way the game used to be played.

It's a dangerous precedent they're trying to set. One they may well regret later if they go down this path...

:roll:

True. Dems like precedent.

They have no qualms going where the Founders did not intend them to go.
In fact, like badly raised children they revel in it and pursue it with gusto.

Then they raise the middle finger to the neighbors because they know nothing of consequence will happen when they get home... in the arms of the AMMP... Democrat Propagandists in the Press.

Payback is a bitch, and I do hope the R's take it to the Libs in the worst way when they can. I hope they have no mercy.

But when you have tax cheats galore... Rangel, Geithner, Daschle, Killefer... or those that got sweetheart loans from Country Wide... like Dodd, or corrupt managers like Raines and Gorellick... folks that thieve classified documents from the National Archives... Sandy Burgler, Whore House managers... Barney Frank, or have cold cash problems like William Jefferson... and zippo is done, what can you do?


Scorched earth is the only way the Left learns.

Special prosecutors got pretty tiring when The Clintons were on the receiving end of the bat.

Looks like they want to learn the hard way.

PLAY BALL!
 
Last edited:
*cough* Still waiting on an answer from WillRockwell, the "centrist". *cough*
 
I believe one of two things has happened with WillRockwell, the centrist. Either he has seen that he made a mistake and isn't man enough to admit that he did or his blatantly partisan bias has been exposed and he's hoping this will all go away. Which is it WillRockwell, the centrist? If you are going to make a ridiculous statement, you should at least be able to back it up, right?
 
Funny how different people see the same info in a completely different way.

From what I know of this story, I feel it's highly important to get at the truth. Otherwise the Pres from here on out can call whatever shots he/she wants without having to answer to no one, most importantly, not "we the people."

But he doesn't have to answer to anyone over the firings.


This is just a witch hunt to go after Rove with a "perjury" charge by triping him up on his testimony. There will be no criminal prosecutions except for that single charge. It worked in the Plame case which had nothing to do with her identity and proved as much. In fact the case even killed its own reason for existence as it played out. They still managed to hit Libby with a perjury charge but not a single other thing having to do with the original Plame case.

Thats how this is going to play out.
 
This is just a witch hunt to go after Rove with a "perjury" charge by triping him up on his testimony.

If someone isn't lying how can they be tripped up?

Are you insinuating Rove was lying?
 
If someone isn't lying how can they be tripped up?

Are you insinuating Rove was lying?

That's the old 'if you haven't done anything wrong you've got nothing to fear argument.' Wrong. On many counts.

Here's a great video about when given the choice, one should never, ever choose to talk to the police. It's rather lengthy... but it's well worth the watch!

YouTube - Don't Talk to Cops, Part 1

Unfortunately when government officials choose to 'take the fifth' rather than respond to questions... the politics doesn't play well. Libby should have taken the fifth during his grand jury testimony. If he had, he'd have stayed out of trouble.

Enjoy!
 
Last edited:
No reactions to the video I posted?

Anybody still thinks it's a great idea for anyone to testify before hostile Senators?

:2wave:
 
Back
Top Bottom