• 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!

Karl Rove Subpoenaed By John Conyers: 'Time To Talk'

Wow, what a convincing argument! Thanks for showing me the light and proving that indeed, Rove is completely innocent! *applause!*

Innocent of what? To what are you refering? On what evidence are you basing this? You do understand that the burden of proof does not fall upon the accused to prove their innocence?
 
Innocent of what? To what are you refering? On what evidence are you basing this? You do understand that the burden of proof does not fall upon the accused to prove their innocence?

There are people that testified under oath that Rove was not only the mastermind behind the dismissals of lawyers that are claiming to have been fired for political reasons, but also the conviction of Don Seigleman. I--as well as many others--would like to get Rove take on things under oath.

It seems, however, that Rove doesn't want to.
 
In that case, you have just called a lifelong Republican prosecutor who also worked for Ronald Reagan, Bush's father, and Bush himself, a liar. Shame on you. :mrgreen:

You do realize that using this line thinking that it suddenly creates credibility of someone because they are a lifelong Republican and worked for Reagan this somehow makes her testimony gospel is pretty pathetic right? Shame on you.

If you READ what is in her statement, you would see a LOT of hypothesizing and he said she said in it. There is nothing substantial to suggest anything worthy of charges being brought up. Perhaps that is why there aren't any charges and this is being tried in a committee hearing for public consumption; but please forgive me presuming you are a gullible lemming like many others on here who choose to believe the unbelievable and impugn someone's character without substantive proof.

I will repeat clearly what this is; it is a political witch hunt much like the Tom DeLay case was and will turn up NOTHING that could be construed as evidence to bring Rove up on any charges.

John Conyers is an intellectual midget that defines the mentality of the current Congress and it's leadership. He is a caricature of the whacked out mental state of many Democrats who now infest our Government and whom you apparently think have some level of credibility; it makes you look pretty lame if you ask me.

Carry on; I look forward to more of your hysterics and rants about corruption in the Bush administration which to this day has NEVER been proved by any level of credible evidence.
 
There are people that testified under oath that Rove was not only the mastermind behind the dismissals of lawyers that are claiming to have been fired for political reasons, but also the conviction of Don Seigleman. I--as well as many others--would like to get Rove take on things under oath.

It seems, however, that Rove doesn't want to.

I haven't seen any EVIDENCE of that which your lemming like acceptance of indicates. What I have seen is a lot of hearsay and with hunting in typical John Conyers committee fashion.

Let me ask you a question and beg for some honesty here; if there is this concrete evidence of a crime having been committed, why have a committee hearing on it, why not just bring up charges and try the man? Do any of the people desperately wanting to hang Rove even ask themselves the OBVIOUS?

It is OBVIOUS what is going on here just as it was obvious from watching John Conyers make a laughing stock of the hearing on Bush’s war crimes. John is turning the Congress into a circus that no one can ever take serious again because it is so laughable and pathetic watching this stupidity play out in the public.

John Conyers is a clown in the circus we now call Congress where the inmates are now running the asylum. No one with a brain can look at this and think; “wow, this is how I want Government to work! “

Carry on. :roll:
 
There are people that testified under oath that Rove was not only the mastermind behind the dismissals of lawyers that are claiming to have been fired for political reasons

This is not illegal. The President retains plenary authority to appoint and dismiss US attorneys. Rove was acting at the direction of the President.

but also the conviction of Don Seigleman.

A person accused Karl Rove of masterminding the conviction of Don Siegleman. I'm not sure how this constitutes evidence.

I--as well as many others--would like to get Rove take on things under oath.

No doubt you would. Perhaps it will get some attention off of Obama's most recent lie.

It seems, however, that Rove doesn't want to.

Why should he? To placate some grand-standing asshole and a bunch of partisans?
 
A person accused Karl Rove of masterminding the conviction of Don Siegleman. I'm not sure how this constitutes evidence.

Personally, I'm impressed with how Rove managed to plant 12 of his minions on the jury and got them to convict Siegelman on absolutely no evidence at all. I'd love to hear him talk about how he managed that feat. :lol:
 
Personally, I'm impressed with how Rove managed to plant 12 of his minions on the jury and got them to convict Siegelman on absolutely no evidence at all. I'd love to hear him talk about how he managed that feat. :lol:

It was easy. Siegelman's a crook and was guilty as hell.
 
Personally, I'm impressed with how Rove managed to plant 12 of his minions on the jury and got them to convict Siegelman on absolutely no evidence at all. I'd love to hear him talk about how he managed that feat. :lol:

It has nothing much to do with the jurors. I guess you have not followed much regarding this case.

Take a look at the judge and prosecutors, and get back to me, m'kay. If that sits right with you, then corruption is not a big thing to you. You better hope that no juror has a crush on the opposition when you're in court, but then again, you might not mind when she's allowed to pass a love note.
 
Last edited:
It was easy. Siegelman's a crook and was guilty as hell.

If you believe that he deserves punishment for what he did, then you think the exact same for Dubya.

Bush Gives Plum Jobs To Fundraisers

Plum positions for donations. That's what Seigleman is "guilty" of, and apparently by this article, it appears Dubya is too. Haul his ass to jail, I say!
 
Personally, I'm impressed with how Rove managed to plant 12 of his minions on the jury and got them to convict Siegelman on absolutely no evidence at all. I'd love to hear him talk about how he managed that feat. :lol:

You don't have to get to the jury. You only have to get to the judge. The judge filters what the jury can and can't hear. It's not as if an injustice can't happen in a courtroom. Why won't Rove testify if it is so simple that he did nothing wrong?
 
If you believe that he deserves punishment for what he did, then you think the exact same for Dubya.

Bush Gives Plum Jobs To Fundraisers

Plum positions for donations. That's what Seigleman is "guilty" of, and apparently by this article, it appears Dubya is too. Haul his ass to jail, I say!

Not the same at all.

On October 26, 2005, Siegelman was indicted on new charges of bribery and mail fraud in connection with Richard M. Scrushy, founder and former CEO of HealthSouth. Two former Siegelman aides were charged in the indictment as well. Siegelman was accused of trading government favors for campaign donations when he was governor from 1999 to 2003 and lieutenant governor from 1995 to 1999. Scrushy was accused of arranging $500,000 in donations to Siegelman's campaign for a state lottery fund for universal education, in exchange for a seat on a state hospital regulatory board. Scrushy, who had served on the state hospital regulatory board over the past three Republican administrations, had recently been investigated for his part in the HealthSouth Corporation fraud scandal which cost shareholders billions[13]

During his trial, Siegelman continued his campaign for governor, running against Lt. Governor Lucy Baxley and minor candidates in the Democratic primary on June 6. Despite Baxley's relatively low-profile campaign, she easily defeated Siegelman in the primary with almost 60% of the vote compared to Siegelman's 36%.[14] Siegelman was convicted of federal corruption charges just three weeks later. Baxley went on to lose to incumbent Bob Riley in the general election. Riley won 58% of the vote; Baxley, just under 42%.

On June 29, 2006, a federal jury found both Siegelman and Scrushy guilty on seven of the 33 counts in the indictment. Siegelman was convicted on "one count of bribery, one count of conspiracy to commit honest services mail fraud, four counts of honest services mail fraud and one count of obstruction of justice", according to a press release from the U.S. Department of Justice.[15] Siegelman was acquitted on 25 charges, including the indictment's allegations of a widespread RICO conspiracy, and his former chief of staff, Paul Hamrick, and transportation director, Mack Roberts, were acquitted of all charges.[16] Siegelman was represented by Mobile attorneys Vince Kilborn and David McDonald, along with Greenwood attorney Hiram Eastland and Notre Dame law professor G. Robert Blakey, who is an authority on RICO. Siegelman was sentenced by Judge Mark Everett Fuller to more than seven years in federal prison and a $50,000 fine.[1]

Link
 
You don't have to get to the jury. You only have to get to the judge. The judge filters what the jury can and can't hear. It's not as if an injustice can't happen in a courtroom. Why won't Rove testify if it is so simple that he did nothing wrong?


And if one is knowledgeable regarding this case, one would know that this case was thrown out twice before they "found" a judge that would see it.

Hmmmm.
 
Not the same at all.



Link

How is it different than "you scratch my back, and I'll scratch yours?"

Scrushy was accused of arranging $500,000 in donations to Siegelman's campaign for a state lottery fund for universal education, in exchange for a seat on a state hospital regulatory board.
 
How is it different than "you scratch my back, and I'll scratch yours?"

There are lines, and Siegelman crossed them. How is what he did any different than what Blago was impeached for? Or do you think he was railroaded too?
 
There are lines, and Siegelman crossed them. How is what he did any different than what Blago was impeached for? Or do you think he was railroaded too?


Blago wanted to pocket the money himself, didn't he? Seigleman wanted it as a donation to his lottery state education fund, not his personal bank account.
 
Blago wanted to pocket the money himself, didn't he? Seigleman wanted it as a donation to his lottery state education fund, not his personal bank account.

That wasn't the only thing he was convicted for, and I'd be willing to bet there was a scheme for him to be able to pocket some of the cash.
 
That wasn't the only thing he was convicted for, and I'd be willing to bet there was a scheme for him to be able to pocket some of the cash.

Everything that he was convicted for, had to do with that. The $500,000 donation to his state lottery education fund. He was NOT convicted of anything not related to that. Yes, that's right. Still think he's scum, or are you thinking, "wow, stuff like that does not happen in the good old US of A?"
 
Last edited:
Everything that he was convicted for, had to do with that. The $500,000 donation to his state lottery education fund. He was NOT convicted of anything not related to that. Yes, that's right. Still think he's scum?

Yep. He was rightfully tossed out of office by a lesser known opponent, and convicted for being a crook. Good riddance. My state doesn't need people like that in leadership positions. Funny thing is I know some liberals here, and they're all a lot tougher on Siegelman than you think I'm being. Too funny!
 
Yep. He was rightfully tossed out of office by a lesser known opponent, and convicted for being a crook. Good riddance. My state doesn't need people like that in leadership positions. Funny thing is I know some liberals here, and they're all a lot tougher on Siegelman than you think I'm being. Too funny!

Wow, facts are not important to you and your pretent lib'rul friends. I'll keep that in mind.

Better start screaming for Dubya's head then. He's given some mighty plum positions to big GOP donors. According to you, he's scum.
 
Last edited:
Karl Rove Subpoenaed By John Conyers: 'Time To Talk'

Maybe Rove will be the first to fall. He certainly deserves nothing but, the best treatment from the other inmates.

I wouldn't be surprised to hear he is also questioned about his and Cheney's conspiracy to out a CIA covert spy.

Hi Hip Horray! :applaud:applaud:applaud

tick...tock...tick...tock...

Karl Rove resigned just before, the first day in U.S. history a political figure (Dick Cheney) was in charge of NORAD for a day, which was on 9/11/01
 
Wow, facts are not important to you and your pretent lib'rul friends. I'll keep that in mind.

Better start screaming for Dubya's head then. He's given some mighty plum positions to big GOP donors. According to you, he's scum.

Ah, so my friends, who are indeed liberals (I don't know what "lib'rul" is supposed to represent, but I assume it's some juveniole attempt at an insult), don't pass muster with you because they don't agree with you. :rofl
 
Ah, so my friends, who are indeed liberals (I don't know what "lib'rul" is supposed to represent, but I assume it's some juveniole attempt at an insult), don't pass muster with you because they don't agree with you. :rofl

Incredibly compelling argument, Moon. *applause*
 
Incredibly compelling argument, Moon. *applause*

I wasn't making an argument, just as you weren't in your last post. If you don't like the tone of the conversation, then perhaps you should work to change it. Insulting my friends and I isn't a very compelling argument, I'm sure you'll agree.

As to Siegelman, he's appealing his case, so if it's as you say, then I'm sure his conviction will be overturned.
 
I wasn't making an argument, just as you weren't in your last post. If you don't like the tone of the conversation, then perhaps you should work to change it. Insulting my friends and I isn't a very compelling argument, I'm sure you'll agree.

As to Siegelman, he's appealing his case, so if it's as you say, then I'm sure his conviction will be overturned.

Judging by the fact that I know, there's no way it will not be overturned. And rightly so.
 
Karl Rove resigned just before, the first day in U.S. history a political figure (Dick Cheney) was in charge of NORAD for a day, which was on 9/11/01

Plus is there any connection...
there was a very large and unusual trade of stocks in the SAME airlines used in 9/11 but the "Securities and Exchange Commision" NEVER revealed who made the unusual trades which profited $50 Million when the attack happened and another $2 Billion within weeks after the attacks...
Just wondering any connection?
 
Back
Top Bottom