Rove Again Refuses to Testify Under Subpoena

In what is now an almost mocking level of contempt, Karl Rove has refused to appear before Congress despite a subpoena to do so. While claiming executive privilege, there is no justification for the failure to appear and to answer any questions on the firing of U.S. attorneys. The question is what will the Democratic Congress do beyond expressions of outrage. It is a question that I will discuss on the Dan Abrams show tonight.

Rove is claiming immunity despite the fact that there are obvious many questions that could not possibly be covered by executive privilege. He was first subpoenaed in May. Committee Chair John Conyers and Subcommittee Chairperson Linda Sanchez have already rejected the claim and threatened prosecution. However, Attorney General Mukasey has blocked giving the case to the grand jury. That leaves Congress’ inherent contempt authority, discussed here.

Congress stopped holding contempt trials after the Justice Department insisted that it would be represent the institution in court. With the open effort to protect officials by Mukasey, Congress now must choose between using its inherent authority or to accept open contempt of its authority.

For today’s story, click here.

127 thoughts on “Rove Again Refuses to Testify Under Subpoena

  1. It is clear that this country is in the middle of a constitutional crises. Congress is “missing in inaction”. So far, some in the judiciary have been protecting the rule of law. If there is a way to get this matter into the remaining democratically functioning branch, I hope this is taken.

  2. Well, its time to stop blaming Rove, or Bush for this stonewalling.

    They can’t help being what they are. Corrupt.

    Its time to start holding the real people responsible for Rove not testifying.

    The Congressmen, like Conyers, and Sanchez, are the ones facilitating this, by their own spineless, empty, threats.

    We elected these people to represent us in our Congress, and empowered them with all the authority required to carry out that duty.

    If you or I, refused to testify, we would be immediately hauled before them in handcuffs, and compelled to do so.

    The Congress has their own police force. They even have their own jail.

    IF they want Karl Rove to testify, then I suggest they avail themselves of these tools provided to them, and stop making stump speeches designed to show us how hard they are “trying”.

    The time has come for this Congress, to either put up, or shut up. We’re all tired of the fake posturing that invaribly turns into kowtowing to the White House.

    If they are truly an “equal” branch of government, then let them start acting like it.

    Or shut up, and let their impending replacements, do it for them, after the fact.

  3. Perhaps whats lacking is a little “street-sense” in our congressional leaders.

    If after all, they had a little “street-sense”, then they would be familiar with the old adage, “Don’t write a check with your mouth that your body can’t cash”, and therefore understand that coming out every few weeks to make empty demands and then slinking back into the shadows until they come out again to pronounce their next set of empty demands, is not doing them, or us, any good.

  4. Send the Sergeant at Arms over to Roves house with a contingent of officers, arrest him, take him to the jail in the basement of the Capitol, and let him sit there, until he’s ready to talk.

    Thats all they have to do, and theres absolutely nothing stopping them, but their own timidity.

  5. I agree with Mr. Bee that it is time for the Inherent Contempt proceedings that is at the disposal of Congress. Karl Rove is an arrogant felon and the country, and the world, would be a better place if he was incarcerated. Then he might get religion and agree to answer the questions of Congress. This process is not like an impeachment. It should not take a long time to initiate and it will go a long way to reinforce the proper Constitutional role of the Congress. Karl Rove has called the poker hand of Congress and Congress needs to display its Full House via Inherent Contempt.

  6. Why are the tax-and-spend Democrats funnelling money into Gitmo if we’re not going to use it?

    Canvas bag over the head, billyclub to the base of the skull, quick flight for Rove to Guantonomo, and it’s plenty of “non-torture” for him until he confesses. We are s**tbeating LOTS of innocent people there, it is time we find our moral foundations and waterboard this assclown until he coughs up every dirty deed he’s done for Bush and Cheney.

  7. A series of “enhanced interrogation techniques” would be appropriate for someone like Rove, but let’s be better than the Bush regime and actually put the alleged miscreant through the justice process of Inherent Contempt.

  8. I agree rafflaw,

    Finding our moral foundations would mean renoucing “enhanced interrogation techniques” of any kind on anyone. Also, Rove stikes me as a very cowardly person. I think imprisonment until clear and truthful testimony was obtained (which probably would be as long as the “war on terror”) would work. I just don’t think Congress will do this.
    I hope I am wrong about that.

    Jill

  9. How hard could be to just issue an arrest warrant? Isn’t that what happens when you or I fail to appear in court?

  10. Figures. His Arrogance, Rove and the Untouchables, have put themselves above everyone, but it also seems true that there isn’t anybody in Washington who’s accountable or trustworthy. Too bad possible innocents are swept up in this generality, but little else is left for us to consider. Maybe Pierre Salinger had the right idea about where his postal address should be.

  11. In a civilized democracy citizen Rove would be detained by the local sheriff and then brought before Congress in shackles. In our genteel society and with his silk stocking connections he will likely be gently prodded into doing his civic duty. But even that is not a sure bet. I agree with Queen Victoria who once told Disraeli, “I do not think we can say we own that which we cannot hold.” The same applies to the power and prestige of Congress.

  12. Bob:

    “How hard could be to just issue an arrest warrant? Isn’t that what happens when you or I fail to appear in court?”
    *********************

    Well Bob “all animals are equal, some are just more equal than others.”

  13. Boy do I agree with all these anti-Rove replies. This pompous fat-ass should be arrested, taken to the basement, and let him stay there until he realizes the Bush slugs are not above the law. Of course, none of this will happen because the tough talking Democrats don’t have the cajoles to call Turd Blossom’s bluff. I’m disgusted with the whole lot. President Chuckle Nuts has an approval rating lower than Nixon, and justly so, but impeachment is off the table and hearings such as the one being discussed here never lead anywhere. That being the case, Conyers, who I used to respect, Wasserman-Shultzs, and the whole lot are pathetic to watch and listen to. All Democrats should take a lesson from Senator Feingold and stand up to these criminals, and, Obama should be the first in line for Russ’s advice. I know I am rambling but I’m at my wits end with the constitutional crisis in the country, and the Democrats just sit there. What does Bush and company have on these office holders, or, do they really like it the way it is, especially, when it looks like the Democrats are going to be rocked back into power big time this Fall.

  14. As Jill originally stated we are in a constitutional crisis of epic proportions. The only possible explanation of the House’s timidity is that people are being blackmailed and/or physically threatened. Surely these committee chairmen must realize that refusing a congressional subpoena based on “executive privilege” was rejected during Watergate and further rejected, by Republicans during the Clinton debacle. If
    the House does nothing in response to this outrage, then the game is up and any pretense of our country being a democracy and/or republic has gone away. Very scary times.

  15. Michael,

    I had one Congressional staffer come out and tell me outright they were monitored. If this and/or threats is what prevents Congress from acting then I would advise them to all come out with it at once. There is safety in numbers and this would be a good time. I just don’t know if it’s this holding them back or a genuine fecklessness or abundance of greed, It truly is frustrating.

    I hope at least several of them will pawn the problem off on the the judiciary if they won’t stand up themselves. I’m really uncertain what is going on here.

  16. Bob,(not Bob, Esq)
    The arrest warrant would have to go through the Justice Department and Gonzo II won’t honor it. Mukasey is on the record that the U.s. Attorney will not proceed with the matter. That is why the Inherent Contempt process is Congress’ only avenue at this point. If they want to actually retrieve their share of power under the Constitution.

  17. September 17, 1999
    Clinton Refuses Subpoena For Material on Clemency
    By KATHARINE Q. SEELYE
    Citing separation of powers & executive privilege, President Clinton today rejected subpoenas from Congressional Republicans to turn over records of private deliberations that led him to offer clemency last month to 16 members of a violent Puerto Rican nationalist group.

    ”Pursuant to the Constitution and the separation of powers doctrine, the President’s authority to grant clemency is not subject to legislative oversight,” Cheryl Mills, the White House deputy counsel, wrote to Representative Dan Burton, the Indiana Republican who is chairman of the Committee on Government Reform. On Sept. 1, the committee issued subpoenas to the White House and the Justice Department seeking all interagency communications and other records relating to the President’s decision.

    Ms. Mills also said the White House was spurning the committee’s subpoena for Beth Nolan, the President’s new chief counsel, to testify on the matter. But Administration officials said tonight that three other officials would appear next week at the panel’s hearings, although they would not testify to matters considered confidential.

    This was the fourth time the Clinton Administration asserted executive privilege in response to demands from Congress.

  18. September 17, 1999

    Clinton Refuses Subpoena For Material on Clemency

    By KATHARINE Q. SEELYE

    Citing separation of powers & executive privilege, President Clinton today rejected subpoenas from Congressional Republicans to turn over records of private deliberations that led him to offer clemency last month to 16 members of a violent Puerto Rican nationalist group.

    ”Pursuant to the Constitution and the separation of powers doctrine, the President’s authority to grant clemency is not subject to legislative oversight,” Cheryl Mills, the White House deputy counsel, wrote to Representative Dan Burton, the Indiana Republican who is chairman of the Committee on Government Reform. On Sept. 1, the committee issued subpoenas to the White House and the Justice Department seeking all interagency communications and other records relating to the President’s decision.

    Ms. Mills also said the White House was spurning the committee’s subpoena for Beth Nolan, the President’s new chief counsel, to testify on the matter. But Administration officials said tonight that three other officials would appear next week at the panel’s hearings, although they would not testify to matters considered confidential.

    This was the fourth time the Clinton Administration asserted executive privilege in response to demands from Congress.

  19. Note: This was the fourth time the Clinton Administration asserted executive privilege in response to demands from Congress.

    Note: This was the fourth time the Clinton Administration asserted executive privilege in response to demands from Congress.

    September 17, 1999

    Clinton Refuses Subpoena For Material on Clemency

    By KATHARINE Q. SEELYE

    Citing separation of powers & executive privilege, President Clinton today rejected subpoenas from Congressional Republicans to turn over records of private deliberations that led him to offer clemency last month to 16 members of a violent Puerto Rican nationalist group.

    ”Pursuant to the Constitution and the separation of powers doctrine, the President’s authority to grant clemency is not subject to legislative oversight,” Cheryl Mills, the White House deputy counsel, wrote to Representative Dan Burton, the Indiana Republican who is chairman of the Committee on Government Reform. On Sept. 1, the committee issued subpoenas to the White House and the Justice Department seeking all interagency communications and other records relating to the President’s decision.

    Ms. Mills also said the White House was spurning the committee’s subpoena for Beth Nolan, the President’s new chief counsel, to testify on the matter. But Administration officials said tonight that three other officials would appear next week at the panel’s hearings, although they would not testify to matters considered confidential.

    This was the fourth time the Clinton Administration asserted executive privilege in response to demands from Congress.

  20. It is called Separation of Powers. He does not have to respond to it! The House Judiciary Committee can go blow smoke.

    The White House does not answer to the House of Representatives. That has been the law of the land for 200 + years and if it ever got to the Supreme Court the House knows the Supreme Court would agree with the President. That is why these subpeonas have historically been ignored.

    This is political posturing to make it look like he had a responsibility to answer an unenforceable subpoena……..and some are falling for it, including the 1 percenters here that SHOULD KNOW BETTER!

    PS: The Special Prosecutor determined there was no law broken relating to Valery Wilson. Unfortunately for Scooter it looked like some of his answers were evasive but nothing more.

    I sent him $30 towards his defense costs but I bet you didn’t…………..right?

    God Bless President Bush.

  21. It is called Separation of Powers. He does not have to respond to it! The House Judiciary Committee can go blow smoke.

    The White House does not answer to the House of Representatives. That has been the law of the land for 200 + years and if it ever got to the Supreme Court the House knows the Supreme Court would agree with the President. That is why these subpeonas have historically been ignored.

    This is political posturing to make it look like he had a responsibility to answer an unenforceable subpoena……..and some are falling for it, including the 1 percenters here that SHOULD KNOW BETTER!

    PS: The Special Prosecutor determined there was no law broken relating to Valery Wilson. Unfortunately for Scooter it looked like some of his answers were evasive but nothing more.

    I sent him $30 towards his defense costs but I bet you didn’t…………..right?

    God Bless President Bush.

  22. Hey JT: Is there going to be some BALANCE ON MSNBC TONIGHT OR JUST YOU SPOUTING YOUR LEFT WING BELIEFS?

    Tell ABRAMS he is a COWARD if he does not have an opposing VIEWPOINT alongside you to debate the issue like Oreilly does! I guess you all are so insecure in your positions.

  23. I thought Rove wasn’t even employed by the White House anymore. So how does HE avoid a just and deserved prosecution for CRIMINAL CONTEMPT? How can Rove claim “Executive Privilege” when he (to the best of my knowledge) is NOT part of the Executive Branch? Doesn’t his leaving (he DID leave, didn’t he?) make him an ordinary citizen now, just like the rest of us? If that is the case, he should have been arrested and tossed into JAIL, isn’t that correct?

  24. SUSAN: Certainly YOU understand the importance of separation of powers in our government even if Jonathan Turley PRETENDS not to. Can you imagine any president trying to function if every day Congress could subpeona his aides and put them under oath as to what the president had said or done the previous day?

    Even the biased slanted to the left off the world jonathan turley KNOWS that executive privilage exists and separation of powers exists. Jonathan Turley ALSO knows that nobody in Congress wants to push this issue to the Supreme Court because they know the court would rule FOR THE PRESIDENT ON executive privilage and separation of powers.

    Susan: did you COMPLAIN this much when CLINTON routinely ignored Congressiona Subpeonas?

  25. “It is called Separation of Powers. He does not have to respond to it! The House Judiciary Committee can go blow smoke.

    The White House does not answer to the House of Representatives. That has been the law of the land for 200 + years and if it ever got to the Supreme Court the House knows the Supreme Court would agree with the President.”

    Russ,
    you are a true fan of Bush as typified by your rash of comments, mostly repetitive and inaccurate. Separation of Powers grants no inherent right of executive privilege and in fact gives Congress the power to investigate. Which is done by hearings, for which people are compelled to testify.

    Where your fandom becomes apparent is in the repetition of statements lacking truth, but by the action of repetition somehow are transmogrified into reality (at least in your mind). Goebbel’s take on this was what he called “The Big Lie.” Your problem is that you view your citizenship from a perspective similar to that of a football fan. The success of your team somehow equates into your manhood. Their success, their power, makes you feel powerful, when inside you probably just feel scared, but like “a brave little boy who’s afraid to cry.”

    You’re afraid to express your fears and you cover them with seemingly tough rhetoric. Didn’t you learn in the schoolyard that the toughest people never had to prove it? I wasn’t afraid of the tough guys on the schoolyard because they didn’t have anything to prove by beating me up. It was the bullies and their gangs that I’d have to watch for because they thought a fair fight was ganging up on someone. Sound familiar.

    I’m sure Scooter needed your $30 badly. You sadly look at people like Bush and Cheney as tough guys because they are so loud in proclaiming they are tough. If they were so tough though, how come Bush joined the Air National Guard (which everybody during the Viet Nam War knew was the place for rich kids who didn’t want to fights) and Cheney simply said he had better things to do and had a baby?

    Unless somehow you’re a rich guy whose got it made, it’s really time for you to realize that your “heroes” are screwing you and the rest of the country along with you. It’s time to join the Team that really is patriotic, really can protect the country, really does honor our troops and really can make the lives of its citizens better. That Team is really America’s Team. Hint: Bush, Cheney and McCain aren’t on it.

  26. Michael Spindell,
    Russ is just trolling with multiple and repetitive postings with little or no facts behind them. Your tutorial on the Separation of Powers was excellent. I think Russ just may be an alias for Martha H., Niblet and others.

  27. “It is called Separation of Powers. He does not have to respond to it! The House Judiciary Committee can go blow smoke.

    The White House does not answer to the House of Representatives. That has been the law of the land for 200 + years and if it ever got to the Supreme Court the House knows the Supreme Court would agree with the President.”

    ****

    Not so – he does have to ‘Answer’ ie appear – even if he refuses to
    actually answer certain questions.

    This is, in effect, what ‘separation of powers’ means, Michael.

    His is a ‘possible’ argument AND not a persuasive one at that, in my view.

    I say Rove loses, hands down, which is probably why he won’t risk showing up – ever, if he can avoid it!

  28. Bob
    1, July 10, 2008 at 5:06 pm
    How hard could be to just issue an arrest warrant? Isn’t that what happens when you or I fail to appear in court?

    ——-

    Not hard, if they had one single spine among them. Just watch the congresswoman on right now, on Dan Abrams, (actually, Jonathan Turley’s on now) hem and haw when asked if he should be arrested.

    Here’s her…. “uhhh….. well… uhhhhh”.

    As Professor Turley so clearly stated to David, (before David abruptly cut him off to bring on the talking partisan heads), its NOT that far fetched to order an arrest warrant for Rove.

    But clearly these congressional leaders are interested only in pomp and show. Otherwise, why would the answer be, when Dave asked the congresswoman when they’d be holding the contempt hearing, “gee, I don’t know, maybe in 3 or 4 weeks”..? (paraphrased).

    Meanwhile, while Congress sits on its hands and wonders why Karl Rove won’t just play nice, Karl Rove has fled the country.

    Thats right.

    Karl Rove, has fled the United States, supposedly on a “planned vacation trip”.

    Problem is, if it was planned, then why didn’t his attorney inform the congress?

  29. russ
    1, July 10, 2008 at 7:16 pm
    SUSAN: Certainly YOU understand the importance of separation of powers in our government even if Jonathan Turley PRETENDS not to. Can you imagine any president trying to function if every day Congress could subpeona his aides and put them under oath as to what the president had said or done the previous day?

    ————–

    Yea, sounds like it’d be rough… russ.
    :|

    Good thing thats not what they’re doing, huh?

  30. Actually, go check the documents. Rove (well, Bush) did NOT invoke EP. See this post:

    http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2008/07/10/bush-did-not-invoke-executive-privilege-for-rove/

    Neither the Fielding letter nor yesterday’s letter from Luskin even mentions EP–and the memo rationalizing the whole thing–written last year for the USA purge–doesn’t either. This is solely a claim of Absolute Immunity, and not a claim of EP at all. (Note, in a letter, last week, Luskin used the phrase–but that was before he had official notice from the WH what to do.)

    Much more interesting than the fact that this was NOT an EP claim, though, is that the White House Counsel has now asserted that witch hunts against high profile Democrats–or whatever it is that Rove was doing in AL–were part of Karl Rove’s official duties at the White House.

    Stew on the implications of that for a while.

  31. russ
    1, July 10, 2008 at 7:16 pm

    Even the biased slanted to the left off the world jonathan turley KNOWS that executive privilage exists and separation of powers exists.

    ————–

    Sure does.

    Unfortunately it doesn’t exist for private citizens.

    Like Karl Rove.
    :|

    Also, unfortunately for your argument, and for Mr Rove, President Bush has not invoked executive privilege for the Turdblossom in this case.
    :|

    Also, unfortunately, for your argument, and for Mr Rove, the courts have already ruled that Executive Privilege applies ONLY in a few, special circumstances, like matters of National Security, and Intelligence.

    NOT in helping Turdblossom stay out of jail for screwing around with the Justice Dept.

    Got any other Red Herrings you’d like to serve up there Sparky?

  32. Michael Spindell: Absolutely correct. This poster Russ doesn’t understand the purpose and legal effect of the separation of powers nor does he understand the totally different concept of executive privilege and the test for its application.

    His preposterous comment about Professor Turley’s incompetence, does nothing more than expose Russ’s own pure ignorance and his stunning willingness to display it. His dedication to the Puppet Bush and his thugs marks him as a slack-jawed Dupe easily the prey of the ultraRight propagandists who send him off to cheer and vote against his own interests.

  33. Why do you think Rove “FLED” the Country today?

    If you don’t know, I’ll be glad to tell you.

    He FLED THE COUNTRY today, because unlike most of us here, he actually thinks Congresses testicles may drop sometime over the next 48 hours, and send the Sergeant at Arms to come arrest him, and drag him off in handcuffs to sit and think a while in the basement of the capital.

    And since Mr Bush is in enough trouble already, he clearly doesn’t wish to get into more by trying to bail out the Turdblossom.

    So Bush ain’t tossing him an oar this time.

    Because he knows theres ZERO….. lemme say that again….. ZERO foundations here for invocation of Executive Privilege.

    Rove’s going to have to paddle his way out of this one, on his own, so rather than take the chance, Rove did what ALL CRIMINALS do, and took flight.

  34. Bartlebee: Your claim lacks substance. There has not even been a contempt vote in the full House yet. That may not occur, if it ever does, for another two or more weeks.

    Rove is acting under the advice of attorneys far more versed in law than Mr. Turley, who is all conjecture, opinion, and no substance either.

  35. Bartebee,
    Why would Rove flee the country if he hasn’t done anything wrong?? Why doesn’t he agree to testify, under oath, in front of Congress if he has nothing to hide? Maybe Russ can tell us why his buddy Karl Rove has fled.

  36. I find it interesting that not once have I seen someone offer balance to Mr. Turley’s statements on the liberal MSNBC in a debate type setting, whether it is on Abrams or on Countdown. I guess they just don’t know how to pick up the phone and call a conservative to be on the show like Oreilly knows how to pick up the phone and call a liberal to be on his show.

  37. Bartlebee: Again I say there has not even been a contempt vote in the full House yet. That may not occur, if it ever does, for another two or more weeks. Rove is acting under the advice of attorneys far more versed in law than Mr. Turley, who is all conjecture, opinion, and no substance either, just as you.

  38. Bartebee: your little witch hunt on Rove is getting sooooo old. I love the way Rove is thumbing his nose at liberals inane antics, and of course America doesn’t give a rip about something that is just blatant stage playing.

    God Bless Carl Rove!

    Barebee: Don’t hold your breath waiting for the Democrats to do anything more about his thumbing his nose at them; they know they don’t want to push it to the Supreme Court.

  39. russ
    1, July 10, 2008 at 9:43 pm
    I find it interesting that not once have I seen someone offer balance to Mr. Turley’s statements on the liberal MSNBC in a debate type setting, whether it is on Abrams or on Countdown. I guess they just don’t know how to pick up the phone and call a conservative to be on the show like Oreilly knows how to pick up the phone and call a liberal to be on his show
    —————-

    Well speak of the …..er…well you know.

    An excellent comment Russ.

    Allow me to assist you on that one.

    Its because the conservatives only have shills, not educated scholars of law, like Mr Turley, who are willing to go out and prostitute themselves for this, the most corrupt republican administration in US history.

    Mr Turley is not a hack, like the idiots you people put on television to shill for you, and your people know this.

    Any neocon shmuck, dumb enough to go on split screen with Jonathan Turley, a constitutional expert and scholar, is going to expose all of your red herrings and lies, in one felt swoop.

    In a nutshell, it’s be like putting Don Knotts in a boxing ring with Riddick Bowe.
    :|

    Not a picture your people want the American public to see.

  40. BARTLEBEE – Don’t ‘help’ us 2%’ers – PLEASE!

    As much as I resent it, Rove is, in some ways,’covered’ for whatever Acts or Ommissions he committed WHILE EMPLOYED as a key member of the Bush advisory staff – but certainly not everything.

    He knows that!

    I think it’s safe to say ‘we’ ALL know it…

    +++++

    Sure does.

    Unfortunately it doesn’t exist for private citizens.

    Like Karl Rove. :|

    Also, unfortunately for your argument, and for Mr Rove, President Bush has not invoked executive privilege for the Turdblossom in this case. :|

    Also, unfortunately, for your argument, and for Mr Rove, the courts have already ruled that Executive Privilege applies ONLY in a few, special circumstances, like matters of National Security, and Intelligence.

    NOT in helping Turdblossom stay out of jail for screwing around with the Justice Dept.

    Got any other Red Herrings you’d like to serve up there Sparky?

  41. russ
    1, July 10, 2008 at 9:46 pm
    Bartebee: your little witch hunt on Rove is getting sooooo old
    ———

    :D

    Witch Hunt, ay?

    Ok.I’ll bite.

    A. It wasn’t us who told Rove to violate the Hatch Act, and several other laws.

    B. You are correct in labeling Mr Roves stonewalling his obligation to testify like any American citizen would, “old”.

    In fact its getting quite old.

    C. Unless Mr Rove has powers of sorcery that we are not yet privy to, then the term “witch hunt” doesn’t work.
    :|

    course… he did disappear pretty fast today.

  42. russ
    1, July 10, 2008 at 9:44 pm
    Bartlebee: Again I say there has not even been a contempt vote in the full House yet. That may not occur, if it ever does, for another two or more weeks. Rove is acting under the advice of attorneys far more versed in law than Mr. Turley
    —————

    Well, I’d have to agree with you that I doubt Mr Turley would have come up with such good “advice”, like pleading a defense that isn’t applicable in the case, and subsequently, “advising” him to flee the country.

  43. EDITORIAL:

    A germ of truth for Congress: We’re sick of you and that is why your approval rating is in single digits.

    Published Thursday, July 10, 2008

    Today would be a good one to sneeze in the face of Congress — to deliver a “germ of truth” about the body’s continued misdirection.

    On the morning agenda was an appearance by former Bush advisor Karl Rove. He didn’t honor a subpoena to testify about influence peddling, so House members are in a tizzy.

    Some contend he improperly pressured staff to fire federal prosecutors who were Democrats. And quite likely, they’re correct. Like many administrations, from ones at city hall to the White House, the one led by President George Bush is run by political hacks who reached the top by crushing their opponents. So why haggle about Rove? He’s certainly not the only gunslinger in a city of angels. All of Washington is being held hostage by gunslingers, both Republican and Democrat.

    There are a few things we’d rather members of Congress would address — no matter their party:

    • Let’s start with health care. The Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement programs are in shambles & care providers can’t recover their own costs.

    • The nation needs a forward-looking energy policy — not one that’s locked in the greasy past. Domestic petroleum products fall far short of meeting U.S. demands. More supply is available, but action is needed to provide access. Overall, much, much more work must be done to develop alternative, renewable energy sources. If the supply runs too low, our country could fall into chaos.

    • We need to re-regulate our financial markets. They’ve become a legal casino where swindlers can dupe investors who are in such a big hurry to get filthy rich that they don’t read the fine print, not that they could understand it.

    These are the things average Americans worry about. Throw Karl Rove to the talk show hosts and bloggers. They deserve each other.

  44. Patty C
    1, July 10, 2008 at 9:55 pm
    BARTLEBEE – Don’t ‘help’ us 2%’ers – PLEASE!

    As much as I resent it, Rove is, in some ways,’covered’ for whatever Acts or Ommissions he committed WHILE EMPLOYED as a key member of the Bush advisory staff – but certainly not everything
    ————-

    “MISTER” Rove, is a private citizen.

    Secondly, “Executive Privilege” doesn’t “cover” an individual for “whatever acts or ommissions he committed”.

    Executive Privilege is not a panacea for providing anonymity to anyone working at the White House.

    It is NOT a Constitutional provision, and has already been defined by the SCOTUS, as being applicable to matters of national security.

    Additionally, even at the invocation of it, the prosecutor merely needs to demonstrate reasonable provocation for testimony on an issue where it has been invoked, to still compell the official to testify under oath (See US vs Nixon).

    And since the President has not invoked Executive Privilege, your points are thus moot anyway.

    A more applicable use of your time would be in expounding on foriegn extradition laws, given Mr Rove has taken flight to evade.
    :|

    I’m assuming the 2 percent refers to the active portion of your brain?

  45. russ
    1, July 10, 2008 at 10:10 pm

    SOMEONE ELSES WORDS:

    ——————

    Sorry russ, when you turn to posting articles you found interesting, you’ve pretty much said you’re out.

    :|

    But go easy on that keyboard. Replacing them can really add up.

  46. Of course, if you’re looking to provoke a defense for congress from one of us, you might try Daily Kos.

    We’re not in the habit of defending the complicit.

  47. I CAN be quite sarcastic, however I was being very direct with you.

    That Rove is a citizen now, has nothing to do with Acts or Omissions he committed while he was part of the Bush Administration.

    I am not going to read your, nor any newbies’ series of posts.

    What point would you like to make most? Just once-if you could
    have us pay attention?

    We do listen, here – up to a point.

  48. I’m sorry, is there a point to that ramble, or are you just upset?

    I apoligized for misdetecting your apparent sarcasm, did I not?

    Are you saying that I now should be sorry that I did?

  49. An Upset Patty said..

    That Rove is a citizen now, has nothing to do with Acts or Omissions he committed while he was part of the Bush Administration.

    ————–

    You’re right.

    The fact that he once committed acts and omissions at the White House in no way changes his civillian status.

    He is a private citizen now, and just like you, or me, has absolutely no protection from his time at the White House, unless the President invokes executive privilege.

    Which he has not.

    Thus, as a private citizen, he may be arrested, and Congress cannot be blocked for attacking another branch of the govt.

    Because he is a private citizen.
    :|

    Or “fugitive” if you prefer.

  50. Back to russ’s claim that “Rove is acting under the advice of attorneys far more versed in law than Mr. Turley”.

    His attorney today referred to his abruptly leaving the country, without notifying congress, a “vacation”.

    A “regular” attorney, less “versed in the law” than Mr Rove’s attorney, might refer to it as a, “flight to evade”.

  51. Russ,
    You have the gall to clamor that Congress should be spending its time more wisely working on and energy policy??? Your beloved leader and his co-leader have an energy policy that was made in secret that is working just perfectly, don’t you think? By the way, you don’t happen to have Rove stashed at your place, do you??

  52. I think you are the one who is ‘Upset”, Bartlebee

    I’d characterize myself, in this instance, as simply ‘Annoyed’… ;)

    Enough with you, already!

  53. I for one am hoping that John Conyers pulls the plug on Rove and initiates the Inherent Contempt proceedings ASAP. Of course, that is if Rove ever comes back into the country. I wonder if we can get his name added to the Do Not Fly list?

  54. Not Upset Patty C
    1, July 11, 2008 at 12:32 am
    I think you are the one who is ‘Upset”, Bartlebee

    I’d characterize myself, in this instance, as simply ‘Annoyed’…

    Enough with you, already!
    ————-

    Hmmm, you say you’re not upset…. and…. you’re really smart….

    Yet here you are, yelling at other bloggers.
    :|

    Hmmmmmm

  55. What ever happened with the ‘heads up’ that Rove and a few notable others, namely, Addington and Yoo etc, would be ill-advised to venture outside the US for fear of reprisals – internationally?

    Huh?

  56. rafflaw
    1, July 11, 2008 at 12:38 am
    I for one am hoping that John Conyers pulls the plug on Rove and initiates the Inherent Contempt proceedings ASAP.
    ———–

    Well to do that Conyers would have to grow a central nervous system ASAP, and I don’t see that happening.

    I like you however, hope he does too.

  57. rafflaw
    1, July 11, 2008 at 12:38 am

    I wonder if we can get his name added to the Do Not Fly list?

    One would hope boarding an airplane with a file cabinet and a paper shredder might accomplish that.

  58. Patty C
    1, July 11, 2008 at 1:04 am
    And I would like you to leave! I’ve had enough of your non
    -sense

    ——

    Sounds rough.
    :|

    Don’t worry though.

    They can do wonders with pharmacutical therapy these days.

  59. Mr. Rove is simply not worth the effort to post. Probably visiting Bush’s compound in Paraquay.

  60. Rove defies subpoena to testify on DOJ Siegelman prosecution

    “the valid need for protection of communications between high Government officials and those who advise and assist them in the performance of their manifold duties.” …. “[h]uman experience teaches that those who expect public dissemination of their remarks may well temper candor with a concern for appearances and for their own interests to the detriment of the decision making process.”

    So, the nexus between Bush and the DOJ Siegelman prosecution is what?

  61. We are all assuming that Rove actually left the country when the Republican Congressman made that remark. I wouldn’t be surprised if is staying in the Lincon Bedroom and planning on using the White House as his Sanctuary from the House Sargeant at Arms. That would make for an interesting constitutional problem. The Secret Service pitted against Congress’ Inherent Contempt power.

  62. Patty C:

    I read your exchange with our newest human spam, Bartlebee. Were I you I would treat him like russ, niblet, or my new favorite, martha h, and just ignore him because he has little constructive to say and he is anything but edifying.

    whooliebacon:

    I think Rove made it to Argentina. I wonder if that house on Garibaldi Street is still renting. Don’t all fascists make it there one time or another?

  63. Bob Esq

    That’s why my point above is so important. This is not a claim of executive privilege. It is a claim of absolute immunity from forced testimony before Congress.

  64. emptywheel,

    Thank you for your information yesterday. I believe it is quite important. Would you post the link again. This entire thread has become so long it is hard to find your original post.

    Thank you,

    Jill

  65. BartleBee wrote
    Also, unfortunately, for your argument, and for Mr Rove, the courts have already ruled that Executive Privilege applies ONLY in a few, special circumstances, like matters of National Security, and Intelligence.

    NOT in helping Turdblossom stay out of jail for screwing around with the Justice Dept. Got any other Red Herrings you’d like to serve up there Sparky?
    *********************

    Oh, I’m sure “Russ” does, and no doubt he’ll try floating every single one of those tedious Red Herrings right here to see if anyone “salutes” them. He’s just mad because we’re shooting big holes in them instead. :-)

    I will remain hopeful that Rove will be going down sooner or later, but I’d love to see him go down sooner.

  66. BartleBee wrote:
    “MISTER” Rove, is a private citizen.”
    ********************

    Thank you! That’s what I had thought. HOW can Rove claim “Executive Privilege” when he doesn’t work for the White House anymore? That he has the audacity to claim it at all is no surprise, though. He and others at the White House seem to have this ridiculous notion that the laws of this country do NOT apply to them. Rather like Nixon, and we all know the outcome of HIS case.

  67. emptywheel: “That’s why my point above is so important. This is not a claim of executive privilege. It is a claim of absolute immunity from forced testimony before Congress.”

    Yeah, your earlier post pretty much sums it up. Sorry I missed it for all the chaff being thrown around.

    Just two more points or nails in the coffin:

    Executive privilege is not an inherent executive power; John Marshall was its midwife and the case against Nixon let it out of the incubator.

    And, assuming the Democrats grow a spine, they’d be wise to SLOW-PLAY any remaining cards against Rove and the Administration. The same way you’d slow play an objection to personal jurisdiction until a moment where you’ve run down the statute of limitations clock on your opponent’s cause of action.

    The Democrats should keep their mouths shut until January 21, 2001 and kill the pardoning power element.

    Regards,

    Bob

  68. you’re right mespo – thanks for your support. I stand by my earliest comment. Just because they claim something doesn’t make it so!They made it up. So what?

    Whether EP OR Absolute Immunity (whatever that is), it doesn’t mean it rules of the day.

    Patty C 1, July 10, 2008 at 8:51 pm

    “It is called Separation of Powers. He does not have to respond to it! The House Judiciary Committee can go blow smoke.

    The White House does not answer to the House of Representatives. That has been the law of the land for 200 + years and if it ever got to the Supreme Court the House knows the Supreme Court would agree with the President.”

    ****

    Not so – he does have to ‘Answer’ ie appear – even if he refuses to
    actually answer certain questions.

    This is, in effect, what ’separation of powers’ means, Michael.

    His is a ‘possible’ argument AND not a persuasive one at that, in my view.

    I say Rove loses, hands down, which is probably why he won’t risk showing up – ever, if he can avoid it!

  69. Patty C
    1, July 11, 2008 at 1:33 am
    I and my team work with medical professionals, saving lives, all day
    -can you say the same
    ————

    Whether I could, or could not, I would not degenerate to proclaiming such a thing with a megaphone, in an internet blog merely to bolster a juvenile rant.
    :|

    On another note, by “saving lives”, do you mean voluntarily subjecting yourself to physical restraint so as not to injure your care providers?

  70. Susan
    1, July 11, 2008 at 10:09 am
    BartleBee wrote:
    “MISTER” Rove, is a private citizen.”
    ********************

    Thank you! That’s what I had thought. HOW can Rove claim “Executive Privilege” when he doesn’t work for the White House anymore?
    ———–

    I know, it’s amazing, is it not? In fact, its Karl Rove’s attorney, who russ claims has more experience in the law than Professor Turley, who’s trying to purport this legally untenable defense.

    The President is the one who invokes executive privilege, NOT the lawyer of a guy being called in for questioning.

    And the President hasn’t done that. Because he can’t.

  71. Rove is going down. This is the beginning of the end for that felon. The Bush Regime will try to fight his compelled appearance, but after a few nights under lock and key, he just may get a little talkative. Now, I am assuming that Conyers, et al, have the guts to initiate the Inherent Contempt proceedings as soon as they have located the Rovester.

  72. Patty C:

    “On another note, by “saving lives”, do you mean voluntarily subjecting yourself to physical restraint so as not to injure your care providers [sic]?”

    *****************

    Here’s a guy typing vitriolic nonsensical post after vitriolic nonsensical post — probably from his Mom’s basement — and mocking you for saving lives. Is that pathetic or what? From a clinical standpoint, do you think symptoms like this are more indicative of Intelligentsia Derangement Disorder [given the need to be recognized as brilliant at the expense of others] or obsessive-compulsive disorder [based on the showy mindless repetition a la russ] or maybe even ODD? No diagnosis is possible of course, but I like to know what possibilities I am dealing with.

  73. lol, and there comes the inevitable “from his moms basement” that comes out whenever one of the perpetually impotent can’t think of anything to actually say.

    No slick, my mother passed away a long time ago, and my financial affairs are quite in order, thank you, albeit none of your business, nor are they applicable to anything I stated.

    Your friend, Patty C, keeps come looking for it.

    Its not my fault she chooses to insult and attack me in post after post, nor is it my fault that your combined brainpower is able to come up with anything other than tired blogger pejoratives and quips.

    I am perfectly happy though to continue responding “in kind” to hers, and your, impotent attacks on me, my character and my livelyhood.

    If you don’t like it, then I suggest, you take some good advice, and “don’t come lookin for it”.

    Clear it up any, skippy?

  74. Oh, and I’m sure professor Turley appreciates you ignoring my comments, which unless responding to you two assclowns, were all on the topic of this thread.

    I’m sure he appreciates you two mental midgets, launching vicious attack after vicious attack, on one blogger who is posting on topic, so as to bury any real discussion on the issues, and instead turn it into a personal vendetta of you two little kids.

    This is a blog on Karl Rove, not a place for two insecure assclowns to proclaim their professions as if that had the slightest pertinance to discussing Karl Rove.

    One sign of knowing when you’ve lost whatever debate you’ve engaged in, is when you resort to declaring your profession, as if anyone here cares, as if we don’t all have jobs, incomes, homes, families, civic duties, etc.

    When one does that, proclaims as this idiot did, “I’m save lives!…what do you do?”, then clearly they are simply admitting to being out of brainpower on the topic at hand, and have nothing of substance to offer.

    I don’t care if you, or her are saving babies from cholera in your basements while simultaneously curing bone cancer at St Judes Hospital.

    It doesn’t mean a thing in here.

    We all have jobs, Slappy.

    But most of us don’t need to brag about them to try and bolster untenable positions, or our inability to compete in the medium provided.

  75. You want to debate something I said about Karl Rove?

    Fine. Debate it.

    Wanna throw in some quips? Fine.

    But scroll up, and notice that nothing either of you say do that, but instead you’re just launching attack after attack, like two little children.

    Which is why, all you’re going to get back, is more of the same.

    Don’t like it skippy?
    :|

    Then don’t come lookin for it.

  76. Patty C:

    “I’m sure he appreciates you two mental midgets, launching vicious attack after vicious attack, on one blogger who is posting on topic, so as to bury any real discussion on the issues, and instead turn it into a personal vendetta of you two little kids.”
    ******************

    I’m using paranoia as my working diagnosis after this exchange. What do you think, oh savior of cholera victims? The volume of invective is just astounding. Who writes 4 posts and a hundred words or so to cover what could be said in a sentence? Well on the positive side, since his financial house is in order, I ‘m guessing he’s got major medical. I feel like R.P. McMurphy in “One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest.” Between russ and this guy, it’s a veritable case study on fools. I can’t wait for installment three…and four…and five…etc….etc. I am also hoping for more smiley faces–haven’t since so many since about 1974. The sad part is we agree with this guy and he just doesn’t get it.

  77. No, the sad part is you agree with “this guy”, and you still chose to keep attacking him.
    :|

    And the really sad part is, that when he bitchslaps you back, you start crying like babies about how bad he is.

    As I said, don’t like it?

    Don’t come lookin for it.

  78. MessPo blathered

    Who writes 4 posts and a hundred words or so to cover what could be said in a sentence?

    Another straw argument.

    You’ll note, that my previous responses to your temper tantrums were much shorter.

    Seems they weren’t enough to “drive the nail home” so to speak.

    Thought I’d spell it out for you.
    :|

    Obviously another lost cause….. as is your positions, since you by your own admission, have been attacking me for what effectively equates, to “nothing”.

  79. In the meantime, could you wow us all some more with your stories about your great jobs?

    I really liked the one where your balling twin declares “I save lives!”.
    :D

    That ones my favorite.

  80. oh and while you’re at it, you might try explaining how a declaration of ones profession, in the medical field, has anything to do with the topic at hand.
    :D

    I’ll consider it a sequel.

  81. Patty C
    1, July 10, 2008 at 10:46 pm
    .

    I am not going to read your, nor any newbies’ series of posts

    ———-

    Words written right before proceeding to read every single one of this “newbies” posts.
    :|

    So much for the character debate, ay?

  82. Here Bullwinkle.

    Here’s something we hope, you’ll really like.

    Patty C
    1, July 11, 2008 at 1:33 am
    I and my team work with medical professionals, saving lives, all day
    -can you say the same

    :D

    Now THATS funny stuff.

  83. :D

    You’re gonna want to repeat those words while watching the “Leave Brittany Alone” video on Youtube, for the full effect.

  84. Jill and Mespo,
    Thanks for the kind words. And thanks to Prof. Turley for adding my blog to his links. I will be very interested to see if the media actually attempts to locate Rove. I would love to see video of him running from a camera, somewhere in the States. Have a great weekend.

  85. Someone once said that locks are for honest people!

    A “southern gentleman” had a duel with a “crooked fellow”. The “gentleman” explained all the protocols of honorable “dueling with pistols” etc. The “gentleman” went over the mutually agreed term that both combatants would start back-to-back, count ten paces, turn, and fire their weapons. This all went very nicely until the “crooked fellow” turned at count seven, and shot the “southern gentleman” in the back! And this is so indicative of what’s been happening with the “honorable” congress vs. the Republican Criminal Enterprise. They, the enterprise, have no respect for the rule of law. But ironically, they use that respect, and adherence to the law by others, as a shield against accountablilty. With the democrats, it’s not showing up to a gun fight with a knife. It’s showing up to the beaches of Normandy with boxing gloves!

    One cannot give honor to others, who have no interest in giving honor to themselves!

  86. “Here’s a guy typing vitriolic nonsensical post after vitriolic nonsensical post — probably from his Mom’s basement — and mocking you for saving lives. Is that pathetic or what? From a clinical standpoint, do you think symptoms like this are more indicative of Intelligentsia Derangement Disorder [given the need to be recognized as brilliant at the expense of others] or obsessive-compulsive disorder [based on the showy mindless repetition a la russ] or maybe even ODD? No diagnosis is possible of course, but I like to know what possibilities I am dealing with.”

    *****
    Mespo,

    Pretty good… :)

    I can make an educated guess, but since he obviously ‘knows’ everything, perhaps we should just ask him!

  87. “Who writes 4 posts and a hundred words or so to cover what could be said in a sentence?”

    A political speech writer?

    Think Jesse Jackson reads “Green Eggs & Ham” by Dr. Seuss

    (see?)

  88. BARTLEBEE 1, July 11, 2008 at 9:54 pm

    “MessPo blathered —
    “Who writes 4 posts and a hundred words or so to cover what could be said in a sentence?”

    FYI, Mespo doesn’t blather, he articulates; quite well actually.

    “Another straw argument.”

    Actually, that was Mespo posing a rhetorical question.

    “You’ll note, that my previous responses to your temper tantrums were much shorter.”

    The foregoing lacks intersubjective verification; in so much as one would be hard pressed to characterize Mespo’s posts as “tantrums.”

  89. Bob said.
    The foregoing lacks intersubjective verification; in so much as one would be hard pressed to characterize Mespo’s posts as “tantrums

    Thank you Mr Polysyllabic.
    :D

    But tantrums they are nonetheless, since all he’s doing is crying about someone daring to stand up to his and his mascots lame attacks.

    Note I never attacked them first.

    They came looking for it.

    And they found it.

    And now, they’re crying about, and trying to appear superior while still discussing me in the third person, and waiting for their circle-jerk pals like you to show up, to climb on the pile on.

  90. But hey, the more the merrier.

    You and your Thesaurus are always welcome to pitch me a few softballs.
    :D

    I can use the batting practice.

  91. Oh and do try to include a little more portentous self aggrandizement while painting yourself as some sort of chat room maturity guru, when you stop whatever it is you’re doing this evening to again try and berate someone who’s never spoken an off color word to you prior to your attempts this evening at injecting the dimly veiled pejorative.
    :D

    It’s funnier that way.

  92. “Oh and do try to include a little more portentous self aggrandizement while painting yourself as some sort of chat room maturity guru, when you stop whatever it is you’re doing this evening to again try and berate someone who’s never spoken an off color word to you prior to your attempts this evening at injecting the dimly veiled pejorative.”

    [S]ince brevity is the soul of wit,
    And tediousness the limbs and outward flourishes,
    I will be brief. Your [ignoble self] is mad.
    Mad call I it; for, to define true madness,
    What isn’t but to be nothing else but mad?
    But let that go.

    For Harold & Kumar are escaping from Gitmo
    And it has me laughing at the truly mad.

    Stay in your own movie,

    Bob

  93. Karl Rove isn’t missing. He’s right here on this blog having a breakdown as Russ and Bartlebee. All that invective craves an audience.

    Remember when the lunatics were just on a nice, distant fringe?

  94. Bob,Esq:

    Thanks Bob, but, as you cogently and poetically point out, we’re in a battle with a madman. See my posts with him under “A Lawsuit of Biblical Proportions: Christian Publisher Sued for Allegedly Homophobic Translation of Bible.” I suggest we all declare our preconscious adolescent the winner and move on. If you check out his blog he has the humility to refer to himself as “Saint Bartlebee,” and as we have learned from this blog he is perpetually “at your service.” Not sure what he serves of relevance or importance but he’s always here–apparently playing baseball. However, he’s more like the guy you ask to play golf only to find out that his self-worth is tied to winning the round. He’ll play all day and all night to beat you and when he finally does win a hole, its time for his coronation. In our case here, old Bartlebee declares himself the winner of every hole regardless of the scorecard. I prefer not to pander to that kind of insecurity, so I simply treat him like russ, and when he goes over a couple of inane sentences, I just quit reading altogether. He crossed the Rubicon with me when he attacked Patty C, a health care provider, for doing her job and having the audacity to mention it. We still don’t know what he does for a living but I suspect Marvel Comics or X-box games are somewhere in the mix. I choose not to respond to his ignorance under the time tested “singing pig theory.” If you choose to respond to him, may I suggest monosyllabic responses interspersed with few grunts; those polysyllabic words seem to agitate him.

  95. Cowboy Bob said…

    [S]ince brevity is the soul of wit,
    And tediousness the limbs and outward flourishes,
    I will be brief. Your [ignoble self] is mad.
    Mad call I it; for, to define true madness,
    What isn’t but to be nothing else but mad?
    But let that go.

    For Harold & Kumar are escaping from Gitmo
    And it has me laughing at the truly mad.

    Stay in your own movie,

    :D

    Where do I begin?

    After all, if I’m mad for merely “responding” to your unsolicited pompous derision of me, what precisely does that make you again?

    Think beyond “mad”…… “I tell you”.

    As for “staying in my own movie”, it wasn’t I who decided to come in as the self annointed maturity guru, and begin berating a blogger who never berated me.
    :|

    That was your call, Polonius.

    But it is fascinating how you guys love starting crap, but cry when what you serve up is served back to you.

  96. LindyLou:

    You really are Sherlock Holmes. Nice going. From now on my replies to those two (rare though they may be) start with “Herr Karl.” Thank you.

  97. mespo727272
    1, July 12, 2008 at 2:13 am
    Bob,Esq:

    Thanks Bob, but, as you cogently and poetically point out, we’re in a battle with a madman

    Perhaps to you its a battle.

    And if so, its amazing in all your self important lectures you never mention the fact its a “battle” which you initiated.

    Also still lacking, is the one coherent argument containing a fact or two that actually refutes any position I took, anywhere.

    You accuse me of declaring myself “the winner”, (of what I’m not sure) when you yourself are sitting here declaring some sort of invisible victory over me, while mysteriously never seeming to produce the argument, facts, or even a coherent summary of the positions in which you profess superiority.

    Perhaps in one of your “Bartlebee’s bad, and we’re all good” speeches, you might produce one single fact, at least summarily, so as to illuminate your “win”?

  98. LindyLou
    1, July 12, 2008 at 1:56 am
    Karl Rove isn’t missing. He’s right here on this blog having a breakdown as Russ and Bartlebee. All that invective craves an audience.

    Remember when the lunatics were just on a nice, distant fringe

    I’m sorry, …er….”lindy lou” is it?

    What exactly is it you’re accusing me of? I’m “Karl Rove” now?

    You’re accusing me of being a neocon? Is that your position?
    :|

    Or are you just another braindead member of this crybaby Chorale here this evening, trying to pile on the pile, without knowing why?

  99. In fact, so far, I’ve yet to hear one single valid complaint about any position or value I advocated when I came in, other than the fact that I didn’t roll over when the self defined blog bully’s told me to.

    It seems if anyone dares respond to one of your unsolicted attacks that your panties bunch to a mass dense enough to create a black hole.
    :|

    Which would account for the ones in your heads.

  100. Can’t Congress impeach Attorney General Mukasey for failing to fulfill his oath to support and defend the Constitution? He is supposed to be an impartial protector of the law, is he not? It should not be a valid defense that he refused to prosecute wrongdoing in the administration because the president (or vice president, who is likely the one that’s really in charge) ordered him not to. Because if that were the case, then the president (or vice president) would not be taking care that the law be faithfully executed. So what is their defense of their lawlessness if all of their reasoning is circular and wrong?

  101. Well they could if we had a congress Wayne.

    Unfortunately all we’ve got is a room full of waterboy’s for the Executive branch, and Mukaskey will have to wait until we elect some actual congressmen and senators.

  102. Could you help me. For the most part, fear is nothing but an illusion. When you share it with someone else, it tends to disappear. Help me! I can not find sites on the: kitchen islands. I found only this – Kitchen islands work center. Airfare secrets save up to on airfare here are a few pointers to help you find dirt cheap airline tickets. Gt; gt; click to book cheap airline ticket onlinelt; lt; airline ticket cheap airline ticket europe. ;-) Thanks in advance. Kelman from Ireland.

Comments are closed.