But to have convicted before the investigation and/or trial is wrong.
-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
Karl Rove Ignores Congressoinal Subpoena
Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
But to have convicted before the investigation and/or trial is wrong.
I'll take that as an "I' am a BDS incompetant dumbf*ck who doesn't care about meaningful deliverables from the people who work for me, I only want them to launch a useless investigation (during election time, perfectly timed) to fuel my BDS desires. F actually doing something worthwhile with my tax dollars".
Thanks Craig for confirming that...it's what we all thought all along, but now that you've basically confirmed it, it's nice to have it out in the open.
:thumbsup:
Chuck
It. Doesn't. Matter. Even if he is guilty, It. Doesn't. Matter.
Because, as I've already pointed out to you, Congress has far away more important issues to be spending any and all of their time on. When you're behind on an important deadline - and in this case they are no where on 1 - 8 I listed - you don't go inventorying the paperclips on your desk: You get the F'ing important stuff accomplished first, then you do the BS stuff.
In the grand scheme of things, this is chickensh1t stuff. Now, this is no brainer to see. We know the Congresspeople aren't braindead, they're just corrupt politicians doing what politicians do best.
Given this, it then begs the question: If we are no where on my 1 - 8 listed, and we know Congress knows this, and we know Congress knows where 1 - 8 stand in National priority in regards to Rove....then why are they wasting any of their time with Rove? Why are they not in permanent lockdown on 1 - 8? Like, 14 hours a day, 7 days a week lockdown???
Well, lets see:
It's election season....
The stakes are incredibly high....
Dragging a Republican through the mud will be a positive in regards to the swing/undecided voters....
Yes, I think we can stop here...it's clear why we are yet again getting p1ss poor performance from our Congress.
It's all good though, right Craig??? :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:
Chuck
trenchfoot
Lifer
Defending the Bush Administration is just like defending OJ Simpson. "If the glove don't fit you must acquit." Never mind that the glove shrank from being wet with....fluids. "We will testify only if it's off the record and not under oath." Never mind that the sum total record of the Bush adminstration points to it being the most corrupt, secretive, top-to-bottom exploit-for-profit driven, power-mongering collection of self-serving opportunists in the history of the nation. By all means we should just ignore that. yeah, sure.
BMW540I6speed
Golden Member
Yeah, lets just let executive privilege be a magical sheild from criminal prosecution
One of the primary, defining attributes of a civilized society that lives under the rule of law is prosecutorial independence. Without that, political opponents of those in power can be prosecuted for political rather than legal reasons. And worse still, our most powerful political leaders are free to break the law with impunity because they control the prosecutorial process, which - in this warped view of our republic - means that presidents have an absolute power to block criminal prosecution of their subordinates who break the law, provided it was done at the President's behest.
The administration's theory is an absolute denial of prosecutorial independence. It means that federal prosecutors are nothing more than obedient servants of the President. They are not merely appointed by the President, but their specific decisions about whether to prosecute executive branch officials for criminal acts are controlled and dictated by the President. They are nothing more, than "emanations of the president's will."
But refusals to comply with subpoenas become criminal where they are grounded not in good faith (even if questionable) assertions of privilege, but where, instead, a contempt for the rule of law is evidenced because one party abuses legitimate privileges in order to shield itself from investigation and accountability.
What the Bush administration is asserting here is the power to abolish that distinction, to immunize itself completely from the threat of criminal prosecution in those cases where it plainly abuses the assertion of privilege (as it is undoubtedly doing now) in order to immunize itself from accountability under the law. It removes completely the specter of criminal prosecution for refusing to comply with lawful investigations by vesting Rove an absolute, unchallengeable power to defy all subpoenas even where it has no arguable basis for doing so, by vesting in him the power literally to order federal prosecutors not to pursue an indictment.
At this point, the blame rests not with the Bush administration. They have long made clear what they believe and, especially, what they are. They have been rubbing in our faces for several years the fact that they believe they can ignore the law and do what they want because nobody is willing to do anything about it. Thus far, they have been right, and the blame rests with those who have acquiesced to it.
One of the primary, defining attributes of a civilized society that lives under the rule of law is prosecutorial independence. Without that, political opponents of those in power can be prosecuted for political rather than legal reasons. And worse still, our most powerful political leaders are free to break the law with impunity because they control the prosecutorial process, which - in this warped view of our republic - means that presidents have an absolute power to block criminal prosecution of their subordinates who break the law, provided it was done at the President's behest.
The administration's theory is an absolute denial of prosecutorial independence. It means that federal prosecutors are nothing more than obedient servants of the President. They are not merely appointed by the President, but their specific decisions about whether to prosecute executive branch officials for criminal acts are controlled and dictated by the President. They are nothing more, than "emanations of the president's will."
But refusals to comply with subpoenas become criminal where they are grounded not in good faith (even if questionable) assertions of privilege, but where, instead, a contempt for the rule of law is evidenced because one party abuses legitimate privileges in order to shield itself from investigation and accountability.
What the Bush administration is asserting here is the power to abolish that distinction, to immunize itself completely from the threat of criminal prosecution in those cases where it plainly abuses the assertion of privilege (as it is undoubtedly doing now) in order to immunize itself from accountability under the law. It removes completely the specter of criminal prosecution for refusing to comply with lawful investigations by vesting Rove an absolute, unchallengeable power to defy all subpoenas even where it has no arguable basis for doing so, by vesting in him the power literally to order federal prosecutors not to pursue an indictment.
At this point, the blame rests not with the Bush administration. They have long made clear what they believe and, especially, what they are. They have been rubbing in our faces for several years the fact that they believe they can ignore the law and do what they want because nobody is willing to do anything about it. Thus far, they have been right, and the blame rests with those who have acquiesced to it.
kage69
Lifer
I think it would be nice if the right wingers could ditch their partisan puffery for once and actually start to give a shit about anyone abusing the system for political and/or personal gain. Looking into said affronts aren't necessarily witch hunts; a witch hunt is when you spend years and a lot of Fed money to pursue consensual sex between two hetero adults. With this admin's track record, if anyone thinks these suspicions of Rove are unfounded and without merit, then you need to have your head examined.
You guys have repeatedly defended the likes of Tom Delay, Alberto G, Scooter Libby, etc. etc. I don't know how the fvck you can come to Rove's defense in this matter and expect to be taken seriously.
Congress should be productive, I agree. I think a great way to do that would be to show the American people they won't turn a blind eye to illegal acts for political purposes. How is Congress to regain any respect from the populace if they continually allow politicians to avoid justice over political ease and time constraints?
Nope, you guys just want to brush the shit from your corner under the rug, so when it happens again and again you can say "Look, that's how it goes, but let's just not talk about it as there are more important things to discuss..." Unless it's a Dem, then there's good ratings to be made, one liners to coin, and talk shows to frequent.
Regardless, Rove, whatever his role here, shouldn't be allowed to thumb his nose at Congress like that. We've allowed this admin to hold itself above our laws long enough - if you can't bring yourself to condemn his behavior than you have absolutely no business telling others what constitutes "more pressing matters."
Bolded and quoted for absolute truth! :thumbsup:
You guys have repeatedly defended the likes of Tom Delay, Alberto G, Scooter Libby, etc. etc. I don't know how the fvck you can come to Rove's defense in this matter and expect to be taken seriously.
Congress should be productive, I agree. I think a great way to do that would be to show the American people they won't turn a blind eye to illegal acts for political purposes. How is Congress to regain any respect from the populace if they continually allow politicians to avoid justice over political ease and time constraints?
Nope, you guys just want to brush the shit from your corner under the rug, so when it happens again and again you can say "Look, that's how it goes, but let's just not talk about it as there are more important things to discuss..." Unless it's a Dem, then there's good ratings to be made, one liners to coin, and talk shows to frequent.
Regardless, Rove, whatever his role here, shouldn't be allowed to thumb his nose at Congress like that. We've allowed this admin to hold itself above our laws long enough - if you can't bring yourself to condemn his behavior than you have absolutely no business telling others what constitutes "more pressing matters."
Bolded and quoted for absolute truth! :thumbsup:
BMW540I6speed
Golden Member
Here are some thoughts about "executive privilege" and its heinous truth-suppressing attributes, expressed in 1998 for Clintons impeachment by people who undoubtedly have defended its grave importance over the past seven years:
Tony Snow - Op-Ed - St. Louis Post-Dispatch, March 29, 1998 :
(HEADLINE: "Executive Privilege is a Dodge")
Kate O'Beirne - Capital Gang - May 2, 1998:
Tony Snow's Show - Fox News - May 10, 1998
The Subpoenas which Nixon and Clinton sought to resist were issued as part of a criminal investigation, whereas the Subpoenas here are not (but instead are merely Congressional demands for information). Arguably (though far from definitely), the privilege would be given less weight in the context of a criminal proceeding. Countering that, however, is the fact that by voluntarily offering Rove and Miers for "interviews," Bush has likely weakened his own claim of privilege in a way that Nixon and Clinton never did.
Of course it's totally different this time. 9/11 happened, and that changed everything, remember?. It's okay to ignore rule of law.
Cheney, Rove & the rest of the Bush cabel, are sounding just like Chavez...
Looks like these guys have been paying attention to Venezuela and decide "why not us too?"
Tony Snow - Op-Ed - St. Louis Post-Dispatch, March 29, 1998 :
(HEADLINE: "Executive Privilege is a Dodge")
Kate O'Beirne - Capital Gang - May 2, 1998:
Tony Snow's Show - Fox News - May 10, 1998
The Subpoenas which Nixon and Clinton sought to resist were issued as part of a criminal investigation, whereas the Subpoenas here are not (but instead are merely Congressional demands for information). Arguably (though far from definitely), the privilege would be given less weight in the context of a criminal proceeding. Countering that, however, is the fact that by voluntarily offering Rove and Miers for "interviews," Bush has likely weakened his own claim of privilege in a way that Nixon and Clinton never did.
Of course it's totally different this time. 9/11 happened, and that changed everything, remember?. It's okay to ignore rule of law.
Cheney, Rove & the rest of the Bush cabel, are sounding just like Chavez...
Looks like these guys have been paying attention to Venezuela and decide "why not us too?"
bamacre
Lifer
The Democrats have already shown they don't care about holding this administration accountable for anything they've done. To think that's gonna change anytime soon, or that an Obama administration would, shows you haven't been paying attention the past couple of years. Or in Craig234's case, you just see what you want to see, and ignore reality.
BMW540I6speed
Golden Member
Chucky2 said
Fireing of specific attorneys because they didn't "tow" the Bush party line is a "non issue" or "chickenshit"?
Yeah, its just you seem to be frothing that the present constitutional crisis can fade away without anyone having to do anything that might significantly upset the status quo?
Why would we want that? What good would that do us?...
No, we have a possible legal crisis here and we most definitely want it answered one way or another, not to just fade away in the hopes in never comes back.
We have an elected civil servant who claims that the country is his oyster, his own personal playground where his will be done no matter what. That there is literally no crime so blatant or outrageous he could commit or order committed that he can be held accountable for should he wish not to be.
That sort of attitude is certain death for a free society. It must be shown once and for all that the Executive is merely an important part of the civil government, NOT the sole embodiment of national power. If Congress, the courts, and the people refuse to do anything about it, then this countrys judical branch is already dead, the corpse just hasn't finished twitching.
Fireing of specific attorneys because they didn't "tow" the Bush party line is a "non issue" or "chickenshit"?
Yeah, its just you seem to be frothing that the present constitutional crisis can fade away without anyone having to do anything that might significantly upset the status quo?
Why would we want that? What good would that do us?...
No, we have a possible legal crisis here and we most definitely want it answered one way or another, not to just fade away in the hopes in never comes back.
We have an elected civil servant who claims that the country is his oyster, his own personal playground where his will be done no matter what. That there is literally no crime so blatant or outrageous he could commit or order committed that he can be held accountable for should he wish not to be.
That sort of attitude is certain death for a free society. It must be shown once and for all that the Executive is merely an important part of the civil government, NOT the sole embodiment of national power. If Congress, the courts, and the people refuse to do anything about it, then this countrys judical branch is already dead, the corpse just hasn't finished twitching.
BMW540I6speed
Golden Member
Meh, typical apologist response. But, alas..you are correct in the "reality" that congress has waited to long and don't have the backbone to follow through. status quo FTW.
I'm a lawyer by trade. I do "see what I want to see" with this issue and the American people should not like what they are "seeing" when it comes to rule of law and this Administration.
So, sue me for "giving a fuck"
kage69
Lifer
Good find there BMW, the quotes you provided from Snow really neuter what so many apologists have rallied around lately, not to mention put a little well-needed perspective on the man himself. I wonder what SnowJob thought of Cheney's grand ultimate Executive AND Legislative Privilege. 🙂
dmcowen674
No Lifer
Like what?
There is nothing in the best interest of this country they can do that Bush would sign.
You provide, predictably, zero evidence for your attack. When are people here going to learn how to make the most basic argument?
Why should I have to sit here and try to make up your acse for you to respond to your comment? 'Oh, well if Bamacre meant to say, referrijng to, then my response is...'
No, I"ll just point out that you lose, when you don't back up your agrument, and your attack is as questionable as yours is.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
