Karl Rove

[mpok1519]

So, will this Karl Rove controversy ever be ended?

Will he ever answer the subpeona ordered to him?

What happens if he doesn't answer the subpeona?

How does hiring and firing people in the Attorney General's office bc they didnt have the same political affiliation/agenda give one the right to declare 'executive privelege'?

Isn't executive privelege reserved for things threatening national security?

 

[reverend B]

i think what happens with this may have alot to do with who gets elected.

 

[JustOneWay]

no, no, nothing, It doesn't, no

 

[MachZer0]

So, will this Karl Rove controversy ever be ended?

Will he ever answer the subpeona ordered to him?

What happens if he doesn't answer the subpeona?

How does hiring and firing people in the Attorney General's office bc they didnt have the same political affiliation/agenda give one the right to declare 'executive privelege'?

Isn't executive privelege reserved for things threatening national security?

It's been great to see Rove on FoxNews these days, seeing how reasoned and intelligent he is compared to the fanatic our left leaning friends try to portray him as

 

[reverend B]

we judge him by his actions, not his forked tongue.

 

[MachZer0]

we judge him by his actions, not his forked tongue.

If that were true, you'd be a fan

 

[reverend B]

If that were true, you'd be a fan

only if i believed in the destruction of integrity in the political process, like rove's eviceration of mccain in south carolina in 2000. you remember, mach. does that make you proud? do you aspire to such moral repulsiveness?

 

[MachZer0]

only if i believed in the destruction of integrity in the political process, like rove's eviceration of mccain in south carolina in 2000. you remember, mach. does that make you proud? do you aspire to such moral repulsiveness?

No, I don't recall that. But I do recall him being the architect of two campaigns that beat the best the Democrts had to offer

 

[Ryal Kane]

So Mach, if Karl Rove is given subpoena to appear before congress, do you think he has a right to refuse?

 

[MachZer0]

So Mach, if Karl Rove is given subpoena to appear before congress, do you think he has a right to refuse?

Yes, he has the right, and the duty, to refuse. Now you're turn, what is the purpose is giving him a subpoena in the first place. What is the goal of Congress in this case

 

[blueapplepaste]

Yes, he has the right, and the duty, to refuse. Now you're turn, what is the purpose is giving him a subpoena in the first place. What is the goal of Congress in this case

Heck, I guess we all have the right and duty to refuse subpoenas. If he's above the law, why aren't we all?

 

[MachZer0]

Heck, I guess we all have the right and duty to refuse subpoenas. If he's above the law, why aren't we all?

It's called the separation of powers. Again, what is the goal of Congress in issuing the subpoena. What would they do with the information?

 

[mpok1519]

lol he doesnt have a duty to refuse! lol why? theres no reason.

listen, he broke the law. He broke the law by discriminating against others BASED UPON THEIR POLITICAL AFFILIATION.

You can't hire/fire someone bc theyre democrat/republican, male/female, atheist/christian, etc/etc etc/etc.

The goal of congress is to get down to the botton line of al the corruption and lawbreaking this administration clearly has done; refusing the subpeona is practical proof he DID do something ILLEGAL, and unethical. The goal of congress in this case is to bring justice to lawbreakers.

 

[MachZer0]

lol he doesnt have a duty to refuse! lol why? theres no reason.

Again, it's the separation of powers. He has a duty to preserve that concept by not setting a precedent

listen, he broke the law. He broke the law by discriminating against others BASED UPON THEIR POLITICAL AFFILIATION.

If he broke the law, he should have been arrested and charged

You can't hire/fire someone bc theyre democrat/republican, male/female, atheist/christian, etc/etc etc/etc.

The prosecutors serve at the pleasure of the president and he can fire them any time he wishes

The goal of congress is to get down to the botton line of al the corruption and lawbreaking this administration clearly has done; refusing the subpeona is practical proof he DID do something ILLEGAL, and unethical. The goal of congress in this case is to bring justice to lawbreakers.

That falls outside the purview of Congress. The job of justice actually falls under the purview of the President, the Justice Dept being part of the executive branch. So you've just demonstrated that Congress is attempting to overstep its bounds

 

[mpok1519]

Separation of powers? what about checks and balances? Separation of powers DOES NOT give one the right to break the law then say "I refuse to testify".

He was subpeoned: not EVERY instance of breaking the law requires detaining, arresting, and charging. You should know this, I assume you're older than fourteen.

the "PLEASURE OF THE PRESIDENT" as you eloquently put it, does NOT include the right to BREAK THE LAW, which is what he did by firing/hiring people BASED ON THEIR POLITICAL AFFILIATION, not whos best for the job. I mean, they hired/fired how many people? eight? nine? ten? How many resigned when they realized smethign fishy was going on in his administration. LOTS.

lol he can hire/fire people by his wishes? lol nooooo. You cant hire/fire someone simply BECAUSE theyre gay/christian/republican/etc etc; thats a crime.

You think checks and balaces don't exist? well, neither does the President.

You are clearly demonstrating you think the president gets to do whatever he wishes outside of the law.

I thought you were a little bit more educated than that, but hey, different strokes to move the world eh?

Civics class tells you all about stuff like that. =)

 

[Fantine]

It really doesn't matter if Rove is subpoenaed or convicted of anything. At the end of George W. Bush's term, he'll be able to pardon whoever he wants, and who would be higher on his list than the devil he sold his soul to?

I think that you can even preemptively pardon people for crimes they might be being investigated for, but haven't been charged with or convicted of.

 

[mpok1519]

which is, sick.

people get thrown into jail for their entire lives for things like stealing tvs, selling cocaine, etc, but if you're a rich white powerful politician, you can just get away with everything?

Isnt that, like, evil? Sick? Twisted? bad?

why doesnt the world make sense? And why do people constantly insist that if we "just pray" and read our Bibles, all these problems are just gonna go away?

Its ridiculous.

 

[Fantine]

sorry, duplicate

 

[MachZer0]

Separation of powers? what about checks and balances? Separation of powers DOES NOT give one the right to break the law then say "I refuse to testify".

Again, if he broke the law, he should be arrested and charged. Any explanation as to why he hasn't been arrested or charged?

He was subpeoned: not EVERY instance of breaking the law requires detaining, arresting, and charging. You should know this, I assume you're older than fourteen.

Really? What law did Rove break that doesn't require him to be arrested? And if it doesn't require him to be arrested, what business is it of Congress?

the "PLEASURE OF THE PRESIDENT" as you eloquently put it, does NOT include the right to BREAK THE LAW, which is what he did by firing/hiring people BASED ON THEIR POLITICAL AFFILIATION,

If the President believes that political affiliation will prevent a prosecutor from performing his job properly, he can indeed fire him for that reason

not whos best for the job. I mean, they hired/fired how many people? eight? nine? ten? How many resigned when they realized smethign fishy was going on in his administration. LOTS.

As I recall, Clinton fired all of them

lol he can hire/fire people by his wishes? lol nooooo. You cant hire/fire someone simply BECAUSE theyre gay/christian/republican/etc etc; thats a crime.

So which of those reasons was given for firing the prosecutors?

You think checks and balaces don't exist? well, neither does the President.

Separation of Powers is checks and balances

You are clearly demonstrating you think the president gets to do whatever he wishes outside of the law.

No, I'm saying that if the President broke the law (I thought we were talking about Rove) then he should be arrested and charged with the crime. Congress does not have the authority to do that

I thought you were a little bit more educated than that, but hey, different strokes to move the world eh?

Civics class tells you all about stuff like that. =)

You might want to check your civics checkbook and you will find out that Congress does not have the authority to conduct criminal investigations

 

[mpok1519]

lol You didnt even read anything I said, bc all your questions were perfectly answered, but then you decided to ask the same questions again, as if I'm some kind of idiot that didnt catch it the first time. Its okay, really.

(MAch never listens to anything anyone says, no matter how truthful, does he?)

anyway, I think the people have spoken; the majority of people want to see that slime ball put away, regardless of what mach says. =)

I think you need to go back to school to learn about how your govt works. =)
good day,

dont be afraid to crack open that test book now! classes are enrolling as we speak! it'd do you some good, honestly.