Karl Rove

[MachZer0]

there is a higher law than winning and losing, mach, and that is exactly what Christ came to address. there is an ethical imperitive that we are called to. mr rove is the poster boy for rejecting those ethics.

Higer law? And yet you continue to make accusations about Mr Rove while having not one shred of evidence to back any of it up? That's interesting!!

 

[JustOneWay]

there is a higher law than winning and losing, mach, and that is exactly what Christ came to address. there is an ethical imperitive that we are called to. mr rove is the poster boy for rejecting those ethics.

There are some who believe Rove is an atheist. If this is true then it should not surprise you as to why Rove would not subscribe to a higher law over winning and losing.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Once again, criminal investigations are outside the purview of Congress. Any investigation would have to go through the Justice Dept

Not bloody likely, given the depth of the corruption involved.

 

[blueapplepaste]

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?

There's also checks and balances. What you advocate means that the executive is above the law and the other branches of government. This is exactly what the founding fathers wanted to avoid.

 

[MachZer0]

There's also checks and balances. What you advocate means that the executive is above the law and the other branches of government. This is exactly what the founding fathers wanted to avoid.

On the contrary, what others are proposing is that Congress is superior to the Executive and thus has powers to criminally investigate the Administration. They do not. The power of subpoena is supposed to be used to gather information necessary to produce legislation, which is the Congress' job

 

[mpok1519]

They investigate senators for ethics violations

yes; those ethics violations are sometimes criminal.

I don't know that Rove has done anything wrong unless I believe your claim that evidence isn't necessary and that your claim of wrongdoing is sufficient, which I don't

Well, if you think hiring/firing people from a job based on discrimination of political affiliation isn't criminal, then, well, thats your perogative; however, to the law, it is a criminal act.

To hire/fire anyone based on religion, sex, gender, ethnicity, political affiliation IS a criminl act, and theres substantial evidence to suggest thats exactly what the Bush admin was doing, and Rove knows it.

Are you suggesting those unethical hiring/firing processes are somehow, legal, and something they should be ALLOWED to do?

The evidence lies with Mr Rove's testimony; now, if he had nothing to hide, he would testify.

Testifying wouldn't be detrimental to national security in anyway, so therefore, there should be no reason why he shouldn't testify.

If he's innocent, he would testify.

 

[MachZer0]

yes; those ethics violations are sometimes criminal.

Rove isn't a Senator

Well, if you think hiring/firing people from a job based on discrimination of political affiliation isn't criminal, then, well, thats your perogative; however, to the law, it is a criminal act.

So for what reasons were they fired that would amount to discrimination (one way or another, you have to come up with evidence other than mere accusations)

To hire/fire anyone based on religion, sex, gender, ethnicity, political affiliation IS a criminl act, and theres substantial evidence to suggest thats exactly what the Bush admin was doing, and Rove knows it.

Then provide the evidence

Are you suggesting those unethical hiring/firing processes are somehow, legal, and something they should be ALLOWED to do?

In light of the lack of evidence, I'm saying that Rove has no involvement in such activities

The evidence lies with Mr Rove's testimony; now, if he had nothing to hide, he would testify.

Testifying wouldn't be detrimental to national security in anyway, so therefore, there should be no reason why he shouldn't testify.

If he's innocent, he would testify.

Do you remember executive privilege? The Congress holds no such authority over the Executive. End of story

 

[mpok1519]

lol

anyway, anyone else have anything to say about this?

Mach's not giving me credible information.

 

[mpok1519]

executive privelege doesnt give the executive branch the right to break the law.

and now you say "show evidence he broke the law"

and I say "they need an investigation"

you say "they cant invetigate him, thats not their job"

and I say "well whose job is it then?"

you say "no ones because no one broke the law"

i say "how do you know, he claimed executive privelege so we don't know what the hells going on int he white house!"

you say "because its a judicial thing, not a white-house thing"

and I say "do you think we're this stupid?"

you say "show me evidence you think i think you think we're stupid"

i say "omigod! we need an investigation!"

you say "but thats not the job of the investigators"

I saay "whos job is it?"

"Who cares, I'm republican, and as long as republicans get away with corruption, its okay!"

mach >> you arent campaigning for any of these slime balls are you?

lol

anyone notice how asinine this conversation is when you converse with someone whos just making circular arguments WITHOUT reasoning behind it?

my reasoning.

Rove did bad things. There needs to be an investigation. Bush says "no, there wont be, bc I'm president and I get to do whatever the hell i want!!! hahahahhahahahha!"

geeze.



Really, it just needs to come down to Rove's security mercenaries getting in a gun-fight with the feds, and then we can all be rid of this horrible macabre of political corruption.

 

[mpok1519]

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=2954988&page=1

here; read this.

 

[MachZer0]

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=2954988&page=1

here; read this.

That link mentions no illegal activity whatsoever. It does , however, say this

On its face, the plan is not improper, inappropriate or even unusual: The president has the right to fire U.S. attorneys at any time, and presidents have done so when they took office.

Thanks for that little tidbit, which is what I pointed out to you earlier

 

[mpok1519]

too bad it's face is only the face; the underbelly, looks alot worse

Which is what the investigation is needed for.

You can't produce evidence unless theres an investigation, which is what Rove is avoiding.

whys he so afwaid? Aww, Kawl Wove's afwaid hes gonna go to cwub fed. awww....

so, who'd win in the gun-fight? Rove Mercs or FBI swat? The mercs have depleted uranium rounds, but the feds have better kevlar.

 

[mpok1519]

how come if i click once, it still posts twice?

weird.

 

[MachZer0]

executive privelege doesnt give the executive branch the right to break the law.

and now you say "show evidence he broke the law"

and I say "they need an investigation"

you say "they cant invetigate him, thats not their job"

and I say "well whose job is it then?"

you say "no ones because no one broke the law"

Ah, herein lies your error which is causing you confusion. A point you might have discovered on your own had you taken your own advice and consulted your civics book. the job of investigating federal crimes is the responsibility of the Justice Dept, as I said earlier. So what you are advocating is a power grab by Congress to circumvent the law and take power away from the Executive branch by investigating crimes which is not a power of Congress derived from the Constitution

 

[MachZer0]

how come if i click once, it still posts twice?

weird.

Why do you suppose the Justice Dept has not initiated an investigation?

 

[mpok1519]

well, whoever gets to do it, It NEEDS TO BE DONE.

I don't care who finds the evidence of Karl Rove's corruption, just as long as someone finds it.

and an investigation(i couldnt care less who does it, justice, congress, who gives a hoot just so long as it gets done) is needed to find this evidence.

who conducts it? i dont care, just so long as its not conducted by anyone Karl Rove is associated with.

 

[mpok1519]

Why do you suppose the Justice Dept has not initiated an investigation?

Because they probably were all frat boys together in the same house, thats why.

Theyre all in bed with each other....

 

[MachZer0]

Because they probably were all frat boys together in the same house, thats why.

Theyre all in bed with each other....

It's because there's no evidence of a crime. That's the one thing you've demonstrated here clearly, that people hate Rove, he was involved in something legal, but they want to call it a crime despite the lack of any evidence.

 

[JoyJuice]

On the contrary, what others are proposing is that Congress is superior to the Executive and thus has powers to criminally investigate the Administration. They do not. The power of subpoena is supposed to be used to gather information necessary to produce legislation, which is the Congress' job

Err...according to the Supreme Courts in many decisions you are in error. Congress does have power to impeach and remove those of the executive branch, and in order to have that ability, they need to know what is or isn't going on so therefore they do have the power of investigation.

Here's the lastest:

"McGrain v. Daugherty, 273 U.S. 135, 177 (1927)."

 

[Nathan Poe]

Why do you suppose the Justice Dept has not initiated an investigation?

Because they're every bit as corrupt as Rove.