House Judiciary Chairman Subpoenas Karl Rove

Karl Rove should be thrown in jail and left there or dropped into the middle of Iran. That man has caused so much pain to millions. Paybacks are hell!

Originally posted by Common Good
Well by what I see, he is already condemned, so it is no suprised to me he said no, people have already made up their mind without giving the man a trial.
Not defending any of the mans actions, but I at least think he should be tried before being condemned.

I think everyone would agree he should be tried before being condemned in law. I'm just glad you agree he should be tried. But in the court of world opinion he has already condemned himself many times over with his numerous public lies and refusal to testify to Congress.

Following the bipartisan Senate report released last month that found Rumsfeld and other top administration officials responsible for abuse of detainees in US custody, Manfred Nowak, United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture, told CNN yesterday that there is already enough evidence to prosecute former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.

Originally posted by jam321
I think it is a waste of taxpayers money. This will be dragged out for years to come. You would think at this point Congress would be more interested in fixing the economy.

Hmm a waste of taxpayer dollars to uphold the law. Wow what country do we live in anymore. No wonder why there are no morals or no care of blowback of you screw up. I can see why these bankers did what they did. If Washington isnt held liable for breaking the law why should they? Hell why should I for that matter?

[edit on 27-1-2009 by tjeffersonsghost]

I say good. People should be accountable for their actions. Rove should have never been able to ignore a subpoena anyway. That in itself should have mandated him being locked up.

I think as time goes by we will see lots of investigations into the former administration. While in office, Bush & Co hid behind executive privilege, and no one could do a thing about it. But now with that shield gone I think it's time to get to the bottom of a few things.

What sucks is that the United States has not ratified the statute of the international criminal court, which means that United States officials are not culpable in cases of human rights abuse or crimes against humanity. The ICC is not competent to investigate or prosecute US officials. This means that Bush and Co. Cannot stand trial in the UN courts for crimes against humanity.

However the US has jurisdiction in these matters and I think it's time that Rove, Rumsfeld and others should stand accountable for any impropriety or crimes they may have committed.

reply to post by tjeffersonsghost

Hmm a waste of taxpayer dollars to uphold the law.

What law are they upholding? And if such a law was so important why did they wait till Obama came in to get it going again? How long ago did this happen?

Dog and pony show it is. All they want you to believe that now that Obama is in place, there is change all around. Sorry, it is the same old BS IMO.

reply to post by jam321


It would have been impossible to investigate or prosicute these men while Bush was in office because anything that was found Bush would have issued a pardon for immediately. It was a smart tactic to wait for Bush to leave office then start the investigation. That way they wouldnt be protected under the last administrations executive privilage.

Now Bush can no longer protect them and they will have to at least show up for their subpoenas.

Not the brightest legal minds responding in this thread.what does around comes around...in 4 years the republicans will be wasting millions investogating this administration when they are back in power...and so the story goes...until then...ill be reading all your brainiac legal analysis on ATS...laughing all the way

reply to post by Novastar824


they will just lie and get away with it, plus with all their money, they will pay to have evidence disappear or bribe witnesses.

The legal process will take its course.
If Rove holds up and doesn't recall anything AND there is no trail of evidence that shows the Attny General fired prosecutors because they were investigating Republican members of Congress, all may escape justice.
I believe that they don't want, or think that they can't get, Rove [who reminds me of the Nazi interrogator in the first Indiana Jones movie] but do want the Atty General. Of course, they will try to get him to roll over on Cheney. Cheney may then find some evidence that implicates Gonzales. If they get him, that is where this will end. He is the cut out to the VP and Cheney is crafty enough not to have left a trail. Bush will be safe no matter what.

reply to post by whatukno


If this is so much about getting Rove to testify, then why Conyers refuse to let Rove testify in private.

Conyers had rebuffed a compromise last year floated by Rove’s attorney, Robert Luskin, to have Rove testify in private or respond in writing to the committee’s inquiries about the Siegelman case, as well as the firing of nine U.S. Attorneys.

www.zimbio.com...

Because Conyers only wants to get some Brownie points. He is more concerned about his image than the truth. I imagine Rove telling him to go to hell for not appearing would give Conyers more than enough reason to have a bone to pick with Rove.

reply to post by jam321


I completely agree with Conyers on this issue, why have the testimony in private? If you have nothing to hide and aren't guilty of anything then a public inquiry is appropriate.

Rove and his counsel wanted to ensure a back door deal. Thats why they wished for a private meeting. It's preposterous, if they have done nothing wrong than a public inquiry is appropriate.

Yes I agree that Conyers is looking for some political brownie points, he after all is a politician. But it does not look good to refuse an inquiry nor does it look good to hide behind executive privilege and refuse a subpoena.

I guess I have been burnt too many times. Give John Conyers enough time and someone will be prosecuting him. From what I can tell all politicians are at a minimum ethically challenged if not down right crooked.

reply to post by whatukno


Other than for National security reasons, has there been private testimony permitted in Congress for suspected malfeasance of this magnitude?

reply to post by pteridine


If there has, I wouldnt know about it. I am sure that back door deals have been done before. But without specific examples I don't know.

I just think it's entirely proper for someone to have to answer a congressional subpoena. "If they have done nothing wrong then they have nothing to worry about." Isn't that the famous line?

reply to post by whatukno

Rove and his counsel wanted to ensure a back door deal. Thats why they wished for a private meeting.

What do you mean by back door deal? They are asking for his testimony, not prosecuting him.

IMO Congress wastes too much time showboating to the press and Americans rather than getting to the truth. The steroids case and the airlines CEO's are prime examples of that.

The testimony could easily be collected in a private meeting but the whole intent here is to embarrass Rove. The testimony could also be sent out to the public once they finish the meeting.

By the way, if this was one of Obama's people I would feel the same. I get tired of seeing Congress trying to prove their point at the expense of others. They should realize that they are in a position of authority and should treat that position with respect and professionalism.

Your opinion is noteworthy and I value it but I just see Congress being a bully on this one.

reply to post by jam321


You could very well be right that congress is being a bully. Wouldn't surprise me in the least. But what I am curious about is what will Rove say. Thats why I am against any closed door talks.

I think he should be forced to testifying openly about any questions that they have. It would be interesting to see what he says.

I worry about back door deals because I worry that behind closed doors that Rove will tell these men to stop any inquiry or face consequences from NWO types.

It's really unfortunate when people stereotype...

Just because someone is criticizing the lawless Bush Administration doesn't mean they are an Obama supporter.

Don't be a fool.

Did you ever think people simply want to see these crooks and corrupt dogs made accountable for their actions?

How can you defend people like Karl Rove. The man was a maniacal humpty-dumpty clone with appetite for destruction and no regard for the rule of law.

Originally posted by rapinbatsisaltherage
reply to post by Blaine91555

 

How about Clinton

What about Clinton? I'm upset with all the "loopholes" he used to get around the constitution but that happened when I was nearing the end of elementary. If I had the chance I would have been just as angry as I am now and bashing him too.

Believe me I have no love of either Party.

Firing an employee is every Presidents right. The reason the AG went down is he lied to Congress. This is a non-issue. Conyers knows it. Conyers is wasting time and our money on this because he thinks it will help him on the next election. I think it is that simple. This will get him air time on the Talking Head circuit.

Obama has likely fired most everyone and put in his new people which is normal. I have not seen anything about it in the news because they know it is a non-story. Always was.

reply to post by whatukno


I think that Rove is worried about that last part about not having to worry if he's done nothing wrong. I agree that he should testify in public on these matters.

reply to post by whatukno


""If they have done nothing wrong then they have nothing to worry about." Isn't that the famous line?"

You'd better believe that if it were them violating YOUR rights, that would be the line they used TO THE LETTER.
I think this is hilarious and I pray for the day that bush, rumsfeld, rice, rove and the rest of the scum are sitting behind bars!