Rove is a No-Show

Remove all ads!

Amen to that, brother.

With that said, there is interesting news: Bush claims "Executive Privilege."

So here's the low-down from the regime:

Gee, what a load that is. It's like shades of Richard Nixon pops up in my mind...Avoiding subpoenas because of "sensitive conversations with advisors." Yeah, the American people have heard THAT one before. I think the Bushmen have something to hide. It seems that Congress may have hit a bit too close for comfort for these guys regarding Cheney.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25703772/

 

You know, it's stuff like this that makes me glad that there are term limits for the US presidency. I felt the same at the end of Clinton's tenure too.

 

I hear what you're saying, but the level of criminality and corruption in the Clinton administration doesn't even hold a candle to the second Bush administration. Not by a long shot.

 

you're right, the level in the clinton administration was so far above any other that it will never be equalled.

 

martaug, even though we hardly ever agree, your sarcasm never ceases to crack me up. Clinton followed in the great Democratic tradition of being a womanizer, and to the coservative right, he will always be held up as a pariah. Just like the ultra-liberals always bash the Reagan administration for plunging us so far into debt. You can't make everyone happy.

 

What, exactly, should they be doing? Sorry to take this off-topic, but I hear this so often. Seriously, Congress should be... ? Waving their magic wand and lowering gas prices? "Winning" the war in Iraq? Putting a chicken in every pot and a car in every driveway?

 

Bombing Iran. We can't let the Israelis have all the fun.

 

Hey, since Clinton was a Democrat at least it was a woman. The Republican tradition? On second thought, let's not go there....

 

Ok, so on the charges of abuse of power, if the U.S. Attorney's Office is part of the Executive Branch, then I don't see how the Pres. or any of his underlings telling them what to do is a violation of separation of powers. If it's part of the Judicial Branch, then it was only a crime if Rove used his executive power to try to force it (i.e. threaten or bribe people) and then it is abuse of power. I think that's what he's going to be charged with, but it only works if the U.S. Attorney's Office is part of the Judicial Branch. I have no idea if it is or not, but that's a matter of flat law, not one of opinion.

Either way, Rove clearly broke the law when he refused to appear for testimony, and that strikes me as pure idiocy, because he could have claimed that a.) he had nothing to do with it and thus has nothing to say or b.) he at some time had some conversation with the Pres. on it and thus is covered under executive priveledge.

That being said, I'm also a little leery of the Pres. being able to pardon people for contempt of congress or court. That suggests that his underlings are completely immune to the rest of the system just so long as they're in his favor.

All in all, though, I've only seen accusiations that Bush has broken any laws (and some shady activity by Bush in response) where as there's no question Clinton broke laws (purgery before Congress, abuse of power).

 

NOG,
it's not perjury when you don't recall. Gonzales understood that and turned forgetting into an art form.

As for perjury and lying about extramarital conduct, that is ridiculous.
Yes, I know all about the letter of the law. Still, just one thing: When you know about extramarital conduct beforehand, put someone under oath and then ask him about it, and he lies, somewhat predictably, it is called a set-up. The question for extramarital conduct is in my view a question nobody except the wife has a right for a truthful answer on - and that it was dragged in front of a grand jury, oath or not, doesn't change it one bit. President's too have privacy. Period. Clinton was the sitting US president and no harem warden so the answer has no bearings whatsoever on his ability to do his job. I presume that one can criminalise a great number of Americans using the same ploy, if one only tried. Well, apparently presidents have to be super-honest about all and everything private, and are held to a saintly standard.

You really want to know how bored Bush was during that latest dinner? You really want to know if he enjoys sex with his wife or has any? Could he please explain that bit about Condi calling him her husband? Just put him under oath, goad him into a lie and then confront him with contradicting evidence. Sounds like a fun exercise. Fun enough for the R's to enjoy it when they dealt it out on Clinton. Well, it appears that for Bush the GOP has lowered their standard somewhat. And anyway, chances are Bush would claim executive privilege because everything that happens in the Whitehouse is super secret. Lord knows where I take that from

An executive privilege claim would have been the way out for Clinton: "Making public the confidential conversations with my interns will chill their willingness to give me quality assistance." And then, on further questions and ridicule, just stonewall everything.

 

Clinton did not perjure himself before Congress, he lied about a personal indiscretion (where said indiscretion was not illegal) during a sworn deposition preceding a civil suit. Not to be taken lightly, but hardly the same thing as perjuring ones self before congress.

As for abuse of power, you're really more naive than I thought if you think there's "no question" Clinton was guilty of that and not Bush.

 

no he isn't naive for believing the truth, he just isn't a brainwashed clinton apologist like a large number on this board.

 

Couple of things. First, one needs a brain before it can be washed. Second, stating a documented fact does not make one an "apologist" for anyone, least of all me, and if you've been paying attention to anything I've said the last two years you'd know I'm hardly a Clinton apologist. In fact, you should add "apologist" to the list of words you often misuse, clearly don't quite understand and should look up before using again, lest you make a bigger fool of yourself. Even one-syllable words, like "troll." Three, your version of "the truth" is so laughably misinformed and so clearly derived from the nuttiest of the right-wing media that it's never really worth responding to. In fact, this is volumes more response than your last comment deserves.

EDIT: Oh, and thanks for the negative rep there, pal. So not obvious. Mature, too.

 

no deathrabbit he perjured himself before a grand jury when he LIED to the special prosecuters questions. on the T-word, well YOU would know personally wouldn't you.

 

martaug,
I don't even particularly like Clinton. So call me an apologist? Stop viewing it all through your R-goggles. I just think that the fuss about his indiscretion is utterly silly, and I made clear why. My view is if anything European, certainly not a pro-D point of view.

How can one get all upset about that he lied, and huff and puff about him by doing that breaking the law, while forgetting generously about the circumstances that led to it? The lie was the result him being goaded into a procedural trap.

It is not that Clinton abused the power of the office by, say, handing Monica a billion dollar no-bid contract in exchange for her quality assistance - and then lie about it. In that case a question after a sexual relation would have been highly relevant because it would have suggested nepotism at its worst. But there was nothing of that sort. He did a private thing, that neither you nor I nor a Grand Jury have a business in caring about, let alone inquiring into. The entire impeachment proceedings and Ken Starr's 'investigation' were a travesty and a transparent political attack if there ever was one. So Clinton was hauled in front of a Grand Jury to testify about his (extra-) marital conduct? That's ludicrous. Does that strike you as somewhat excessive? Do you think that's what Grand Juries are there for? Or maybe it's worth the attention of the Supreme Court? Ah never mind - just guessing: Clinton was bad, and whatever it took to get him gone, good?

The R's at the time were determined to impeach Clinton, for whatever reason came along. They hated him with passion, still do I guess. The man had to go. His indiscretion was just the juiciest area of attack, a sex scandal after all (sex sells), and also chosen probably because the issue of Lewinski had a good appeal to the Christian Right because it attacked Clinton's alleged immorality. The R's certainly played to their base on that one.

So the man is a womaniser? And he tried cover it up? High crimes! Misdemeanours! Horrors! R's would never do that. Under their SOP they would first lie, then when confronted with the evidence repent and go to rehab to emerge immorality free and wave the certificate around like a fetish. Look! I went to rehab! I'm cured! I'm a new person! To make matters worse, Bill Clinton dared deprive the R mob of that entertaining spectacle? What a bastard.
Dour, no-fun people like Bob Barr, renowned for pressing impeachment charges in congress, still are angry about infidelity having been singled out because he and his people saw that as basically the non-issue about Clinton. Barr was really upset about him iirc taking Chinese campaign money and letting technology get to China or something of that sort, and Barr indicates that that wasn't made the issue because R's did about the same.

 

"Quality assistance"?

Did you come up with that or was it in the dialogue at the time of the scandal? That is the funniest thing I've heard all day. I'm gonna be snickering about that one hours from now.

Anyhow, I see it as a kind of Al Capone technique. They couldn't get Clinton for some of his other tricks (wasn't there a land deal that was shady? I never heard of the Chinese thing you mentioned) so they nailed him on something they could actually get hold of. Just like Capone and the income tax thing.

Now, should they have impeached Bush after finding out that there were no WMD? Well, I think it should have been talked over more, yes, though he had himself well shielded. But . . . .

However you spin it, Clinton perjured himself. Would any of the millions of men in the world who fool around do the same? Yup! But it doesn't make doing it right. The Republicans laid a trap for him that he wouldn't have fallen into had he been a little smarter and self-controlled.

I hope they manage to crucify Rove on this, though. Clinton at least answered subpoenas, even if he later lied on the stand. Rove doesn't even have the testicular fortitude to face his enemies. Cowardice is not cool.

 

Just to be clear - I wasn't saying he didn't commit perjury - he absolutely did. I'm not spinning anything, just clarifying the factual record. I agree with most of what you're saying, LKD - but to me it's a matter of comparison and perspective. Comparing what the Clintons did - Whitewater scandal (maybe), a blow-job (definitely), a few other mini-scandals that have never been substantiated - to what Bush's administration has done - politicizing the justice department, lying about WMD's, outing a CIA agent, awarding no-bid contracts to companies with direct financial ties to the administration, populating the entire government with incompetent political hacks, ignoring over 750 different laws passed since Bush took office, warrentless wiretapping, making torture official US policy, etc. etc. for hours...it's clear to anyone with a little perspective which administration has done more damage to this country's image, both long and short term, through their flagrant abuse of power. All administrations are guilty of it to varying degrees. But as I said, the Clintons were potzers compared to the Bush administration. Hell, if the Clintons had 9/11 to use as an excuse for everything, things may have turned out worse on their watch - we'll never know.

Maybe we should start a "Who was worse - The Clinton or Bush Administration - and why?" thread, so this doesn't get derailed any more than it already has.

 

So, any chance Rove might actually be, I don't know, mildly inconvenienced for deciding it's not worth his valuable time to testify before Congress?

 

His time is valuable. He get's about $ 40.000 per speaking event.

Of course, congress is making a mockery out of themselves with their unparalleled resolve: "This is outrageous. He is in contempt. The next time we'll kick his ass. Perhaps. If we deem it politically expedient in the larger context of coming elections."

When I hear Conyers' voice, which sounds as if he will fall asleep any second, I can't help thinking that with that much audible effort, energy and determination, they deserve contempt.