WE NEED YOUR HELP! Please donate to keep ReaderRant online to serve political discussion and its members. (Blue Ridge Photography pays the bills for RR).
Current Topics
2024 Election Forum
by perotista - 05/01/25 03:41 PM
Trump 2.0
by perotista - 04/30/25 08:48 PM
Who's Online Now
0 members (), 9 guests, and 0 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
Agnostic Politico, Jems, robertjohn, BlackCat13th, ruggedman
6,305 Registered Users
Popular Topics(Views)
10,266,991 my own book page
5,056,163 We shall overcome
4,257,663 Campaign 2016
3,861,447 Trump's Trumpet
3,060,298 3 word story game
Top Posters
pdx rick 47,433
Scoutgal 27,583
Phil Hoskins 21,134
Greger 19,831
Towanda 19,391
Top Likes Received (30 Days)
None yet
Forum Statistics
Forums59
Topics17,129
Posts314,627
Members6,305
Most Online294
Dec 6th, 2017
Today's Birthdays
There are no members with birthdays on this day.
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 405
Harv3 Offline OP
newbie
OP Offline
newbie
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 405
Doesn't this board generally hold Congress in contempt?::
Quote
WASHINGTON - Former White House adviser Karl Rove defied a congressional subpoena and refused to testify Thursday about allegations of political pressure at the Justice Department, including whether he influenced the prosecution of a former Democratic governor of Alabama.

Rep. Linda Sanchez, chairman of a House subcommittee, ruled with backing from fellow Democrats on the panel that Rove was breaking the law by refusing to cooperate — perhaps the first step toward holding him in contempt of Congress.[emphasis added][snip]

Last edited by Harv3; 07/11/08 09:30 AM.
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 165
A
stranger
Offline
stranger
A
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 165
So what was the point you are attempting to make with this post? If you or I defied a congressional subpoena, what do you think would(or should) happen? Don't you think it is rather telling that Mr. Rove has done this?


"When fascism comes to this country it will be draped in the flag and carrying a cross"-Sinclair Lewis
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 18,003
Likes: 191
Moderator
Carpal Tunnel
Offline
Moderator
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 18,003
Likes: 191
He belongs in jail along with his fellow co-conspirators. Unfortunately, the process will take too long, and the coverup is too thorough.


A well reasoned argument is like a diamond: impervious to corruption and crystal clear - and infinitely rarer.

Here, as elsewhere, people are outraged at what feels like a rigged game -- an economy that won't respond, a democracy that won't listen, and a financial sector that holds all the cards. - Robert Reich
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 27,583
Administrator
Bionic Scribe
Offline
Administrator
Bionic Scribe
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 27,583
Even if he is charged with contempt of Congress, don't you think a presidential pardon will be swiftly issued?


milk and Girl Scout cookies ;-)

Save your breath-You may need it to blow up your date.




Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 12,129
Likes: 257
Pooh-Bah
Offline
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 12,129
Likes: 257
>a presidential pardon will be swiftly issued

That's exactly why they need to wait until Jan 21, 2009 to start the process. A President can't pardon people in advance for crimes they have not committed before he or she leaves office. Congress just has to wait until then to start hearings and to issue subpoenas for all involved. THEN they will testify or rot in jail.

The net result will be that all the secrets of the Bush administration will come out, many will serve prison terms, Bush's legacy as the worst President ever will be confirmed by everyone but the hard core tinfoil-hat set, and few Republicans associated with that administration will ever be elected to any office again. I won't be surprised if a few journalists and talk-show hosts are also included among the disgraced and dismissed.

Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 405
Harv3 Offline OP
newbie
OP Offline
newbie
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 405
But counselor, where the "presumption of innocence"? wink
Originally Posted by NW Ponderer
He belongs in jail along with his fellow co-conspirators. Unfortunately, the process will take too long, and the coverup is too thorough.
NWP our resident legal eagle explains he is free to express his opinion concerning the guilt of Karl Rove and other un-named members of the ruling Bush*tlerburton cabal. Just as this correspondent is free to opine such is nonsense on stilts. LOL

Last edited by Harv3; 07/11/08 03:53 PM.
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 405
Harv3 Offline OP
newbie
OP Offline
newbie
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 405
Originally Posted by Allen Owen
So what was the point you are attempting to make with this post?
Read the masthead for a clue
Quote
If you or I defied a congressional subpoena, what do you think would(or should) happen?
And YOUR point would be?
Quote
Don't you think it is rather telling that Mr. Rove has done this?
No, do you and why?

Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 405
Harv3 Offline OP
newbie
OP Offline
newbie
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 405
Originally Posted by pondering_it_all
A President can't pardon people in advance for crimes they have not committed before he or she leaves office.
A very telling point indeed! wink

Last edited by Harv3; 07/11/08 04:52 PM.
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 10,151
Likes: 54
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 10,151
Likes: 54
Ah, but you see, that IS presumption of innocence. I would write it a bit differently, but I'm not writing at 2AM...

"A President can't pardon people in advance for crimes for which they have not been tried, before he or she leaves office."

If Rove is found guilty during the current administration, he is likely to be pardoned. If he is found guilty during the next administration, a pardon is less likely. If he is found innocent, he won't need a pardon at all, will he?

Although from my own point of view, strictly opinion, the words "Rove" and "convicted" fit together much more easily than "Rove" and "innocent." However, it's highly unlikely I'd be called to a jury, and if I was, I'd have to admit my prejudice (And I find the words "Rove" and "contempt" fit well, without regard to who is doing the "holding.")


Julia
A 45’s quicker than 409
Betty’s cleaning’ house for the very last time
Betty’s bein’ bad
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 18,003
Likes: 191
Moderator
Carpal Tunnel
Offline
Moderator
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 18,003
Likes: 191
Originally Posted by Harv3
But counselor, where the "presumption of innocence"? wink
I will not be serving on Karl Rove's jury, so no presumption is required. I would, however, gladly serve on the prosecution team. The presumption of innocence, my friend, only applies to the jury. Prior to that, it is necessary for the prosecution and associated systems to sort through the evidence with a dispassionate, open-minded view to determine whether probable cause exists to believe that a crime occurred. Then, of course, one can secure an indictment, move forward to trial, and eventually obtain a conviction.

Unfortunately, it is not true that one has to have been convicted to obtain a pardon. I can think of two infamous cases, not dissimilar from the current situation, where pardons were granted prior to conviction in order to cover up malfeasance and protect other co-conspirators. Caspar Weinberger was pardoned by George Bush I in order to prevent his having to testify about the President's involvement in the Iran-Contra conspiracy.
Quote
Following his resignation as Secretary of Defense, legal proceedings against Weinberger were brought by Independent Counsel Lawrence E. Walsh. A federal grand jury indicted Weinberger for several felony counts of lying to the Iran-Contra independent counsel during its investigation. Weinberger received a Presidential pardon from outgoing President George H.W. Bush on December 24, 1992.
Wikipedia
But that wasn't the whole of it:
Quote
Oliver North and John Poindexter were indicted on multiple charges on March 16, 1988.[54] North, indicted on 16 counts, was found guilty by a jury of three minor counts. The convictions were vacated on appeal on the grounds that North's Fifth Amendment rights may have been violated by the indirect use of his testimony to Congress which had been given under a grant of immunity. In 1990, Poindexter was convicted on several felony counts of conspiracy, lying to Congress, obstruction of justice, and altering and destroying documents pertinent to the investigation. His convictions were also overturned on appeal on similar grounds. Arthur L. Liman served as chief counsel for the Senate during the Iran-Contra Affair.[55]

The Independent Counsel, Lawrence E. Walsh, chose not to re-try North or Poindexter. Caspar Weinberger was indicted for lying to the Independent Counsel but was later pardoned by President George H. W. Bush.[56]

In 1992 George H. W. Bush pardoned six convicted administration officials, namely Elliott Abrams, Duane R. Clarridge, Alan Fiers, Clair George, Robert McFarlane, and Caspar Weinberger.[57]

George W. Bush selected some individuals that served under Reagan for high-level posts in his presidential administration.[58][59] They include:

* Elliott Abrams:[60] under Bush, the Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director on the National Security Council for Near East and North African Affairs; in Iran-Contra, pleaded guilty on two counts of unlawfully withholding information, pardoned.

* Otto Reich:[61] head of the Office of Public Diplomacy under Reagan.

* John Negroponte:[62] under Bush, served as the Ambassador to Iraq, the National Intelligence Director, and the Deputy Secretary of State.

* Admiral John Poindexter:[63] under Bush, Director of the Information Awareness Office; in Iran-Contra, found guilty of multiple felony counts for conspiracy, obstruction of justice, lying to Congress, defrauding the government, and the alteration and destruction of evidence, convictions reversed.
So, convicted of conspiracy, pardon by dad, hired by son. Hmmm... anyone see a pattern?

Oh, and the other infamous pre-conviction pardon? Gerald Ford's pardon of Nixon: Proclamation 4311
Quote
As a result of certain acts or omissions occurring before his resignation from the Office of President, Richard Nixon has become liable to possible indictment and trial for offenses against the United States. Whether or not he shall be so prosecuted depends on findings of the appropriate grand jury and on the discretion of the authorized prosecutor. Should an indictment ensue, the accused shall then be entitled to a fair trial by an impartial jury, as guaranteed to every individual by the Constitution.
....
NOW, THEREFORE, I, Gerald R. Ford, President of the United States, pursuant to the pardon power conferred upon me by Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution[*], have granted and by these presents do grant a full, free, and absolute pardon unto Richard Nixon for all offenses against the United States which he, Richard Nixon, has committed or may have committed or taken part in during the period from January 20, 1969 through August 9, 1974.

[*]"he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment."

Last edited by NW Ponderer; 07/11/08 01:54 PM. Reason: additional comment

A well reasoned argument is like a diamond: impervious to corruption and crystal clear - and infinitely rarer.

Here, as elsewhere, people are outraged at what feels like a rigged game -- an economy that won't respond, a democracy that won't listen, and a financial sector that holds all the cards. - Robert Reich
Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4

Link Copied to Clipboard
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5