0 members (),
9
guests, and
0
robots. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
Forums59
Topics17,129
Posts314,627
Members6,305
|
Most Online294 Dec 6th, 2017
|
|
There are no members with birthdays on this day. |
|
|
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 405
newbie
|
OP
newbie
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 405 |
Doesn't this board generally hold Congress in contempt?:: 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
stranger
|
stranger
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
|
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
|
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
|
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
newbie
|
OP
newbie
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 405 |
But counselor, where the "presumption of innocence"? 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.
Last edited by Harv3; 07/11/08 03:53 PM.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 405
newbie
|
OP
newbie
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 405 |
So what was the point you are attempting to make with this post? Read the masthead for a clue If you or I defied a congressional subpoena, what do you think would(or should) happen? And YOUR point would be? Don't you think it is rather telling that Mr. Rove has done this? No, do you and why?
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 405
newbie
|
OP
newbie
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 405 |
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!
Last edited by Harv3; 07/11/08 04:52 PM.
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 10,151 Likes: 54
veteran
|
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
|
Moderator Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 18,003 Likes: 191 |
But counselor, where the "presumption of innocence"? 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. 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: 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 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
|
|
|
|
|