Got feedback on the new design? We're Listening! Send us Feedback

Lawmakers vote to hold Bolten and Rove in contempt »

Posted by: ProudBlueTexan 8 months, 4 weeks ago

10.0

Scale of 1 to 10

Read: 181

Propped: 246

Comments: 226

Click Prop It to Raise Score

Prop it

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Senate Judiciary Committee voted on Thursday to hold two top aides to President George W. Bush in contempt of Congress for refusing to cooperate in its probe of fired federal prosecutors.

Read Full Story at news.yahoo.com

Join the Discussion

+ Add Comment

Comments So Far: 226

0%
tkyrchncs8 months, 4 weeks ago

Maybe the White House steps would do in place of a wall.
Reply
73 Replies
- 0%
  mcgrievysr8 months, 4 weeks ago
  
  Ah, you two are way too compassionate. :-)
  Reply
  72 Replies
  - 0%
    Locky128 months, 4 weeks ago
    
    Yup, when you have NO EVIDENCE the greatest thing to do is just shove 'em in a cannon. Brilliant.
    This is ANOTHER PHONY SCANDAL GOING NOWHERE.
    Just keep wasting time and taxpayer dollars chasing a witch hunt.
    Reply
    71 Replies
    - 0%
      time4change8 months, 4 weeks ago
      
      Just like all the time and $$ you repubs spent to harass Clinton......Ken Star never found anything !! These two need to be held accountable !!
      Reply
      2 Replies
      - 0%
        injest8 months, 3 weeks ago
        
        "These two need to be held accountable"
        Your statement here is perfect example as to why this so called scandal will go nowhere, and why congress is wallowing at 11% approval.
        "These two need to be held accountable"
        For what? Name it.
        
        Reply
        1 Reply
        
        0%
        vvv63vvv8 months, 3 weeks ago
        
        which part of the article don't you understand?
        Reply
    - 0%
      mcgrievysr8 months, 4 weeks ago
      
      Locky12----"Just keep wasting time and taxpayer dollars chasing a witch hunt"
      Well, the two greatest examples of squandering taxpayers' money were probably harassing Clinton(as time4change stated) and the Iraq fiasco. But you want to give Bolten and Rove a pass? Shameful!
      Reply
      1 Reply
      - 0%
        Grrr8 months, 4 weeks ago
        
        It would be shameful only if Locky weren't shameless.
        Reply
    - 0%
      donald518 months, 4 weeks ago
      
      Locky, ever the one to show his ignorance in spades!
      Reply
      48 Replies
      - 0%
        Locky128 months, 4 weeks ago
        
        Clinton committed perjury.
        Nothing of the sort will be found of Bush.
        I assure you.
        Reply
        47 Replies
        
        0%
        Beau78908 months, 4 weeks ago
        
        Read the story, Locky. It's not about Bush.
        Reply
        29 Replies
        
        0%
        Locky128 months, 4 weeks ago
        
        No wrongdoing will be found by ANYONE in the witch hunt. You can take that to the bank.
        Reply
        21 Replies
        
        0%
        jaspersneed8 months, 4 weeks ago
        
        You fascists can never SEE wrongdoing when it is committed by one of your fellow authoritarian, petty-tyrant heroes, or any of their henchmen. In your demented eyes supreme authority cannot BE wrong; the only wrongdoing possible is to voice opposition TO authority, no matter how egregious are that authority's moral transgressions, its flouting of the law and the Constitution, or its ever-widening quest for power and control over its citizenry.
        Reply
        16 Replies
        
        0%
        ProudBlueTexan8 months, 4 weeks ago
        
        Bravo!!!
        Reply
        
        0%
        Locky128 months, 4 weeks ago
        
        You Bush haters can never SEE him doing anything right only criminal. So then you're all left their scratching your heads wondering what just happened.
        I say again. NOTHING will come of this.
        Reply
        3 Replies
        
        0%
        cushi8 months, 3 weeks ago
        
        Do yourself a favor. Make a list of everything he's done "right" and everything he's done "wrong." Do the math, and then take your foot out of your mouth.
        Reply
        2 Replies
        
        0%
        injest8 months, 3 weeks ago
        
        Cusi said:
        "Do yourself a favor. Make a list of everything he's done "right" and everything he's done "wrong." Do the math, and then take your foot out of your mouth".
        Do yourself a favor. Make a list of all the alleged wrong doings of this President. Then make a list of all the charges that have ACTUALLY been filed (Spineless gutter snipes accusations don't count if no charges have been filed).
        Now list the ones that have been proven true in a court of law.
        Oh, Libby was never charged with leaking Plame's name. In fact no one has or will be charged with leaking Plame's name.
        Now do the math, how many proven? "zero"
        
        Reply
        1 Reply
        
        0%
        gamahuche8 months, 3 weeks ago
        
        Another low-attention-span dim-witted apologist who doesn't get that the story was NOT about the pretend-President GWB but about the people who are either his minions or his puppetmasters or both.
        
        Reply
        
        0%
        sailr8 months, 4 weeks ago
        
        WELL SAID! People like Locky have their heads so far up their smelly hole it is amazing. how can anyone continue to support the lieing bustards in the White House. Not just innocent lies, lies that get people killed including our troops! SHAME ON US AS AMERICANS THAT WE ARE NOT SCREAMING IN THE STREETS FOR BUSH AND HIS HENCHMEN'S HEADS ON A PLATTER!
        CLINTON LIED - NOBODY DIED!
        Reply
        8 Replies
        
        0%
        Locky128 months, 4 weeks ago
        
        Clinton lied, Bush didn't
        Now you remember that when this whole thing just goes away.
        Reply
        5 Replies
        
        0%
        VMan8 months, 4 weeks ago
        
        Bush didn't lie?!?!?
        http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Bush lies&btnG=Google Search
        Reply
        3 Replies
        
        0%
        Locky128 months, 4 weeks ago
        
        Nice Google quirk. But that can't be used in court.
        Reply
        2 Replies
        
        0%
        jaspersneed8 months, 3 weeks ago
        
        This isn't court. This is a discussion thread, where easily obtainable information can be freely presented to demonstrate the despicable lengths traitorous, lying fascists like yourself will go to in defense of the indefensible. It has long been clear where you and your fellow traitors stand on matters such as these. Now, finally, the chickens are coming home to roost. The very worst of the bad guys are starting to get some public heat, and their mendacious apologists are starting to squirm: "Nothing will come of this!"; "This will all go away!"; "You can't use it in court!" If it weren't so pathetic it would be comical. But unfortunately, fascism and people like you who wish for it are never comical.
        Reply
        
        0%
        gamahuche8 months, 3 weeks ago
        
        Interesting concept of honesty you have! Its a lie but it can't be proved to judicial standards becomes an un-lie?
        George Orwell wrote about people like you, not very kindly either.
        Reply
        
        0%
        djn3nunez38 months, 3 weeks ago
        
        ....Clinton lied, Bush didn't.
        Wrong. Both lied far and wide. Bush however has yet to lie under oath. In fact the little chicken hawk refuses to testify under oath. And he is trying to not allow any one from his administration to testify under oath as well. Congress should move to impeach both the President and the Vice President.
        Reply
        
        0%
        injest8 months, 3 weeks ago
        
        CLINTON LIED - NOBODY DIED
        Wanna bet?
        Iraq, WMDs, UN sanctions. 1998 Iraq liberation act to remove Saddam because of his WMDs and weapons programs.
        Fact : NO WMDs in Iraq after 1994 Clinton lied.
        OBL, WTC 93 bombing 170 people indicted, including OBL. Clinton claimed he got them all. That was a lie.
        OBL, Clinton has stated OBL was his highest priority.
        FACT: Clinton NEVER went after OBL. The ONLY ALLEGED attempt to get OBL was a Tomahawk Cruise missile strike against 6 camps and an aspirin factory.
        (The notion that you hit a moving target with a Tomahawk Cruise missile is absurd to the extreme).
        
        Reply
        1 Reply
        
        0%
        PapaWolf8 months, 3 weeks ago
        
        >>OBL, WTC 93 bombing 170 people indicted, including OBL. Clinton claimed he got them all. That was a lie.
        Do a simple GOOGLE search. OBL wasn't convicted of WTC-93 because - ready? - HE WASN'T INVOLVED!!!
        He even admitted that he got the idea for 9/11 from WTC-93, but he wasn't involved with it.
        And a Tomahawk Cruise Missile is a whole lot more than W's used to try to get OBL.
        Reply
        
        0%
        wtagg8 months, 3 weeks ago
        
        I think you need to look at the semantics of locky's statement. He stated that nothing criminal "will be found". In that regard, he is probably correct. The administration may have not hit home runs with intelligence information, but I think they have done pretty well in the plausible deniability department.
        Poor decision-making != criminal behavior. If so, then there are quite a few criminals from 2000 and 2004.
        Reply
        1 Reply
        
        0%
        jaspersneed8 months, 3 weeks ago
        
        "He stated that nothing criminal "will be found". In that regard, he is probably correct."
        Yes, he probably is, although that only further displays the moral bankruptcy of his position: i.e., he couldn't care less that criminal acts were committed, only that they will "not be found".
        And yes, the Bushco regime is extremely adept at covering their asses. They make Clinton look like a piker.
        Reply
        
        0%
        obiefrommuskogee8 months, 4 weeks ago
        
        Locky has evidently just gotten his prophet's licence and can PREDICT THE FUTURE now.
        Reply
        2 Replies
        
        0%
        Locky128 months, 4 weeks ago
        
        No, I just know a little more about the Constitution than you do, that's all.
        Reply
        1 Reply
        
        0%
        jaspersneed8 months, 3 weeks ago
        
        You don't know jacksh*t about the Constitution you sanctimonious little blowhard.
        Reply
        
        0%
        VMan8 months, 4 weeks ago
        
        Now,if there's nothing to hide, why don't they just show up and talk? Much less time and taxpayer dollars would be spent.
        Reply
        
        0%
        ONEMEMPHISDUDE8 months, 4 weeks ago
        
        Wrong Beau. It's ALL about Bush. It's another salvo in the Dem strategy of taking the Whitehouse in '08. It goes something like this:
        1. Harass a lame duck President at every opportunity to promote voter discontent with the current party. (facts are irrelevant)
        2. Promulgate psuedo pre-digested news stories like this one at every opportunity. (can you say Network Face time?)
        ...then...let the media do the rest.
        "News stories", such as this, are much less expensive than t.v. ads.
        Reply
        6 Replies
        
        0%
        Beau78908 months, 4 weeks ago
        
        You may be right that there's a political agenda behind it. But the fact remains--Rove and Bolton both obstructed a Congressional investigation.
        If a Democrat did this, you'd be outraged. How did you feel about the relentless investigations of the Clintons for eight years?
        Reply
        2 Replies
        
        0%
        ONEMEMPHISDUDE8 months, 3 weeks ago
        
        ...>>>If a Democrat did this, you'd be outraged. How did you feel about the relentless investigations of the Clintons for eight years?
        Reply
        
        0%
        injest8 months, 3 weeks ago
        
        But the fact remains--Rove and Bolton both obstructed a Congressional investigation.
        A Congressional investigation into what?
        If Bush were to cede to this BS EVERY President from now on would be subject to the same. Basic fact there has to be some crime or possibility of a crime in order to investigate. Even the dumbest dems should realize buy now there is no some crime or possibility of a crime.
        If there were they would state it. They haven't get a clue.
        
        Reply
        
        0%
        sailr8 months, 4 weeks ago
        
        You poor deluded brainwashed poor excuse for a human. Find a brain cell. What it is really about is doing what is right, regaining our dignity as a nation, enforcing our laws, and prosecuting and imprisoning those that damage our country and our people. BUSH FITS ALL THOSE CRITERIA!
        You been waterboarded or what?
        Reply
        2 Replies
        
        0%
        Locky128 months, 4 weeks ago
        
        Sad, Salir. Take it easy on the ad hominem attacks. I know you're frustrated but you know just as well as I do. Now say it with me: Nothing's Gonna Happen.
        You know you can dance to it.
        Reply
        1 Reply
        
        0%
        jaspersneed8 months, 3 weeks ago
        
        It is your insufferable snarkiness that invites ad hominem responses. And the fact that you are a traitor to America -- if you even are an American, a fact admittedly not in my possession. Dance to it, indeed.
        Reply
        
        0%
        tkyrchncs8 months, 4 weeks ago
        
        It's harder to commit perjury when you barely speak English, Locky. When busy-bodies ask after your sex-life it is considered better form to lie than to knock their teeth out.
        Reply
        11 Replies
        
        0%
        Locky128 months, 4 weeks ago
        
        You poor deluded fool.
        Clinton was and probably still is a sexual predator. This goes beyond just two consenting adults in the oval office.
        You love Clinton as much as you are blind to Bush.
        And for Hillary to stand by a sexual predator makes her all the more phony.
        Reply
        9 Replies
        
        0%
        tkyrchncs8 months, 4 weeks ago
        
        I don't give a sh1t what consenting adults do sexually in private. And nobody entitled to be called a gentleman would ask, or answer. I care what kind of government our President runs, which is what we elect them to do, and Bush is either a blithering idiot, or a foresworn traitorous-war monger, or both. I find him a completely contemptible individual and president, worse than any elected official in my 50 yr memory, just short of being worth going to jail to remove from office.
        Reply
        4 Replies
        
        0%
        capecoralM8 months, 3 weeks ago
        
        Your suggesting that the President is all powerful (A Democrat(ic) Dream) and that the Congress has no say so in the matter. As many observe the understanding of the United States is lost in history lessons and basic Civic study. It is sad that some claim to know but display such ignorance over and over again. Perjury is a crime. Weather it is about a BJ or something else it is Perjury. For all that claim they are for justice for Rove is to ignore this fact. Perhaps you do not remember but the fact of the matter is that you and others prefer to base your debate on the Clinton Admin treatment and ignore what was one of the most corrupt admin's in history. Now where the hell were you when Clinton fired all 94 attorneys. Bush fires 8 and people are up in arms. This is a position that is appointed by the President and can be fired "FOR ANY REASON". These people served out their 4 year term. These people served at the will of the President. This is a political appointee.
        Reply
        3 Replies
        
        0%
        tkyrchncs8 months, 3 weeks ago
        
        I am making no suggestions of any kind. Do not give me the pseudo-christian crap that all sins are equal-I don't buy it. Rove and the rest are just jerk-wad yes-men, a way to get to the jerk-wad-in-chief. His permitting (encouraging?) his justice department to run rough-shod over people's rights is abominable, if not criminal. What he deserves is to be "rendered" by the citizens to somewhere in the third world for a little waterboarding, just for his signing statements alone. And they can quit when he admits that he fabricated evidence to establish a US military presence in the Middle East for the benefit of his friends, not in the interest of the security of the nation. One dose will probably be enough for the big weenie.
        Reply
        
        0%
        wtagg8 months, 3 weeks ago
        
        Yes, for any reason, but I am not sure they can make up false reasons. Poor performance doesn't fly considering their performance reviews prior to their firings. They should have just said they wanted to change direction and left it at that.
        Reply
        
        0%
        Lurch8 months, 1 week ago
        
        GFL cape,
        Where were you when GWB fired all 94 attorneys! All presidents do that at the start of their term.
        Bush fired 9 of his own because they would not be activist AGs and only go after DEMs while ignoring crimes committed by Republicans.
        The numbers of Dems prosecuted to Reps prosecuted under the Bush Justice Dept is staggering, especially considering that Reps held all branches of govt at the time and we know power corrupts.
        So, no, the president cannot tell the AGs to break their oaths to the USA to actively interpret the laws of this great nation in order to serve Bush`s political attack agenda.
        The AGs have to obey the law, that is the problem here. The AGs who obeyed the law, were fired, while the others went merrily on their political witch hunts against Dems.
        You seriously need a civics lesson.
        Oh news flash, Clinton paid for his perjury. Now, how about holding this admin accountable for a change?!
        Reply
        
        0%
        PapaWolf8 months, 3 weeks ago
        
        >>You poor deluded fool.
        Wait. Didn't you just tell Salir to "Take it easy on the ad hominem attacks" (see message 2007-12-14 01:30:02)?
        >>Clinton was and probably still is a sexual predator. This goes beyond just two consenting adults in the oval office.
        You also talk about no "proof" of Bush's wrongdoings, then you throw this "sexual predator" shtuff out - also with no proof. Where the he11 did this BS come from? Talk about no proof.
        Just FYI - having extra-marital affairs & being a sexual predator are 2 entirely different things. You see, Mark Foley is a sexual predator & pedophile; Bill Clinton is just a horny womanizer who has sex with CONSENTING ADULTS. See the difference?
        
        Reply
        
        0%
        PapaWolf8 months, 3 weeks ago
        
        (continued)
        >>And for Hillary to stand by a sexual predator makes her all the more phony.
        It's called working at a marriage. Unlike Rush, Newt & Gulliani, all of whom left multiple wives, not to mention Bob Livingston who also had extra-marital affairs (but don't know if his marriage broke up), Bill & Hillary are trying to save theirs.
        Reply
        2 Replies
        
        0%
        saintetienne8 months, 3 weeks ago
        
        "It's called working at a marriage."
        HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
        Oh my GOD, that's RICH!
        Those two dumb clucks haven't "worked at their marriage" since ugly Chelsea was hatched. They've clung to each other, used each other, clawed at each other, lied for each other, committed crimes for each other, and did alot of pretending for each other, but "working at their marriage"? Come ON PapaWoof, you don't actually BELIEVE that, do you?
        Reply
        1 Reply
        
        0%
        PapaWolf8 months, 3 weeks ago
        
        At least as much as you believe the current president holds "Good Christian Values," or that the current Republican Party is the "Party of Family Values".
        Or do you still believe that Newt Gingrich, Rush Limbaugh, Rudy Gulliani, & the rest still believe in the sanctity of marriage?
        Reply
        
        0%
        injest8 months, 3 weeks ago
        
        "When busy-bodies ask after your sex-life"
        Your stuck on Clinton still?
        Bill was being sued for SEXUAL HARASSMENT in the work place. What would be the relative questions, absent sex? How's the weather?
        Clinton apologizes
        Sep. 4: "I made a big mistake. It is indefensible and I am sorry.
        "I can't disagree with anyone else who wants to be critical of what I have already acknowledged is indefensible. There's nothing that he (Sen.Lieberman) or anyone else could say in a personally critical way that I don't imagine I would disagree with since I have already said it myself, to myself, and I'm very sorry about it, but there's nothing else I can say."
        Dec. 11: "What I want the American people to know, what I want the Congress to know, is that I am profoundly sorry for all I have done wrong in words and deeds," Clinton said. "I never should have misled the country, the Congress, my friends and my family. Quite simply, I gave in to my shame ."
        
        Reply
        
        0%
        VMan8 months, 4 weeks ago
        
        Hey, if there's nothing to hide, why don't they just show up and talk? Much less time and taxpayer dollars would be spent.
        Reply
        3 Replies
        
        0%
        tiredofwhiners8 months, 3 weeks ago
        
        They don't want to talk to idiots with 11% approval ratings. They can fire any incompetents they want to. Remember Howard Hughes when he showed up for a congressional hearing, blasted them and walked out? It was heart warming to see him defy the politicos of the day. He never showed up again.
        Reply
        2 Replies
        
        0%
        VMan8 months, 3 weeks ago
        
        Those "idiots" represent US, the people. What have they got to hide from US?
        Reply
        
        0%
        wtagg8 months, 3 weeks ago
        
        They better fire those that gave them their performance reviews. The prosecutors were hardly incompetent.
        Speaking of incompetent, I would think the same yardstick could be held to those that provided the fantasic intel over the last 6 years. Heck, might as well look into those that interpreted the intel and then stood by it when it was proven incorrect.
        Reply
        
        0%
        ADAGUY8 months, 3 weeks ago
        
        Have you been asleep for the last 7 years?
        Reply
    - 0%
      Beau78908 months, 4 weeks ago
      
      Witchhunt?
      This is the first paragraph of the article:
      "The Senate Judiciary Committee voted on Thursday to hold two top aides to President George W. Bush in contempt of Congress for refusing to cooperate in its probe of fired federal prosecutors."
      They refused to cooperate. The evidence is the fact that they ignored subpoenas. The evidence is a matter of public record.
      Reply
      4 Replies
      - 0%
        Locky128 months, 4 weeks ago
        
        Those attorneys work at the pleasure of the president and it will come out that those subpoenas contradict the independence of the executive branch.
        Nothing will come of this.
        Reply
        3 Replies
        
        0%
        Locky128 months, 4 weeks ago
        
        The funny thing is, all the negative votes in the world won't add any weight to this phony scandal.
        Reply
        1 Reply
        
        0%
        Beau78908 months, 3 weeks ago
        
        It doesn't matter what the investigation is about--those subpoenaed have to show up or present an argument to a judge (in this case, Congress) as to why they aren't.
        If you get a subpoena, you show up. To do otherwise is a crime.
        Reply
        
        0%
        StarLord8 months, 3 weeks ago
        
        You're missing the point.
        Congress has the right to demand that ANY member of the Executive or Judicial branches, up to and INLCLUDING the President himself, front before it, for any reason. These two refused to do so. Ipso facto, they are guilty of contempt of Congress, as laid out in the Constitution.
        I'd be saying the same thing if Clinton had refused to front before the impeachment proceedings (which failed in the Senate, BTW, and not on party-lines).
        Reply
    - 0%
      VMan8 months, 4 weeks ago
      
      If there's nothing to hide, why don't they just show up and talk? Much less time and taxpayer dollars would be spent.
      Reply
      9 Replies
      - 0%
        Locky128 months, 4 weeks ago
        
        The executive branch does have some privilege to keep certain things secret. It doesn't mean they're breaking the law. But congress issuing subpoenas is overstepping their bounds.
        This is nothing more than a pathetic attempt to bring Bush down and it just won't work.
        You read it here first.
        Reply
        8 Replies
        
        0%
        VMan8 months, 4 weeks ago
        
        Again, if there's nothing to hide...?
        Reply
        1 Reply
        
        0%
        Locky128 months, 4 weeks ago
        
        If congress could learn about every secret battle plan in Iraq and Afghanistan it would be in tomorrow's New York Times.
        Likewise, the presidency arrives at any number of decisions in a myriad of ways. Those processes aren't supposed to be transparent as much as we think they should be.
        This is just another ploy to keep Bush's approval ratings where they are. Nothing more.
        Reply
        
        0%
        sinophil498 months, 3 weeks ago
        
        Locky12 - You are right that a president invoking executive privelege is not, ipso facto, breaking the law. By the same token, I am sure you are intelligent enough to see that a president (any president) can invoke executive privelege to hide the fact that he or his staff has broken the law. Any exercise of power can covertly turn into abuse of that law.
        This is precisely where the use of checks and balances is needed to prevent abuse and prevent criminality by the executive
        Conversely, the abuse of the privelege will prevent the necessary investigation by a constitutionally appropriate power (congress). This is the conundrum facing us.
        I am sure conservatives would howl to the high heavens if Hillary Clinton ever did the same thing.
        The key word here that you yourself used is "privelege." It is not a god-given right. It is not a constitutionally named absolute power.
        It is the proper exercise of a constitutionally mandated function of the legislative branch.
        
        Reply
        4 Replies
        
        0%
        sinophil498 months, 3 weeks ago
        
        cont'd
        Bush's response is nothing more than a pathetic attempt to cover up felonious crimes by his staffers and possibly Bush himself.
        You are right that Bush may successfully brush aside the contempt charges. But that is not an act of glory for the greater good of the Republic.
        Rather it will be a sad, hollow victory that is a blow against open, honest government and against consitutional integrity.
        OJ Simpson got away with murder. I am afraid Bush will get away with constitutional abuse.
        Reply
        
        0%
        PapaWolf8 months, 3 weeks ago
        
        >>I am sure conservatives would howl to the high heavens if Hillary Clinton ever did the same thing
        No doubt. Don't you remember how loudly they screamed when Bill tried invoking EP? My ears still hurt from their uproar.
        Reply
        2 Replies
        
        0%
        sinophil498 months, 3 weeks ago
        
        Papawolf -
        Eehhh! Speak up louder, young man! Here. Stand in front of my ear horn.
        Reply
        1 Reply
        
        0%
        PapaWolf8 months, 3 weeks ago
        
        HUH! Somebody say something? What's that ringing in my ears?
        Reply
        
        0%
        DarkWizard8 months, 3 weeks ago
        
        In the past I've only ever seen "Executive Privilege" used for the President himself. Bush has determined it means anything he wants it to mean. Much like he has determined that he can interpret anything the way he wants to because he's the President.
        Next, if there is no case, then there wouldn't be charges and an investigation. So, just like with Clinton, something was going on and now we're going to find out what. If it's nothing then Rove and Bolton will walk away like Clinton did.
        Congress is not overstepping its bounds, but you are overstepping your knowledge of checks and balances and why there are 3 separate branches. If Congress has no authority to subpoena I'm sure the Supreme Court will let them know.
        So, why don't we let things unfold and see who is who and what is what?!
        Reply
    - 0%
      panzerv8 months, 3 weeks ago
      
      How's about all the money dumped into that bottomless pit of a "war" in the middle east? Besides, that money doesn't come from the taxpayers, it comes from the fed. Borrowed with interest. All our taxes do is pay the interest on this government's endless spending spree. They should be hung like the Nazi's they are. Especially Rove. This whole administration is a scandal.
      Reply
    - 0%
      Obaku8 months, 3 weeks ago
      
      All of a sudden you start talkin' 'bout "evidence?"
      LMAO
      Reply
0%
sailr8 months, 4 weeks ago

Oh, you're already getting ready to blame the Dems? Haha, you DOLT! Whoever wins in O8 won't take office til 09! Nice try.
Reply
0%
injest8 months, 3 weeks ago

"the president may ultimately prevail since"
Ultimately the President will prevail because there is NO possibility the president did anything wrong when he REPLACED POLITICALLY US attorneys.
The President, any President can replace any or all US attorneys at any time without cause.
The last press replaced all US attorneys at the start of his 1st term and 30 more through out both terms.
And yes the 30 he replaced were also US attorneys he had appointed to their

Reply
2 Replies
- 0%
  sinophil498 months, 3 weeks ago
  
  injest - Sigh! Why are you beating that dead horse?
  1) I do not know if it was LEGAL to fire US attorneys for a political advantage, but even most cons agree that there was political motivation behind the firings. Gonzales has not given a single, solid, alternative reason for those firings.
  2) At the START of his term Clinton asked for the resignation of 93 US attorneys in order to install attorneys that he wanted. JUST LIKE REAGAN DID AT THE START OF HIS TERMS.
  Through Clinton's 8 years of office, I know of only one firing midterm. That was an attorney who lost a big case, then got in a drunken bar fight and got arrested.
  Three attorneys that did not get fired were Robert Fiske, Kenneth Starr, and Robert Ray. Janet Reno had the authority to fire any of them at any time. Clinton never asked her to invoke that power.
  3) I remember reading somewhere that the controversy about Bush's was so objectionable that the DOJ Office of the Inspector General and the Office of
  Reply
  1 Reply
  - 0%
    sinophil498 months, 3 weeks ago
    
    Professional Responsibility launched their own internal investigation. I don't know the results of those investigations.
    4) Bush's desire for power is so great he tried to insert language in the Patriot Act to change the 120 day term for non-Congress approved interim attorneys to indefinite terms still not subject to congressional approval. Congress voted overwhelmingly to delete that article.
    Reply
0%
Blackacereturn8 months, 3 weeks ago

This is the start of things to come, I think all we need is to get one person who are willing to talk and this entire house of cards will come crashing down!
They are more criminals in this whitehouse than all others combine. These people should all be in jail!
Reply
2 Replies
- 0%
  cushi8 months, 3 weeks ago
  
  Accidentally negged your comment...meant to hit Good. So sorry.
  Reply
  1 Reply
  - 0%
    Blackacereturn8 months, 3 weeks ago
    
    that's ok cushi I am about the essence not the vote...thanks anyway lol
    Reply
0%
djn3nunez38 months, 3 weeks ago

....I like gays even less than yesterday!
Well you know what they say about someone who protests too much.
Latent in that little closet of yours huh snippy?
Reply
0%
dandt16128 months, 4 weeks ago

Good! Now I'd like to see some justice done. But I'm sure that Bush and his gang will do all they can to protect these thugs.

Wow, one more year of this affliction in the white house. I pray our country can take it. God only knows what this bunch of crooks have up their sleeves. I hope that someday everyone in this administration pays for what they have done to this country.
Reply
2 Replies
- 0%
  ProudBlueTexan8 months, 4 weeks ago
  
  I'm 3/4 through Sinclair's "It Can't Happen Here" and very clearly understand now the line from it: "It really didn't take much to kill democracy in America...."
  It was so pathetically easy.
  Reply
  1 Reply
  - 0%
    1-2-Oscar8 months, 4 weeks ago
    
    Perhaps you should read Lewis' novel of the same title.
    Reply
0%
Endoscopy8 months, 4 weeks ago

Seems to me these kind of things happened under Clinton and a few other presidents. It amounts to a lot of noise signifying nothing. They are under presidential privilege and it takes courts to remove that. Won't work since the people in question can be fired for having the wrong colored eyes.
This whole mess is just trumped up nonsense to try and embarrass the president and give nut jobs something to talk about.
Reply
50 Replies
- 0%
  tkyrchncs8 months, 4 weeks ago
  
  It'll be fun to see how far executive privilege can cover. Try to embarrass the president? How could anyone do a better job of that than he's done himself? We'd just like to keep him from embarrassing the entire nation further. And we'd like some honest answers. But we'll no doubt have to wait for another administration to get any of those.
  Reply
  22 Replies
  - 0%
    ONEMEMPHISDUDE8 months, 4 weeks ago
    
    ...yes. You really believe you'll get honest answers from another Clinton administration. ">>AH did NOT have SEX with that woman
    Reply
    21 Replies
    - 0%
      tkyrchncs8 months, 4 weeks ago
      
      Get with it, man. A bj is not sex-just ask any 15 yr old girl. LOL
      Reply
      19 Replies
      - 0%
        Locky128 months, 4 weeks ago
        
        Clinton asked many girls. Then lied about it under oath. Why? Because he's a sexual predator.
        Reply
        3 Replies
        
        0%
        tkyrchncs8 months, 4 weeks ago
        
        Locky, as poorly done as it all was on everyone's part, we have already dealt with all that, but we have a monster in the White House NOW. One who is getting Americans killed every day at huge expense and no advantage, and simultaneously stripping us of our rights and unconstitutionally extending the authority of his office. Perspective, my man, and priorities!
        Reply
        
        0%
        djn3nunez38 months, 3 weeks ago
        
        ...Because he's a sexual predator.
        A specious lie.
        At least Clinton wasn't incompetent. Bush and his cohorts have refused to testify. But I have a feeling that after he is out of office someday he and his cohorts will be compelled to testify, under oath. That will be fun.
        Reply
        
        baddad59Comment removed: User banned.
      - 0%
        ONEMEMPHISDUDE8 months, 3 weeks ago
        
        >>>"A bj is not sex-just ask any 15 yr old girl. LOL"
        Reply
        1 Reply
        
        0%
        ADAGUY8 months, 3 weeks ago
        
        If you asked the general public these two questions:
        "Does a woman lose her virginity when she performs a BJ on a man?"
        "If a woman has not lost her virginity, has she ever had sex?"
        It wouldn't matter what portion of the population you asked. The overwhelming response to both of these questions would be NO!
        This was the technicality that Clinton was using when he denied having sex with Monica.
        Whether you like it or not, most of the population would agree with this rationale, (until you asked a Clinton Hater)!
        Reply
      - 0%
        ONEMEMPHISDUDE8 months, 3 weeks ago
        
        ...."A bj is not sex-just ask any 15 yr old girl. LOL"
        You find this funny???? Just ask any physician about the consequences of casual sexual behavior. Ask them how tragic it is to tell an immature young girl that she has an incurable, potentially fatal disease. Even more tragic...that this was so preventable.
        Your ignorant attempt at humor promotes a dangerous attitude that has personal, financial, and social consequences that will haunt us for generations. This attitude is disrespectful of women.
        I assume that you do not have a daughter. G_d help her if its' otherwise.

Hello!

Lawmakers vote to hold Bolten and Rove in contempt »

Scale of 1 to 10

Click Prop It to Raise Score

Read Full Story at news.yahoo.com

Join the Discussion

Comments So Far: 226

tkyrchncs8 months, 4 weeks ago

mcgrievysr8 months, 4 weeks ago

Locky128 months, 4 weeks ago

time4change8 months, 4 weeks ago

injest8 months, 3 weeks ago

vvv63vvv8 months, 3 weeks ago

mcgrievysr8 months, 4 weeks ago

Grrr8 months, 4 weeks ago

donald518 months, 4 weeks ago

Locky128 months, 4 weeks ago

Beau78908 months, 4 weeks ago

Locky128 months, 4 weeks ago

jaspersneed8 months, 4 weeks ago

ProudBlueTexan8 months, 4 weeks ago

Locky128 months, 4 weeks ago

cushi8 months, 3 weeks ago

injest8 months, 3 weeks ago

gamahuche8 months, 3 weeks ago

sailr8 months, 4 weeks ago

Locky128 months, 4 weeks ago

VMan8 months, 4 weeks ago

Locky128 months, 4 weeks ago

jaspersneed8 months, 3 weeks ago

gamahuche8 months, 3 weeks ago

djn3nunez38 months, 3 weeks ago

injest8 months, 3 weeks ago

PapaWolf8 months, 3 weeks ago

wtagg8 months, 3 weeks ago

jaspersneed8 months, 3 weeks ago

obiefrommuskogee8 months, 4 weeks ago

Locky128 months, 4 weeks ago

jaspersneed8 months, 3 weeks ago

VMan8 months, 4 weeks ago

ONEMEMPHISDUDE8 months, 4 weeks ago

Beau78908 months, 4 weeks ago

ONEMEMPHISDUDE8 months, 3 weeks ago

injest8 months, 3 weeks ago

sailr8 months, 4 weeks ago

Locky128 months, 4 weeks ago

jaspersneed8 months, 3 weeks ago

tkyrchncs8 months, 4 weeks ago

Locky128 months, 4 weeks ago

tkyrchncs8 months, 4 weeks ago

capecoralM8 months, 3 weeks ago

tkyrchncs8 months, 3 weeks ago

wtagg8 months, 3 weeks ago

Lurch8 months, 1 week ago

PapaWolf8 months, 3 weeks ago

PapaWolf8 months, 3 weeks ago

saintetienne8 months, 3 weeks ago

PapaWolf8 months, 3 weeks ago

injest8 months, 3 weeks ago

VMan8 months, 4 weeks ago

tiredofwhiners8 months, 3 weeks ago

VMan8 months, 3 weeks ago

wtagg8 months, 3 weeks ago

ADAGUY8 months, 3 weeks ago

Beau78908 months, 4 weeks ago

Locky128 months, 4 weeks ago

Locky128 months, 4 weeks ago

Beau78908 months, 3 weeks ago

StarLord8 months, 3 weeks ago

VMan8 months, 4 weeks ago

Locky128 months, 4 weeks ago

VMan8 months, 4 weeks ago

Locky128 months, 4 weeks ago

sinophil498 months, 3 weeks ago

sinophil498 months, 3 weeks ago

PapaWolf8 months, 3 weeks ago

sinophil498 months, 3 weeks ago

PapaWolf8 months, 3 weeks ago

DarkWizard8 months, 3 weeks ago

panzerv8 months, 3 weeks ago