It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Rove Contempt Vote Not To Come Until Later This Month

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 10 2008 @ 05:47 PM
link   

Rove Contempt Vote Not To Come Until Later This Month


www.cbsnews.com

(The Politico) The House Judiciary Committee is not likely to vote on a contempt resolution against Karl Rove until late this month, according to the panel's chairman.

Rove, the former White House deputy chief of staff and top political advisor to President Bush, refused to appear today before a subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee to testify on the "politicization" of the Justice Department under the current administration. Citing a claim of executive privilege by Bush, Rove did not show
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Jul, 10 2008 @ 05:47 PM
link   
So what do you think they will do?

Contempt of Congress?

OR

No Charges?



www.cbsnews.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Jul, 10 2008 @ 07:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by LDragonFire


So what do you think they will do?

Contempt of Congress?

OR

No Charges?



www.cbsnews.com
(visit the link for the full news article)


I hope that they wait on the contempt charge until the end of Bushes term. If they find him in contempt now and place a warrant on his head, he will undoubtly be pardoned. I could be totally wrong but i have a feeling that the reason that the Democratic congress appears to be dragging their feet on so many issues against the current admin, is so they will have more leverage after the November elections.

They dont have a large enough majority to overturn any controversial vetos and this leads me to believe they are waiting until Obama wins and they gain more seats in the House and Senate.

Same issue for the immunity vote that just happened. Although i think they should have pushed through the "no immunity" bill even though Bush would veto it. Just to send the message. Thats what people are not realizing abou the immunity bill, lets say they passed a bill that pulled the immunity from the telcoms, Bush would without a doubt veto the bill then it gets thrown back to congress and they need 2/3 majority to over ride the veto. Which would require a lot of Republicans to vote against the wishes of the President and their own party. Voting against your own party on big issues, in an election year, sends a really bad message(not implying that they shouldnt do whats right) to the constituents. If Republican voters see that the Republican politicians are not going to back their own, it can cause some Republican voters to lose faith in their own party and increases the chance that they vote for an Independent or god help us a.....democrat.

This is just my two cents on the issue and I feel like we will see more done to hold the administration accountable once there is a Democratic president and a larger margin for Dems in congress.



posted on Jul, 10 2008 @ 07:23 PM
link   
reply to post by iamcamouflage
 


You bring up some excellent points
thanks!!

I do think they must have a conviction before the president can pardon, but I may be wrong about this. Didn't Nixon get pardoned before a conviction?



posted on Jul, 10 2008 @ 07:53 PM
link   
reply to post by LDragonFire
 


You are correct, Nixon resigned when he knew there were enough votes for impeachment. Ford took over after his resignation and Ford pro-activily pardoned Nixon for any crimes commited while president. Which is BS if you ask me.

Thats another reason the dem congress is probably proceeding cautiously. If Bush was impeached, while in office, Cheney would pardon him from any crimes committed while president. A sitting president cannot pardon himself pro-activily so, if congress waits they will be able to bring up charges against the entire admin without worry of pardons. Same thing goes for charges for anyone in the admin. Scooter Libby is a perfect example. Scooter Libby wasnt pardoned, he was commuted, which just means the president revoked part of his sentence.

I believe a pardon will remove the conviction from your record and being commuted just allows for altering the sentencing, but not removing the conviction. But Scooter will probably receive a pardon at the end of Bushs term, thus clearing his crimminal record. Maybe the Dems learned a little something about investigating and convicting these thugs while the mob boss is still in office.




top topics
 
1

log in

join