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.

 

Nancy Pelosi says: ‘I could have arrested Karl Rove on any given day’

page: 1
4

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 02:20 AM
link   
This one is Really "Out There" !!

Nancy takes the blue ribbon again.

She says she could have arrested Karl Rove, who was an adviser to George Bush, and is currently a Fox News commentator.

She rambles on and on in an obvious attempt to deflect from the Eric Holder contempt of Congress charges and the obvious cover up by Obama by invoking executive privilege on the matter of those "missing papers" that Holder refuses to release related to the Fast & Furious mess.


House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi attacked House Republicans for pursuing contempt of Congress charges against Attorney General Eric Holder on Wednesday.

“I could have arrested Karl Rove on any given day,” Pelosi said on Wednesday, The Huffington Post reports. “I’m not kidding. There’s a prison here in the Capitol. If we had spotted him in the Capitol, we could have arrested him.”

“Oh, any number” of charges could have been brought against Rove, Pelosi said. “But there were some specific ones for his being in contempt of Congress.” ..........



and here is a hot potato:

Pelosi also criticized Republicans pushing for justice for Border Patrol agent Brian Terry — as House oversight committee ranking Democratic member Rep. Elijah Cummings has on numerous occasions — as “just strictly political.”
WHAT was that Nancy ?



She continues:

“It’s just the irresponsibility of the Republicans,” Pelosi said. “We want jobs. Why are they spending this time doing this?”

Pelosi attacked House oversight committee Chairman Darrell Issa too. “‘Loose cannon’ would sort of be like such a compliment to Darrell Issa,” Pelosi said. “‘Loose cannon’ would be a moderate phrase. This is an explosive device. It doesn’t serve our country, and it undermines the true purpose of contempt of Congress.”

“That’s why I didn’t arrest Karl Rove when I had the chance,” Pelosi added.
Huh ??


There's a difference Nancy !!

It’s unclear if Pelosi is aware Rove did not serve in a Bush administration position that’s identical to Holder’s in the Obama administration. Rove was a senior policy adviser — a position that’s more similar to Valerie Jarrett’s or David Axelrod’s on President Barack Obama’s team. Holder is the attorney general, the top law enforcement official in the United States. Pelosi spokesman Nadeam Elshami wouldn’t answer when The Daily Caller asked if Pelosi was aware of the distinction.

Rove was not immediately available for comment.


Source from The Daily Caller
 


Response from Karl:
(includes a video)

"She's absolutely dead wrong," Karl Rove said in response to a report that House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said she could have arrested him "on any given day" during her party's investigation of the U.S. Attorney scandal.

"Let's go back. June, July 30th (2007) the House Judiciary Committee votes to hold me in contempt for the White House declaration that I could not be subpoenaed to discuss internal White House deliberations. And they recommended to the House that I be held in contempt, but the House of Representatives under then-Speaker Pelosi never took up the resolution and never voted on it," Rove said on Wednesday's broadcast of "On the Record with Greta van Susteren" on FOX News.

"The only way I could have been arrested is if the House adopted the resolution, which it did not. So, it's nice to know that Speaker Pelosi wanted to have me arrested. It's nice to know that she thinks she had the power to but we're still a nation of laws and she has no authority to do so and had she attempted to arrest on any of the number times that I was in and out of the Capitol, without a resolution passed by the entire House of Representatives she would have been up the proverbial creek without the proverbial paddle," Rove said......


The punchline:

"You know, she sounds a little bit like Inspector Clouseau and a little bit about the Mad Red Queen, but Speaker Pelosi was dead wrong in her assertion today and I'm sure she had a good laugh and it's nice to know that she dreams of slapping me in her own personal jail. But she didn't have any authority to do it," Rove added.


source from Real Clear politics

Classic Nancy:
"she sounds a little bit like Inspector Clouseau and a little bit about the Mad Red Queen"
..... But she didn't have any authority to do it




Major desperation is underway !!





posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 03:07 AM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 


deflection? if anything, I think she's pointing out that when in a similar situation, she didn't push the issue.

she could have brought it to full vote, and probably would have been successful--it wouldn't have been difficult to override the exec. priv. protecting rove at the time.

more interesting, the matter was resolved in private testimony to obama in early 2009.



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 03:55 AM
link   
It sucks when you try and battle with someone smarter than you.

But, in retrospect, I would of Citizens arrested Rove, Bush, Clinton, Obama, Bieden, ohhhh this list could go on and on.



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 04:11 AM
link   
Karl Rove a true piece of human scum. And she's partly right she could have busted him at any time. He was in violation of 18 USC § 2340 Rove seems to have forgotten that torture was illegal.




posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 04:18 AM
link   
Well so far, all the responses are deflections too !!!



None of that has anything to do with the obvious Holder / Obama obstructions of justice


Keep going, you are doing great !

Thank God the Republicans got control of the House committees.

We never ever would have known any of this otherwise.



Karl Rove has zero to do with any of this



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 04:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by xuenchen
Well so far, all the responses are deflections too !!!



None of that has anything to do with the obvious Holder / Obama obstructions of justice


Keep going, you are doing great !

Thank God the Republicans got control of the House committees.

We never ever would have known any of this otherwise.



Karl Rove has zero to do with any of this




The article is about prosecuting Karl Rove not Eric Holder. Next time you want to whine about Holder then post an article about him not someone else.



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 04:55 AM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 



Well so far, all the responses are deflections too !!!



None of that has anything to do with the obvious Holder / Obama obstructions of justice


Actually, no, they aren't deflections, it's what's in the op that people are responding on.

As far as Holder, it's Holder's problem alone, and no amount of FOX News spin is going to put this on the President. That's the real crux of the right winger's angst here. Not that Holder did anything wrong, but what the right wingers can do to pin it on Obama.

And if it's fine for Bush to use executive privilege to protect HIS cronies, it should be equally fine for Obama to use executive privilege to protect his. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Has Holder done something illegal? Maybe

Should Holder be held accountable for his actions? If he has done something illegal, then yes.

Is this any way Obama's fault? No



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 04:56 AM
link   
reply to post by buster2010
 


one more


The first paragraph of the story:

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi attacked House Republicans for pursuing contempt of Congress charges against Attorney General Eric Holder on Wednesday.




Nancy is deflecting the cover up issue.

They're all desperate.

Get ready for "Romney two term"

Obama is blow'n it big time.



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 05:10 AM
link   
reply to post by HauntWok
 




Has Holder done something illegal? Maybe

Should Holder be held accountable for his actions? If he has done something illegal, then yes.

Is this any way Obama's fault? No


Holder is technically guilty of Contempt of Congress.

Obama's executive privilege makes it obvious that a cover up is/has been in progress.

No denying it.


Statutory proceedings

The criminal offense of "contempt of Congress" sets the penalty at not less than one month nor more than twelve months in jail and a fine of not less than $100 nor more than $1,000.[9]

While the law pronounces the duty of the U.S. Attorney is to impanel a grand jury for its action on the matter, some proponents of the unitary executive theory believe that the Congress cannot properly compel the U.S. Attorney to take this action against the Executive Branch, asserting that the U.S. Attorney is a member of the Executive Branch who ultimately reports only to the President and that compelling the Attorney amounts to compelling the President himself. They believe that to allow Congress to force the President to take action against a subordinate following his directives would be a violation of the separation of powers and infringe on the power of the Executive branch. The legal basis for this belief, they contend, can be found in Federalist 49, in which James Madison wrote "“The several departments being perfectly co-ordinate by the terms of their common commission, none of them, it is evident, can pretend to an exclusive or superior right of settling the boundaries between their respective powers.” This approach to government is commonly known as "departmentalism” or “coordinate construction”

Others believe that, under Article II, the principal duty of the President is to execute the law; that, under Article I, the law is what the lawmaker—e.g. Congress, in the case of statutory contempt—says it is and the Executive Branch cannot either define the meaning of the law (such powers of legislation being reserved to Congress) or interpret the law (such powers being reserved to the several Federal Courts); any attempt by the Executive to define or interpret the law would be a violation of the separation of powers; the Executive may only—and is obligated to—execute the law consistent with its definition and interpretation; and if the law specifies a duty on one of the President's subordinates, then the President must "take care" to see that the duty specified in the law is executed. To avoid or neglect the performance of this duty would not be faithful execution of the law, and would thus be a violation of the separation of powers, which the Congress and the Courts have several options to remedy.

wiki



Karl Rove was never in Contempt of Congress


Nancy Pelosi literally flew off the handle on this one



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 05:15 AM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 


Executive privilage does not mean there's a cover up. It's the same thing as you or I envoking our 5th Amendment right to not have to testify against ourselves.

Holder's problems aren't Obama's. It doesn't work that way, no matter how much FOX News wants it to be true, it's just not.

Holder may indeed be guilty of contempt of congress, and if he is, he should face the penalty for that. But to try and paint Obama with that brush just doesn't work.



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 06:33 AM
link   
Good ole Nancy she is a piece of work. Do any of you realize she is supporting Rangel's re-election bid? You know the guy who was censured by the house? So she has a very selective view on whats right or wrong. Holder has had plenty of time to hand over the documents, he chosenot to! But Holder is a Obama bundler!!! link Hmm I wonder why he is getting a pass
Since this investigation has been going on for some time and the typical person knows next to nothing about it, I wonder why the sudden BS of the GOP playing politics has come from. Desperation?!? I have threads going back to January of 2011 about this investigation. thread SO for Pelosi to open her trap like this and deflect what would have been droned on if Bush had done it, is showing who is really playing politics!!!



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 09:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by HauntWok
As far as Holder, it's Holder's problem alone, and no amount of FOX News spin is going to put this on the President. That's the real crux of the right winger's angst here. Not that Holder did anything wrong, but what the right wingers can do to pin it on Obama.



Then why has the president inserted himself into it by covering Holder with presidential executive privilege? Your argument was already invalid, but it certainly became so when Obama exerted executive privilege.

/TOA
edit on 21-6-2012 by The Old American because: Misread context.



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 10:39 AM
link   
Well. If she could have then why didn't she? I'm sure there were mutual interest(s)/agenda(s) tied to both parties back then. The old bat could have went for it back then. What about it now? That presidency is over. I'm sure they all could have done better in the 'past'. Its her way of deflecting the media and the voters in general away from this specific issue with F&F. Besides Karl Rove wasn't the Attorney General. He even resigned in 2007. There is a big difference between a political advisor lyeing vs the Attorney General who is the Chief 'LAW' enforcement officer. Finger pointing by the bat isn't going to cover this mess in anyway. What a bunch of idiots some of the politicians in Washington can be. Its a shame that we have such idiots in DC representing the citizens. I'm sure the international community is ROFLing on US Politics.

If this party bickering continues, then definitely the country will be in trouble and ignored. The big picture should be the Country itself and not the party politics and ego trips. Day by Day, the MSM has managed to turn politics into a soap opera of sort (all for ratings mainly in addition to playing the sides).

US Attorney General
Karl Rove
edit on 21-6-2012 by hp1229 because: add content.

edit on 21-6-2012 by hp1229 because: add content

edit on 21-6-2012 by hp1229 because: add content



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 01:31 PM
link   
reply to post by The Old American
 




Then why has the president inserted himself into it by covering Holder with presidential executive privilege?


No one can be 100% sure as to why another person did anything. Maybe Obama wanted to.


Your argument was already invalid, but it certainly became so when Obama exerted executive privilege.


Actually no, it's not, my argument is very valid. The fault over F&F is Holder's alone, and doesn't have anything to do with Obama. Just because he invoked executive privilege, still doesn't tie him in with Holder lying to congress. Obama didn't possess the body of Eric Holder and force him to lie to congress. Holder could have said any number of things.

You want this to be totally to blame on Obama. But wishing for something doesn't make it true, no matter how hard you wish it. The fall is going to go to Holder alone.

Just because someone doesn't agree with your political views, doesn't make anything they say invalid. I know that right wingers detest the 1st Amendment and therefore by proxy the US Constitution, but just because I decent from your opinion neither makes my opinion wrong, nor does it make it invalid.

I personally don't understand the whole hubbub about F&F, I thought right wingers liked guns and think that everyone should have one. Doesn't seem to me like you're working in your best interests here. Mexico isn't our enemy, and the Drug Cartels certainly aren't the enemy of millions of Americans who buy their products every day. I don't understand why Right wingers hate the cartels anyway, that's free enterprise at it's most basic. It's what you want when you call for no regulations, no EPA, no labor laws, no OSHA. That's what you get, but for some reason you don't like people who operate entirely on the free enterprise system Right Wingers often tout as the best thing since sex.

Aren't guns good?
Isn't Free Enterprise good?
Isn't competition good for business?
Isn't government staying out of the affairs of private corporations good?

Sounds very hypocritical to blame Holder for doing something in your best interests if you ask me.

Oh, that's right, FOX News tells you it's bad, so you believe it's bad.



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 01:41 PM
link   
Never have seen the left miss an opportunity to "arrest" people, and during the Bush administration so if Pelosi had something she would have used it everyone knows that.

Pelosi gotta laugh cause people are still trying to fight the last election, and they already won it, which didn't turn out very well for us, or 50 thoudsand Mexican nationals or Brian Terry.




top topics



 
4

log in

join