White House mum on Karl Rove

They'll follow Reagan's lesson in the Iran/Contra scandal; stall for years then claim that it's old news.

My favorite part of the news conference was the reporters laughing at Scott McClellan. Every time they called him on his stonewalling, an angel got its wings.

When they talked about it there was no active investigation. Now that there is one there lawyers are telling them to not say a word.

Yeah, the ongoing criminal investigation pretty much assures that they won't be talking much.

As Rove is the modern incarnation of Machiavelli, I relish watching him squirm with uncharitable delight. I shouldn't enjoy anybody's discomfort this much -- I'm a person who felt sorry for Nixon during Watergate. I'll get around to being ashamed of myself eventually.

I personally feel knowledge and approval of Rove's illegal activities goes all the way up the food chain. Investigation for possible impeachment aught to be brought against the lot of them. If an investigation can be brought onto a president for diddling an intern with a cigar and lying about it, surely outting an undercover agent and then lying about it deserves a look as well.

-Ghoti

Why do so many people look down on Machiavelli? He was a great man and a great mind. Not some one I would want to cross swords. Some one I would want backing me. Fact is he was a man of his time. A time when the Pope was having sex with any thing that moved, even his sister who had his kids. I just don’t see why people dislike him so.

I get my people don’t like Rove, Bush, Chaney, Clinton, or Kerry but not a man Dead for so long that did nothing but right down what was really going on in the background.

As much as I think Karl Rove is the incarnation of Satan on Earth, I think he - and this administration - will get off scott free on this one.

Considering he's had the press core operating like circus seals all along, I think this whole exercise is being beautifully choreographed and executed by Rove - and he fully expects a slap on the wrist, at the absolute most.

Of course, I hope I'm wrong.

Machiavelli basically wrote the definitive instruction manual for tyranny. Even today, certain factions of the Christian Right study his writings for inspiration (the Bible being virtually no help in taking over and manipulating a government).

Feeling has no room in the law. Facts only.


If they did any thing wrong and from what I have read (not what the paper has told up but what they shown us) I don’t see what he did was giving her name for anything other then a CIA agant, that was public knolage because of her husbands job. Rove never said what kind of agent she was. But I think a legal investigation should be held to end it one way or the other. Out come does not mater for me other then it to be a just one what ever that is.


Clinton was impeached because he lyed under other for having sexual relations with her, not for having sexual relations with her. He was under oth in a court of law. This is a criminal act. This is a act that would get most people fines at best and jail time at worce. He being a lawyer makes that worce because he KNOW what he was doing.

Bush administration stating Rove did not outting an undercover agent even if they know he did is just a lie. Lieing is not agnast the law. They are not under oth they were not talking to investigators so you can’t even get them on Obstruction of Justice. That means even if Bush knew and athorived then “missdirection” of the public it is not a impeacheable offence and even if the impeachment proses started they will not impeach him on this as they did Clinton. If they did they would not removed them from office they would Censher him as they did Clinton.

No he also wrote the definitive instruction manual for being a prince. I take what he said to hart. One thing I think most people in the US look down on that I find great is what he said about being able to talk. You don’t need to be a master in a topic to talk about it, you just can’t talk as a expert. Learn a little about every thing so you can hold a conversation with any one. Most people in the US will think you are a know it all but that is because in the US the art of conversation is a lost art.

Take the time and read the Prince. Stop reading what others say about him. He was a great man.

Clinton wasn't impeached. He was acquitted of all charges. The motion to censure failed.

If Bush knew and approved Rove's activity, he is guilty of a violation of U.S. Code and is most definitely impeachable. However, as the Iran-Contra affair proved, it's not hard to establish "plausible deniability"... and I find it plausible that Bush is out of the loop on most administration policy.

Arcadia I see you are like most people of the US and have no idea what the Constriction tells us and know nothing about the words we use.

First the definition of Impeach from Marian Webster Online
Main Entry: im•peach
Pronunciation: im-'pEch
Function: transitive verb
Etymology: Middle English empechen, from Middle French empeechier to hinder, from Late Latin impedicare to fetter, from Latin in- + pedica fetter, from ped-, pes foot -- more at FOOT
1 a : to bring an accusation against b : to charge with a crime or misdemeanor; specifically : to charge (a public official) before a competent tribunal with misconduct in office
2 : to cast doubt on; especially : to challenge the credibility or validity of <impeach the testimony of a witness>
3 : to remove from office especially for misconduct
- im•peach•able /-'pE-ch&-b&l/ adjective
- im•peach•ment /-'pEch-m&nt/ noun

All but #3 would count in the statement of mine that Clinton was impeached.

The U.S. Constitution makes the following provisions for the impeachment of federal officials:

Article I, Section 2
Clause 5: The House of Representatives shall choose their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

Article I, Section 3

Clause 6: The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

Clause 7: Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

Article I, Section 2 Clause 5 was done. Article I, Section 3 Clause 6 is were it ended. The Senate decided that he would never be remove him or disqualify him from holding a office again. So they dropped it.

He was then censure in lue of the trial. Censure only means they disapprove of his action but have no legal grounds for conviction. Meaning they said you are bad boy but you are not guilty of braking the law. It was then haneded over to the Lawyer Bar Aociation for action and he lost his right to act as a Lawyer for X years (off hand I do not remember the number of years I think it was 2 but don’t quote me on that)


Did I ever say that Bush know? I stated that if Bush know and approved of the misdirection of us. Meaning is he new after the fact and moved us the public away from the truth in the same time working with the investigation with full disclosure then he has not stepped out side the law. He can walk that like were most of us would see it as braking the law but really it is with in the law as it is written. This is my problem with the “Un”Patriot act. As it is written there is to much wiggle room and is at the core unjust and unconstitutional (if used that way but because the intent is not that way it passes the constitutional muster at this time).

Correction:

On December 19 1998, following much debate over the constitutionality of the proceedings and whether or not Clinton could be punished by censure rather than impeachment, the House of Representatives held its historic vote. Clinton was impeached on two counts, grand jury perjury (228–206) and obstruction of justice (221–212), with the votes split along party lines.

The Senate Republicans, however, were unable to gather enough support to achieve the two-thirds majority required for his conviction. On Feb. 12, 1999, the Senate acquitted President Clinton on both counts. The perjury charge failed by a vote of 55–45, with 10 Republicans voting against along with all 45 Democrats. The obstruction of justice vote was 50–50, with 5 Republicans breaking ranks to vote against.

So you were right he was not Censured because they Impeached him instead.

us untied stats r in teh dum.


Keep up the bigotry! You are great at it!

I am not a bigot. I stated my opinion based on the facts I have. Was she wrong what he impeached? Yes. Does most people think he was? No, most people in the US I have talked to think impeachment is taking him out of office. It does not mean this and that is the problem. We in the US have the best opportunity. We have some of the lowest voter turn outs. We know little of how are government works. This is a problem. I don’t judge people because they don’t know better. Really I think Arcadia even if Arcadia does not know what impeachment is under US Constitutional law. My wife didn’t and I feel she is one of the smartest people I know. So no bigotry just laying the fact. When I am wrong I post I am, see my correction. One should never be afraid to admit when they are wrong or to be shown they are wrong. Ignorance is not a mark of some one intelligence. The act of refusal to learn that you are wrong is to stay ignorant and that is a mark of stupidity in my book.

If we got rid of Rove who would we get to lead the country!?

Fine. I'll restate it. The articles of impeachment against Clinton were voted down in the Senate, ending the impeachment process. The censure vote against Clinton failed. The Arkansas Bar Association disbarred him for a period of five years; this was an independent action, not something initiated by any Congressional act.

Bush could be (and I'm not saying he is) an accessory after the fact to a criminal act in violation of Federal law.

Article I, Section 2
Clause 5: The House of Representatives shall choose their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.
House of Representatives votes:
grand jury perjury (228–206)
obstruction of justice (221–212)
This is impeachment on two counts. Senate actions are after the impeachment. He was cleared of the Impeachment Charges by the Sent but that still means the House Impeached him.
I already correct my self on the censure.


Could but most likely we will never know. I would love to see Bush removed from office. I just want it for a hard and fast rule. That way Rush and Hanity are not on the radio talking about how unjust it is. I want it to be in there face.

Well Bush second Picks are normally better. I mean I will take Alberto Gonzales over John Ashcroft any day. That is not to say I like Alberto Gonzales sadly I know little about him.

Replace the targets of your bigoted generalizations with some other social groups, and let's see how far you get.

Your role as a "Most Americans are ______ " fashionista is mind-numbing. Cater your words to specific people and the ideas that they express. I am not a patriot by any stretch of the imagination, but you could talk about 'Arcadia's perceived ignorance' (which is absolutely ridiculous, Arcadia being one of the most lucid people on this forum) without marginalizing an entire country. Your line of thinking regresses into bullshit rhetoric that isn't too isolated from "most blacks, most gays, most blah blah blahs"

But keep watching Fox News, dude! Throw in a little Google.com and you could be a pundit!

This is the most exciting non-news thread I have ever read! As a great philosopher once said... Where's the beef?

Until someone shows some concrete proof, it is all speculation… i.e. guessing. If I were gonna guess Rove probably wasn’t the one anyway. It would be someone much more embarrassing to the NY times. Anyhoo, to accuse Rove and or President Bush of anything with NO PROOF is irresponsible slander at best,


Duuuu… we be to toopid

Billy, I would love to hear your perspective concerning the movie, Bush's Brain.

It paints a very interesting picture of Mr. Rove.

I'd like hear opinions about it from Republicans like you and Lecktor (the ones that I respect)

dictionary.com gives better word usage of impeach and impeachment than miriam webster (or you didn't quote it).

"Usage Note: When an irate citizen demands that a disfavored public official be impeached, the citizen clearly intends for the official to be removed from office. This popular use of impeach as a synonym of “throw out” (even if by due process) does not accord with the legal meaning of the word. As recent history has shown, when a public official is impeached, that is, formally accused of wrongdoing, this is only the start of what can be a lengthy process that may or may not lead to the official's removal from office. In strict usage, an official is impeached (accused), tried, and then convicted or acquitted. The vaguer use of impeach reflects disgruntled citizens' indifference to whether the official is forced from office by legal means or chooses to resign to avoid further disgrace."

Frankly, I like to refer back to what happened to Nixon when I think of impeachment as what the word means to Americans. Like many words we use, it has two meanings, both are right. Nobody cares Clinton lied about a BJ. I would too.

As to the Rove thing, who the hell protects Karl Rove as a source? Especially a journalist?? I mean . . . Come on . . .

Sorry, but I have not seen the movie but I guess I can comment on it from the quote on the cover, "Who is really running the country".

Who indeed? Every President has had their men behind the scenes who guide each President in his decisions and I am sure President Bush is no different. Sure, some Presidents are more hands on and others may delegate more responsibility. Personally, I would be very worried about a President who made pretty much any decision on his own. I am extremely happy that Bush, Clinton and the rest rely on others for guidance and would have a huge problem with them if they didn't.

I suppose I will leave my comments at that since I have not seen the move and really have no idea what it is about but judging again from the cover, I am quite sure it is a bias piece of work from an extreme left viewpoint made in a way to make GW look bad. I am equally as confident that you could substitute Clinton and his cronies for Bush and his and have pretty much the same thing.

I will try to run by blockbuster & rent it if you recommend that I do but I try not to do anything to give money to the creators of that kind of thing, liberal or conservative, because in my opinion those works are usually garbage that will continue to fuel the polarization that we now enjoy in the political arena.