White House mum on Karl Rove

What about the Clinton guy who was stuffing top secret documents down his pants relating to the Clinton lack of respose to terrorism? There has been no National outrage about that. And I for one am still curious about what REALLY happened to Ron Brown. Another thing no one seems to care about.

I was hoping you'd post, Billy - even though I disagree with some of your politics at times, your arguments usually are grounded in logic, and I respect them. I was really curious what a 'mainstream conservative' viewpoint was on this.

I agree - there isn't much in the way of proof on this. And if it stays that way, it may be all the more reason why my earlier prediction in this thread may come true.

My gut tells me, however - that Rove either did the action, or was the mastermind behind it. Why? No hard evidence, but from my understanding of how Rove operates in past political campaigns, he appears to be a hardball player - and something like this doesn't seem out of the realm of posibility for him. He seems have a reputation for 'punishing' those who stray from his agenda.

Enough for a guilty charge? Absolutely not. Just my gut, is all

First see how fare I care. I am not a PC person I speak my mind. If you don’t like that don’t read my post.


OK here.
Most Americans don’t vote in all elections.
Fact: Presadental elections has the highest voter of 60% for 2004. At 60% that was called a record turn out. 51.3% for 2000 and don’t forget 36.4 for 1998 and 49.1 for 1996 and 38.8 for 1994. From 1960 to 2004 the average voter turn out is 48.7%. So to say most people of the USA do not vote is a fair statement on the Presidential election and that is our highest election turn out. Can you justfy this as a unfair statement? I didn’t say all I said most.

Most Americans don’t understand there government
Opinion
Here is were it becomes a judgement call. But looking at some unscientific facts we can see were it falls. Watch Jay Walking and how many people don’t know who the VP is. Put on Howard Sturn as he asks a Celebery or the homeless a simple question about government and they can’t tell you. Ask people how many Presadents were impeached in US history. Some will say 2 and then ask who see how many will get that. Do you know? I do, Andrew Johnson (186
& William J. Clinton (1999) both Acquitted. Ask people how many Turms a Presadent can serve, every one I have asked in the last 5 years have said 2 but they can serve more uncensectavly. Truth 2 full terms but no more then 10 years total.


I am a Patriot, but Bush and his sheep would call me a Trator before calling me a Patriot. Bush needs to learn what a real Patriot is. Any one that voted for the Patriot act is not a Patriot.
Arcadia was wrong when she said Clinton was not Impeached. This is true and you can go read what she said and you can read the fact I posted.


What did I say that was so bad? That most (more then 50%) people in the US don’t vote? 48.7% backs that statement That people don’t under stand out own Government? Well I will stand by that statement show me proof that most do.


I don’t watch Fox News because they are a Conservative think tank not news. I am not a Conservative in any stretch of the imagination. Rush would call me a Lib. Liberals would call me a Conservative. I call my self a Libertarian and there is no room for that in the US today.

I would rather go back to law then what people think.

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)


I don't care about the BJ I care he lied about it in court. He was under oth. That bothers me. Other then that I would give him a High-5 for the Cigar and BJ.

It's not guessing that Cooper met with Rove and that he discussed the subject - Rove's attorney admitted as much. Nor is it speculation that Cooper has said that Rove revealed that "Wilson's wife" (Plame) was a CIA operative.

Nor is there any question that this meeting occurred five days after Wilson penned an editorial suggesting that the Bush administration manipulated intellegence to make the case for war. That doesn't prove that Rove knew Plame's identity was secret and that revealing it was a crime, but it does establish motive.

Rove may twist his way out of this - he is an evil genius, after all - but with any luck he'll at least dislocate something doing it. I'm hoping that something is the remains of this administration's credibility.

Of thirty-five attempts at impeachment, only nine have come to trial. Because it cripples Congress with a lengthy trial, impeachment is infrequent. Many officials, seeing the writing on the wall, resign rather than face the ignominy of a public trial.
The most famous of these cases is of course that of President Richard Nixon, a Republican. After five men hired by Nixon's reelection committee were caught burglarizing Democratic party headquarters at the Watergate Complex on June 17, 1972, President Nixon's subsequent behavior—his cover-up of the burglary and refusal to turn over evidence—led the House Judiciary Committee to issue three articles of impeachment on July 30, 1974. The document also indicted Nixon for illegal wiretapping, misuse of the CIA, perjury, bribery, obstruction of justice, and other abuses of executive power. "In all of this," the Articles of Impeachment summarize, "Richard M. Nixon has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as president and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice, and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States." Impeachment appeared inevitable, and Nixon resigned on Aug. 9, 1974.

But that is public records. All ferial Officials must make there financial statements for them self and spouse. That means that it was public record that she worked for the CIA, not what she did. Not once did Rove (From what I seen) said she was undercover, if he did that would be against the law and he should serve time.

Could be... who knows... lol.

Thanks for the compliments too. That is very kind of you.

Actually, I care. He *lied under oath*. I care about that.

And if you want to get right down to it, Nixon never stood trial for Impeachment. Clinton did. Nixon resigned rather than face the trial; it's possible, while perhaps unlikely, that he could have been cleared, if he had been willing to hang the watergate conspirators out to dry, which he wasn't. We will never know for sure. However, like Clinton, he would have been so disgraced after the trial, regardless of the outcome, that he would have been a largely innefective president.

*edit* Blech. Lupo beat me to it.

That is more than I deserve, but thank you for your support

But 'lucid' isn't the same as right, and it looks like the consensus among experts is that the President is "impeached" when proceedings begin, not when they conclude.

I'm by no means ignorant of the Constitution, but I am occasionally careless with my choice of words. I concede the point.

I think some of you are missing the point that lying about something that never should really be asked by a investigating comittee (did you, or did you not have a BJ by this person) is not as big a deal as many, many other crimes. Further, don't confuse the seriousness of the vague use with the nonseriousness of the legal use. Legally, being impeached just means someone thinks you did something wrong and is the process by which they investigate it. Vaguely, and in common usage, it means to throw someone out of office. So if you like the legal use in regards to Clinton, okay fine, but it doesn't really mean anything since he was aquitted of charges. That means that, like it or not, what he did was judged as "okay". As to Nixon, yeah, he resigned, he saved us the time and money of further lengthy trials. Frankly we won't know. I would be hard pressed to find a better historically criminally relevant president though, which is why he is such a good example.

Should Karl Rove resign? Or should we go find Ken Starr to investigate him until he lies about something inconsequential and then get him aquitted?

Book deals for all! huzzah!!

Has anybody found those public records? I would think that it would be counterproductive (to say the least) if unclassified documents revealed that a covert operative was employed by the CIA (in any capacity). I did a search online and couldn't find any evidence that such records exist, but perhaps I overlooked something.

If Rove didn't know Plame was undercover, then no crime occurred (the law only covers "knowingly" revealing her identity). But is it plausible that the brilliant, meticulous, precise Karl Rove would have gone into such a meeting without doing his homework?

But maybe he was having an off day. Coincidences happen. Maybe it's just a strange chain of coinicidences that ruined Plame's career and punished Wilson for blowing the whistle on the administration's lies.

Stay tuned.

I could be wrong that is why the question really (sorry hit . when I should have hit ?). I thought it was federal law that you had to make them public. That is why we found out about Clinton and White Water (I don’t care if they did any thing or not wrong just that is how it came up). I know Howard Stern was going to run for governor of NY till they said he had to make it public and then he dropped out. I could be wrong.

New question, she has been photographed with her husband for many years. How can she be undercover?

He didn't "just" lie.

He lied under oath.

Under oath.

That is a *big deal*, sorry. I'm not missing any "point".

She was under non-official cover. By its very definition, its a covert role.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonofficial_cover

People lie under oath every day, about much bigger things than getting a bj. Even big important people (who have far more power than a democrat president in a republican controlled america ever did). If you didn't miss the point, then your priorities are just wrong to place lying about a bj over lying about murder, lying about stealing, lying about (pff lots of things).

Being photographed wouldn't blow your cover. It'd probably be more suspicious if you went out of your way to avoid being photographed.

Plame wasn't an elected official; she was a spy. As a spy, I would expect that any financials she submitted would either be classified or falsified. Unless she had business interests, the only financials on file for her would likely be income tax returns. I don't think her W-2s would be public information.

But I could be completely off-base. Every time I try to drive over to NSA headquarters to ask about spies and tax returns, I get swarmed by heavily-armed men who seem very angry about something.

Karl Rove is one of those political hacks - the Republican and Democratic parties both have them - who mistakenly believe that what seems good for the party is good for the nation. The worst offenders are often in the White House and equate the interests of the nation with the interests of the sitting executive. Rove and others like him have an immature and immoral sense of leadership, and lack the necessary perspective on their roles as democratic leaders of common people. The Bush administration is rife with these people, all the way to the top, and the "identity" story is one among many indicators.

Yes, he should go, and probably Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney with him, both of whom share his issues.

btw, Lupo was fairly correct about Machiavelli. He did not write a handbook on "tyranny". In his day, government was even more corrupt, chaotic, and ineffective than today, largely because there was no sense of standard or profession among leaders. Governing was based on the whim of those who murdered their way to the top, including popes. The Prince and other essays by Machiavelli tried to establish a definition of good leadership, methods of efficient government, and a baseline for professional standards. In The Prince you will also find the one of the first European attempts to outline the rights, privileges, and protections of the common citizen. Machiavelli was villified by European democratic revolutionaries, including Jefferson and Robespierre, because his arguments for order were used by monarchists as justification for crushing democratic reforms. That's why he has a (somewhat) undeserved reputation today, even though historians and political scientists regard him as one of the bright lights of the Renaissance.

It's all in the context.

Wow, that is disgustingly myopic! I didn't realize that I had browsed to http://rants.lupoclymer.com. This is a public forum where debate occurs. This isn't your blog.



I don't have an issue with percentages. I have an issue with sloppy and sweeping generalizations that do not cohere with percentages, such as:



What does that have to do with your percentages? Stop projecting your lack of coherence on other Americans.



What does that have to do with your percentages? The only American that I see in this thread pillaging the the content of context is you. Stop projecting your lack of coherence on other Americans.



I do not take issue with that. I take issue with your stance that either

a) Arcadia, because she/he is an American, does not understand the constitution or language, proven due to a faux paus she/he made on an Internet forum concerning the definition of impeachment, or

b) Arcadia, because of a faux paus she/he made on an Internet forum concerning the definition of impeachment, is symbolic of Americans not understanding the constitution or language.

I am not sure which statement sums up your stance more. It is hard to tell because of your lack of understanding when it comes to language. Notice how I did not attribute your lack of understanding to AVs named Lupo, Janists, people with brown eyes, or furries.



See above.



Well, you certainly use the same sloppy rhetorical method of attacking groups of people that Fox News does!

This has nothing to do with being politically correct. Please don't feign iconoclasm, especially when it just comes down to careless bigotry.


Oh, btw... Arcadia:

I didn't say it was more important than lieing under oath about murder.

I said it was important.

The fact that people lie every day about bigger things doesnt mean a damned thing to me. I refuse to legislate away bad behaivor because 'it happens all the time'. He lied under oath. Why is this so hard a concept? He lied under oath. This should not be excuseable, period, regardless of how many people do it.

He first lied in court. Now in my book, the Supreme Court thinks different, a sitting president can not be tried. The SC said this is only true for criminal. So he was being sued and was tried. In that trial he lied about having Sexual relations with Monica. That was wrong to lie about it in court under oth. IF you did it you would go to jail. The Committee was given evidence of his lying. If he said he did he is saying he committed perjury if he lied again then it’s twice.


No it’s a Indictment. You can have a indictment hearing then you go to court. So changing the words. He was indented by the House and then Sent could not prosecute him.


This goes back to what I said and got yelled at. Commonly people don’t under stand there government. It does not mater what is commonly thought it maters what the law is.


You are right just like you could be indented and then acquitted in trial, but remember only two Presidents were ever Impeached (indented) and Nixon is not one of them.


No on the grounds of being made to leave office it was. But he lost his Liccions to be a Lywer and the Judge that he lied to fined him. That means it he was judged as “ok” to keep and hold office, “ but not legally right”


He then was able to face criminal charges. He was then saved by his former VP now President of that. So he is legally no longer a criminal. I would agree that with out a dout Nixon is the best case for High Treason.


I think we will see some one go after him. Will he go down or step down? I don’t know but I agree wait for the book deal from it all.

He was guilty of "the offense of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance or to kill or personally injure the sovereign or the sovereign's family"?

Didn’t say it was my blog. This is a open fourm for any member of Second Life. We are given Freedom to say what we want with out person attack. I never attacked any one directly. First you do have a problem with % but we will drop that.
Do you really think the Art of conversation in the US is not lost? Are you saying people who disagree can really sit down and talk with out one person taking it as a direct attack and a argument? Most people in the US will call people know it all if they have a opinion and all things. Are you saying this is untrue?
Did Arcadia know the proper use of the word? No. Does most people in the US know the proper use of the word? In here we have had more then one say it the wrong way and one even say Commonly thought as the wrong usage and that it was ok. The fact is Impeachment is a certain things and most people in the US do know under stand that part of law and many others.




I never said “Because she is an American” So that is moot. Her lack un understanding is “symbolic of the people of the US not under standing there Constitution and government” If I am wrong show me. Show me how most people know them. Show me how it’s ok that they don’t.

The Articles of Impeachment, which can be viewed at http://watergate.info/, leave no doubt that these charges qualify as "high crimes and misdemeanors," justifying impeachment.

But, not High Treason.