Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

Karl Rove has been subpoenaed in the ongoing investigation of the firing of the US attorneys.

Shit just keeps getting piled onto this administration.

At 7/26/07 12:48 PM, public-enemy1 wrote: Shit just keeps getting piled onto this administration.

With President Bush pardoning of Libby, and his telling his cabinent members NOT to answer court subpoenas like this, will any of this crap actually stick?

At 7/26/07 01:13 PM, Proteas wrote:

At 7/26/07 12:48 PM, public-enemy1 wrote: Shit just keeps getting piled onto this administration.

With President Bush pardoning of Libby, and his telling his cabinet members NOT to answer court subpoenas like this, will any of this crap actually stick?

Who knows...but you have to know that the American people are watching this unfold.

At 7/26/07 01:22 PM, RydiaLockheart wrote: Source, please?

Yeah sorry...found it when I opened up Yahooa few minutes ago.

At 7/26/07 01:14 PM, public-enemy1 wrote: Who knows...but you have to know that the American people are watching this unfold.

And? He's not up for re-election, this is IT for him.

Kind of funny how they order these over what was entirely legal.

Hahaha!

At 7/26/07 01:58 PM, Proteas wrote:

At 7/26/07 01:14 PM, public-enemy1 wrote: Who knows...but you have to know that the American people are watching this unfold.

And? He's not up for re-election, this is IT for him.

I don't know about you...but I have a brain and remember stuff. Things such as not to vote for dimwit conservatives in 2008.

At 7/26/07 03:20 PM, public-enemy1 wrote: I don't know about you...but I have a brain and remember stuff. Things such as not to vote for dimwit conservatives in 2008.

*sigh*

What I'm trying to get at (in a kind of sideways manner) is that there really is no point in trying to keep the Bush Administration wrapped up in court at this point in the game. He's a lame duck president, his Vice President has emphatically stated that he WON'T RUN FOR PRESIDENT, and the republicans that are running are doing their best to distance themselves from him (much like How Gore distanced himself from Clinton in 2000).

So what's the point of keeping him wrapped up in the courts, then? Simple, to keep nitwits like you under the false impression that just because he and his administration were constantly under investigation during the last few years of their term, the entire party must be corrupt (which is a form of Affirming the Consequent/Denying The Antecedent in a way).

And what will this result in? Same old sold, one party for another. No difference.

At 7/26/07 03:41 PM, Proteas wrote: So what's the point of keeping him wrapped up in the courts, then? Simple, to keep nitwits like you under the false impression that just because he and his administration were constantly under investigation during the last few years of their term, the entire party must be corrupt (which is a form of Affirming the Consequent/Denying The Antecedent in a way).

And what will this result in? Same old sold, one party for another. No difference.

*bigger sigh*

Thank you, thats my point, hes only hurting his party. In the eyes of the average american, they see his administration dropping the ball and screwing things up. (Such as the war in Iraq and these attorney firings.) In what way can this help the republicans in 2008?

At 7/26/07 04:44 PM, public-enemy1 wrote: Thank you, thats my point, hes only hurting his party.

Bush isn't the one dragging members of his cabinent into court under false pretenses, now is he?

At 7/26/07 04:49 PM, Proteas wrote:

At 7/26/07 04:44 PM, public-enemy1 wrote: Thank you, thats my point, hes only hurting his party.

Bush isn't the one dragging members of his cabinent into court under false pretenses, now is he?

Point, but he is telling them not to testify. Don't you think it's a little suspicious? One would think that if there was nothing there, he wouldn't have any problems letting them testify. My opinion.

At 7/26/07 04:53 PM, public-enemy1 wrote: Point, but he is telling them not to testify. Don't you think it's a little suspicious? One would think that if there was nothing there, he wouldn't have any problems letting them testify. My opinion.

What's the point in letting members of his cabinet participate in a charade of a trial that only serves to damage the Republican Party's chances in '08? Because that's all the democrats are doing right now, they're playing Court and doing their damndest to ruin the Republican Party's repuation because THEY HAVE NO SOLID PLATFORM ON WHICH TO RUN. That's all the 2008 election will boil down to, a repeat of 2004... "Hey, at least we're not the Republicans!"

A lot of people throw words like "indictment" and "subpoenaed" and "impeachment" around like they mean something. All they mean is that you're being taken to court to see whether or not you're actually guilty. You don't need much evidence to indict and you don't even have to know of any wrongdoing to be subpoenaed. However, in this mass media age, these words have taken a meaning of guilt and implicit wrongdoing. If someone is indicted on charges, then, in America's eyes, they're already guilty of some wrong doing. So much for innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

At 7/26/07 01:13 PM, Proteas wrote: will any of this crap actually stick?

No way...
A smaller man will take the fall, it will be in the news for a few weeks (or days)-- and then everyone will forget when a little girl gets kidnapped in a nation wide man hunt.

At 7/26/07 05:00 PM, Proteas wrote:

At 7/26/07 04:53 PM, public-enemy1 wrote: Point, but he is telling them not to testify. Don't you think it's a little suspicious? One would think that if there was nothing there, he wouldn't have any problems letting them testify. My opinion.

What's the point in letting members of his cabinet participate in a charade of a trial that only serves to damage the Republican Party's chances in '08? Because that's all the democrats are doing right now, they're playing Court and doing their damndest to ruin the Republican Party's repuation because THEY HAVE NO SOLID PLATFORM ON WHICH TO RUN. That's all the 2008 election will boil down to, a repeat of 2004... "Hey, at least we're not the Republicans!"

Give me a break, Bush handed the keys to the dems with all the fuck ups and blunders that occurred within the white house and in Iraq. You know you can't argue that. It happened in '06, and it will happen in '08. That is, unless congress keeps up the shite job they are doing now.

At 7/26/07 02:38 PM, Memorize wrote: Kind of funny how they order these over what was entirely legal.

Hahaha!

believe it or not but wiretapping and lying isn't legal

At 7/26/07 08:29 PM, tony4moroney wrote:

At 7/26/07 02:38 PM, Memorize wrote: Kind of funny how they order these over what was entirely legal.

Hahaha!

believe it or not but wiretapping and lying isn't legal

ha ha ha don't forget perjury

At 7/26/07 08:13 PM, public-enemy1 wrote: Bush handed the keys to the dems with all the fuck ups and blunders that occurred within the white house and in Iraq. You know you can't argue that. It happened in '06, and it will happen in '08.

Case in point, QED, check and mate motherfucker. Not a word about what the Dems platform will be, just pointing the spotlight on the opposition's fuckups and how you're not the opposition. If it worked for Kerry and Edwards, I guess it's worth trying this time around as well.

That is, unless congress keeps up the shite job they are doing now.

I'm praying, it can't hurt afterall.

Maybe a voodoo doll would eb in order.

At 7/26/07 08:29 PM, tony4moroney wrote:

believe it or not but wiretapping and lying isn't legal

A) You can't prove that he lied.
B) The wiretaps were APPROVED BY CONGRESS after 9/11.
C) The president can fire the attorneys for ANY REASON.

Clear?

Funny how dems know so little about the law.

At 7/26/07 09:01 PM, Proteas wrote:

At 7/26/07 08:13 PM, public-enemy1 wrote: Bush handed the keys to the dems with all the fuck ups and blunders that occurred within the white house and in Iraq. You know you can't argue that. It happened in '06, and it will happen in '08.

Case in point, QED, check and mate motherfucker. Not a word about what the Dems platform will be, just pointing the spotlight on the opposition's fuckups and how you're not the opposition. If it worked for Kerry and Edwards, I guess it's worth trying this time around as well.

Come on...lets get real. You and I both know that the dems don't have a solid platform to run with, but you can't tell me that the blunders of Bush's administration wont effect, in some way, the American voters decision when it comes to the next election, conservative or liberal. Granted, it didn't work for Kerry, but there have been many more issues since '04.

At 7/26/07 09:10 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 7/26/07 08:29 PM, tony4moroney wrote:

believe it or not but wiretapping and lying isn't legal

A) You can't prove that he lied.
B) The wiretaps were APPROVED BY CONGRESS after 9/11.
C) The president can fire the attorneys for ANY REASON.

Clear?

Funny how dems know so little about the law.

A) Because Bush is blocking any testimony from people that could prove that he lied.
B) You're correct.w
C) The President isn't the one under investigation for this, it's the Attorney General.

At 7/26/07 09:14 PM, public-enemy1 wrote: but you can't tell me that the blunders of Bush's administration wont effect, in some way, the American voters decision when it comes to the next election, conservative or liberal.

I don't doubt it will hurt their chances, but what I don't understand is why it will. I mean, no one from his administration is running for president. Not voting for a qualified republican simply because you disliked Bush's policies is about as assinine as me calling up your boss at Domino's and cussing him out about you because the last delivery guy SUCKED.

Granted, it didn't work for Kerry, but there have been many more issues since '04.

Only time will tell.

At 7/26/07 09:17 PM, public-enemy1 wrote: A) Because Bush is blocking any testimony from people that could prove that he lied.
C) The President isn't the one under investigation for this, it's the Attorney General.

*cough*demsplayingcourt*cough*

At 7/26/07 09:26 PM, Proteas wrote:

At 7/26/07 09:14 PM, public-enemy1 wrote:

I don't doubt it will hurt their chances, but what I don't understand is why it will. I mean, no one from his administration is running for president. Not voting for a qualified republican simply because you disliked Bush's policies is about as assinine as me calling up your boss at Domino's and cussing him out about you because the last delivery guy SUCKED.

I think it comes from the sense that all republicans have the same fundamental views on how the country should be run, same as the dems do. As such, to some more ignorant people, they would see how the top representative of the GOP handles the office of President and make the same assumptions with any other candidates. Also, as we saw in '06, America is ready for change.

With that said, both of us will have our opinions, however as you said...only time will tell.

At 7/26/07 03:20 PM, public-enemy1 wrote:

At 7/26/07 01:58 PM, Proteas wrote:

At 7/26/07 01:14 PM, public-enemy1 wrote: Who knows...but you have to know that the American people are watching this unfold.

And? He's not up for re-election, this is IT for him.

I don't know about you...but I have a brain and remember stuff. Things such as not to vote for dimwit conservatives in 2008.

And it's all done so they can hear you say it aloud.

"I will not vote for Conservatives in 08"

Music to my ears.

At 7/26/07 09:30 PM, Proteas wrote:

At 7/26/07 09:17 PM, public-enemy1 wrote: A) Because Bush is blocking any testimony from people that could prove that he lied.
C) The President isn't the one under investigation for this, it's the Attorney General.

*cough*demsplayingcourt*cough*

Come on man....I can say the same thing about when Clinton was up for perjury.

At 7/26/07 09:17 PM, public-enemy1 wrote:

A) Because Bush is blocking any testimony from people that could prove that he lied.

Once again: You can't prove that he lied.

C) The President isn't the one under investigation for this, it's the Attorney General.

It doesn't really matter. The firings are legal. It doesn't matter what reason Bush or he had for firing them, it's still legal.

Just because the democrats don't like the fact that the president has that power, that's tough shit.

At 7/26/07 09:10 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 7/26/07 08:29 PM, tony4moroney wrote:

believe it or not but wiretapping and lying isn't legal

A) You can't prove that he lied.

That's the whole idea behind the subpoenas and investigation isn't it? Or did you think it was for fun?

B) The wiretaps were APPROVED BY CONGRESS after 9/11.

True, but the investigation is into how extensive the wiretapping was and whether it was just limited to what the alleged were (exclusively used for monitoring people of special interests believed to be linked with al-qaeda and terrorist networks). Its also to determine the legality of even approving warrantless spying in the first place.

C) The president can fire the attorneys for ANY REASON.

Nope sadly he can't fire them for any reason. He can't fire them on the basis of oh say, trying to cover up an investigation.

Funny how dems know so little about the law.

Funny how you forgot that Nixon was being charged for something not too dissimilar before he resigned.

At 7/26/07 11:45 PM, tony4moroney wrote:

That's the whole idea behind the subpoenas and investigation isn't it? Or did you think it was for fun?

Pretty much.

Why did they open these subpoenas when they have nothing to go by?

Like I said before: Probable cause? Which usually invovles more than just "i'm suspicious.

Its also to determine the legality of even approving warrantless spying in the first place.

And as I stated before, if Congress approved of it (and it doesn't matter who is the majority), then it doesn't matter.

Also, when there is an attack on US soil forcing us to enter into a conflict, the president is then given more power.

Case and point: Lincoln. FDR. Wilson.

Nope sadly he can't fire them for any reason. He can't fire them on the basis of oh say, trying to cover up an investigation.

Um... it's an investigation INTO the attorney firings.

The President is allowed to hire and fire whoever he wishes even if it is for political reasons.

Funny how you forgot that Nixon was being charged for something not too dissimilar before he resigned.

Because he covered up Watergate in which there was an informant feeding information to the press. Not to mention that those who broke into watergate were directly linked to Nixon which had them force Nixon to give the tapes.

Sadly, you don't have either on Bush.