Boehner says Rove should not testify.
Boehner says Rove should not testify.
The conservative establishment is circling the wagons around Karl Rove. From a press conference today with House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH):
QUESTION: Should the White House allow Karl Rove (inaudible) to testify?
BOEHNER: No, I think you’re violating a precedent there that should not be violated. U.S. attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president. The question here is what did happen and why were these seven asked to step down? Now, let’s get the facts and then we can make a judgment.
QUESTION: Does it prove (inaudible)
BOEHNER: They may, but I believe that under the separation of powers, there are limits to the extent to which Congress can subpoena or demand testimony from those who were closest to the president.
Earlier, Senate Judiciary Committee conservatives delayed a vote to subpoena Rove and Miers until next week.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
I agree with the Minority Leader on this one.
March 15th, 2007 at 4:21 pm#1, I’m sure you do……..
Let’s not concern ourselves with the rule of law, as long as he’s the president then he can do anything….. Oh, but once he is not then we have to change the rules back because we don’t want them to be equal rules…
God I really, and I mean REALLY, HATE the right!!!
March 15th, 2007 at 4:24 pmI thought you weren’t going to bother with me any longer, RemoveBush?
March 15th, 2007 at 4:26 pmBy protecting a “political” advisor to the President and not wanting him to testify, only proves the point that the White House and the Justice Dept. made their decisions to fire the Federal Prosecutors based on solely political reasons. On top of that, it was too save their own collective asses. Once again, our Founding Fathers would have these scoundrels flogged in public.
I gotta go to the bathroom.
March 15th, 2007 at 4:27 pmI agree with the Minority Leader on this one.
Comment by Jake
And that makes you both wrong.
Am I supprised? No.
No one is above the law, even if you repukes believe it.
Boehner has been crying since oversight hearings began.
March 15th, 2007 at 4:27 pmJake, If he did nothing wrong then why not testify?
March 15th, 2007 at 4:27 pmOf course as an Independent you support anything Republican Jake. You are as Independent as Joe Liberman.
March 15th, 2007 at 4:28 pmLet’s see if I have this right:
A guy named Boner is protecting Washington DC’s fattest drag Queen “Turdblossom”.
Huh. Who would’ve thought it possible. Oh. Wait. We’re talking ReichWingNuts, aren’t we? Figures.
March 15th, 2007 at 4:29 pmRove needs to testify, but he won’t. So just cut to the chase and impeach both Cheney and Bush now, then Rove will come forward.
March 15th, 2007 at 4:30 pm“I thought you weren’t going to bother with me any longer, RemoveBush?
Comment by Jake — March 15, 2007 @ 4:26 pm”
I see that you still have an issue with comprehending?????
“Bush IS WRONG!!!!
There is A HUGE difference between firing appointees he placed in office because they are procecuting Republicans, rather than for performance issues….. The RECORD IS CLEAR!!!! Only ONE had any kind of perfromance issue….. The others were rated EXCEPTIONAL!!!! The performance issue is bogus, and the reason is because these procecutors were getting ready to get the bigger fish in the Republican party, which probably would lead to Bush!!!! So they had to go…..
This my 2 year old friend is why they were dismissed and why there is such a fuss about it…… This is not normal and you can TRY to spout that it is, but it is NOT.
You have been provided this information OVER AND OVER AND OVER so I’m done with this discussion with you since you don’t have the mental ability to understand the simplist of things…..
Please do see a doctor…… It seems that your ability to actually think and understand has diminished and I would not want to see you sitting at home alone with noone to help you remember how to go to the restroom.
Comment by RemoveBush — March 15, 2007 @ 3:15 pm”
March 15th, 2007 at 4:31 pmRove’s got a Boner for Congress.
March 15th, 2007 at 4:31 pmThey sure do have that “pleasure of the president” talking point down. The Republican party screwed themselves.
March 15th, 2007 at 4:31 pmWho is this Boehner guy? Never heard of him.
March 15th, 2007 at 4:32 pm“Now let’s get the facts, but not from the person who has the facts. And let’s remember that the President is the uniter so he’s close to almost everyone, so it will be difficult to find someone who could legally be able to talk to Congress anyway. I have an idea, let’s use the facts from Fox News. Those are always very useful, er, I mean, true.”
/sarc off
March 15th, 2007 at 4:32 pmBush couldn’t give a toss about separation of powers… why should it matter here?
March 15th, 2007 at 4:32 pm#13 – Boner is one of those criminal Republican’ts from OH, like those who were sentenced to prison today for voting fraud.
March 15th, 2007 at 4:35 pmHey….. I just saw this…..
I think it’s funny, and sadly true…..
http://rawstory.com/images/new/pleasurepresidentbushstewartdaily.jpg
March 15th, 2007 at 4:36 pmLeon Pannetta testify before a GJ=OK, but Rove testifying before congress= not ok?
March 15th, 2007 at 4:38 pmI am so glad lick spittles like Boehner aren’t in charge any more.
March 15th, 2007 at 4:39 pmI like it when they circle the wagons. I love to see them on the defensve.
March 15th, 2007 at 4:40 pmIf the R Talking Point of the Day&trade is “Rove shouldn’t testify” — which Mel Martinez just proved it is while talking to Wold, then you better believe Rove needs to testify.
March 15th, 2007 at 4:41 pmBoner has to earn the extra money given to him by the criminals just as the Hammer did. Boner was told to protect Karl Rove just as Scotty was told to protect Bush/Cheney/Rove. Poor Libby was left to get convicted. Now let’s look at the Justice System as it was. No one is above the law not even the President. Even Clinton had to testify but Karl Rove is above that law. The new Bush Law is cover up is more important and loyal Republicans can continue the plan to take over the United States of America. Next honest Judges will be removed and corrupt Judges will place them. When the US has the DOJ lawyers who are corrupt and Judges are corrupt the White House can continue their invasion of the US. Actions speak louder than words and Gonzo is not the Attorney General he is still the Council to the President.
March 15th, 2007 at 4:41 pmBoner threw up in the women’s bathroom, drinking toddies.
Schmidt slipped & fell in it, getting it all over her back.
Rove, the plumber, came in to ‘fix’ the problem.
Schmidt thought Rove thought she was a hottie.
Rove said, no, I’m here to fix the pottie.
Boner continued to hurl toddies at the hottie in the pottie.
Rove claimed he was never in the pottie.
March 15th, 2007 at 4:43 pmthat woulda been betur if I kud spel.
March 15th, 2007 at 4:44 pmComment by tom baker
No. I know who he was. I just don’t know who he is anymore because he is of no importance. He speaks and the crickets listen. I bet he misses being under Hasturd in the glory days.
March 15th, 2007 at 4:47 pmThe extent of criminal behavior in this administration is unprecedented. Subpoena everyone!
I think it’s funny how these ‘conservatives’ keep comparing morally questionable things that Bush does to what Clinton did. It’s ALWAYS like comparing apples to oranges, but these are the same people who applaud the impeachment of Clinton. Hypocrits, every one!
March 15th, 2007 at 4:48 pmCircling the wagons is right. Gonzo will be sacrificed to save Rove.
March 15th, 2007 at 4:48 pmWait just one darned a minute…
1. If (Waaaahhhh Mommy, Mommy) Clinton was supposed to have done the same thing.
2. There was nothing illegal about.
THEN WHY ARE THEY SO DAMNED FREAKIN’ TERRIFIED TO LET ROVE TESTIFY???
If there’s nothing wrong in their doings, Rove testifying would be the perfect venue for him to vindicate the Administration. You would think he would just plain jump at the chance to do so.
I can just see Rove on the stand now…
“But your honor, it’s not fair, Clinton did the same thing!”
“WAAAAHHHH!!! MOMMY, MOMMY IT’S NOT FAIR!!! CLINTON DID IT TOO. WAAAAHHH!!! IT’S NOT FAIR!”
Yeah, that’s going to go over very well as a defense for a clear-cut case of OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE.
LOL!!!!!!!!!!
March 15th, 2007 at 4:49 pmSomeone should ask most of the Senior Advisors of the Clinton Administration their opinions.
Interestingly, they can fill Members in on how, as Executive Branch “advisors” they HAD to testify.
Particularly Bruce Lindsey, the President’s advisor and attorney.
/snark
March 15th, 2007 at 4:54 pmI agree with the Minority Leader on this one.
Comment by Jake — March 15, 2007 @ 4:21 pm
Dum bass 1, supports Dum bass 2. Are we supposed to be surprise, you st*pid senile old fool?
So you’re of the IMPERIAL view of the presidency? No accountability, no reason, no judgment? You know, for someone that’s 75, you sound a lot more like someone that’s 95 with a German Accent, and a brownshirt. Were you a follower of McCarthy, or did you come by your Nationalist right wing extremist ideology during the *Raygun* era?
Why don’t you do everyone a favor, and shove your NeoNazi sh*t back up your incontinent *ss where it belongs. Maybe you won’t have to use those diapers anymore, you old fool.
March 15th, 2007 at 4:56 pmSomeone should ask most of the Senior Advisors of the Clinton Administration their opinions.
Interestingly, they can fill Members in on how, as Executive Branch “advisors†they HAD to testify.
Particularly Bruce Lindsey, the President’s advisor and attorney.
/snark
Comment by PITY THE FOOLS
That’s actually an nice opportunity for a variation on the…
“WAAAAHHHH!!! MOMMY, MOMMY IT’S NOT FAIR!!! CLINTON DID IT TOO. WAAAAHHH!!! IT’S NOT FAIR!â€
…theme.
In this case we can counter with…
“But it was DONE to the Clinton Administration, so why shouldn’t it be DONE to the Bush Administration?”
Aaaahhhh, life sure must be rough when you are a GOP Troll/Paid Operative painted into a corner by increasingly desperate and futile talking points.
You guys are sure earning you peanuts this week for carrying so much of their dirty water.
Too bad that trying to sway public opinion won’t work. It will soon be in the hands of the law. There will be little chance of stopping this from blooming into a full-on OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE investigation.
Maybe it’s time for you guys to start sending your resumes out.
LOL!!!
March 15th, 2007 at 5:03 pm25 – I knew you know – just couldn’t resist providing the description, and I agree he’s as done a deal as he can be.
March 15th, 2007 at 5:03 pmBoehner says Rove should not testify.
well, of course he does…
IF THEY HAVE NOTHING TO HIDE,
THEN WHY ARE THEY TRYING TO HIDE EVERYTHING?
eh?
March 15th, 2007 at 5:05 pmI agree with the Minority Leader on this one.
Comment by Jake
Don’t you believe that Rove testifying provides the PERFECT opportunity fo the Administration to vindicate itself and remove this dark cloud from over their heads?
WHAT DOES ROVE AND THE ADMINISTRATION HAVE TO LOSE BY TESTIFYING???
If they are so damned innocent, as you are paid to tell everyone that they are, WHAT”S THE FREAKIN’ PROBLEM???
I know, I know…
“WAAAAHHHH!!! MOMMY, MOMMY IT’S NOT FAIR!!! CLINTON DID IT TOO. WAAAAHHH!!! IT’S NOT FAIR!â€
March 15th, 2007 at 5:06 pmUm … maybe someone can help me out here.
If Congress issues a subpoena, then I don’t think Rove has much choice on the matter, does he?
Or is there some loophole for members of Bush Co. that wasn’t there when Clinton was in office?
Seriously … anyone know if a Congressional subpoena is the same as one from, say, a grand jury?
March 15th, 2007 at 5:07 pmHey Jake!
Answer this question…
WHAT DOES ROVE AND THE ADMINISTRATION HAVE TO LOSE BY TESTIFYING???
March 15th, 2007 at 5:10 pmWHAT DOES ROVE AND THE ADMINISTRATION HAVE TO LOSE BY TESTIFYING??? Comment by JPV — March 15, 2007 @ 5:10 pm
Their freedom, unless Bush pardons them ;)
March 15th, 2007 at 5:12 pmThe subsequent story renders this one irrelevant, no?
March 15th, 2007 at 5:12 pmWe all know the jesus freaks are a group deranged fu*ks but exactly how deranged, we will never know for sure.
But every day you find new evidence that proves they are even more deranged than you previously thought..
March 15th, 2007 at 5:13 pmheard on randi, paraphrasing:
there are more investigations about the bush administration
than the bush administration has about the War on Terror…
think about that…
… in just 2 months… keep it up…
March 15th, 2007 at 5:13 pmHey Jake! I’m still waiting.
Answer this question…
WHAT DOES ROVE AND THE ADMINISTRATION HAVE TO LOSE BY TESTIFYING???
What’s wrong? Did you GOP Talking Points FAX Machineâ„¢ get jammed up or something?
Please get back to us when Rove finally tells you what to say.
March 15th, 2007 at 5:15 pmjpv,
jake won’t answer, he’s a coward. a crybaby, a crab in rove’s pubic hairs.
March 15th, 2007 at 5:22 pmThe question here is what did happen and why were these seven asked to step down? Now, let’s get the facts and then we can make a judgment.
Since Gonzales, Rove, Miers, and the e-mails all seem to have not only differing stories but ever-changing stories, it’s time to get some of them in to testify under oath. That’s how we’ll get the facts and then make a judgment, Mr. Boehner.
March 15th, 2007 at 5:22 pmC’mon Jake.
We’re still waiting…
WHAT DOES ROVE AND THE ADMINISTRATION HAVE TO LOSE BY TESTIFYING???
March 15th, 2007 at 5:26 pmJPV:
Please see numerous threads below re: U.S. Attorneys, Executive Privilege, and setting bad precedent.
March 15th, 2007 at 5:28 pmYou can do it Jake.
Answer the question GOP WaterBoyâ„¢
WHAT DOES ROVE AND THE ADMINISTRATION HAVE TO LOSE BY TESTIFYING???
March 15th, 2007 at 5:30 pmWOULD YOU LIKE TO TESTIFY IN PLACE OF Miss Piggy Rove, “Slick Bounder” Boehner AND SPILL THE BEANS IN HIS PLACE–YOU’RE GOOD AT SHIFTING THE BLAME ONTO OTHERS LIKE YA DID WITH Denny Hastert–WHO IS Hastert, NOW? LOOKS LIKE YA EFFECTIVELY MADE HIM A NOBODY!!!!!
March 15th, 2007 at 5:30 pmCome on all you little ants! Swarm to the defense of the fat little maggot queen. Keep KKKarl from testifying, and you will be rewarded with your little crumbs of smag from the queen ant.
You are truly pathetic in your support for this administration above all else. Above the law, above the Constitution, above the troops.
You are a consistent bunch of drones though.
March 15th, 2007 at 5:31 pmHe puts the lotion on its’ back.
March 15th, 2007 at 5:39 pmComment by Abby — March 15, 2007 @ 5:13 pm
good GREENWALD / SALON link there…
i passed it on to TP… maybe they’ll put up a new thread:
“REPUPLICRAT LOVE”…
March 15th, 2007 at 5:46 pmHasn’t obstruction of justice become a popular crime with Republican lawmakers?
March 15th, 2007 at 5:52 pmHasn’t obstruction of justice become a popular crime with Republican lawmakers?
Comment by oldtree
LOL! What crime don’t they like to engage in?
March 15th, 2007 at 6:05 pmBush and Cheney wouldn’t testify UNDER OATH to the 9/11 commission.
Bush’s Nazi supporters say that Rove shouldn’t testify UNDER OATH.
WHY do you Nazis support TRAITORS like Bush, Cheney and Rove?
And WHY do you HATE the USA and ALL IT STANDS FOR???
WHY???
March 15th, 2007 at 6:52 pmJPV:
My answer is that, based on all the long-established procedures for replacing U.S. Attorneys, the protections afforded under Executive Privilege, and setting a bad precedent otherwise, I don’t think Rove should testify — as I’ve said repeatedly, if you want the specifics on why I hold that opinion, you can look those posts up at your leisure. I’m not going to repeat them all over again.
March 15th, 2007 at 7:12 pmMy answer is that, based on all the long-established procedures for replacing U.S. Attorneys, the protections afforded under Executive Privilege, and setting a bad precedent otherwise, I don’t think Rove should testify — as I’ve said repeatedly, if you want the specifics on why I hold that opinion, you can look those posts up at your leisure. I’m not going to repeat them all over again.
Comment by Jake
Not that it comes as a surprise, but you dodged the question.
What harm is there in him testifying?
March 15th, 2007 at 9:18 pmHehe, Jake would be felating der Fuhrer if he were alive today.
March 15th, 2007 at 10:42 pmWhy does “setting a bad precedent” NOT equate to “harm” in your mind?
March 16th, 2007 at 12:10 am[...] House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH): No, I think you’re violating a precedent there that should not be violated. … I believe that under the separation of powers, there are limits to the extent to which Congress can subpoena or demand testimony from those who were closest to the president. [3/15/07] [...]
March 20th, 2007 at 10:14 am[...] House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH): No, I think you’re violating a precedent there that should not be violated. … I believe that under the separation of powers, there are limits to the extent to which Congress can subpoena or demand testimony from those who were closest to the president. [3/15/07] [...]
March 22nd, 2007 at 12:32 am