Comments on: Boehner says Rove should not testify.

By: Presidential aides testifying before Congress « Later On

Presidential aides testifying before Congress « Later On — Thu, 22 Mar 2007 04:32:49 +0000

[...] House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH): No, I think youâ€™re violating a precedent there that should not be violated. â€¦ 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] [...]

By: Think Progress » FACT CHECK: There Is No Precedent Barring White House Aides From Testifying To Congress

Tue, 20 Mar 2007 14:14:39 +0000

[...] 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] [...]

By: Jake

Jake — Fri, 16 Mar 2007 04:10:58 +0000

Why does “setting a bad precedent” NOT equate to “harm” in your mind?

By: JPark

JPark — Fri, 16 Mar 2007 02:42:41 +0000

Hehe, Jake would be felating der Fuhrer if he were alive today.

By: Alberto Gonzales

Alberto Gonzales — Fri, 16 Mar 2007 01:18:22 +0000

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 donâ€™t think Rove should testify â€” as Iâ€™ve said repeatedly, if you want the specifics on why I hold that opinion, you can look those posts up at your leisure. Iâ€™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?

By: Jake

Jake — Thu, 15 Mar 2007 23:12:50 +0000

JPV:

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 donâ€™t think Rove should testify â€” 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. Iâ€™m not going to repeat them all over again.

By: Arn Gunnutes

Arn Gunnutes — Thu, 15 Mar 2007 22:52:47 +0000

Bush 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???

By: JPV

JPV — Thu, 15 Mar 2007 22:05:09 +0000

Hasnâ€™t obstruction of justice become a popular crime with Republican lawmakers?

Comment by oldtree

LOL! What crime don’t they like to engage in?

By: oldtree

oldtree — Thu, 15 Mar 2007 21:52:27 +0000

Hasn’t obstruction of justice become a popular crime with Republican lawmakers?

By: katy

katy — Thu, 15 Mar 2007 21:46:39 +0000

Comment by Abby â€” 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”…

By: R

Thu, 15 Mar 2007 21:39:25 +0000

He puts the lotion on its’ back.

By: nanlichi

nanlichi — Thu, 15 Mar 2007 21:31:40 +0000

Come 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.

By: Raymond Funamoto

Raymond Funamoto — Thu, 15 Mar 2007 21:30:33 +0000

WOULD 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!!!!!

By: JPV

JPV — Thu, 15 Mar 2007 21:30:05 +0000

You can do it Jake.

Answer the question GOP WaterBoyâ„¢

WHAT DOES ROVE AND THE ADMINISTRATION HAVE TO LOSE BY TESTIFYING???

By: Jake

Jake — Thu, 15 Mar 2007 21:28:54 +0000

JPV:

Please see numerous threads below re: U.S. Attorneys, Executive Privilege, and setting bad precedent.

By: JPV

JPV — Thu, 15 Mar 2007 21:26:50 +0000

C’mon Jake.

We’re still waiting…

WHAT DOES ROVE AND THE ADMINISTRATION HAVE TO LOSE BY TESTIFYING???

By: chimpeach

chimpeach — Thu, 15 Mar 2007 21:22:28 +0000

The question here is what did happen and why were these seven asked to step down? Now, letâ€™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.

By: bob (not the hacker)

bob (not the hacker) — Thu, 15 Mar 2007 21:22:07 +0000

jpv,

jake won’t answer, he’s a coward. a crybaby, a crab in rove’s pubic hairs.

By: JPV

JPV — Thu, 15 Mar 2007 21:15:49 +0000

Hey Jake! I’m still waiting.

Answer this questionâ€¦

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.

By: katy

katy — Thu, 15 Mar 2007 21:13:38 +0000

heard 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…