NP Rank:
The House Judiciary Committee Votes to Hold Karl Rove in Contempt of Congress
by DCR | July 31, 2008 at 04:59 am
375 views | 12 Recommendations | 9 comments
After repeatedly ignoring a Congressional subpoena and refusing to appear before the House Judiciary Committee, the Committees voted 20-14 to present a resolution of Contempt of Congress against the ‘master-mind’ of the Bush administrations.
The decision by the House Judiciary Committee to hold Karl Rove in contempt of Congress is a recommendation to the full House of Representatives, who can now vote to adopt the recommendation with a contempt resolution by a simple majority vote. Should they pass the contempt resolution, the Sergeant-at-Arms for the chamber would be ordered to arrest Karl Rove and bring him to the floor of the House to answer to the charges and to be issued punishment. The case would then be referred to the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, who would in turn refer it to a grand jury. If convicted, Rove could face between one month and one year in jail.
Advertisement
NowPublic on Facebook
Crowd Power
First Flagged at 10:30 AM, Jul 31, 2008 by Rob Walker
These members have powered this story:-
Rob Walker
Toronto, Canada






Most RecentMost Recommended Comments (9)
at 10:30 on July 31st, 2008
DCR, I like this story. It's good stuff.
Do you have any news links or sources for this story? What are people saying about it?
What do *you* think about Rove going to baseball games when he's supposed to be testifying?
at 11:17 on July 31st, 2008
The Dems just can't get over the fact that Rove cleaned their clock in 2 general elections. They need to get over it and stop trying to criminalize politics...
at 12:18 on July 31st, 2008
What crimes, exactly, is Karl Rove supposed to have committed? We'l just have to see how this plays out. Democrats have been trying to criminalize political differences at least since they tried to crucify Caspar Weinberger.
at 12:22 on July 31st, 2008
Joellrose his crime is being the person responsible for 2 Republican general election wins and scores of appointments and victories over Dems in the last 7 years. They haven't laid a glove on him, he is undefeated and that drives the surrender brigade crazy..
at 01:41 on August 2nd, 2008
mpress,
It's wonderful to finally cross paths with one so enlightened that they can perceive sadness as simply another state of being.
Unfortunately, it cannot be considered to be spoken from an enlightened position when the comment is made in reference to the sadness of other people. Sadness brought on by the lying, conniving, obfuscating, dissembling, misrepresenting, mis-informing, dis-informing clutch of greedy, self-serving ultra-nationalists 'serving' in the US government - such Karl Rove - whose actions have resulted in an illegal invasion and violent military occupation of a sovereign nation, the reduction of the 'Cradle of Civilization' to a bombed-out shell of a looted museum ruled by murderous force of arms, the continued occupation of another ruined wreck of third-world nation, the death of thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and Afghanis, an estimated 4.7 million Iraqi refugees, the eviscerating of US banking regulations that took the legal restraints off of loan sharks, leaving thousands of Americans bankrupt and homeless.
Too list just a few.
It is sad that would prefer to pass off all of the above mentioned catastrophes as smoke-screens set by 'liberals' to salve their sense of pride about not winning the political beauty contests of 2000 and 2004. It is understandable that you would prefer to do that rather than face the Truth about the horrific, disastrous political and economic situation that is the legacy of George W Bush and his administrations, but it is sad.
The 'victory in Iraq'?
It is sad that you actually believe that there is anything remotely close to what might be even loosely construed as a military victory in Iraq - a deplorable military mis-adventure that the Pentagon's premier military educational institute, the National Defense University, called a 'debacle' in its April, 2008 report. I say 'believe' because it must be faith, there being no logical arguement, rational thought process or consideration of substantive data involved.
It is sad, mpress, that you have swallowed the propaganda, hook, party line and sinker and then publically deride folks for not taking the bait.
'...some of us see it and some of us don't.'
It is sad that you do not see that the clay feet of your 'heroes' are crumbling in a tide of evidence.
at 03:44 on August 3rd, 2008
What's really sad is to consider the cowards and ostriches in this world who rise in horror when we defend ourselves and our culture but hide their heads in the sand when Islamic fundamentalists use their babies and their women to bomb innocents, cut off people's heads and stone to death their own people.
at 19:26 on August 2nd, 2008
Now, now, joellerose, 'Don't tread on me' if you please. Cowardice is a pitiable characteristic, I agree.
Since you have thoughtfully considered who the 'cowards' are who turn 'ostrich' when 'Islamic fundamentalists use their babies and their women to bomb innocents, cut off people's heads and stone to death their own people', perhaps you'll tell us the who the folks you've branded as cowards are.
Then perhaps you'll oblige us by illucidating who we were defending ourselves against by illegally invading the sovereign nation of Iraq? Don't tell me you still believe in the WMD-toting bogey-man?
Peace
at 04:04 on August 3rd, 2008
This same, lame argument has been used by the ostriches on the left for five years now. It's getting old and weary. You are pretending that Al Qaeda is the only group of Muslim terrorists when there are several such groups and Saddam was supporting some of them, sending reward money to the families of Palestinian homicide bombers and, possibly, fooling the world into certainty that he had and was preparing to use WMD. Have you noticed that major terrorist acts against western countries have ceased, or that Al Qaeda is a shell of its former self? You can stick your head in the sand, but I thank God my president didn't.
at 20:22 on August 3rd, 2008
joellerose! So good to hear from you. Perhaps one time you will actually deign to answer one of the questions I've asked you rather than immediately launching into one of your pat responses.
'Ostriches on the left' very cute! Did you make that one up yourself or learn it from the propagandists on Fox? As I said before, it must offer you great comfort to label and pigeon-hole anyone and everyone who disagrees with your own very slanted view of the world. Makes things must easier to deal with, I suppose.
Contrary to what you assume, I am not pretending anything about Al Qaeda. They are a nasty bunch to say the least. Saddam was nasty; a nasty, despicable brute of a tyrant; a nasty despicable brute that was a loyal and well-paid client of the White House administrations from Reagan to Bush the First. The world is better off without his kind, of that there is little more to be said except that the illegal invasion of Iraq was a very ill-advised and calamitous method of removing him.
In point of fact, Saddam was a most aggressive enemy of Al Qaeda and bin Laden. Until the US and Britain invaded Iraq, there was no Al Qaeda presence in Iraq because Saddam hunted them down with nearly the same ferocity as US forces are doing there. Unfortunately, the conflict in Iraq has served to increase the numbers of willing to fight foreign invaders in that country.
By the way, I haven't mentioned Muslims in any our little 'chats' nor do I lump all of the followers of Islam into the same category.
Whether or not Al Qaeda is a 'shell of its former self' remains to be seen given the upsurge of violence in Afghanistan, the continued violence in Iraq and the turmoil in the Tribal areas of Pakistan. The same may be said for your claim that 'major terrorist acts against western countries have ceased'. It's a nice pipe-dream but the absence of evidence 'of major terrorist acts' does not constitute evidence of absence.
As for a reduction in the number of violent deaths suffered by US military forces in recent weeks, there is a number of factors that must be addressed. One is the fact that after killing more than 1.25 million Iraqis since the US-British invasion, there are simply fewer people to take action against 'Coalition' forces.
Another factor was revealed on CNN last night by both the commanding general of forces in Tikrit and the US Under-Secretary of State, Jim Glassman. They both spoke briefly and reluctantly about the fact that the American taxpayer is shelling out millions every week to a certain number of Sunni leaders to turn their struggle from US forces and fight Al Qaeda. Money talks, as always. They are getting paid off, in other words.
Perhaps I might suggest that you give some thought to understanding what constitutes a valid argument. Thus far, you haven't actually proposed one that you have supported in any meaningful way with verifiable facts. Once you've done that, your comment about 'lame argument' may actually hold some weight in a rational discussion of issues.