Karl Rove flees the country..


Karl Rove is fleeing the country! Obviously he has claimed a long planned foreign trip is preventing him from testifying before congress, but Congress didn’t know.

Well now, I do not really think he is on the run, but what if he is? I am convinced there are a lot of people right now in Washington shivering in their shoes. Why? Because impeachment is probably not off the table anymore! At least not categorically.

Pelosi, who famously declared impeachment to be “off the table” before the 2006 election, now suggests that hearings on the president’s high crimes and misdemeanors are a distinct possibility.

I think you will have to thank Dennis Kucinich, Robert Wexler, Tammy Baldwin, John Conyers and some more officials who have doggedly pursued to hold the Bush Administration accountable. And as our fellow critter Zooey has pointed out in a comment on this thread, if the President is impeached, there will be no Presidential pardons.

So maybe he fled the country after all!

add to del.icio.us : Add to Blinkslist : add to furl : add to ma.gnolia : Stumble It! : add to simpy : seed the vine : : : TailRank : post to facebook

About these ads

61 thoughts on “Karl Rove flees the country..

  1. Hi EV – Rove can’t handle the truth so he skip town like the coward that he is. Maybe he had a pimple on his butt and couldn’t sit through questioning by Congress. It would have hurt his pimple.

    Shayne – all I can say is “wow” that is some set of videos that you posted. I posted the Part 1 on my site and then linked here for viewers to see parts 2 to 5. Incredible. I don’t want any wrist bands or microchips on me. People sure are stupid.

  2. And more thing, they are now attacking our food supply. The government just can’t figure out where the salmonella poisoning is coming from. Hum… this is the same government that couldn’t figure out where the Anthrax poisoning was coming from either.
    Just don’t let our government (Monsanto) control all our food and water. We need the local farmers because they are our only hope for safe food.

  3. Congress can either issue an international arrest warrant or inform Interpol so he can be transferred to the Hague for his war crimes trial.

  4. The good folks of Sweden might do us a favor, ya?
    Rendition this smug bastard to Den Hague? If he sets foot on U.S. soil, the Congress should lock his ass up permanently.

  5. I’m all for finding the worst prison system on earth and sticking him there forever.

    O/T-Since this has been such a trying week for everyone. I thought I would inject a little humor. I have very few pet peeves in life and ranking in the top 3 are telemarketeers. This guy felt the same way decided to turn the tables on one and play a practical joke.

    I couldn’t stop laughing, this is really good stuff. Here is the link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J5z4Vs26-TI

    I hope this puts a smile on everyone’s face :) Have a great weekend …

  6. Isn’t it funny how, when they sent him the letter a couple of weeks ago asking Rove to appear July 10, that his lawyer didn’t bother to mention the “long-planned trip” Rove had scheduled for that day? Either Rove lied to his lawyer by not telling him about this, or Rove’s lawyer should be brought up on charges for lying to Congress.

    A lawyer cannot go into any kind of court or tribunal and deliberately tell a falsehood. (Our resident legal Critters should be able to confirm that.) If he knew Rove was going to be out of the country, then he had an obligation to be truthful about that and should have told Rep Conyers this when he first got the letter. If Rove had not already planned his trip, then the story that he did was a lie. And if Rove’s lawyer knew this was a lie, then Rove’s lawyer should be disbarred for lying to Congress.

    But, on the other hand, if Rove knew all along that he would be out of the ocuntry and failed to point this out to his lawyer, then Rove’s contemptuous failure to appear is even more egregious, because he himself could have informed the committee of his unavailability.

    So, to summarize, either Rove really did plan this trip well in advance of the subpoena date or he did not. If he did, then either his lawyer knew this ahead of time or did not. If his lawyer did know, then his lawyer lied to the committee. If he didn’t, then Rove should have told him so he could “truthfully” tell the committee his client would not be there. And if Rove didn’t plan the trip well in advance, then , again, either Rove’s lawyer knew this ahead of time or didn’t. If he didn’t know, then Rove pulled one over on everybody and should be treated as a fugitive from justice. And if the lawyer did know that Rove did not plan this trip ahead of time (by which I mean before he got the letter telling him what date to testify), then they are both guilty of lying to Congress and both should go to jail.

    In any case, Rove is not innocent here.

  7. And as our fellow critter Zooey has pointed out in a comment on this thread, if the President is impeached, there will be no Presidential pardons.

    That’s an important point, because Speaker Nancy has said that she wants to use Republican corruption as a campaign issue (thus proving that she puts the interests of her party ahead of the interests of her country, and should be removed from Congress), but if Bush is allowed to remain in office, he could pardon everyone before he leaves, and then nobody will have to pay for the crimes they committed. remove him now, and the next president will not likely pardon allthe criminals left behind. (Of course, you would have to remove Cheney first, because he would pardon anybody who could testify against him in court or to Congress. Dick Cheney does not believe in the rule of law or in the Constitution.)

  8. Bush doesn’t even have to be impeached, he could simply be in hearings. I think this is an important point.

    BTW, fuck Nancy Pelosi. (had to get that out of my system)

  9. BTW, fuck Nancy Pelosi. (had to get that out of my system)

    To paraphrase comedian Jeffrey Ross, in one of his funniest Friars Club Roast jokes, “I wouldn’t fuck Nancy Pelosi with Bea Arthur’s dick.”

  10. “Bush doesn’t even have to be impeached, he could simply be in hearings. I think this is an important point. ”

    Impeachment is not being removed from office. As soon as they start the proceedings the president is impeached. Clinton was impeached. He wasn’t removed from office.

  11. And Clinton handed out a lot of pardons.. How does it work that Bush can’t hand out pardons if he is being impeached? Do they just have to time it that they are going through the hearings as he is leaving?

  12. Clinton’s impeachment proceedings were over, when he pardoned. The vote went in his favour, if I remember correctly. BnF?

  13. He was impeached in the House, just not removed through the Senate. So, how would impeachment proceedings stop Bush from granting pardons?

  14. Clinton was acquitted by the Senate, which didn’t reach the majority needed and thus the impeachment proceedings were over.

  15. EV, he WAS impeached. That takes place in the House of Representatives.
    He just wasn’t removed after trial by the Senate.

  16. Impeachment and removal are two separate things.
    From Wiki:
    “Impeachment is the first of two stages in a specific process for a legislative body to forcibly remove a government official. The second stage is conviction.”

    “The impeachment-trial procedure is in two steps. The House of Representatives must first pass “articles of impeachment” by a simple majority. (All fifty state legislatures as well as the District of Columbia city council may also pass articles of impeachment against their own executives.) The articles of impeachment constitute the formal allegations. Upon their passage, the defendant has been “impeached.”

    Next, the Senate tries the accused. In the case of the impeachment of a President, the Chief Justice of the United States presides over the proceedings. Otherwise, the Vice President, in his capacity as President of the Senate, or the President pro tempore of the Senate presides. This may include the impeachment of the Vice President, although legal theories suggest that allowing a person to be the judge in the case where she or he was the defendant would be a blatant conflict of interest. If the Vice President did not preside over an impeachment (of someone other than the President), the duties would fall to the President Pro Tempore.

    In order to convict the accused, a two-thirds majority of the senators present is required. Conviction automatically removes the defendant from office. Following conviction, the Senate may vote to further punish the individual by barring them from holding future federal office (either elected or appointed). Despite a conviction by the Senate, the defendant remains liable to criminal prosecution. It is possible to impeach someone even after the accused has vacated their office in order to disqualify the person from future office or from certain emoluments of their prior office (such as a pension). If there is no charge for which a two-thirds majority of the senators present vote “Guilty”, the defendant is acquitted and no punishment is imposed.”

    AND THIS:

    “Bill Clinton was impeached on December 19, 1998 by the House of Representatives on grounds of perjury to a grand jury (by a 228–206 vote) and obstruction of justice (by a 221–212 vote). No other articles of impeachment on a count of perjury in the Jones case (by a 205–229 vote), and one accusing President Clinton of abuse of power (by a 48–285 vote). President Clinton was acquitted of the obstruction charge by a 50 to 50 vote in the Senate.”

  17. My understanding is, that impeachment is a prerequisite for the trial in the Senate. Congress impeaches, similar to the way a prosecutor paves the way to a trial. The prosecutor does not hold the trial, that is up to a court. The court then decides and if the defendant is acquitted the proceedings leading to the trial are considered closed. So, when the removal from office failed, the impeachment case was closed and over.

    But really, I am not a lawyer, not even over here, so I may be way off.

  18. So, again, I find this statement confusing:

    “In the United States, the pardon power for Federal crimes is granted to the President by the United States Constitution, Article II, Section 2, which states that the President:

    shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment. “

  19. This on pardons from Wiki:

    The Supreme Court has interpreted this language to include the power to grant pardons, conditional pardons, commutations of sentence, conditional commutations of sentence, remissions of fines and forfeitures, respites and amnesties.[1] All federal pardon petitions are addressed to the President, who grants or denies the request. Typically, applications for pardons are referred for review and non-binding recommendation by the Office of the Pardon Attorney, an official of the Department of Justice. Since 1977, presidents have received about 600 pardon or clemency petitions a year[2] and have granted around ten percent of these[3], although the percentage of pardons and reprieves granted varies from administration to administration (fewer pardons have been granted since World War II).[4]

    The pardon power was controversial from the outset; many Anti-Federalists remembered examples of royal abuses of the pardon power in Europe, and warned that the same would happen in the new republic. However, Alexander Hamilton makes a strong defense of the pardon power in The Federalist Papers, particularly in Federalist No. 74. It is worthy of note that Hamilton called for something like an elective monarch at the Philadelphia Convention. In his final day in office, George Washington granted the first high-profile Federal pardon to leaders of the Whiskey Rebellion.

    Many pardons have been controversial; critics argue that pardons have been used more often for the sake of political expediency than to correct judicial error. One of the more famous recent pardons was granted by President Gerald Ford to former President Richard Nixon on September 8, 1974, for official misconduct which gave rise to the Watergate scandal. Polls showed a majority of Americans disapproved of the pardon and Ford’s public-approval ratings tumbled afterward. He was then narrowly defeated in the presidential campaign, two years later. Other controversial uses of the pardon power include Andrew Johnson’s sweeping pardons of thousands of former Confederate officials and military personnel after the American Civil War, Jimmy Carter’s grant of amnesty to Vietnam-era draft evaders, George H. W. Bush’s pardons of 75 people, including six Reagan administration officials accused and/or convicted in connection with the Iran-Contra affair, Bill Clinton’s pardons of convicted FALN terrorists and 140 people on his last day in office – including billionaire fugitive Marc Rich, and George W. Bush’s commutation of I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby’s prison term.

    The Justice Department recommends anyone requesting a pardon must wait five years after conviction or release prior to receiving a pardon. A presidential pardon may be granted at any time, however, and as when Ford pardoned Nixon, the pardoned person need not yet have been convicted or even formally charged with a crime. Clemency may also be granted without the filing of a formal request and even if the intended recipient has no desire to be pardoned. In the overwhelming majority of cases, however, the Pardon Attorney will consider only petitions from persons who have completed their sentences and, in addition, have demonstrated their ability to lead a responsible and productive life for a significant period after conviction or release from confinement.[5]

    It appears that a pardon can be rejected, and must be affirmatively accepted to be officially recognized by the courts. Acceptance also carries with it an admission of guilt.[6] However, the federal courts have yet to make it clear how this logic applies to persons who are deceased (such as Henry O. Flipper – who was pardoned by Bill Clinton), those who are relieved from penalties as a result of general amnesties and those whose punishments are relieved via a commutation of sentence (which cannot be rejected in any sense of the language.)[7]

    The pardon power of the President extends only to offenses cognizable under U.S. Federal law. However, the governors of most states have the power to grant pardons or reprieves for offenses under state criminal law. In other states, that power is committed to an appointed agency or board, or to a board and the governor in some hybrid arrangement.

  20. You’re right muse, this is confusing.. What does in cases of impeachment mean? The President being impeached or the person he plans to pardon is being impeached?

  21. Sorry, I have to get the boys in their beds, I may be back a little later. This is an interesting point.

  22. I wonder if it means that if they are in the PROCESS of impeaching him, then he can’t grant pardons..

    Maybe the House has been waiting to get closer to the end of his term so they could impeach him as he leaves, so that he WON’T be able to pardon the rest of the criminals involved in all this garbage..

  23. OR, what if it means that in the actual impeachment case and what charges he is impeached on, anyone caught in that net and involved in the crimes he is impeached on cannot be pardoned.. That one makes more sense to me.

  24. I’ve tried to make the point before that impeachment proceedings, while fun theater, won’t do anything to (a) prevent war with Iran, (b) prevent presidential pardons, or (c) remove the criminals from office.

    Achieving the above would require not only impeachment but also conviction, and not only of just one of them, but of both.

    Conviction requires a two-thirds majority of the senate. With its present composition, the senate is evenly split between Democrats and Republicans, which makes the task of finding a two-thirds majority essentially impossible.

    So, the desired goals will not be met by impeachment. Arguably, going through the motions would “make a statement” that would be a deterrent against future tyrants. Equally arguably, the statement that it makes is that even blatant criminals can get away with nothing more than a slap on the wrist. Arguably going through the motions might stir the electorate in a froth of anger that would benefit the Democrats. Equally arguably, it would make them look opportunistic during an election cycle and cause a backlash.

    Since the act of impeachment alone will not achieve the desired goal and may be counterproductive, in my view we should work for the following pre-election and post-election strategy:

    1. Focus singularly on putting a Democrat in the WH, which will, among other things, protect further erosion of the Supreme Court.

    2. Focus on building the congressional majorities.

    3. Be relentless in letting these leaders know that the flaws exploited in the current system need to be addressed: (a) restoring Constitutional integrity; (b) placing restrictions on Executive abuses such as pardon abilities, signing statements, and war powers.

    4. Create an independent prosecutor to investigate, and as needed, try and convict all those found responsible for the long list of crimes and usurpations we know so well.

  25. But Gorn, you can bet Bush has a HUGE stack of pardons ready to go on his way out the door, to cover ALL those who participated in his crimes. If he isn’t impeached, we may NEVER know about any or all of the crimes committed, there will be NO investigations, and there will be NO accountability. I can’t bear the idea of that..
    (And this is my emotional side speaking..)
    I want to restore our Constitution, and restore this country back to the rule of law. I want to reign in executive powers.

  26. Muse, it seems to me our goals are exactly in sync. The only problem is I think there is a fundamental misconception about what an impeachment does.

    Basically, impeachment is the equivalent of an official filing of charges, and that is all. Filing charges against Bush and Cheney will do NOTHING to impact their stack of pardons, nothing to remove them from office, etc. Achieving these things requires a CONVICTION of Bush and Cheney, and the votes don’t exist to make that happen.

    Impeachment, the filing of charges, requires only a simple majority in the House. The Democrats have a strong majority in the House, so impeachment is certainly possible. But actual conviction requires a two thirds majority of the Senate, and that just aint gonna happen. That’s why all of this impeachment talk amounts to nothing more than political theater to appease the Democratic base by playing on their emotions. Personally, I prefer not to be used in this manner. I’d rather see the system itself changed for long-term benefit of our descendants, rather than get all frothy over the mirage of short-term vengeance that won’t happen anyway.

    We must face up to the simple truth that there is nothing that we can do to prevent Bush from issuing a string of pardons, just as the Republicans couldn’t prevent Clinton from doing the same. That’s why there needs to be a longer-term goal here, which is to change the rules about Executive pardons so that future presidents cannot engage in this kind of abuse.

  27. By the way, by the rules of the Constitution, Dick Cheney, as president pro tempore of the Senate, would preside over his own impeachment conviction hearings.

  28. gorn,

    I’m watching the Mets game now, so I don’t have time to check this out, but haven’t we had some Vice Presidents face impeachment before? If we did, who presided over those?

    Catch you later, friends.

  29. Wayne, I found this: (Wiki)

    “In the case of the impeachment of a President, the Chief Justice of the United States presides over the proceedings. Otherwise, the Vice President, in his capacity as President of the Senate, or the President pro tempore of the Senate presides. This may include the impeachment of the Vice President, although legal theories suggest that allowing a person to be the judge in the case where she or he was the defendant would be a blatant conflict of interest. If the Vice President did not preside over an impeachment (of someone other than the President), the duties would fall to the President Pro Tempore.”

    That would be.. (Wiki)
    “The current President pro tempore of the Senate is Robert Byrd (D-West Virginia).”

  30. nwmuse- I found the answer to your question of impeachment.

    First say we started articles of impeachment against Cheney. What Zooey found is true, but in this sense. Bush can not stop this from happening because, the president is prevented only from interfering in the process of impeachment.

    But it doesn’t stop Bush or the next president from pardoning him if he is impeached. And for all we know he may have a pardon sitting on his desk for Rove also. That wouldn’t shock me in the least.

    Because his father issued a pardon a few weeks before he left office, for Caspar Weinberger, who had not been convicted of a crime. He was probably worried he would be called as a witness in Weinberger’s trial.

  31. Thanks freedomrebel.
    I still can’t say I understand all this..

    I do know that this is absolutely a crime syndicate, and there are an awful lot of people caught in this web of deceit and destruction. They fully intended to harm just about everyone in this country for the benefit of just a few..

  32. Sorry for my error. I meant to say Cheney was president of the Senate, not president pro tempore. I’m not sure if the choice is up to the VP to decide to preside (conflict of interest be damned) or not, or if there is a procedural way to bypass him. As far as I know, the choice is his, and we know what it would be.

    It’s kind of moot anyway, because the votes for conviction don’t exist.

    The only real solution is to change workings of the system itself, and short of a revolution, that will require years of voter pressure and hard politics.

  33. Gorn, I really don’t know enough about how all this works, or why it isn’t working, I just know I am really angry and afraid for the future of this country. I feel like it is more dangerous NOT to do something than to try and correct things before its too late. I’m aware enough to recognize the level of crime and corruption taking place – right out in the open. They don’t even care what anyone thinks or who knows. They are displaying their crimes in the most arrogant fashion.. Daring anyone to stop them.

    I don’t think the Dems and the GOP are the good guys and the bad guys. That is too simplistic. I don’t just trust getting a Dem in the WH is going to fix all that Bushco has broken. But it certainly has to happen so it doesn’t get a whole lot worse than it already is..

  34. I would rather have the powers be in Barack Obama’s hands than John McCain’s. This is what frightens the “racists” in this country.

    Face it… this will not be fixed while Bush and the rest of the America haters are in office. That’s the reality. And Congress is basically a lame duck right along with the fool in the White House. It’s barnacle Cheney that we need to keep tabs on.

    After watching the videos that Shayne posted, I started thinking about our military and how stretched it is with these wars and how weak it is becoming. Was destroying our military all part of the plan?

    Thank god we can all still own guns. Never thought I would be happy to have the second amendment.

    And what did EV do to generate all this traffic on this post? Is this US traffic or non-US traffic? Traitor Rove skipping out of the country is old news for Americans.

  35. I would rather have the powers be in Barack Obama’s hands than John McCain’s. This is what frightens the “racists” in this country.

    Face it… this will not be fixed while Bush and the rest of the America haters are in office. That’s the reality. And Congress is basically a lame duck right along with the fool in the White House. It’s barnacle Cheney that we need to keep tabs on.

    I am in total agreement with you.

  36. On the matter of whether or not Cheney would preside over his own impeachment trial, I’d have to say it would have been the height of stupidity for the US Senate not to have foreseen the possibility that the vice president might be impeached one day, and should not be allowed to preside over his own trial. I’m sure some very old Senate rule had this covered, but we just don’t hear about it much because, up until now, we haven’t had a vice president as blatantly corrupt and lawless as the one we have now.

  37. Cheney wouldn’t preside over his own impeachment trial, it would be the President pro tempore of the US Senate which currently is Senator Byrd. I found this earlier.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_pro_tempore_of_the_United_States_Senate

    Wayne, I found this: (Wiki)

    “In the case of the impeachment of a President, the Chief Justice of the United States presides over the proceedings. Otherwise, the Vice President, in his capacity as President of the Senate, or the President pro tempore of the Senate presides. This may include the impeachment of the Vice President, although legal theories suggest that allowing a person to be the judge in the case where she or he was the defendant would be a blatant conflict of interest. If the Vice President did not preside over an impeachment (of someone other than the President), the duties would fall to the President Pro Tempore.”

    That would be.. (Wiki)
    “The current President pro tempore of the Senate is Robert Byrd (D-West Virginia).”

  38. “I don’t think the Dems and the GOP are the good guys and the bad guys. That is too simplistic. I don’t just trust getting a Dem in the WH is going to fix all that Bushco has broken.” – muse

    I could not agree more. I’m not so naive as to merely trust that a Democrat will fix all of the problems. As I’ve confessed before, I’m not even a Democrat, and I distrust all politicians – though admittedly some more than others.

    I’m most interested in getting a Dem in office for the simple reason that it should keep things from getting worse. That done, it’s up to us to pressure, pressure, pressure, until there is change. We can’t count on them to do it on their own, that’s for sure.

    But I do think it is somewhat naive to count on impeachment theatrics to have any impact on the real issues that face the country. That doesn’t mean I wouldn’t enjoy watching it, and wouldn’t be cheering all the way…

  39. Muse, the wiki quote is interesting, but (if I can parse the English clearly) it doesn’t clearly state that Cheney definitely would not preside over his own hearings. It refers to “legal theories” about it being a conflict of interest, but it isn’t clear who gets to make the decision. Possibly it is up to him to recuse himself – fat chance of that. Or, maybe it’s an issue that would have to be left to the Supreme Court – uh, no safe bet there either.

    Maybe this is something BnF can answer.

  40. Well, pleasureseeker, let’s hope WordPress isn’t one of the companies handing over communications info to the FBI and NSA, lest you might get a knock on your door.

  41. To answer the question of who resides over the Senate? It is the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

    What happens in case of Impeachment Trial: All Senators are sworn in as jurors. Article I, Section 3 (6) of the Constitution says, “When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation.” The man of the hour may attend or send someone to represent him. He can plead guilty or refute the charges. Each Senator must stand at her place and pronounce her judgment as ‘guilty’ or ‘not guilty.’ The Constitution requires that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court come over to the Senate Chamber to preside when a president is being impeached. In 1986, the Senate extended this to cover vice presidents.

  42. nwmuse

    Thanks freedomrebel.
    I still can’t say I understand all this..

    Anytime muse :)
    Don’t feel bad nwmuse, you practically have to have a law degree or be a political science major to understand half of it. That doesn’t include all the landmark decisions that set a legal precedent.
    That is why every big court case takes so many researchers. Research is everything in law.

  43. Thanks, freedomrebel. That’s good news, if it should come to that.

  44. Pingback: Karl On the Lam « The Hedonistic Pleasureseeker

  45. Hedonistic Pleasureseeker,

    “shot while resisting arrest” is what you mean? :)

Comments are closed.