Impeach Karl Rove!

[BobLibDem]

[QUOTE=Shodan]
We’ve already gone over this. There is nothing that is not an impeachable offense (for Republicans). And obstruction of justice is not an impeachable offense (for Democrats).
[/QUOTE]

Given that only one party impeached a president of another party in recent history, the claim that nothing is not impeachable for Republicans seems a bit silly. It’s like a hammer that only Republicans have used yet they find the audacity to accuse Democrats of swinging wildly. Don’t look at the speck in your brother’s eye, look at the plank in your own.

[RTFirefly]

[QUOTE=Frank]
And this, finally, gets to the crux of the real question: did Rove violate the Hatch Act by making political presentations to civil servants? If so, he’s liable to criminal prosecution; if not, there’s no impeachable offense. I really, really, really wish my fellow leftists would maintain some hold on reality here.

There are far more important things to be doing than pushing an impeachment of anyone. If, during the course of investigations of the executive branch, more and better evidence comes to light, we can readdress the impeachment issue then. Right now, the evidence is simply not there. Period.

The impeachment process is not to be undertaken in the hopes of discovering evidence; it is to be undertaken when the evidence is already there, obvious and overwhelming to all. This was the Republican mistake ten years ago - let’s not repeat it. Let’s instead work for our long-term goals, and show the country that we have more in mind (or anything in mind) than sticking a poker up Bush’s ass.
[/QUOTE]

1. How else are we going to work for our long-term goals?

Hard to pass legislation when 41 GOP Senators are willing to block cloture on anything. Hard to do much investigating when all the decisions of any note were made in the White House, and the President’s declared that EP covers the entire shop.

IOW, the supposed need to do this or that instead of impeachment is weak. I’ll agree that the Dems need to get the appropriations bills through, but even those don’t all need to be passed by September 30.

2. What evidence do we have, and how are we going to get more?

We know the presentations Rove’s office has been systematically peddling around the entire Executive Branch. Assuming such presentations are a Hatch Act violation (I think I’m on pretty safe ground here), the only question is who’s responsible, besides the presenters themselves.

I think it’s unreasonable to place much faith in the office of the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia to prosecute these things. The current occupant of that office, Jeffrey A. Taylor, is another interim appointment; he was a counselor to both Ashcroft and Gonzales before his interim appointment last September. There’s always the possibility that he may be a man of integrity and not a political hack, but it’s not the way to bet.

So my assumption is that Congress will have to do its own investigating. But it can’t investigate Rove’s office because Bush has barred the door. Hence impeachment; what else is left?

No objection here to going through the motions of taking it to the U.S. Attorney, as long as those motions are done with dispatch. But it’s silly to say this debate is somehow getting ahead of the game. Anyone with eyes to see knows that this is where it’s headed: barring either impeachment or the threat of impeachment, nobody in this White House will be adequately investigated, let alone held responsible for anything.

[Evil_Captor]

[QUOTE=Martin Hyde]
Man, if this attitude is actually prevalent among Democratic voters, then I genuinely weep for America. You don’t get to replace the President every two years based on doing well in Congressional elections, or to “go after him.” That isn’t how our political system is supposed to work, this isn’t a parliamentary democracy. Bush is rightfully in office until January, 2009. If any of the voters in 2006 were actually casting their votes because they wanted to see Congress try to oust the President because of policy differences, that is abominable and shows that this country’s democratic experiment may more or less be coming to an end.

However, I have a lot more faith in voters, and a lot more faith even in liberal voters and Democratic voters. I take solace in the fact that a lot of these views are those of the radical left, and not the actual grown up left that conducts real politics in America.
[/QUOTE]

I’m sorry, you appear to be in the wrong thread. This thread is about impeaching Karl Rove (see title) not George Bush.

[RTFirefly]

[QUOTE=Martin Hyde]
Man, if this attitude is actually prevalent among Democratic voters, then I genuinely weep for America. You don’t get to replace the President every two years based on doing well in Congressional elections, or to “go after him.” That isn’t how our political system is supposed to work, this isn’t a parliamentary democracy. Bush is rightfully in office until January, 2009. If any of the voters in 2006 were actually casting their votes because they wanted to see Congress try to oust the President because of policy differences, that is abominable and shows that this country’s democratic experiment may more or less be coming to an end.
[/quote]

And here I thought it might be coming to an end because the President was governing as if he was an elected autocrat, responsible to nobody.

I take solace in the fact that a lot of these views are those of the radical left, and not the actual grown up left that conducts real politics in America.

IIRC, there was a poll fairly recently that showed 40% support for having Bush impeached and removed from office.

It’s a damned big radical fringe, it is.

[Shodan]

[QUOTE=BobLibDem]
Given that only one party impeached a president of another party in recent history, the claim that nothing is not impeachable for Republicans seems a bit silly.
[/QUOTE]
You’d have to take that up with those making the claim. Several are posting to this thread.

Regards,
Shodan

[Martin_Hyde]

[QUOTE=Least Original User Name Ever]
You can’t disagree that at least some of the new congresscritters were put in because of anti-war, anti-Bush sentiments, though.

Unless you are disagreeing with that, of course.
[/QUOTE]

There’s a difference between “elected due to anti-war or anti-Bush” sentiments and, “elected to impeach Bush over political differences.”

[Martin_Hyde]

[QUOTE=Billdo]
Article I, sec. 3 of the US Constitution provides:

Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

If Rove were to be impeached and convicted, he could be barred from holding any federal “Office of honor, Trust or Profit.” This would prevent Bush or any future administration from hiring him back.
[/QUOTE]

As I’ve already, said, that’s meaningless. Rove’s power is that he has the ear of the President. He’s an advisor, meaning his power is based on how much Bush is willing to listen to him. During the administration of President Andrew Jackson, Jackson had a big problem with most of his Cabinet. Back then, the Executive Office of the President and its various functionaries that now hold most power in an administration wasn’t important politically, instead Presidents met with their cabinet officers pretty regularly to make important decisions. Throughout the 20th century, Presidents have moved away from this approach, and consequently even the most powerful cabinet officer can theoretically have less influence in the administration than the Chief of Staff. It all depends on how much the President is willing to bring people in on decision making.

In recent years, the cabinet officers have just been mostly responsible for running their own little fiefdoms, and less involved day-to-day with advising the President. In Jackson’s administration, cabinet officers were a key part of much of the decision making process. But Jackson didn’t like his cabinet, so he fired pretty much every single person in it (even his political allies.) Instead of relying on his new cabinet officers for advice, he instead met with a group of political allies (most of them private citizens) very regularly for advice on matters of policy, this group was referred to as the “Kitchen Cabinet.” The President can meet with whoever he wants, and they can serve the same function that Rove serves right now without being on any government payroll.

Rove has been a Senior Advisor to the President and is currently the Deputy Chief of Staff. Both of these positions have very little statutory power at all, far less than any of the cabinet level-positions, for example. However, since persons in these positions have personal contact with the President on a very regular basis, that means they can in effect have an enormous impact on policy. While I’m loathe to reference a fictional television show, watch old episodes of the West Wing some time. The key players in the show are the President, his Chief of Staff, and then people who serve in the Executive Office of the President. Cabinet officers are almost never shown on screen, and when they are it is as one or two episode guests. That is, in general, a realistic approach for makers of a television show to take, at least when dealing with the past several Presidencies, it is the Presidents personal staff who wields much of the power, not the cabinet.

Bush has had a greater level of direct contact with cabinet officers than several of the last Presidents, and his original Chief of Staff (Andrew Card) was one of the weakest in the last forty years or so. But the preponderance of power still lies with those who have the President’s ear. So Rove can continue to do exactly what he does now as a private employee of George W. Bush the man, or as a completely private citizen. His position of Deputy Chief of Staff affords him no special powers that he wouldn’t have if he were simply an outside advisor to the President.

Also, being impeached is not automatically a bar to future office, it is up to the discretion of the Senate when they remove someone as to whether or not said person is barred from holding future office (although we can probably assume that such barring would be virtually certain.)

[Martin_Hyde]

[QUOTE=RTFirefly]
And here I thought it might be coming to an end because the President was governing as if he was an elected autocrat, responsible to nobody.

IIRC, there was a poll fairly recently that showed 40% support for having Bush impeached and removed from office.

It’s a damned big radical fringe, it is.
[/QUOTE]

I wonder how many times polls have to consistently be proven to have faulty questions, or to ultimately not represent the true will of the people before people here on the Dope realize that you can’t cite them as hard evidence of anything.

[Martin_Hyde]

[QUOTE=Evil Captor]
I’m sorry, you appear to be in the wrong thread. This thread is about impeaching Karl Rove (see title) not George Bush.
[/QUOTE]

So says the guy who posted this:

@Evil Captor

I think that as a practical matter, what’s impeachable is a matter of what Congress thinks is impeachable. And I think the Dems are going to HAVE to do some hard charging after SOMEBODY in the Bush White House, or risk losing the momentum they picked up in 2006. They weren’t elected to COMPLAIN about Bush, they were elected to go AFTER him.

One would think the old saying about living in glass houses and throwing stones might be apt here.

If you were actually interested in keeping this discussion strictly limited to Karl Rove’s theoretical (and never going to happen, ever, no matter how many threads you guys post) impeachment I don’t think you’d have posted this.

I think anyone following the thread would realize my segue into a discussion about impeaching Bush was a direct response to your claim that people elected Democrats to “go after Bush.” The fact that I actually quote you in that response would be the key indicator.

[RTFirefly]

[QUOTE=Martin Hyde]
I wonder how many times polls have to consistently be proven to have faulty questions, or to ultimately not represent the true will of the people before people here on the Dope realize that you can’t cite them as hard evidence of anything.
[/QUOTE]
Since polls aren’t hard evidence, it’s a good thing we’ve got the more solid evidence provided by Martin Hyde to tell us where the public stands.

And what would that evidence be, btw?

[Ravenman]

[QUOTE=RTFirefly]
We know the presentations Rove’s office has been systematically peddling around the entire Executive Branch. Assuming such presentations are a Hatch Act violation (I think I’m on pretty safe ground here), the only question is who’s responsible, besides the presenters themselves.
[/quote]
You reminded me of something else: the Hatch Act also provides loopholes for individuals who were appointed by the President, confirmed by the Senate, and have a substantial role in setting national or foreign policy. The Hatch Act is actually a pretty complicated law, and based upon what little I know about the underlying facts, I know enough to say that anyone who has made an iron-clad conclusion about whether or not Rove broke any laws really doesn’t know what they’re talking about.

So my assumption is that Congress will have to do its own investigating. But it can’t investigate Rove’s office because Bush has barred the door. Hence impeachment; what else is left?

To my understanding, the Office of Government Ethics is investigating and the revelations we know so far – the email thing, what government departments were involved, etc – has come because of that investigation. AFAIK, Congress hasn’t issued a single subpoena with respect to this scandal. So the argument that investigations have been stymied by executive privilege doesn’t seem to jibe with the facts as I understand them.

Anyone with eyes to see knows that this is where it’s headed: barring either impeachment or the threat of impeachment, nobody in this White House will be adequately investigated, let alone held responsible for anything.

So we should impeach before there’s evidence of wrongdoing, because Congress will never get the evidence of wrongdoing? I’m sorry, but that is pretty much the definition of “fishing expedition.” Republicans pretty much tried it with Whitewater and it was a colossal waste of time. Dems should be more responsible with the mantle of leadership than following the wicked path blazed by Newt Gingrich and Dan Burton.

[RTFirefly]

[QUOTE=Ravenman]
You reminded me of something else: the Hatch Act also provides loopholes for individuals who were appointed by the President, confirmed by the Senate, and have a substantial role in setting national or foreign policy. The Hatch Act is actually a pretty complicated law, and based upon what little I know about the underlying facts, I know enough to say that anyone who has made an iron-clad conclusion about whether or not Rove broke any laws really doesn’t know what they’re talking about.
To my understanding, the Office of Government Ethics is investigating and the revelations we know so far – the email thing, what government departments were involved, etc – has come because of that investigation. AFAIK, Congress hasn’t issued a single subpoena with respect to this scandal. So the argument that investigations have been stymied by executive privilege doesn’t seem to jibe with the facts as I understand them.
So we should impeach before there’s evidence of wrongdoing, because Congress will never get the evidence of wrongdoing? I’m sorry, but that is pretty much the definition of “fishing expedition.” Republicans pretty much tried it with Whitewater and it was a colossal waste of time. Dems should be more responsible with the mantle of leadership than following the wicked path blazed by Newt Gingrich and Dan Burton.
[/QUOTE]
Rather than repeat myself:

No objection here to going through the motions of taking it to the U.S. Attorney, as long as those motions are done with dispatch. But it’s silly to say this debate is somehow getting ahead of the game. Anyone with eyes to see knows that this is where it’s headed: barring either impeachment or the threat of impeachment, nobody in this White House will be adequately investigated, let alone held responsible for anything.

It’s like in a chess game. If you’ve got a pretty good idea what the position’s going to look like in three moves, you start thinking from there, while allowing for the possibility that you may be wrong.

[Evil_Captor]

[QUOTE=Martin Hyde]
So says the guy who posted this:

One would think the old saying about living in glass houses and throwing stones might be apt here.

If you were actually interested in keeping this discussion strictly limited to Karl Rove’s theoretical (and never going to happen, ever, no matter how many threads you guys post) impeachment I don’t think you’d have posted this.

I think anyone following the thread would realize my segue into a discussion about impeaching Bush was a direct response to your claim that people elected Democrats to “go after Bush.” The fact that I actually quote you in that response would be the key indicator.
[/QUOTE]

“Going after Bush” does not necessarily mean impeaching Bush. What I was proposing in terms of impeaching Rove was using his discreditable ass to discredit the entire Republican party so that in the 2008 elections, the Dems have a shot at getting a clear Dem majority in both the House and the Senate so they can enact laws to prevent a future President of either party from riding roughshod over the law as our current corrupt asshole of a President clearly has.

[Ravenman]

Anyone with eyes to see knows that this is where it’s headed: barring either impeachment or the threat of impeachment, nobody in this White House will be adequately investigated, let alone held responsible for anything.

I have eyes. I don’t think that’s where it is headed. Perhaps you mean “anyone who agrees with RTFirefly must think that impeachment proceedings are the only option.” That really doesn’t demonstrate anything, does it?

What, precisely, do you believe that Bush will assert EP over that neither prosecutors, nor courts, nor Congressional subpoenas will be able to uncover?

[RTFirefly]

[QUOTE=Ravenman]
I have eyes. I don’t think that’s where it is headed. Perhaps you mean “anyone who agrees with RTFirefly must think that impeachment proceedings are the only option.” That really doesn’t demonstrate anything, does it?
[/quote]
Not by itself. So let’s get to the nub of it:

What, precisely, do you believe that Bush will assert EP over that neither prosecutors, nor courts, nor Congressional subpoenas will be able to uncover?

The Cossacks work for the Czar. Do you really think, given this Administration’s recent behavior, that the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia will investigate any of this? He’s the one with jurisdiction.

So much for prosecutors, and therefore so much for courts.

Congressional subpoenas applying to White House personnel and documents are of course being rebuffed as a matter of routine these days. So much for Congressional subpoenas and their effect on Rove and his office.

I see a broad policy of stonewalling by this White House that makes people like Rove effectively immune to investigation. I guess you don’t, or maybe you see holes in the stonewall that I don’t. But to me, it looks like a wall.

[Mr.Moto]

[QUOTE=RTFirefly]
Do you really think, given this Administration’s recent behavior, that the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia will investigate any of this? He’s the one with jurisdiction.
[/QUOTE]

I’ll have to wait and see. But considering that the independence of U.S. attorneys traditionally has been a point of pride for them, and considering the microscope they’re all under right now, I think dodging an investigation would create far more problems than opening one up would.

[RTFirefly]

[QUOTE=Mr. Moto]
I’ll have to wait and see. But considering that the independence of U.S. attorneys traditionally has been a point of pride for them
[/QUOTE]
The connection between the incumbent and “U.S. attorneys traditionally” is somewhere between dubious and nonexistent: he’s one of those interim hires of indefinite term under that provision that got slipped into the Patriot Act revision. He’s been US Attorney since last September. Before that, he worked for Gonzales.

considering the microscope they’re all under right now, I think dodging an investigation would create far more problems than opening one up would.

I don’t see how. They’d have to care what the public thought of them.

[Ravenman]

[QUOTE=RTFirefly]
Do you really think, given this Administration’s recent behavior, that the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia will investigate any of this? He’s the one with jurisdiction.
[/quote]
Isn’t this case already being investigated by the Office of the Special Counsel? Link. If the OSC completes their investigation and finds wrongdoing – I say “if” because I cannot see the future as you claim to be able to do – I think that yes, there will be indictments. If the OSC doesn’t find wrongdoing, I’m sure that Congress will scrutinize their investigation to see what, if anything, was covered up.

Congressional subpoenas applying to White House personnel and documents are of course being rebuffed as a matter of routine these days. So much for Congressional subpoenas and their effect on Rove and his office.

I’m a bit confused about how the public already knows about this case if nothing has come from the White House about it. As I understand it, the White House turned over some emails that fueled this case. And with respect to the congressional subpoenas, I think that issue is still in play: Congress is just within the last two days seriously talking about contempt charges! I don’t understand why you’re so quick to throw in the towel and essentially claim that Congress has already lost the battle between the two branches on an important Constitutional issue. I think Congress may yet prevail in compelling testimony from White House aides on the attorney scandal, but I’ll admit that remains to be seen.

I see a broad policy of stonewalling by this White House that makes people like Rove effectively immune to investigation. I guess you don’t, or maybe you see holes in the stonewall that I don’t. But to me, it looks like a wall.

I think you’ve leaped to a conclusion that is only supported by suspicion and a desire to nail anyone in the Administration to the wall. I think Congress, prosecutors, and the courts have many ways of breaking through Administration stonewalling, and it mostly requires effort and some time to do so. While the Administration has been asserting itself for years now, it is only in the last few months that Congress has begun to flex its power of investigation, and I don’t believe that the courts will blindly defer to unjustified claims of executive privilege. So yeah, I see gaping holes in the stone wall that have not yet been exploited, and those who investigate the possible wrongdoing in this matter should first arm themselves with facts and evidence of what transpired before jumping to prosecution or even impeachment proceedings. We ought to be living in a nation of laws, not of politics: that goes equally for the Administration and Congress.

[BrainGlutton]

[QUOTE=Mr. Moto]
But considering that the independence of U.S. attorneys traditionally has been a point of pride for them . . .
[/QUOTE]

Somehow, I don’t think the current set attach much importance to that tradition.

That’s why they still have their jobs.

[RTFirefly]

[QUOTE=Ravenman]
Isn’t this case already being investigated by the Office of the Special Counsel? Link. If the OSC completes their investigation and finds wrongdoing – I say “if” because I cannot see the future as you claim to be able to do
[/quote]
I can’t see the future, but based on the Bush Administration’s past actions, I know what I’d be preparing for if I were playing the opposing pieces. I don’t think there’s anything psychic about expecting their future behavior to be reasonably consistent with their recent past behavior.

– I think that yes, there will be indictments.

In the words of Grover Norquist, personnel is policy. Are you ready to place much trust in Scott Bloch’s doing a serious investigation?

If the OSC doesn’t find wrongdoing, I’m sure that Congress will scrutinize their investigation to see what, if anything, was covered up.
I’m a bit confused about how the public already knows about this case if nothing has come from the White House about it. As I understand it, the White House turned over some emails that fueled this case.

IIRC, some problematic stuff slipped through early this year before all of the WH staffers realized that Congress couldn’t be counted on to sit on stuff anymore.

And with respect to the congressional subpoenas, I think that issue is still in play: Congress is just within the last two days seriously talking about contempt charges!

Oboyoboyoboy. And the White House has already said the DoJ won’t enforce Congressional contempt claims relating to Bush EP claims. Another dead end. And while Congress does have the option of instituting inherent contempt proceedings, how’s it gonna catch people who don’t show up at the Capitol?

I don’t understand why you’re so quick to throw in the towel and essentially claim that Congress has already lost the battle between the two branches on an important Constitutional issue. I think Congress may yet prevail in compelling testimony from White House aides on the attorney scandal, but I’ll admit that remains to be seen.

No, I’m not claiming that Congress has lost the battle. I simply contend that there’s no route that can reasonably be expected to lead to victory, short of the more-than-hypothetical threat of impeachment.

I refuse to throw in the freakin’ towel on this one, thanks.

I think you’ve leaped to a conclusion that is only supported by suspicion and a desire to nail anyone in the Administration to the wall.

These guys have made the Nixon crew look like pikers. A desire to nail them to the wall is pretty reasonable, IMHO.

With respect to suspicion, I simply expect the Bushies to keep on acting the way they’ve been acting.

I think Congress, prosecutors, and the courts have many ways of breaking through Administration stonewalling, and it mostly requires effort and some time to do so. While the Administration has been asserting itself for years now, it is only in the last few months that Congress has begun to flex its power of investigation, and I don’t believe that the courts will blindly defer to unjustified claims of executive privilege.

The courts can’t just jump in on their own say-so. I don’t see the prosecutor that’s going to bring the case, and Congress doesn’t generally ask the courts to arbitrate Article I v. Article II disputes.

I may be wrong, and Congress may not be thrown back on its inherent powers, but ISTM that’s the way to bet (I’m willing to entertain bets, fwiw).

So yeah, I see gaping holes in the stone wall that have not yet been exploited, and those who investigate the possible wrongdoing in this matter should first arm themselves with facts and evidence of what transpired before jumping to prosecution or even impeachment proceedings. We ought to be living in a nation of laws, not of politics: that goes equally for the Administration and Congress.

We’ll clearly have to disagree on the holes. We’ll find out over the coming months, on a number of different legal fronts, whether your holes are real or not.

As far as the rest of what you say is concerned, I agree with it, with the stipulation that if the available evidence is indicative of crimes, but WH stonewalling prevents Congressional or other investigators from getting the full picture, then Congress needs to be prepared to open an impeachment investigation in order to finish the job.