That certainly is your spin. I see it differently. Conyers is now on record saying they want to get Rove.

Not investigate him.

Not SEE what may have happened.

No, Conyers has already PRESUMED what has happened, and PRESUMED a verdict.

There is NOTHING courageous about trying and convicting people without due process.

Of course, you hate Rove, so that whole concept skates right on by you.

I would hold Conyers and his committee to the same standard that every court in the land upholds:

"Innocent until PROVEN guilty".

That IS how it works in America....you haven't forgotten that, now have you? It also applies to Republicans, not just Democrats...you are aware of that too aren't you?

If not, one can only wonder what kind of country you and Mr. Conyers are advocating.........

Of course...you have been charging and convicting Bush, Cheney, and Rove for 8 years, so your ability to remain in touch with "Innocent until PROVEN guilty" is already completely undermined.

Jack

"If U were smarter, I'd have nothing 2 do"

Be the change
you wish to see

I never said he shouldn't be....but that isn't what Conyers appears to be doing, now is it?

He appears to have a firm opinion of Rove's guilt already, as do many people here.

Instead of commenting about my behavior, why don't you write a little bit about why you think due process doesn't apply to Republicans as much as it does Democrats.

Or do you believe that the constitution only applies to those who share your politics?

Jack

"If U were smarter, I'd have nothing 2 do"

...JPB123

Give GW Bush a 3rd term! Vote for McCain...

Obviously he thinks he has grounds to do so, and that's for courts to decide....not Mr. Conyers, or you.

Jack

"If U were smarter, I'd have nothing 2 do"

http://forum.myredbook.com/dcforum2/User_files/tq7058t9k0iwnw0w.gif

Jack

"If U were smarter, I'd have nothing 2 do"

Maybe Conyers does "appear" to have a firm opinion. That happens all the time. Trust me, in a typical everyday criminal court, that judge usually has an opinion of guilt also. But that doesn't mean he acts on it. Same with many defense attorneys. If they actually think about it, they often if not usually have opinions of guilt. They often think their client is probably guilty. But that doesn't mean they don't do their jobs. Sometimes prosecutors suspect, based on their personal opinions, that the defendant might be innocent...of THAT crime. But if the evidence points to guilt, and the defense atty is competent, and the jury and judge properly follow procedure, then it's the prosecutor's job to lay aside his personal suspicions and present the evidence assertively and ethically.

Maybe conyers is enough of a professional to believe one thing, yet still do the right thing as required by law.

Be the change
you wish to see

Why won't Rove agree to testify? What does he have to hide? Guilty men run from justice...

If there really is executive privilege, they should state their case...Simply claiming there is executive privilege is not good enough...

...JPB123

Give GW Bush a 3rd term! Vote for McCain...

Why do you make such a ridiculous statement? I mean, that's just lame.

~Why won't Rove agree to testify? What does he have to hide? Guilty men run from justice...~

I can't speak for Rove, nor should I...Rove can speak for himself.

Just like Wright and Obama

Jack

"If U were smarter, I'd have nothing 2 do"

Yer so full of it. Who do you think buys your brand of fertilizer anymore?

You just cant _stand_ it, that Congress dares to do...it's job.

Personality traits inform others.

Okay...whatever suits you I suppose.......

Jack

"If U were smarter, I'd have nothing 2 do"

But, in point of fact, Rove has explicitly refused to do so. When Conyers says he will "get" Rove, he means, for contempt of Congress, and the evasion of Subpoenas to testify before Congress. Frankly, once Rove has refused to testify before Conyers' committee, Conyers' duty moves from "investigating" Rove, to prosecuting him for the aforementioned contempt.

Yes...on legal grounds claiming "executive privilege". You do understand that don't you? It's a legal battle. Whether you like it or not, congressional authority does not exceed the judicial branch, which is where this will end up. So, until the judicial branch validates whatever view Conyers has, Rove hasn't done anything wrong.

It's like you guys just don't understand that the White House has it's attorneys for counsel as well. We have seen how various Bush policies and positions have been affirmed by the courts, and shot down too. It's all part of the process whether you like it or not.

So the law, not your opinions or feelings about Bush or Rove, is what matters. The law, and not what John Conyers or his committee, is what matters.

Jack

"If U were smarter, I'd have nothing 2 do"

There is no law or statute that gives the president or his minions "executive privilege". The whole concept was made up by Richard Nixon during Watergate as he was trying desperately to wiggle out of responsibility for what he did.

The term has no legal meaning.

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

"In the United States government, executive privilege is the power (reserve power) claimed by the President of the United States and other members of the executive branch to resist certain search warrants and other interventions by the legislative and judicial branches of government. The concept of executive privilege is not mentioned in the United States Constitution, but some consider it to be an element of the separation of powers doctrine, and/or derived from the supremacy of executive branch in its own area of Constitutional activity.[1]

The Supreme Court confirmed the legitimacy of this doctrine in United States v. Nixon, but only to the extent of confirming that there is a qualified privilege. Once invoked, a presumption of privilege is established, requiring the Prosecutor to make a "sufficient showing" that the "Presidential material" is "'essential to the justice of the case.'"(418 U.S. at 713-14). Chief Justice Burger further stated that executive privilege would most effectively apply when the oversight of the executive would impair that branch's national security concerns.

Historically, the uses of executive privilege underscore the untested nature of the doctrine, since Presidents have generally sidestepped open confrontations with the United States Congress and the courts over the issue by first asserting the privilege, then producing some of the documents requested on an assertedly voluntary basis."

______________________________________________________________________________________

You did see the part that says "The Supreme Court confirmed the legitimacy of this doctrine in United States v. Nixon", did you not?

So clearly it does have legal meaning, and legal precedent. The issue is......how much can it be stretched.

Please Longdong, if you're going to post legal opinions, have the courtesy to at least read the most basic, non-partisan Google information available, and avoid limiting yourself to the standard "tell me what I want to hear" sites you usually refer to for your views.

Jack

"If U were smarter, I'd have nothing 2 do"

When the documents haven't been destroyed, when the emails haven't been "accidently erased", this administration doesn't think they really need to make any case for anything to anyone. This is the Unitary Executive Age afterall.

When John Yoo was requested to appear before an oversight committee regarding torture memos he blows them off, with his lawyer saying:

"the Office of Legal Counsel of the United States Department of Justice that Professor Yoo is not authorized to discuss before your Committee any specific deliberative communications, including the substance of comments on opinions or policy questions, or the confidential predecisional advice, recommendations or other positions taken by individuals or entities of the Executive Branch"

Nobody buys this baloney outside partisan circles; if a future democrat tries it, look the hell out below.

When it comes to compliance, Cheney merely claims he is part of the legislative branch too and doesn't have to comply. Is he a fourth branch of government??? Does he get to play both sides against the other???

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-06-24-cheney_N.htm
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/06/22/cheney_asserts_hes_part_of_the_legislative_branch/

It protected it only in the case of communications...

"The Supreme Court did not reject the claim of privilege out of hand; it noted, in fact, 'the valid need for protection of communications between high Government officials and those who advise and assist them in the performance of their manifold duties' and that '[h]uman experience teaches that those who expect public dissemination of their remarks may well temper candor with a concern for appearances and for their own interests to the detriment of the decisionmaking process.'"...

...but not generally as would be the case with Rove as he is not attempting to protect communucations, particularly if he is issued a subpeona...

"The Supreme Court however rejected the notion that the President has an "absolute privilege." The Supreme Court stated: "To read the Article II powers of the President as providing an absolute privilege as against a subpoena essential to enforcement of criminal statutes on no more than a generalized claim of the public interest in confidentiality of nonmilitary and nondiplomatic discussions would upset the constitutional balance of 'a workable government' and gravely impair the role of the courts under Article III." Because Nixon had asserted only a generalized need for confidentiality, the Court held that the larger public interest in obtaining the truth in the context of a criminal prosecution took precedence."

The fact is that the whole concept of executive privilege has never been seriously tested in the courts which is probably how the executive branch wants it as it is highly questionable if it would pass legal muster as there is no constititional basis for it.

And anyway as far as I can see Rove has not invoked executive privilege in this case yet.

Wrong again Jack. The fact is, if Rove will not testify before Congress, irrespective of whether or not he claims executive privilege, it fundamentally alters Conyers' duty, from investigating Rove, to Compelling Rove to testify - unless he believes that Rove's claim of privilege is justified - which obviously, Conyers does not. So, the simple fact is, there was nothing wrong nor inappropriate about Conyers stating he was going to "get" Rove - because once Rove refused to testify, even using the supposed shield of executive privilege, it alters Conyers' responsibility from one of an investigator, to one who needs to pursue the Congressional interest in compelling Rove to cooperate - and to do this, he needs to threaten to "get" him should Rove continue to fail to comply.

As you have been told many times...someone not responding in a time frame you desire does not mean they are avoiding the thread.

I'm not sure why you struggle with absorbing that.

Jack

"If U were smarter, I'd have nothing 2 do"

In this case it does as he was posting in other threads between the time it was started and my post.

I just think that we should get an opinion from somebody who actually does have some legal expertise instead of pretenders like you, even as flawed as atticus' opinions are.

That doesn't mean he avoided this one. That means he responded to the others. Perhaps he was finishing up there and would get to this today Longdong. No one should have to explain this to you. These threads don't have expiration dates, nor did he commit to responding in any time frame here. No one should have to explain this to you either.

~I just think that we should get an opinion from somebody who actually does have some legal expertise instead of pretenders like you, even as flawed as atticus' opinions are~

That's humorous, because on one hand you credit him with legal expertise, then on the other you claim his views are flawed....when you have no claim to legal expertise yourself. It's also humorous that you call me a pretender, when I have actually studied a lot of criminal law as a CJ major in college....something I doubt you have done.

So, if Atticus, with legal expertise (as you noted) has "flawed opinions"....and I, a CJ major, am a "pretender"....what does that make you, a nail pounder by trade, when discussing legal issues?

Oh...the answer is NOT an "expert". LOL

Jack

"If U were smarter, I'd have nothing 2 do"