Who woulda thunk it?

What a surprise:

"Former White House political adviser Karl Rove was deeply involved in the firing of a U.S. attorney in New Mexico, according to White House e-mails and transcripts of closed-door testimony released Tuesday."

He broke the law and then lied to congress and the American people about it. Remember when that was a bad thing? (Hint: It was the last time we had a Democratic President.)

But we should just forget about it and move on. What benefit could there possibly be from prosecuting the guilty, huh? After all, look what it's done to his reputation. Shouldn't that be punishment enough?

Comments

Derek said…
So you are upset about this, but not about Gerald Walpin? Walpin investigates an Obama supporter who raised money for his campaign, and is fired, illegally, mind you. Rove play some role in the firing of an attorney and you are pissed, but I can almost guarantee you will defend Obama.

Double standard much?
Anonymous said…
I missed the part where Walpin was a high government official with the power to skew the judicial fabric of our democracy.
Green Eagle said…
Derek,

As you very well know, there were other serious issues with Walpin. Once again, you are satisfied to just shout out the Republican line, rather than deal with the truth.

By the way, Derek, do you believe Obama was born in Kenya? Just wondering.
Derek said…
"I missed the part where Walpin was a high government official with the power to skew the judicial fabric of our democracy."

Not too much, but he can take down Obama's buddies. Obama didn't take to that very well, so he fired him illegally.

"As you very well know, there were other serious issues with Walpin"

The Democratic claim that he was confused and senile? Please, the man is as sharp as a tack. Ever hear him speak? Never is he off beat, and he packs a punch with wit. Who is toeing the party line? Again, just because other Republicans shout it does not mean it is false. You repeat the Democratic points without knowing the facts. I repeat some Republican points, along with many of my own, while knowing the facts.

"By the way, Derek, do you believe Obama was born in Kenya? Just wondering."

We've been over this: No.

My turn to ask a random question.

Do you believe that the healthcare bill is constitutional? If so, please explain.
If the bill is passed by Congress and signed into law by the Presient it is Constitutional unless the Supreme Court decides otherwise. The Constituition said nothing about Medicare so I see no way the Supremes could find anything unconstitutional about this.

Good question Derek. If I ever lumped you in with the hoard of deleuded right wing fools I usually have to straighten out I apologise.
Derek said…
"it is Constitutional unless the Supreme Court decides otherwise"

Uh, not so much. The Supreme Court can't change the Constitution, and if the Constitution says that Congress doesn't have the power to do something, they can't do anything to change it. It is either Constitutional or it isn't.

It would be like if Congress passed a bill to limit what you can say, lest you be black bagged and imprisoned. Then the Supreme court says it is Constitutional, even though it clearly isn't. Is that bill Constitutional? Of course not.

"The Constituition said nothing about Medicare so I see no way the Supremes could find anything unconstitutional about this."

Medicare is unconstitutional as well, along with most entitlements. Find me where in Article 1 Section 8 that it says Congress can dictate anything the private insurers and healthcare providers do. Find it, and I will fly to where ever you are, and let you punch me in the face. Now that is a bargaining chip.
Green Eagle said…
Derek,

As you well know, the Federal courts for two hundred years now have broadly interpreted the notion of "to promote the general welfare."

Your argument about the constitution is not only tendentious, relying as it does on a very narrow reading not supported by other explanations of the founders (i.e. the Federalist papers,) but it also would require rejection of virtually the entire body of judicial interpretation throughout the history of this country. It is you who are ignoring the clear intent of the founders of our country and distorting the document they created.

I know you will never accept that fact; but then you never accept any facts that are inconvenient to you, so I won't worry about it.

I just want to say that you have been among the most devoted readers of my blog in its early days, and I appreciate that very much. I will always be happy to have you comment here, but as you've probably guessed, we are going to end up disagreeing most of the time. That's okay, and thanks for your contributions to this blog.

Popular posts from this blog

Wingnut Wrapup

It's Okay, Never Mind

Hamas