Republicans Declare War on Obama!
Less than 24 hours after being Inaugurated, the Republican Party — from self-proclaimed “moderates” like Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania to the Leader of the Idiocracy (Rush Limbaugh) — made clear their determination to buck the 82% of America that approve of Obama and want him to succeed.
Specter was the first to lay down the gauntlet. In a move unprecedented in American history, Specter referenced an obscure committee rule to delay one week a hearing on the nomination of Judge Eric Holder for Attorney General. The real concern of Republicans: that Holder would prosecute ex-Bush officials for their flagrant breaches of the U.S. Constitution.
Meanwhile, Rush Limbaugh made clear his determination that Government of the People, by the People, and for the People must fail, lest Obama’s success be proof that Government can actually be a force for goods. “I hope he fails,” said the rotund drug addict revered by the few unthinking dittoheads remaining in America.
Those of you who support the President need to let Republicans know NOW that their attempts to obstruct the Will of the American People will not be looked at kindly. You can start by calling Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter’s office and tell him how angry you are that he has declared War on Obama. Specter has said he supports Holder. So why the hold-up? Because Republicans want to make sure that the lawlessness, shredding of the Constitution, and war crimes of their friends in the Bush Administration are never prosecuted. They want to ensure their unqualified cronies, illegally chosen for political reasons for their demonstrated loyalty to the President over and above the Constitution, remain in power to subvert the will of President Obama and the American People. If Republicans have their way, it could weaken Holder and set a fine precedent for the invulnerability of future American tyranny. Let’s begin protests outside Specter’s office and demonstrations across Pennsylvania. Republicans may hate the Constitution. But We the People believe it is We, not They, who are in Charge.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Robt February 1, 2009 3:38 am
Mark,
Besides Rove answering questions or answering selective questions and calling Executive priviledge for specifics.
Can’t Rove simply exercise his Fifth Amendment Right?
I can’t recall her name right now but wasn’t it the reporter in the Valerie Plame CIA Op leak case that held the reporter in the slammer?
So will their have to be a special Prosecutor with Grand Jury to do this?
Is there a Fifth Amendment Right in this for Rove to abuse?
*********
Here is a scenario,
Rove is in front of the Conyers committee. You sit to the left of him and it is your turn to ask 5 questions of Rove.
What are those Questions?
( OK,You can list more than 5 more if you like. } But House Minority Leader Boehner may not like it and Rushbo will trash you on his show the next day if you do. Just so you realize the political risk your taking.
If you decide to take the opportunity instead of questioning Rove and opt for the ” Shoe Toss “.
I will understand.
madfuq January 31, 2009 12:34 am
First let me say why anyone pays any attention to the bloviator gasbag rushnut is beyond me. The media is hyping this screwball to the point of making me sick at my stomache. Even mentioning him in the realm of politics is shameful he is a paid shill for the far right wing period.
If anyone is surprised at the repukes attitude and their shameful trickery when it comes to Obama, then you need to wake up and remember how Clinton was treated by these scum bags. They wil treat Obama poorly because that is all they know how to do!
Mark January 30, 2009 10:42 am
The short answer is Yes.
Here’s the process:
1) The Entire House of Representatives must vote to hold Rove in contempt. Nancy Pelosi must agree to hold the vote, and then I’m confident it will pass along partisan lines (as it did with Miers and Bolton)
2) The US District Attorney is then required be law to indict Rove. (The last one broke the law because Bush told him to. I’m confident Obama will not break the law.) Then a judge will hold Rove in jail until he testifies. (Miers and Bolton may or may not require a revote of Congress. I don’t think a revote is required, but some may argue it’s a new Congress requiring a new vote.)
3. There will be a great wailng and gnashing of teeth as Republicans complain about Obama jailing former members of the Bush Administration. Obama will have to withstand the pressure. I’m confident he will. (But if he won’t, he’ll tell Pelosi quietly not to hold the vote because there are “more important matters to be voted on” and thus stop it at stage 1 rather than stage 2 or 3.
4. Rove will then “testify” rather than go to jail. But he will refuse to answer questions on the ground of Executive Privilege to a Former President. Congress will insist he answers and the matter will go to court.
5. If Rove stonewalls and refuses to answer all questions, I’m confident a court will find in Congress’ favor, possibly even th Surpeme Court.
6. If Rove selectively refuses to answer some questions, it’s a closer case.
7. But given that in the attorney prosecution scandal, it is claimed that Bush had no involvement, Rove is in a Catch-22. If Bush had no involvment, how can there be Executive Privilege. (Will Rove actually make the weak argument that Executive Privilege extends below the President to every member of the Executive Branch? Such a ruling would end Congressional Oversight once and for all, and even this Supreme Court can’t agree to that.)
8. Or will Rove admit that…gasp…the former President of the United States DID talk with him about removing prosecutors for political reasons who refused to bring up trumped-charges against Democrats, which would be a clearly impeachable offense (far worse than Nixon) and will cement Bush in the history books as the Worst Criminal President Ever?
9. The noose is closing on Rove. His best bet is to answer the innnocuous questions and when asked about Bush involvement in the prosecutions say there was some “minor” involvment as a way to try the thread the needle of admitting some Presidential inovlvement to get Executive Privilege while downplaying the President’s criminality (which is not protected by Executive Privilege, as found in the famous case where the Supreme Court voted 9-0 to make Nixon turn over the Watergate tapes).
Thanks for the great question, Robert.