Rove Denies Tampering With Investigation

Karl Rove should be forced to go under oath, as should Bush and his entire cabinet.
The American people have to know just what DAMAGE this gang has done to our country.
Can we as a nation survive this attack that they did to our constitution and economy???

THERE HAS TO BE SOME RECKONING FOR THE DAMAGE DONE TO OUR NATION BY THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION. CARL ROVE WAS THE MOST DESTRUCTIVE OF ALL,HE SHOULD BE FORCED TO TESTIFY. IN MY OPINION, HE AND BUSH AND CHANEY AND RUMSFFIELD SHOULD SOMEDAY BE TRIED FOR WAR CRIMES

nobody is above the law.

if they could impeach William Jefferson Clinton for getting a "bj", then Rove must be held accountable, as well as anyone, and everyone who is involved.

He didn't deny anything. Check the video. LA Times has already run a correction. He dodged the answer -- twice.

OSAMA OBAMA, BILLARY CLINTON, THE REST OF THE DEMO-RATS IN CONGRESS ARE TO BLAME FOR THE HIGH GAS PRICES AND THIS ECONOMIC CHAOS. WHY?

1) Since Ethanol burns faster the consumer uses more gas when mixed with the normal fuel. Using more gas increases demand and thus ecomomically increases the price. This was the democrats iniative.

2) Thanks to OSAMA OBAMA, BILLARY CLINTON, THE REST OF THE DEMO-RATS IN CONGRESS, we are now BURNING UP our crops in order to make this ethanol gas. That's why our food prices are so high now and more the first time in the history of America, we are no longer the bread basket of the world. We now have to import our food from their socialist/communist friends and the third world.

3) OSAMA OBAMA, BILLARY CLINTON, THE REST OF THE DEMO-RATS IN CONGRESS OVER and OVER AGAIN refuse to spend the money to build more oil refineries in in order to get the prices lower for the average american. They demand that the average citizen in Anerica by creating an artifical economic disaster so that americans become so impoverished such that they are the slaves economically to the government. That's why their buddy Gorbechav (of the former soviet union and Ronald Regan's nemesis) has a foundation in California to this day slowly gathering influence to bring America down economically.

4) OSAMA OBAMA, BILLARY CLINTON, THE REST OF THE DEMO-RATS IN CONGRESS ruined america by passing regislation to promote ethanol gas because it costs so much more to make than gas that it has to be substidized by the federal government. Farmers are not stupid. since they knew that they could make more money from the govenment by converting their crops from food to gas they quickly signed the government paperwork and "made a deal with the devil." Now americans and rest of the world can starve while paying higher gas prices. What good is gas when you can't afford it and can't afford to feed yourself? But don't you worry. The Big brother communistists are on their way to save the day. This little artifical economic disaster was sponsored by your friendly neighborhood liberal in the US congress and all liberal media outlets. They only want to own all your money so you will be forced to join their government-worshipping cult called secular humanism where the state acts as "god" over the people.

5) OSAMA OBAMA, BILLARY CLINTON, THE REST OF THE DEMO-RATS IN CONGRESS are responsible for exterminating at least a fifth of America population by marketing Abortion to the youth and minorities and thus their selfish "anti-child attitude" in their younger days has ironinic developed into the collapse of social security for everyone.

6) DEMO-RATS IN CONGRESS in the 1980's stole money out of the national social security trust fund and they continue to this day to vote against policies that help America and the American people to protect ourselves.

Have you ever wondered why you can never get a staight answer from them? If you ask them about specifics about what their agenda would be you get rhetoric and fluffy images, but no details nor any substance.

NOBODY IN THEIR PARTY CAN BE TRUSTED.

Governor of Puerto Rico Indicted
By Jeralyn, Section Corruption Cases
Posted on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 11:12:11 AM EST
:
A two year investigation has resulted in the indictment of Puerto Rico Governor Anibal Acevedo Vila on on 19 counts "including conspiracy to violate U.S. federal campaign laws and giving false testimony to the FBI."

Acevedo dismissed the indictment as nothing but politics and "a spectacle designed to damage me." ....The 55-page indictment alleges that Acevedo also personally helped a group of Philadelphia-area businessmen in their efforts to obtain Puerto Rican government contracts after they delivered illegal campaign contributions from their own staff and family members.

Acevedo is a superdelegate for Barack Obama. Big Tent Democrat has some thoughts on how Puerto Rico's
voters will vote in their June 1 primary here.

BE SURE TO ADD HIS NAME TO OBAMA'S CORRUPT FRIENDS and FAMILY

He is trying to prolong this until after the general election in order to prevent any chances of McCain losing.

"(")This is really about a constitutional question of separation of powers. Congress, the House Judiciary Committee, wants to be able to call presidential aides on its whim up to testify. This is now tied up in court. It's going to be tied up in court and settled in court." That isn't likely to be before the next Administration has already taken power."

That's OK, Mark. I can wait.
Mark, we dance along the line of credibility here. You're a good fellow and a skilled writer; save yourself while there is still an opportunity to do so.

Jill Simpson is not a credible witness. check and see how her story has changed over time. She reminds me of that European who claimed that, in 1980, GHWB and Bill Casey flew in a super-secret US military supersonic jet to France for a secret meeting with mullahs from Iran. The Democrats wanted an investigation then. As one Democrat said " As there is absolutely no credible evidence that this story is true, there must be an investigation."

Sorry Mr. Impomeni but what made Rove's interview with George Stephanopoulos on Sunday noteworthy was his refusal to deny involvement in the Siegelman prosecution as has been noted by blogs, news outlets across the internet and helzphar above.

You are, in fact, being played by Rove and spreading misinformation by reading into his carefully parsed words. Three times Stephanopoulos asked him for a denial and three times he circumvented the question by answering something different entirely -- that he read about the indictment and investigation in the newspaper. This does not at all preclude his involvement in the case and was most certainly not a denial.

You should correct your mistake and inform your readers of the error. Otherwise, you are merely a Rove propaganda vehicle.

Actually it does not put you in league with the LA Times which has already issued a correction. You should watch the video again and do the same.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-rove26-2008may26,0,4410587.story

Sir: That it puts you in league with those media outlets is nothing to rely upon. Karl Rove did not deny his involvement. He repeated a carefully worded to deceive non-answer to the question. Stephanopoulos even pointed out that he was not denying it as he was not denying it. I'd think you would want to be accurate more than you would want to be inaccurate in good company. Our country sort of depends on it.

Well, it seems to me you are willfully misrepresenting things here. Rove's statement cannot be "taken at face value" without realizing that he was avoiding denying involvement. Anyone who has heard anything about him in recent years has to know that anything he states publicly is most probably designed expressly to deceive, to spin, to plant useful to criminals ideas in our heads. So, well, I'm going away now, but I wish you would think about our republic and how to keep it. You're walking the path of losing it for all of us forever.

Mr. Impomeni, directly underneath the headline at the link I provided to the L.A. Times it reads:

FOR THE RECORD:
Karl Rove: In Section A on Monday, an article about Karl Rove said he brushed off suggestions that he attempted to influence a Justice Department investigation and prosecution of Don Siegelman, former Democratic governor of Alabama. The headline went further than the article by saying, "Rove says he didn't intervene in probe."

Again, the L.A. Times, which you have now sited twice to defend your misleading headline, has corrected its error and you should do the same.

Secondly, I am familiar with the 60 Minutes story of a couple months ago but hardly thought it relevant to this discussion about your misleading headline. And the fact that you would rely on Rove's lawyer, who also just a few weeks ago said that Rove would testify if asked by Conyers and the House Judiciary Committee, is startling. This is doubly so when Rove was asked about his involvement two days ago! And when your headline reads, "ROVE Denies Tampering With Investigation (emphasis added)". Perhaps I am mistaken in believing that your article was written in response to Rove's interview on Sunday as the first sentence indicates.

Again, Rove was asked point blank three times to deny involvement and refused to do so. This is why Rove was given THREE chance to set the record straight and why Stephanopoulos even stated, "But that's not a denial." It is little wonder that most media outlets went with headlines exactly opposite to your own. Rawstory, for example, which has broken many of the stories regarding the Siegelman prosecution ran with, "Rove refuses to deny contacting DOJ about Siegelman prosecution"

And I am not at all claiming Rove is lying. I am simply stating what almost everyone who watched the interview is claiming, that Rove refused to answer the question three times and instead gave answers that were irrelevant to the question. Here are just a few interpretations of what Rove could have been stating, all of which are possible and thus prove it is you that is reading into his comments...

From the comments section to an article on the subject at ABC News:

"The question was “Did you ever contact the Justice Department about the Seigleman prosecution?” But Karl Rove chose to answer the imaginary question “When did you learn about the Seigleman indictment?” Of course, he probably instructed his crony prosecutor at Justice—his “Ken Griffin”—to pursue a framed case about the governor and then confirmed that his order was executed from the resulting newspaper story. So by answering the imaginary question, Rove in no way answers the real one."

"Leanred (sic) about what the first time? That he was actually indicted? So what - that has nothing to do with whether Rove was invovled (sic) with getting him indicted."

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/05/rove-speaks-out.html

And there are plenty more plausible explanations where Rove was telling the truth and also not denying involvement in the case. On an even more fundamental level, if Rove were denying involvement, why on earth wouldn't he just have said so on any of the three opportunities that Stephanopoulos provided him? He could have simply said, "I was not involved at all". But again, he chose to evade the question three times.

Also, while a bit more complicated and irrelevant to this conversation, Bush's claim of executive privilege necessarily proves Rove's involvement. If Rove was not involved then he would not have discussed it with the president and thus there cannot be any claim of executive privilege.

Finally, you once again read into things when you write that Rove's lawyer has denied Simpson's claim. Even if true, and there is no evidence that it is true, that would hardly preclude Rove's involvement in the case.

Again, your headline is false and propagandistic in nature. Not to mention embarrassing. And you should correct it.

Thanks,

HPM