You go, girl!

Bob in HI

As Dirty Harry would say: go ahead Democrat punks, make my day!

Seriously, Republicans would like nothing better than this. Can you say political hari-kiri? How do you think Democrat-leaning Hispanic voters would react to such a move?

He’d have had a Matlin (or a Carville) or someone else just like Rove, if not Rove, IMO. He’d have someone just like Gonzales, if not Gonzales (see, e.g., Ashcroft). He only has amoral cutthroat enablers and soft fuzzy ego strokers (Miers, Rice) and there isnt’ a dearth of either.

Rove got lucky to get the nod and he knows it – what happened in 2006 shows he’s not superstratergerizer – he’s just another of many willing to go low and enable a wealthy, ruthless, well connected, amoral and not all that interested in the details – jerk.

Of course, that JMO. *g*

I usually can figure out Acronyms I don’t know but BFF is driving me insane – could someone clue me in? Please?

If you’re still here, Best Friend Forever!

A Congressional investigation into Mr. Rove’s background, assisted by subpoenas and grants of immunity, would no doubt uncover morsels that a federal or state prosecutor might find worth biting into.

Careful with the immunity, it seems to me that wholesale granting of immunity, plus a judicious pardon or two, had a lot to do with no one being held accountable for Iran/Contra or the sleazy treasonous dealings with the Iranians by the incoming Raygunites. Indeed most of those criminals that aren’t dead are in the current criminal administration.

I think there exists adequate evidence of the potentially corrupt influence of Mr. Rove’s actions to begin an investigation of them. If evidence exists, as it did with Mr. Libby, only then should he be prosecuted. The chips would then fall as they may, without attempting to corrupt judge or jury.

There would, no doubt, be political fall out. But that’s the briar patch Mr. Rove says he hates to be thrown into.

I assumed that Rove originally wanted a limited formal role to hide his pervasive influence and to avoid being vulnerable to Congressional review or impeachment. Mr. Bush would, no doubt, seek to spike any direct investigation of Mr. Rove by claiming that his employment and advice were subject to his “executive [sic] privilege”.

But Congress might hold hearings on say, the security clearance process, including those issued to WH employees and private contractors. There have been numerous claimed abuses, such as extended “reviews”, which suspended the clearance and any appeal from a change of status, and prohibited the holder – often a progressive or meddlesome bureaucrat – from becoming aware of or influencing policy, and from being a productive part of the grapevine that makes DC work. Other needed investigations might be used as a suitable rationale for looking into Mr. Rove’s work.

A Congressional investigation into Mr. Rove’s background, assisted by subpoenas and grants of immunity, would no doubt uncover morsels that a federal or state prosecutor might find worth biting into.