Karl Rove pardoned for any wrongdoing, off to work on midterm elections - GoFuckYourself.com

mardigras · 06-13-2006, 04:19 AM

They needed him to focus on keeping the republicans in power for the midterm elections so some behind the scenes wheeling and dealing was done and he is now cleared of any suspicions...

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...1O3t4&refer=us

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...1O3t4&refer=us

pussyluver · 06-13-2006, 04:30 AM

The Democrats will bitch no doubt. Politics.....

12clicks · 06-13-2006, 05:55 AM

uh, he wasn't pardoned, he was cleared.

RogerV10 · 06-13-2006, 06:00 AM

True. Read the article closely.

mardigras · 06-13-2006, 06:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 12clicks

uh, he wasn't pardoned, he was cleared.

No, cleared would indicate that they determined there wasn't enough evidence to charge him on. If you read the coverage of it it says the decision came after high pressure meetings with his attorneys and the prosecutor, after which the prosecutor announced he would not be bringing any charges against Mr. Rove. That, my friend, is a pardon, even if not ceremoniously or officially declared one.

Just semantics though, as much as "not guilty" doesn't always equal "innocent"

12clicks · 06-13-2006, 06:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mardigras

No, cleared would indicate that they determined there wasn't enough evidence to charge him on. If you read the coverage of it it says the decision came after high pressure meetings with his attorneys and the prosecutor, after which the prosecutor announced he would not be bringing any charges against Mr. Rove. That, my friend, is a pardon, even if not ceremoniously or officially declared one.

Just semantics though, as much as "not guilty" doesn't always equal "innocent"

no, if you read the coverage, you'll not see the word pardon used. that my friend, is YOUR word. When a prosecutor decides not to prosecute, he knows he doesn't have a case.

mardigras · 06-13-2006, 06:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 12clicks

no, if you read the coverage, you'll not see the word pardon used. that my friend, is YOUR word. When a prosecutor decides not to prosecute, he knows he doesn't have a case.

Normally when a prosecutor dismisses a case for lack of evidence he makes that fact known on public record.

mardigras · 06-13-2006, 06:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 12clicks

no, if you read the coverage, you'll not see the word pardon used. that my friend, is YOUR word.

I used some other words in my post that did not appear in the article

If it walks like a duck....

12clicks · 06-13-2006, 06:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mardigras

Normally when a prosecutor dismisses a case for lack of evidence he makes that fact known on public record.

I don't understand your reasoning for this argument. I know you're unhappy about it because you hate Bush but at the end of the day, if the evidence showed he broke the law, he'd be prosecuted. Obviously, the evidence did NOT show he broke the law.

crockett · 06-13-2006, 06:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 12clicks

no, if you read the coverage, you'll not see the word pardon used. that my friend, is YOUR word. When a prosecutor decides not to prosecute, he knows he doesn't have a case.

Yea so OJ never did it either right.. Just because fuck offs that ruin our country like Karl Rove have enough money to buy their way out of jail, doesn't mean they aren't guilty.

Joesho · 06-13-2006, 06:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crockett

Yea so OJ never did it either right.. Just because fuck offs that ruin our country like Karl Rove have enough money to buy their way out of jail, doesn't mean they aren't guilty.

don't try to make sence to 12clicks about politics.....

it only gives him a headache and confuses him even more.

mardigras · 06-13-2006, 06:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 12clicks

I don't understand your reasoning for this argument. I know you're unhappy about it because you hate Bush

What does my feelings about Bush have to do with this story?
I don't "hate" Bush... I don't approve of many things he's done or supports but that would be true of anyone in the White House doing similar, regardless of political affiliation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 12clicks

but at the end of the day, if the evidence showed he broke the law, he'd be prosecuted. Obviously, the evidence did NOT show he broke the law.

Until the prosecutor publicly notes that the case was dismissed due to lack of evidence it sounds more like a "plea bargain" went on behind those closed doors. Why would this prosecutor not end 3 years of public & political slander Mr. Rove has suffered by making it public record if he was truly and conclusively cleared of any wrongdoing?

12clicks · 06-13-2006, 06:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joesho

don't try to make sence to 12clicks about politics.....

it only gives him a headache and confuses him even more.

hmmmm, yes, again, I have the facts on my side but again, I'm wrong and confused.
ok.

12clicks · 06-13-2006, 06:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mardigras

Until the prosecutor publicly notes that the case was dismissed due to lack of evidence it sounds more like a "plea bargain" went on behind those closed doors. Why would this prosecutor not end 3 years of public & political slander Mr. Rove has suffered by making it public record if he was truly and conclusively cleared of any wrongdoing?

um, there was no plea bargain and the prosecutor, after looking over the facts, decided not to prosecute. Now you can pretend that means anything you want but it really only means one thing, there was no evidence of guilt. period.

The Truth Hurts · 06-13-2006, 06:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joesho

don't try to make sence to 12clicks about politics.....

...or Joesho, about the spelling of simple words.

crockett · 06-13-2006, 06:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 12clicks

hmmmm, yes, again, I have the facts on my side but again, I'm wrong and confused.
ok.

so in other words OJ didn't do it?

stickyfingerz · 06-13-2006, 06:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mardigras

No, cleared would indicate that they determined there wasn't enough evidence to charge him on. If you read the coverage of it it says the decision came after high pressure meetings with his attorneys and the prosecutor, after which the prosecutor announced he would not be bringing any charges against Mr. Rove. That, my friend, is a pardon, even if not ceremoniously or officially declared one.

Just semantics though, as much as "not guilty" doesn't always equal "innocent"

You are wrong..

12clicks · 06-13-2006, 07:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crockett

so in other words OJ didn't do it?

no, in other words, there *was* enough evidence of his guilt to bring him to trial and there *was not* enough evidence of Rove's guilt to bring him to trial.

son, do you really think you're the one who will talk me into a corner?

you're not Neo, you're more one of the guys who get unplugged while sleeping in the chair.

mardigras · 06-13-2006, 07:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 12clicks

there was no evidence of guilt. period.

Quote:

A series of meetings between Mr. Luskin and Mr. Fitzgerald and his team proved pivotal in dissuading the prosecutor from bringing charges.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/13/wa...rtner=homepage
Now why do you suppose they had to go through those meetings to dissuade the prosecutor from bringing charges if "there was no evidence of guilt. period"?

The 2nd page of the article above timelines what he was accused of lying about and the documents that proved it. Then again, he may be as forgetful as he claimed. Maybe he can't remember phone conversations but his memory works everywhere else enough to be able to a major player in the political arena... weird.

mardigras · 06-13-2006, 07:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stickyfingerzdotnet

You are wrong..

What part of my post are you referring to?

mardigras · 06-13-2006, 07:38 AM

Charles Schumer is holding a press conference now. He says it is the obligation of the prosecutor in a case like this to release his findings and detail why he came to his decision. I agree 100%.

If there was no evidence, say it.

Ordo · 06-13-2006, 07:57 AM

To this day I truly do wonder what type of person it takes to continue to support such a sadistic, corrupt, greedy and evil administration hell bent on destroying the world around them for personal gain.

I'll never understand it. It really does put a sunken feeling in my gut when I see people blindly defending Bush or any of his corrupt associates.

It makes no sense at all.

Linkster · 06-13-2006, 08:25 AM

Actually both sides here in this thread are wrong - nothing has been said other than Roves lawyer - which doesnt mean shit - could just be a publicity stunt as far as anyone knows.

When a statement is put out by the prosecuter then it will be real news

12clicks · 06-13-2006, 08:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mardigras

Maybe he can't remember phone conversations but his memory works everywhere else enough to be able to a major player in the political arena... weird.

this is the fault with the Bush haters crowd.

If I asked you for exact details of things you typed here years ago, could you provide them?
I couldn't.

people have bumped old threads and I've seen my old posts and thought someone hacked my account until I saw the date.

He's supposed to be different?

12clicks · 06-13-2006, 08:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ordo

To this day I truly do wonder what type of person it takes to continue to support such a sadistic, corrupt, greedy and evil administration hell bent on destroying the world around them for personal gain.

I'll never understand it. It really does put a sunken feeling in my gut when I see people blindly defending Bush or any of his corrupt associates.

It makes no sense at all.

blindly?

whats truly sad is how so many kids have bought into the whole leftist view of things.

mardigras · 06-13-2006, 10:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 12clicks

whats truly sad is how so many kids have bought into the whole leftist view of things.

What's so leftist about wanting the same public record on a case that any other investigation would get?

mardigras · 06-13-2006, 10:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 12clicks

If I asked you for exact details of things you typed here years ago, could you provide them?
I couldn't.

I would remember the conversation, if not the details... not deny my remarks until you produced the post to prove me wrong, then say, "Oh, I forgot".

12clicks · 06-13-2006, 10:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mardigras

What's so leftist about wanting the same public record on a case that any other investigation would get?

uh, this reply wasn'y aimed at you.

however, I'd be embarrassed to ever side with that clown schumer

12clicks · 06-13-2006, 10:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mardigras

I would remember the conversation, if not the details... not deny my remarks until you produced the post to prove me wrong, then say, "Oh, I forgot".

well you're a better man than the rest of us.

crockett · 06-13-2006, 10:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 12clicks

no, in other words, there *was* enough evidence of his guilt to bring him to trial and there *was not* enough evidence of Rove's guilt to bring him to trial.

son, do you really think you're the one who will talk me into a corner?

you're not Neo, you're more one of the guys who get unplugged while sleeping in the chair.

no dad I think you will be the one that talks yourself into a corner..

mardigras · 06-13-2006, 10:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 12clicks

uh, this reply wasn'y aimed at you.

however, I'd be embarrassed to ever side with that clown schumer

Even a broken clock is right a couple times a day

mardigras · 06-13-2006, 10:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 12clicks

well you're a better man than the rest of us.

Tell me something I don't already know

12clicks · 06-13-2006, 10:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mardigras

Even a broken clock is right a couple times a day

then get off my back, Hans Brix!

12clicks · 06-13-2006, 10:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mardigras

Tell me something I don't already know

if only you know it, is it really known?

man, thats like my second keanu reeves reference. thats freeky.

edgeprod · 06-13-2006, 10:33 AM

That's hillarious ... tin foil hat march, 12pm!

mardigras · 06-13-2006, 10:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 12clicks

then get off my back, Hans Brix!

mardigras · 06-13-2006, 10:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by edgeprod

That's hillarious ... tin foil hat march, 12pm!

Nah, It's not a conspiracy... yet

Now if the prosecutor maintains silence...

I'm curious to see the next White House press conference. Since Tony Snow is with the president in Iraq that probably won't happen until he returns.

edgeprod · 06-13-2006, 10:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mardigras

Nah, It's not a conspiracy... yet

Now if the prosecutor maintains silence...

I'm curious to see the next White House press conference. Since Tony Snow is with the president in Iraq that probably won't happen until he returns.

Who the fuck cares? Did you REALLY expect him to do time?!

mardigras · 06-13-2006, 10:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by edgeprod

Who the fuck cares? Did you REALLY expect him to do time?!

I wasn't "expecting" anything... except the course of due process. When (if) the prosecutor makes the basis for his decision public record it's very well likely there is no story here. Even the staunchest supporter of this administration must surely see that it would be improper to dispose of the case in secrecy.

edgeprod · 06-13-2006, 10:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mardigras

I wasn't "expecting" anything... except the course of due process. When (if) the prosecutor makes the basis for his decision public record it's very well likely there is no story here. Even the staunchest supporter of this administration must surely see that it would be improper to dispose of the case in secrecy.

Yeah right. Senators can have $90,000 in the freezers and claim it's a "black" thing?

Representatives can assault capital police and claim it's because of "bad hair?"

And in THAT world, Karl Rove is going to go through "due process?"

12clicks · 06-13-2006, 11:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mardigras

I wasn't "expecting" anything... except the course of due process. When (if) the prosecutor makes the basis for his decision public record it's very well likely there is no story here. Even the staunchest supporter of this administration must surely see that it would be improper to dispose of the case in secrecy.

not so sure about that. if his decision is based on his grad jury testimony, it would be improper for him to comment on it.

Of course, this is most likely why schumer said anything, to embarrass the proceedings on false grounds.

mardigras · 06-13-2006, 11:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by edgeprod

Yeah right. Senators can have $90,000 in the freezers and claim it's a "black" thing?

Representatives can assault capital police and claim it's because of "bad hair?"

And in THAT world, Karl Rove is going to go through "due process?"

Have either of those cases been dismissed?

edgeprod · 06-13-2006, 11:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mardigras

Have either of those cases been dismissed?

They're Democrats -- the media will sweep it under the rug.

mardigras · 06-13-2006, 11:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 12clicks

not so sure about that. if his decision is based on his grad jury testimony, it would be improper for him to comment on it.

Of course, this is most likely why schumer said anything, to embarrass the proceedings on false grounds.

He can say, "I dismissed the case due to lack of evidence I felt to be prosecutable", without discussing the details of any testimony.

Ignore for a moment that Schumer said the words, do you not agree that the reason for the decision should be revealed? It would publicly clear Karl Rove and defuse the issue, both publicly and politically. Win/Win, for everyone involved, including the American public who should be told in a case involving their government.

mardigras · 06-13-2006, 11:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by edgeprod

They're Democrats -- the media will sweep it under the rug.

I guarantee you the activist media will not let the outcome of those cases go unknown

12clicks · 06-13-2006, 11:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mardigras

He can say, "I dismissed the case due to lack of evidence I felt to be prosecutable", without discussing the details of any testimony.

Ignore for a moment that Schumer said the words, do you not agree that the reason for the decision should be revealed? It would publicly clear Karl Rove and defuse the issue, both publicly and politically. Win/Win, for everyone involved, including the American public who should be told in a case involving their government.

I honestly think its irrelevant.
I'm prepared to believe the prosecutor. I'm not prepared to case after conspiracy theories.

mardigras · 06-13-2006, 12:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 12clicks

I honestly think its irrelevant.
I'm prepared to believe the prosecutor. I'm not prepared to case after conspiracy theories.

You never addressed this:

Quote:

Originally Posted by 12clicks

there was no evidence of guilt. period.

Quote:

A series of meetings between Mr. Luskin and Mr. Fitzgerald and his team proved pivotal in dissuading the prosecutor from bringing charges.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mardigras

Now why do you suppose they had to go through those meetings to dissuade the prosecutor from bringing charges if "there was no evidence of guilt. period"?

Rhino22 · 06-13-2006, 12:54 PM

Politics is a nasty little game. I stick to porn.

mardigras · 06-13-2006, 12:55 PM

And BTW, as far as conspiracy theories, 12clicks, people get immunity for cooperation all the time. No biggie if that's the case here. They need to be forthcoming though.

spunkmaster · 06-13-2006, 01:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mardigras

I wasn't "expecting" anything... except the course of due process. When (if) the prosecutor makes the basis for his decision public record it's very well likely there is no story here. Even the staunchest supporter of this administration must surely see that it would be improper to dispose of the case in secrecy.

It's against Federal law for Fitzidiot to make any statements or reports based on Grand Jury procedings.

Fucking Schumer wants him to break the law for the wack jobs out there in La La land !

06-13-2006, 04:19 AM	#1
mardigras Bon temps! Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: down yonder Posts: 14,194	Karl Rove pardoned for any wrongdoing, off to work on midterm elections They needed him to focus on keeping the republicans in power for the midterm elections so some behind the scenes wheeling and dealing was done and he is now cleared of any suspicions... http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...1O3t4&refer=us http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...1O3t4&refer=us

06-13-2006, 05:55 AM	#3
12clicks Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: God's right hand Posts: 19,810	uh, he wasn't pardoned, he was cleared. __________________ I'm not a dinosaur, I'm a crocodile. I've seen dinosaurs come and go and I'm left unimpressed.

06-13-2006, 06:00 AM	#4
RogerV10 Confirmed User Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 1,000	True. Read the article closely. __________________ See how woman just give me their Money! you too can make easy money with GGWCash. join off my sig and get a free GGW Trucker hat or shirt now! http://www.ggwcash.com/?wmid=957 Also when you get a chance check out www.PornoPushers.com ICQ: 161759738 AIM:RemoteRoger

06-13-2006, 07:38 AM	#21
mardigras Bon temps! Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: down yonder Posts: 14,194	Charles Schumer is holding a press conference now. He says it is the obligation of the prosecutor in a case like this to release his findings and detail why he came to his decision. I agree 100%. If there was no evidence, say it. Last edited by mardigras; 06-13-2006 at 07:40 AM..

06-13-2006, 07:57 AM	#22
Ordo Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 1,186	To this day I truly do wonder what type of person it takes to continue to support such a sadistic, corrupt, greedy and evil administration hell bent on destroying the world around them for personal gain. I'll never understand it. It really does put a sunken feeling in my gut when I see people blindly defending Bush or any of his corrupt associates. It makes no sense at all. __________________ Savor Premium Affiliate Area Here

06-13-2006, 04:30 AM	#2
pussyluver Clueless OleMan Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: ICQ - 169903487 Posts: 11,009	The Democrats will bitch no doubt. Politics.....

06-13-2006, 08:25 AM	#23
Linkster Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: DeltaHell Posts: 3,216	Actually both sides here in this thread are wrong - nothing has been said other than Roves lawyer - which doesnt mean shit - could just be a publicity stunt as far as anyone knows. When a statement is put out by the prosecuter then it will be real news __________________ Porn Links Crak for your bank account - Get Addicted FREE LIVE CAM SHOWS

06-13-2006, 10:33 AM	#35
edgeprod Permanently Gone Industry Role: Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 10,019	That's hillarious ... tin foil hat march, 12pm!

06-13-2006, 12:54 PM	#48
Rhino22 Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Florida Posts: 2,288	Politics is a nasty little game. I stick to porn.

06-13-2006, 12:55 PM	#49
mardigras Bon temps! Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: down yonder Posts: 14,194	And BTW, as far as conspiracy theories, 12clicks, people get immunity for cooperation all the time. No biggie if that's the case here. They need to be forthcoming though.