"Don't Put Karl Rove Under Oath" Plea His Attorneys

Live Poll

What do you think of Karl Rove?

He is a great man.
8%
He is a corrupt and evil man.
45%
May he burn in hell.
47%

Total Votes: 62

Karl Rove

The clock is ticking for Karl Rove who has until July 10th to answer questions about his involvement in the 2006 firings of eight U.S. attorneys. The House Judiciary Committee has continued its investigations to find the culprit who gave the orders to dismiss the Republican-appointed U.S. Attorneys without explanation. Rove's own attorneys have tried to get their client off the hook since he was subpoenaed, but it looks like he is going to be crucified by Rep. John Conyers and other committee members.

The story of the dismissals made headlines in early December 2006. The Department of Justice had been caught firing attorneys without due justification. The attorneys, who were appointed by Bush, are still sure today that their dismissal was solidly politically motivated.

Former U.S. Attorney David Iglesias who was among those fired spoke with Tavis Smiley this week. Iglesias spoke about the book he released in May were he writes about the October phone call from New Mexico Senator Pete Domenici. Iglesias claims Domenici pressured him to speed up a federal corruption case against a Democrat leader, right before a mid-term election. Other U.S. Attorneys had similar experiences where they were pressured by other high level Republican officials to not prosecute fellow Republicans or for failing to prosecute Democrats.

Then U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales took a huge blow from this controversy, which forced him to resign, though he never admitted that it was due to the firings that he did so. The scandal was a wake up call to Americans about an administration that had no respect for the law and could and would do anything to get rid of anyone who wasn't "loyal" to the White House's wishes.

Iglesias has called the incident the "biggest scandal since Watergate." Many White House officials left W. Bush over the next few months after the Department of Justice controversy, including Karl Rove. Now, Rove must answer questions about what happened on December 2006 when the pink slips were passed around. According to a report by Democracy Now! House Judiciary Chair John Conyers rejected requests by Rove's attorneys that their client not be placed under oath and that his testimony not be transcribed. Apparently, Rove will not be firing his own attorneys just yet.

However, do not be surprised if after the investigation is over Karl Rove manages to walk away a free man, yet again. The Bush Administration is still in control and Republicans in the House and Senate will fight tooth and nail to avoid Rove from being indicted right before the November election. But Iglesias says that it's perhaps time for Rove to get a taste of justice and to learn that "what goes around, comes around." We'll see if the tall lady with the blindfold is not afraid of getting fired by Bush's people too.

29 Votes
Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.

Published to:

Dolores M. Bernal's Column, All of Newsvine
Groups: Our Orwellian World, The Truth Network, true crimes
Regions: none

What's this?

Who's leading the conversation?

This visualization below allows you to see the impact that each user has on the current conversation. The top row contains the group of users who have had the most impact, the 2nd row the group of users who have had the 2nd most impact (et cetera). Users with similar impact are grouped together, and the average score of the group is shown to the left of the group. The author of the article is also shown on the left, in their corresponding group. Each user's score is based on the number of comments the user has made plus the number of votes their comments have received. The scores are calculated relative one another, so while their absolute value is not particularly important, their relative difference does indicate a larger difference in impact on the conversation.

7.8

{"commentId":2101825,"authorDomain":"dolores"}

It's time for justice to be served.

{"commentId":2101825,"threadId":"304212","contentId":"1631491","authorDomain":"dolores"}

6 votes

#1 - Wed Jul 2, 2008 4:25 AM EDT

{"commentId":2103335,"authorDomain":"a0ted"}

It's time for justice to be served.

Who is going to make the noises for the 93 US Attorneys that Obama is going to fire since day #1.

I think that those positions are appointed. Therefore, political and those 8 attorneys could be finding a job since the day that they were hired.

but it looks like he is going to be crucified by Rep. John Conyers and other committee members.

Well, I watched the Rep. John Conyers the other day and he either is ill or had kool-aid, he was forgetful finding his words.

{"commentId":2103335,"threadId":"304212","contentId":"1631491","authorDomain":"a0ted"}

#1.1 - Wed Jul 2, 2008 11:55 AM EDT

{"commentId":2104072,"authorDomain":"dolores"}

"Who is going to make the noises for the 93 US Attorneys that Obama is going to fire since day #1."

Excuse me? Where are your getting your information from?

{"commentId":2104072,"threadId":"304212","contentId":"1631491","authorDomain":"dolores"}

3 votes

#1.2 - Wed Jul 2, 2008 1:28 PM EDT

{"commentId":2104561,"authorDomain":"damiankd"}

DamianKD

"Who is going to make the noises for the 93 US Attorneys that Obama is going to fire since day #1."

There is a difference between turning everything over and singling out people who don't agree with the administration.

{"commentId":2104561,"threadId":"304212","contentId":"1631491","authorDomain":"damiankd"}

4 votes

#1.3 - Wed Jul 2, 2008 2:18 PM EDT

{"commentId":2105101,"authorDomain":"dolores"}

Totally agree with this. Specially since these attorneys were trying to uphold the law and not give in to pressure by their "bosses."

{"commentId":2105101,"threadId":"304212","contentId":"1631491","authorDomain":"dolores"}

3 votes

#1.4 - Wed Jul 2, 2008 3:23 PM EDT

{"commentId":2106410,"authorDomain":"a0ted"}

The Duke case was outstanding of how a US Attorney "used the law and pressure by his boss".

{"commentId":2106410,"threadId":"304212","contentId":"1631491","authorDomain":"a0ted"}

1 vote

#1.5 - Wed Jul 2, 2008 5:57 PM EDT

{"commentId":2118120,"authorDomain":"Wheel"}

The Duke case? You mean Nifong? That has nothing to do with this. Nifong was running for local DA, he told a lot of lies, concealed evidence and in general ran rampant over the law. The case doesn't have anything to do with this, except that both are stories about corruption and malfeasance in public office. that's about it. These men serve "at the pleasure of the President". I' m sure a new president, especially a democrat, will have new men to pleasure him.

{"commentId":2118120,"threadId":"304212","contentId":"1631491","authorDomain":"Wheel"}

2 votes

#1.6 - Fri Jul 4, 2008 1:05 PM EDT

{"commentId":2127147,"authorDomain":"cplmcl"}

Prospero1

determined0a1: Who is going to make the noises for the 93 US Attorneys that Obama is going to fire since day #1.

What an interesting concept. Cry foul before one is committed.

Which means you must feel the firings were wrong. So you're at least halfway there I think.

Well, I watched the Rep. John Conyers the other day and he either is ill or had kool-aid, he was forgetful finding his words.

Something tells me your observations of proceedings conducted in English might be flawed. I can't think of any other reason you could possibly conclude that John Conyers has the slightest problem with words.

{"commentId":2127147,"threadId":"304212","contentId":"1631491","authorDomain":"cplmcl"}

1 vote

#1.7 - Sun Jul 6, 2008 10:10 AM EDT

{"commentId":2127181,"authorDomain":"Wheel"}

det1,

you seem to be confusing the termination of a political appointment when the politician that made the appointment leaves office with criminal behavior by the US district attorney. They are not the same thing. All political appointees understand that their time in office is tied to the politician that put them there.

{"commentId":2127181,"threadId":"304212","contentId":"1631491","authorDomain":"Wheel"}

#1.8 - Sun Jul 6, 2008 10:17 AM EDT

{"commentId":2127346,"authorDomain":"a0ted"}

They are not the same thing. All political appointees understand that their time in office is tied to the politician that put them there.

Seems that the Dems don't want to understand my point. Bush appointed them, they completed 4 years, they were out. Simple.

{"commentId":2127346,"threadId":"304212","contentId":"1631491","authorDomain":"a0ted"}

1 vote

#1.9 - Sun Jul 6, 2008 10:53 AM EDT

{"commentId":2127377,"authorDomain":"a0ted"}

Which means you must feel the firings were wrong. So you're at least halfway there I think.

What I feel is not very becoming.

I have friends that were political appointees and they already have lined up jobs when they leave.

My thoughts about the 93 firing is not mine, it came from Hillary Clinton when she commented about the case of the 8 US attorneys.

I can't think of any other reason you could possibly conclude that John Conyers has the slightest problem with words.

While I post I have C-SPAN and other political outlets on. The same happened with Maxine Waters when she lost words and finally said about the taking over the oil companies. Only koolaid could produce those words that are watched very closely by self-imposed Independents like me.

{"commentId":2127377,"threadId":"304212","contentId":"1631491","authorDomain":"a0ted"}

#1.10 - Sun Jul 6, 2008 10:58 AM EDT

{"commentId":2127412,"authorDomain":"Wheel"}

Bush appointed them, they completed 4 years, they were out. Simple.

They were dismissed for not agreeing to be used in a political manner, the only thing simple here is you apparently.

{"commentId":2127412,"threadId":"304212","contentId":"1631491","authorDomain":"Wheel"}

1 vote

#1.11 - Sun Jul 6, 2008 11:04 AM EDT

{"commentId":2127493,"authorDomain":"a0ted"}

Well, seems to me that if the Dems embraced them so solid the dismissal for not agreen in a political manner is fair.

the only thing simple here is you apparently.

Don't you know that I am the Simpleton Spoiled-Rotten Housewife, formerly from the NYT and now from NewsVine?

{"commentId":2127493,"threadId":"304212","contentId":"1631491","authorDomain":"a0ted"}

1 vote

#1.12 - Sun Jul 6, 2008 11:20 AM EDT

{"commentId":2101837,"authorDomain":"Rixar13"}

Rixar13

Yes it is time and I have been following the story as I am able. Dan Abrams helped me to become aware of the continuing story. Thank you

{"commentId":2101837,"threadId":"304212","contentId":"1631491","authorDomain":"Rixar13"}

8 votes

#2 - Wed Jul 2, 2008 4:39 AM EDT

{"commentId":2102040,"authorDomain":"PamelaDrew"}

Wonderful article Doris, thank you. It's amazing how little attention corporate media devotes to reporting the the crimes of this lawless regime. Fun choices on the poll too!!

{"commentId":2102040,"threadId":"304212","contentId":"1631491","authorDomain":"PamelaDrew"}

10 votes

#3 - Wed Jul 2, 2008 7:15 AM EDT

{"commentId":2103353,"authorDomain":"a0ted"}

Pamela,

Appointees should be smart enough to have plan B, i.e. circulating their resume at the end of a term.

The actual US Attorneys could be easily have a class lawsuit based in the noises of the 8 US Attorneys and I could support that.

{"commentId":2103353,"threadId":"304212","contentId":"1631491","authorDomain":"a0ted"}

1 vote

#3.1 - Wed Jul 2, 2008 11:57 AM EDT

{"commentId":2104116,"authorDomain":"dolores"}

Thanks Pamela. If I had not heard of this on PBS, I would be clueless to what was happening. Where are the CNN reporters?

{"commentId":2104116,"threadId":"304212","contentId":"1631491","authorDomain":"dolores"}

6 votes

#3.2 - Wed Jul 2, 2008 1:35 PM EDT

{"commentId":2117920,"authorDomain":"PamelaDrew"}

Where are the CNN reporters?

One of the biggest problems I see with what Americans see as news is that you can't know what you don't know and lying by omission shapes much of what is going on in the public perception. Mainstream omits huge parts of the political activity and people have no idea what's really happening.

These news organizations are corporations who survive on ad dollars and it's not always good for their business to report certain angles. Welcome to Newsvine where we live to cover what the mainstream doesn't see fit to print! Glad to have you aboard. :~)

{"commentId":2117920,"threadId":"304212","contentId":"1631491","authorDomain":"PamelaDrew"}

1 vote

#3.3 - Fri Jul 4, 2008 12:28 PM EDT

{"commentId":2102520,"authorDomain":"farmer"}

oldfogey

Where is Edward R. when you need him. Or Jack Anderson. Even Cronkite would do.

{"commentId":2102520,"threadId":"304212","contentId":"1631491","authorDomain":"farmer"}

6 votes

#4 - Wed Jul 2, 2008 9:31 AM EDT

{"commentId":2103362,"authorDomain":"a0ted"}

Well, they understand that it is a lost cause because the Dems are going to do the firing in masses when they take the power and replace them with their own.

Jesus, this is not rocket science.

{"commentId":2103362,"threadId":"304212","contentId":"1631491","authorDomain":"a0ted"}

1 vote

#4.1 - Wed Jul 2, 2008 11:59 AM EDT

{"commentId":2117933,"authorDomain":"PamelaDrew"}

Dems are going to do the firing in masses when they take the power and replace them with their own.

Just to be clear, I don't think one party is any better than the other and my view isn't based on liking one party any better than the other, I dislike both as institutions of corruption. But there is a world of difference between creating an organization of people who support your philosophy and firing people who expose corruption and crime simply because the targets are in one political party.

{"commentId":2117933,"threadId":"304212","contentId":"1631491","authorDomain":"PamelaDrew"}

1 vote

#4.2 - Fri Jul 4, 2008 12:31 PM EDT

{"commentId":2118597,"authorDomain":"a0ted"}

Pamela,

Did the 8 lawyers found a job or not yet?

{"commentId":2118597,"threadId":"304212","contentId":"1631491","authorDomain":"a0ted"}

1 vote

#4.3 - Fri Jul 4, 2008 2:22 PM EDT

{"commentId":2120510,"authorDomain":"PamelaDrew"}

Did the 8 lawyers found a job or not yet?

Who cares? Was Justice done in the name of the public?

{"commentId":2120510,"threadId":"304212","contentId":"1631491","authorDomain":"PamelaDrew"}

3 votes

#4.4 - Fri Jul 4, 2008 10:15 PM EDT

{"commentId":2125549,"authorDomain":"a0ted"}

Pamela, I care because if they were not ready to leave at the end of four years and haven't finding a job is because they were not that efficient.

This is very fishy and smelly.

{"commentId":2125549,"threadId":"304212","contentId":"1631491","authorDomain":"a0ted"}

1 vote

#4.5 - Sat Jul 5, 2008 10:59 PM EDT

{"commentId":2104135,"authorDomain":"dolores"}

It's not about who is going to be fired determineda1! It's about an arbitrary decision made by a White House senior adviser which undermines the justice system. No one should be allowed to get away with that.

{"commentId":2104135,"threadId":"304212","contentId":"1631491","authorDomain":"dolores"}

2 votes

#5 - Wed Jul 2, 2008 1:37 PM EDT

{"commentId":2104937,"authorDomain":"a0ted"}

It's not about who is going to be fired determineda1! It's about an arbitrary decision made by a White House senior adviser which undermines the justice system. No one should be allowed to get away with that.

It will be arbitrary to fire all the US Attorneys because they stayed during the Bush Admin.

This is under the radar and if 8 cause that the House spend time, more will be when the rest will be given the pink slip for the same reason.

Are those 8 US Attorneys so incapable to find a job that they are writing books, at least one?

The son of a very close friend of ours is in Washington now in a Presidential appointment, well, he is finding a job already.

Appointees aren't Justices that are for life.

{"commentId":2104937,"threadId":"304212","contentId":"1631491","authorDomain":"a0ted"}

1 vote

#5.1 - Wed Jul 2, 2008 3:03 PM EDT

{"commentId":2105058,"authorDomain":"damiankd"}

DamianKD

Are those 8 US Attorneys so incapable to find a job that they are writing books, at least one?

If I fired you for being a woman or for not being Caucasian, is it not wrong if you can find another job? The problem is the politicization of the Justice Department. Where's the justice if they all say and do the same thing, and if they disagree, they get fired?

Once again, there is a difference between turning the whole place over (Clinton did it, if memory serves), and weeding out applicants based on political stances or political associations. The study that was performed showed that very qualified people were passed over for less-qualified ones that toed the party line. That is wrong, and pollutes the quality of the Justice Dept.

{"commentId":2105058,"threadId":"304212","contentId":"1631491","authorDomain":"damiankd"}

3 votes

#5.2 - Wed Jul 2, 2008 3:18 PM EDT

{"commentId":2106430,"authorDomain":"a0ted"}

If my position is because I was appointed and I have a Law Degree, I am sure that I have or made friends in a Law firm. We aren't talking about an immigrant that is unable to speak English.

{"commentId":2106430,"threadId":"304212","contentId":"1631491","authorDomain":"a0ted"}

1 vote

#5.3 - Wed Jul 2, 2008 6:00 PM EDT

{"commentId":2107821,"authorDomain":"a0ted"}

That is wrong, and pollutes the quality of the Justice Dept.

Oh, please, I am not blind.

{"commentId":2107821,"threadId":"304212","contentId":"1631491","authorDomain":"a0ted"}

1 vote

#5.4 - Wed Jul 2, 2008 9:33 PM EDT

{"commentId":2108208,"authorDomain":"damiankd"}

DamianKD

Oh, please, I am not blind.

Then why do you keep trying to explain the actions of the Justice Dept away? These people were singled out. Lies (intentional or not) were told explaining their firings as being tied to performance. The Justice Dept purposely overlooked qualifications in exchange for politics. This is America, and that is not justice.

{"commentId":2108208,"threadId":"304212","contentId":"1631491","authorDomain":"damiankd"}

1 vote

#5.5 - Wed Jul 2, 2008 10:45 PM EDT

{"commentId":2127182,"authorDomain":"cplmcl"}

Prospero1

determined0a1: If my position is because I was appointed and I have a Law Degree, I am sure that I have or made friends in a Law firm.

And you continue to suggest that people should quietly take injustice because they can easily find another job. That's what's fishy and smelly in this conversation. It's a sickening position and an appalling suggestion.

You'd also like for all of us, and one of the few champs in Congress, to ignore the fact that this is merely the tip of the iceberg of corruption in this government. Why don't you give up on that ridiculous crusade? Calling John Conyers names and pretending Obama is going to do the same thing (one of your more idiotic arguments) and suggesting the attorneys in question are upset because they're too incompetent to find other work is simply too stupid for words. Why don't you stop doing those things? Or are you happy with being found ridiculous and irrelevant?

{"commentId":2127182,"threadId":"304212","contentId":"1631491","authorDomain":"cplmcl"}

2 votes

#5.6 - Sun Jul 6, 2008 10:18 AM EDT

{"commentId":2104239,"authorDomain":"kbd"}

dc_123

I'm pretty sure what Bush did was legal as long as the motivation wasn't to stop an ongoing investigation. Clinton dismissed plenty of attorneys. I believe in both cases the fired attorneys were appointments, not career public servants. What I don't get is why the White House just doesn't admit it was within their rights and that it was politically motivated or say just cuz we felt like it and move on. I guess they prefer for this to keep getting press.

{"commentId":2104239,"threadId":"304212","contentId":"1631491","authorDomain":"kbd"}

2 votes

#6 - Wed Jul 2, 2008 1:48 PM EDT

{"commentId":2104955,"authorDomain":"a0ted"}

I guess they prefer for this to keep getting press

Keeping Conyers and Wax man busy is what I think.

{"commentId":2104955,"threadId":"304212","contentId":"1631491","authorDomain":"a0ted"}

2 votes

#6.1 - Wed Jul 2, 2008 3:06 PM EDT

{"commentId":2127218,"authorDomain":"cplmcl"}

Prospero1

dc_123: I'm pretty sure what Bush did was legal as long as the motivation wasn't to stop an ongoing investigation.

It's also not legal if the motivation is they won't conduct immoral, faux "investigations" of people Karl Rove finds objectionable, or if they insist on investigating corrupt Republicans just like anybody else no matter how much pressure the Rove/Gonzales/Bush monster puts on them to stop it.

Clinton dismissed plenty of attorneys.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

I believe in both cases the fired attorneys were appointments, not career public servants.

Which has exactly what to do with what? You can't perpetrate injustice on appointees?

What I don't get is why the White House just doesn't admit it was within their rights and that it was politically motivated or say just cuz we felt like it and move on.

They've done that. Seems they are having a hard time getting away with it -- uh, I mean moving on.

{"commentId":2127218,"threadId":"304212","contentId":"1631491","authorDomain":"cplmcl"}

1 vote

#6.2 - Sun Jul 6, 2008 10:25 AM EDT

{"commentId":2107075,"authorDomain":"ronco104"}

ron c. baker sr.

karl rove needs to answer questions concerning his role in this mess. it is high time for him to answer many questions, but this comes first. don't waste tears on rove, he does not have it coming. i have little doubt his lawyers are worried @!$%#less. but rove has an option of telling the truth and lying his butt off...it ain't that difficult. lie, or tell the truth!!! but, if you get caught in the lie, fess up...be a man about it and fess up. you would be surprised how much easier the powers that be will be on you if you tell the truth, even when your ass is in a sling...but lie, and then get caught?

luv,

ron

{"commentId":2107075,"threadId":"304212","contentId":"1631491","authorDomain":"ronco104"}

5 votes

#7 - Wed Jul 2, 2008 7:28 PM EDT

{"commentId":2107364,"authorDomain":"dolores"}

Thanks Ron. He needs to really confront what he has done -- people would respect a bit more if he was to really come clean.

{"commentId":2107364,"threadId":"304212","contentId":"1631491","authorDomain":"dolores"}

4 votes

#7.1 - Wed Jul 2, 2008 8:08 PM EDT

{"commentId":2107804,"authorDomain":"a0ted"}

What's new?

Are they (8 US attorneys) collecting unemployment?

{"commentId":2107804,"threadId":"304212","contentId":"1631491","authorDomain":"a0ted"}

2 votes

#7.2 - Wed Jul 2, 2008 9:30 PM EDT

{"commentId":2117953,"authorDomain":"PamelaDrew"}

Are they (8 US attorneys) collecting unemployment?

The point is not what happened to the financial position of the attorneys but what happened to the public's ability to enforce the laws of the country. Justice is supposed to be blind and crime is not a matter of which political party did it but whether the laws are upheld. What happened to Justice?

{"commentId":2117953,"threadId":"304212","contentId":"1631491","authorDomain":"PamelaDrew"}

1 vote

#7.3 - Fri Jul 4, 2008 12:35 PM EDT

{"commentId":2109296,"authorDomain":"Rixar13"}

Rixar13

Amazed at the compassion in poll as I assumed 100 percent would place him in the "Fire Pit"...? Where he belongs.

{"commentId":2109296,"threadId":"304212","contentId":"1631491","authorDomain":"Rixar13"}

1 vote

#8 - Thu Jul 3, 2008 6:11 AM EDT

{"commentId":2109408,"authorDomain":"ronco104"}

ron c. baker sr.

det.- these u.s attorney's job is to protect mom, apple pie...truth justice, and the american way...not the every whim of WHOMEVER (it is whomever, ain't it?) is in office. if a u.s attorney is being pressured to prosecute members of the other party, while skipping those of the party in power, regardless of degree or severity of alleged offense, would you not consider that a violation of law and an egregious misuse of power by an appointed official? not to mention that of public trust,ect. ( so, please don't mention it, ok), (thats a joke...oy). if i'm wrong, what the hell, it wouldn't be like its the first time, or anything. i've been wrong about a lot more important things than this, by god...uh...well...uh...

kuv,

ron

{"commentId":2109408,"threadId":"304212","contentId":"1631491","authorDomain":"ronco104"}

3 votes

#9 - Thu Jul 3, 2008 7:09 AM EDT

{"commentId":2109617,"authorDomain":"StevenK"}

Steven A K

determined0a1 and dc_123 are correct. Due to the nature of the US Attorney position, it is completely in the White Houses rights to fire any of them at any time. While I do not agree with the reasons they were let go, there is NOTHING that has proven that anyone did anything illegal during this process. The members of Congress that are pushing for these hearings know this, but they also know that by continuing to push the issue they will get good press while giving the Bush Administration and by large Republicans bad press.

{"commentId":2109617,"threadId":"304212","contentId":"1631491","authorDomain":"StevenK"}

#10 - Thu Jul 3, 2008 8:15 AM EDT

{"commentId":2110702,"authorDomain":"a0ted"}

While in the Congress are arguing about 8 US Attorneys, in Vermont a sex ring of very young girls raped was going on and operated for at least 5 years under the noses of their politicians.

Children were not protected and Brooke Bennet is dead now.

{"commentId":2110702,"threadId":"304212","contentId":"1631491","authorDomain":"a0ted"}

1 vote

#11 - Thu Jul 3, 2008 11:14 AM EDT

{"commentId":2117968,"authorDomain":"PamelaDrew"}

Pacific Northwest Blogger

Do you have a link for that story determined? I'm against crime no matter who gets burned and believe that both sides get away with far too much by arguing about issues that just distract us.

{"commentId":2117968,"threadId":"304212","contentId":"1631491","authorDomain":"PamelaDrew"}

1 vote

#11.1 - Fri Jul 4, 2008 12:38 PM EDT

{"commentId":2117980,"authorDomain":"mightyblogger"}

What frazzles me about even the title of this, is that it's in front of congress.
From my view of the government anyone speaking before congress in any capacity should be under oath without exception.

{"commentId":2117980,"threadId":"304212","contentId":"1631491","authorDomain":"mightyblogger"}

2 votes

#12 - Fri Jul 4, 2008 12:40 PM EDT

{"commentId":2126466,"authorDomain":"sedekka"}

Sedekka

We have a saying here in Australia which I think is appropriate for this worm Rove. 'I wouldn't cock my leg and piss on him is he was on fire'. He's an evil little maggot and I hope he rots in hell. And he's a narc.

{"commentId":2126466,"threadId":"304212","contentId":"1631491","authorDomain":"sedekka"}

#13 - Sun Jul 6, 2008 4:55 AM EDT

{"commentId":2126674,"authorDomain":"Wheel"}

Yeah, we say, "I wouldn't cross the street to piss on him if he was on fire."

{"commentId":2126674,"threadId":"304212","contentId":"1631491","authorDomain":"Wheel"}

#13.1 - Sun Jul 6, 2008 7:46 AM EDT

{"commentId":2127397,"authorDomain":"a0ted"}

We have a saying here in Australia which I think is appropriate for this worm Rove. 'I wouldn't cock my leg and piss on him is he was on fire'. He's an evil little maggot and I hope he rots in hell. And he's a narc.

Well, in few months the page will be closed and new peacers will pass by in the new administration when in fire and no action will be taken.

{"commentId":2127397,"threadId":"304212","contentId":"1631491","authorDomain":"a0ted"}

1 vote

#13.2 - Sun Jul 6, 2008 11:02 AM EDT

{"commentId":2204133,"authorDomain":"a0ted"}