Karl Rove Gets Slammed on Fox News Over Republican Hypocrisy Concerning Clinton’s Emails (Video)

juan-williams-karl-roveI’ve made no secret of the fact that I think this entire Hillary Clinton “email scandal” is ridiculous. Especially when you consider the fact that many of Clinton’s potential presidential opponents (Jeb Bush, Scott Walker, Rick Perry and Chris Christie) have all used private emails to conduct official business.


But this Republican “outrage” might even be more hypocritical considering how during Bush’s administration, millions of emails “went missing” during a time when there was quite a bit of controversy concerning the firing of several U.S. Attorneys. After some investigation, most of the emails were recovered – though I don’t recall Republicans being “outraged” when that scandal was brewing.

Well, on Fox News Sunday, Republican strategist Karl Rove was slammed by Fox News contributor Juan Williams over the hypocrisy shown by many on the right concerning this entire ordeal.

“You see these Republicans, ‘Email, email, email!’ When Karl was in trouble back in ’07, no press coverage!” Williams stated. “It was like one day of press coverage.”

“If you’re trying to say they were not tough on Rove, but they’re being too tough on Clinton, well, maybe it’s because she was the secretary of state and I was a White House aide, and she is violating the rules,” Rove shot back.

“But Karl, you fired a bunch of U.S. Attorneys!” Williams responded. “Karl, if you doubt your power, let me affirm it. You were a powerful man in the Bush White House. And you were firing U.S. Attorneys! And it was a scandal.”

Karl Rove is easily one of the most deceitful individuals in politics. For him to sit there with a straight face and pretend that he was nothing but an “aide” is ludicrous. He’s a massively powerful entity within the Republican party who literally has the ability to make or break politicians at will. He’s probably more powerful than many of our elected officials – even though he’s never been elected to any office.

Now, am I saying that Clinton’s emails shouldn’t be given some attention? Absolutely not. But, as of now, almost nothing has been found to make anyone believe that she was hiding anything. This entire “scandal” has been based on irrational fear-mongering and propaganda that’s been specifically shaped to make it seem as if she was trying to hide some sort of unscrupulous behavior. Again, all of this because she used a private email account just like many of the GOP frontrunners for president have done while in office.


Republicans like Rove are well aware that perception is often more important than reality. He knows Republicans really don’t need to find anything negative in these emails to pin to Clinton, they just need to continue to push the perception that she was trying to hide something and that will be more than enough to convince millions of conservatives that she was trying to cover something up.

You see, a conservative’s reality usually isn’t based on facts, just what they wished were real.

Watch the segment below via Fox News:





Allen Clifton

Allen Clifton is a native Texan who now lives in the Austin area. He has a degree in Political Science from Sam Houston State University. Allen is a co-founder of Forward Progressives and creator of the popular Right Off A Cliff column and Facebook page. Be sure to follow Allen on Twitter and Facebook, and subscribe to his channel on YouTube as well.

Comments

Facebook comments

  • Jim Bean

    One has to wonder just what it takes for a set of circumstances surrounding a Left-wing politician to rise to the level of ‘scandalous.’

    • I-RIGHT-I

      Judging by the beat down Reed took I’d say it’s got to do with losing power. In his case the Senate.

    • Creeayshun Sighuntist

      You know, I was wondering exactly the same about a conservative as he or she relates to Fox “News”. There is literally no lengths that Fox will go to, to provide cover and rehabilitation for the GOP and conservatives.

  • Cufmann

    To characterize this email scandal of Hillary’s as ‘Republican outrage’ does a disservice to every reader of this blog. The story was broken by the NY Times, and covered thoroughly by very major news stations, cable stations, liberal blogs, and newspaper in the country. ABS, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN, Slate, Salon, HuffPo, WaPo, LaTimes, Mother Jones, all have expressed overwhelming, very serious concerns, and even outrage, as have many prominent liberal commentators.

    The issue isn’t that she used private email. That’s a false flag and an insult to the public’s intelligence. The issue is that she used a private email server exclusively to conduct all her government business while in that office, and then left her position without surrendering all her official correspondence and documents, both classified and unclassified, in the State Department’s possession.

    If any government employee or high-ranking official has ever done that on their own or been given approval to do this at all, much less been allowed to for the convenience factor of not wanting to carry around two phones, I haven’t seen it cited, not even by the craziest or misinformed of blogs on the Left.

    • Creeayshun Sighuntist

      those same news outlets also covered the Benghazi non scandal. Is there a point? Just like Benghazi and every other made up outrage, this will too go away. Just another outrage du jour by the far right that nobody really cares about.

      • Cufmann

        You contradicted yourself. That defense also insults your side, Creeayshun. You ans Allen obviously care about it, but you’re trying to push the narrative that this is about nothing and will go away.

        I asked you this yesterday, do you think all future heads of state and US department heads and their assistants should be allowed to use private email servers exclusively for government business, and then send back paper copies of emails that they’ve chosen to review ahead of time at their discretion when requested to do so by any Freedom Of Information Act or congressional investigation requirement?

      • Creeayshun Sighuntist

        frankly, FOIA don’t allow access to personal emails such as “who is doing the laundry today, dinner?” and the like. Those emails also have to be scrubbed to ensure they are not letting out sensitive/secret correspondence to people who don’t have need to know. Just because you are curious doesn’t clear you or most for access to those emails. Whine all you want and attempt to conflate and turn this into something it’s not. She followed all appropriate rules at the time. Period.

        You seriously think you are entitled to all of her emails? That is just laughable. Perjury, felony? My god man, you just have no clue.

      • Dennis

        frankly, FOIA don’t allow access to personal emails

        Frankly, that is not true. If you knew anything about control procedures, even a cursory knowledge, you could see how that is laughable. The State Department could control what information it released with regard to an FOIA request, but it doesn’t mean the employee could do so solely at their discretion outside of any supervisory capacity at the State Department. That same scrubbing process you describe as it applies to sensitive information to be released would also be applied by the State Department to the employee’s (in this case, Hillary’s) personal information.

        Enlighten yourself on that, it’s easily obtained by Google.

      • Creeayshun Sighuntist

        Are you aware of FOIA exemptions? seriously, learn to read. LOL

      • Dennis

        You would be wise to read it. That means the government can withhold the personal email of a government employee. That doesn’t mean Hillary can use a private server exclusively for ALL her government email outside of the government’s auspices and then hide behind that exemption.

        You don’t have to be a scholar to understand why that would be the case, otherwise everyone and their brother who wanted to use their official government email for any kind of scheme they could think of could hide behind that exemption by adding just one personal statement in the email.

      • Creeayshun Sighuntist

        only a total loony thinks there is a scheme going on here and only the most partisan ignore that there has never been any legal prohibition against using personal email.

      • Dennis

        By Hillary’s own admission, she left office with public information on her private server, not on the State Department’s server, information that has been rightfully requested by the AP a long time ago in a FOIA request, and public information requested several times by congressional committees’, neither of which has accused her of running a scheme.

        No one, not one person, has ever claimed that she was legally prohibited from using personal email.

        No offense, and I’m serious about this so please don’t take it personally, but your ignorance on this subject is bewildering given how you choose to defend it as you do.

        Hillary Clinton has several avenues for a defense, and she no doubt will, just none of the one’s you’re using for her.

      • Creeayshun Sighuntist

        No really, you still don’t have a clue about FOIA exemptions, seriously or the rules in place regarding the use of personal email. There is simply no reasoning with an ideologue such as yourself. You are simply angry about what you are told to be angry about right now, because you lack the mental capacity to understand you are being led around by a propaganda network.

      • Dennis

        I didn’t call you a name. I was careful not to, and I was sincere in telling you that I meant no offense. I’d just like you to read more on the subject, is all. I read the Exemption 6 you referred to. I googled it along with FOIA requests for personal emails and found that your statement was not entirely correct, or didn’t tell the story as it pertained to Hillary’s situation, and I politely told you why it didn’t apply.

      • Creeayshun Sighuntist

        Besides, if you really want them and think she “must be hiding SOMETHING”, just ask the people she sent the emails to if there is something specific you are looking for that you “think” you are entitled to know. They just might still work there…..

      • Dennis

        Just curious, did you think Mitt Romney ‘must’ve been hiding SOMETHING’ when he refused to submit all his prior tax returns in 2012?

        FOIA requests were made for her emails she sent as early as 2010 by the AP, Creeayshun. They have yet to be honored by the State Department. Same with Judicial Watch. That’s why the AP is suing. Look that up. Enlighten yourself.

      • Creeayshun Sighuntist

        Deflect much? What does Mittens have to do with this? How about President Obama’s Birth Certificate while we’re at it…..

      • Dennis

        It’s not a deflection, it was a simple question, prefaced by “just curious” to see where you stood on public versus private information. Romney’s tax returns were private, as are yours. Yet there was a hue and cry from his opponents for that transparency from him, with a very loud and angry collective cry of “What was he hiding?”.

      • Creeayshun Sighuntist

        almost like a birth certificate, huh? Remember that phony outcry that lasted how long again?

      • Dennis

        I do remember it. What would you like to know about it?

        FOIA requests were made. Obama produced it.

        They weren’t part of a congressional investigation, nor were they housed exclusively on his private server that he pretended he could shield himself from using Exemption 6 from the FOIA Guide. But to my knowledge, he didn’t have to produce it, he just did

        This part is arguable, but I think he did so to his advantage.

      • Creeayshun Sighuntist

        Pretty sure the Romney Tax return issue was started by Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich because of their concerns about his “Vulture Capitalism”. Go after them Dennis since you care so much about Mittens

      • Dennis

        That one is over. I just asked you what side of that debate you were on. Pretty simple, innocuous question, Creeayshun. There are no adverse consequences to any honest answers, you know. It’s just between us girls.

      • Creeayshun Sighuntist

        Oh that’s one is over now…..oh good now you can finally move on and stop referencing it here. Whew.

      • Dennis

        Dude, again, it was a simple question to ascertain where you stood on the issue of transparency with regard to both personal and private information. All cases are different. A simple yes, or no would’ve sufficed.

      • Bernadette Halloran

        Except, Creeayshun Sighuntist, if he knnows your real name he will stalk you on Face Book.

      • Dennis

        Your Facebook post is listed above here, Bernadette. It states that you work for Dunder Mifflin. That’s not stalking, that’s reading. You choose what you want the public to see.

      • Creeayshun Sighuntist

        again, another non scandal that Fox is telling you to be outraged about this week, and on cue, you are outraged. What a bunch of clowns you right wingers are….

    • Bernadette Halloran

      Cufmann (probably not your real name) Pretending that the use of private email by Hilary Clinton is more important than the global economy, the demise of the USA middle class, the loss of real jobs with benefits in this country and the crumbling of our aging infrastructure — such as the bridges on the interstate highway system — is the real insult to any and all voters. Where was your outrage when President Bush (W.) was called on to answer for the losing of approximately 50,000 e-mails while he was in office. The nation has far more important issues to focus on. The operative word in that last sentence is FOCUS on real life and real life problems when oh when will the politicians of this country grow a pair and settle down to work on solutions. Cuff man your words come across as those from a pitiful pedantic. Someone has to tell you.

      • Dennis

        Guessing you don’t really work at Dunder Mifflin, Bernadette.

        The human brain is an amazing thing, it has the capacity of focusing on several things in a typical day. Government is constructed so that it can focus on more than one thing on a given day.

        All of your concerns about priority were in effect when Bush was in office, yet the Valerie Plame affair was conducted by professionals not assigned with the tasks of fixing the economy or world problems with vigorous pursuit and outrage.

        Your defense is childish.

      • Creeayshun Sighuntist

        name call much Dennis?

      • Dennis

        I don’t much, no. And I didn’t in that response. Informing her that her defense was child-like was far less vitriolic than her telling Cufmann that his words come across as those of a pitiful pedantic.

      • Bernadette Halloran

        OOOOoooohhhhhh Dennis you looked me up on Face Book. What an extraordinary stalker-like thing to do. Of course since, unlike yourself, I have the intestinal fortitude to use my real name you could do that, Still very stalker-like! Dennis do you know what Dunder Mifflin is? It is the fictional company where the characters on the TV show ‘The Office’ worked. I like living life to the fullest and that means having a sense of humor. It will get you through many of real life’s challenges. Now Dennis your reply doesn’t address a single point I raised in my post. I find your comments on multi-tasking deflective of the point that our country has real-life problems with few if any politicians focusing on finding solutions. Deflective arguments are not mature sir.

      • Dennis

        I’ve watched every episode at least four times. It was a family thing since the first episode. I watched the British version before it came on here. Played trivia games of it. I clicked on your link above because I knew you had a sense of humor, and my response to you was in jest about you not working at Dunder Mifflin. I’d give you a Dundee for your lack of self-awareness if I could.

        This country has real problems, yes, but this issue is still very important. Extremely important. Her defenders can frame this as a witch-hunt, just like about every politician does when hounded about something, but you can’t be surprised at the amount of attention this is getting for someone who was just the Secretary of State about to announce her candidacy/coronation for president. You also can’t dismiss the notion that it was alright what she did, or not an issue, unless you’d be willing to admit that you wouldn’t mind if the next Secretary of State, or the next president, or Sec of Defense, could do the very same thing and move all their work email over to their own personal servers for their entire term and only send back hard copies a few years after their terms were over, after they’ve deemed what were government and what were personal. And then refuse to allow anyone access to that server.

        Would you be willing to state that you’re ok with that before we discuss this any more about what is important and what’s not important to address and what should be tabled right now until we have peace and prosperity once again, and it’s more convenient then?

      • Creeayshun Sighuntist

        you have to excuse Dennis as he has no life.

  • Creeayshun Sighuntist

    For some strange reason, Hillary is allowed no personal privacy in the eyes of Fox News and right wingers. She must be hiding something if she doesn’t just immediately tell you everything about every item in her day, 365 days of the year.

    • Dennis

      Said by no one at Fox News, ever.

      • Creeayshun Sighuntist

        Yeah I guess I’ve missed the positive reporting of Hillary on Fox News. Please show me the way to it.

      • Dennis

        Allen just tried to post one.

      • Creeayshun Sighuntist

        I didn’t know this was Fox “News”.

      • Dennis

        I don’t know what your grievance is. If you’d like to explain it to me, I’d gladly give you a response. It should come as no surprise to you that Hillary has few fans at Fox News.

        I’ve read everything David Brock and Eric Boehlert have read on this subject. I’ve watched Lanny Davis, James Carville and Paul Begala all say this is a whole lot of nothing and the same straw man that other people used private emails and she deserves privacy like any other person, but I have yet to see, hear or read any ‘positive reporting’ on Hillary regarding this matter. The reason this is bigger than you’d like it to be is far greater than getting Hillary, or pursuing Benghazi, it’s about the First Amendment and hiding behind the kind of clause you posted earlier, and just what information is the public’s domain. That’s why the press, especially the ones like the NY TImes and WaPo, appear as if they’re not on Hillary’s side on this.

      • Creeayshun Sighuntist

        I’m not sure what your grievance is and why you are trolling this site? Except that maybe you have too much time on your hands

      • Dennis

        What to you is ‘trolling’? I mean other than the last thing a person usually accuses another person of before exiting an argument?

      • ChimiChanga

        I just want to say that a troll has no real interest in an articles subject and only comments to get reactions.
        You stated in your first post that you will not be living in the states and would not be voting which means you have no interest in the subject besides commenting.
        I do agree with you that the convenience excuse does not hold water in an investigation.

      • Dennis

        I do have real interest in the subject matter, I find it infinitely fascinating for a whole host of reasons, too numerous to list, but would be glad to share.

        It was Nancy B in the first post that said she’d be living outside the country and wouldn’t be voting.

        The very serious aspect about the convenience excuse not holding water, is that for Hillary, it very much has to. Or at the very least, she has to stand by it, no matter how ridiculous it sounds. She has no choice. She can’t admit it was because she wanted to shield herself from later scrutiny from investigations no matter how ridiculous they were or whether she had done nothing wrong to cause the investigation. Not in that capacity.

      • ChimiChanga

        I’m not home so I was/am using my phone. Apologize for the confusion. I agree with you. Although I also believe it will not affect her election into the presidents office. I almost feel it’s inevitable.

      • Dennis

        No problem. I use a phone sometimes, too, and I think I’ve ruined my eyes trying to type comments in the Disqus system on an iPhone.

        Again admitting my bias probably clouds my perceptions, but I think she’s in a trap with this Separation Agreement form that she was required to sign before she left the Secretary of State office. Everyone I know, right or left, says they know about it but that it’s the Clintons, they’ll wiggle out of it and she’ll be fine. I read that simple form and I think it’s pretty much black and white, with no room for maneuvering, parsing, or confusion. I guess we’ll see.

      • Nancy B

        No, that was me. And I will still have an interest and a reason to comment because I will still have to live under US Federal law. Please educate yourself on US territories.

      • ChimiChanga

        For what? I’m not going to leave the states and complain about them add I’m leaving.

      • Nancy B

        I am leaving “the states”, not leaving the United States. I will still have to pay Fed taxes, and abide by its laws. But nowhere did you see me complain. It was just a side comment indicating I would not be forced into voting for a candidate I don’t like to avoid voting for someone worse.

      • Creeayshun Sighuntist

        well you know it must be bad when Fox “News” is coming to her defense…..

      • Dennis

        Respectfully disagree here. I agree with folks on the Left who argue that Juan Williams is somewhat of a useful idiot on that network. That was a defense more harmful to Hillary than good. At best, it was just mush.

        James Carville yesterday said in anger ”

        “I suspect she didn’t want Louie Gohmert rifling through her emails, which seems to me to be a kind of reasonable position for someone to take,” he said. “It amounts to — just like everything else before it, it amounts to nothing but a bunch of people flapping their jaws about nothing.”

        It’s a defense, but it lays out exactly the objections about what she did and why she may have been doing them. It’s why the ‘convenience’ excuse might sound ok to you and me or Joe Schmoe in Peoria, but it doesn’t hold water in an investigation.

        If that’s why she did it, to prevent that sort of thing from happening, then anyone going forward could say the same thing, whether if they were doing anything wrong or not. And that’s what you fail to appreciate in this conversation. As does Hillary.

  • bestfriend

    “But, Mom, everybody is doing it”!

  • Nancy B

    I was angered with the lost emails of the previous administration, and I’m angered at Clinton’s hubris in this instance. I’m as liberal as all get-out, and I don’t give her a pass on this. She’s now got no proof that there wasn’t any Benghazi cover-up because SHE had control over which emails were personal and which were not. She could have put all this Benghazi “scandal” talk to rest, had she not gone this route. Now, the right has more reason to disbelieve.
    Fortunately, I’ll be a territory resident by the time the next presidential election rolls around, so I won’t have to hold my nose and vote for her.

    Spot on on Rove, by the way.

    • Dennis

      I’m not a liberal, and I admire your post, and thank you for it.

      I just wanted to say that I think the whole Benghazi talk would’ve died down within a few days if the ‘spontaneous protest arising from an anti-Muslim internet video’ explanation had been dealt with forthrightly within the first couple of weeks of the tragedy. Obama wasn’t going to lose that election on the perception of a controversial political response to the attack. And neither would it have damaged Hillary substantially, then or now. I don’t know who chose that route, I just agree with you that’s why we’re where we are today with this.

      • Creeayshun Sighuntist

        see, even Dennis likes you and he is about as right as they come.

      • Dennis

        I like honesty and frankness. I admire people that stand for principle, regardless of ideology. I disclosed right away to her that I was not a liberal. And I don’t dislike people because we disagree on blogs, Creeayshun. (sorry for all the negatives in that sentence, probably could’ve written it better).

      • Nancy B

        I’m happy to say that a lot of liberals and conservatives like me. Maybe because I’m not dogmatic. Give it a try.

      • Creeayshun Sighuntist

        Just saying, you might not be as liberal as you think you are if extreme righties agree with you

      • Nancy B

        On this single issue? Even Tip and Ronnie saw eye to eye on some issues. And they were good friends to boot.

      • Nancy B

        I calls em as I sees em. And yes, the whole anti-Muslim video protest angle is inexplicable. But they still would have gotten their panties in a bunch over Obama not calling Benghazi a terrorist act because they chose to ignore his entire Rose Garden speech, and focused, as usual, on a single sound bite. 🙂

      • Dennis

        They would have, agree with you. As much as they could. But the public knew by the election that it was a terrorist attack by Al Qaeda and it didn’t hurt Obama one bit.

    • Creeayshun Sighuntist

      You are not “liberal as all get out” if you side at all with Karl Rove. Sorry. Or you have no recollection of what he is as a human being and the damage he has done to political discourse in our country.

      • Dennis

        Well, you may balk at answering how you stood on Mitt Romney not releasing his tax returns, but you’re quite apparent in your tribalistic requirements for being a liberal.

      • Nancy B

        OK, I’ll dumb it down to 3rd grade level for you:

        I agree with everything you wrote about Karl Rove, Allen Clifton.

        Get it, now?

      • Dennis

        Heh. You wrote that sentence correctly, Creeayshun just read it as ‘Spot on by Rove’. This as he admonishes others for not being able to read.

    • BobJThompson

      I agree that she deserves no special treatment from the left, although I don’t really care about Benghazi. What about TPP negotiations? Keystone XL or anything like that? I don’t care about the little letters beside your name, the big letters that matter are USA. Your country. The people who voted your administration in to power. Whom you claim to represent.

      If you’re running this country, then you need to be as transparent as possible so that we can accurately assess your performance. To use a personal email server is just another example of how sketchy Ms. Clinton is and the rabid defense of some liberals makes me want to further disassociate from the D’s.

      • Nancy B

        Exactly!

  • chapril
  • Jose Fernandez

    Some of you are really too dense to believe that there was a Benghazi coverup? You deserve Hillary. Or better yet, a Hillary-Fauxcahontas ticket. One lies and the other covers it up.