If and when Fitzgerald hands out indictments

[DoYouEverWonder]

will that set off a constitutional crisis? And if it does, how can we prepare for it?

When the Senate was getting ready to impeach Nixon, Sam Irving went to the DOD and made sure that they wouldn't support Nixon if he tried to keep power via a military coup. Once again we are in a similar situation. Now there's even talk of Cheney planning to nuke Iran! Sorry folks, we can not allow the military to even think about supporting this insane misadventure.

I just hope Fitzgerald hurries up and hands out some major indictments because I fear there is not much time left. And when he does, I hope he's prepared for the worse. This isn't going to be pretty.

In the meantime, keep screaming and yelling as loud as you can to the rest of the world. The more people wake up, the better our chances.

[fooj]

1. That's sound advice.

Peace.

[dbeach]

Fitzie is the man of the hr

if he refuses the dirty money and protects himself and family from mysterious plane crashes..then the illegal occupants in the WH are in HUGE trouble

Constitutional Crisis,,!!

I have less confidence in the pentagon than ever before..I really see only a few who are not part of the problem IMHO

[annabanana]

2. The damage that this administration has done to the military

makes me thing they wouldn't have the stomach for domestic repression. He will have to get those troops elsewhere...

[acmejack]

3. The good news is that the uniforms in the Pentagon dislike Rummy

and his boys with a passion. That said, I also worry about the same things you do.

I have high hopes for Fitzgerald and I believe he knows what he needs to do. Watch him slide in right at the deadline. The biggest problem I see is the administration ignoring anything we throw at them. We know they think they are above the law and they own the SCOTUS.

Hopefully we are just overly paranoid.

[Stirk]

4. You know, I wouldn't be surprised if this administration simply

refused to acknowledge any indictments. Especially considering the way they're dealing with the court ordered release of the Abu Ghraib photos and videos.

[Booster]

17. Yeah, remember when they tried to serve Cheney at the White

House with a subpoena and it was flatly refused? I think that's why Cheney is always hiding.

[hootinholler]

22. Other than POTUS...

Once indicted, arent arrest warrants issued?

As for the military, I have no worries about a coup. The NCOs won't stand for it for one. I think you will see a whole different side of the officer corps stepping in to the breach. Those that are biding their time right now.

-Hoot

[Zen Democrat]

26. They may have POTUS, SCOTUS, DeLay and Murdoch --

But there a little thing called "mass protest", you know the people in the streets thing that has always worked, even in America. As Bush now says, there's a "global struggle against violent extremism."

[blondeatlast]

42. That is what I was thinking, but could it really happen?

They have the media (Anne Coulter admitted as much).

Without the media, it will be difficult to get Joe and Jane Average to understand what is haoppening at all.

[blondeatlast]

41. Can we, as citizens, force them to somehow? We really are the "boss."

Tghere must be a way to force them to answer to us, but how?

[yurbud]

5. I hope those messages are already going behind the scenes

the problem is, Bush has purged or disgusted into retirement the more conscientious people at the top, and replaced them with yes men like Meyers.

That American Conservative article about the nuke planning said the guys at the Pentagon doing it weren't happy about it.

The harder thing to neutralize will be all the "off the books" CIA types. That's what can come back to bite us on the ass, and those guys have deeper allegiances to Wall Street than America.


Hillbilly Hitler art:



Blog:

[Jack Rabbit]

6. That depends on who is charged

If Bush is indicted for anything, that might make for interesting times.

As much as I'd like to see it, don't hold your breath for it. These guys will sell their mothers to protect Bush. Their first concern will be to keep his fingerprints off the situation and his deniability plausible.

The indictments will probably go no higher than Rove and/or Libby.

ON EDIT

Another angle that might disappoint some people here is the scope of the investigation. The law only says that it is a crime to unmask an undercover agent. It does not make any exceptions, so Fitzgerald doesn't have to go into why anybody did it. It may well be because they were covering up all the fabrication of facts and intelligence prior to the war; but Fitzgerald doesn't need to go into that as long as he can prove somebody unmasked Ms. Plame to the press.

Charges will most likely be under the Espionage Act, not under the IIPA.

[DoYouEverWonder]

7. But what if Bush lied during his interview

even though he wasn't under oath, it doesn't matter. It is still a crime to give false evidence to a grand jury. It is almost certain that Rove lied, and if Rove lied then so did Bush. I think Fitzgerald is in way deeper then just trying to find out who leaked a CIA agent's ID. This case involves the Niger forgeries, the DSM and the multiply lies told by Bush and Co to start an illegal war. Fitzgerald's opened Pandora Box and he knows it.

[Jack Rabbit]

9. It might not matter

I don't know.

If Fitzgerald determines Bush or Cheney lied, he'll say so in his report even if he doesn't bring charges against either of them.

Whether it rises to the level of an impeachable offense will be up to the House; whether Fitzgerald sends an impeachment referral to the House Judiciary Committee will be up to him.

The rest of your question is answered in the remarks I appended to my original post.

[wli]

8. there are already is a Constitutional crisis, and we're losing

My "most optimistic" scenario of the conclusion of all this is some honest generals invading Washington, D.C. with guns blazing and frog marching them out. The worst case... holocaust and armageddon. The worst case is looking a lot more likely than the best case these days, and "we, the people" have zero say. Those who are remotely awake are too vastly outnumbered by sheep to ever make a difference.

[CTyankee]

10. But don't indictments get handed to a court?

for adjudication? I mean, aren't there repercussions to a a formal indictment from the Justice Department? But then what? Especially with people so high up in the administration? We know there won't be an impeachment, but what will be the remedy -- in our democracy -- for this kind of wrongdoing?

[marions ghost]

28. my question also

what will be the remedy?
And if there is none, what do we do to ensure more protections against this kind of abuse of power? Or will our govt never allow such changes?

[zanne]

43. I wonder about the same thing, CTyankee.

What if it's proven that somebody high up in the administration did commit a crime? Could it be "forgiven" by Congress? What if there were no consequences?

[zanne]

44. I wonder about the same thing, CTyankee.

What if it's proven that somebody high up in the administration did commit a crime? Could it be "forgiven" by Congress? What if there were no consequences?

[wtmusic]

11. Nixon's approval numbers in 6/73 were EXACTLY what *'s are now

although I think the current gang of criminals is more determined and more organized:

[DoYouEverWonder]

12. As bad as Nixon was

he looks like a Boy Scout compared to this gang.

[hang a left]

13. I have thought about that recently.

Especially with all the secret Patriot Act "improvements". If there are indictments how far will they go to hang on to power?

[Jack Rabbit]

14. I just posted this on another message board

Based on my remarks on this thread . . .

1. Any criminal indictments in this case will probably go no higher than Rove or Libby. If Bush or Cheney are indicted, I'll eat crow (and love every bite). However, Rove and Libby will sell their mothers before allowing any harm to come to Bush or Cheney. They are going to make sure Bush and Cheney's fingerprints are off the evidence and their deniability plausible.

2. The case against the accused will be narrow. Much of the discussion on this thread and on most threads at The Nation on this topic is about whether the motivation for unmasking Mrs. Wilson involves the cover up how pre-war intelligence was fabricated; I believe it does, but so what? If a case brought against Rove or Libby under the Espionage Act can be proved at all, it could likely be proved without going too deep into that motive. The prosecutor will establish that the accused were angry at Ambassador Wilson over publishing his piece in The New York Times and that his wife was unmasked as a result of their campaign to discredit him; they had press contacts; they talked to journalists like Novak and Cooper on a regular basis. Motive, means, opportunity. Only a presidential pardon (unfortunately, all too likely) will save the accused from an extended vacation at Club Fed.

3. The RNC talking points are red herrings. Most people here (your humble servant included) think that the notion that Rove was trying to prevent Cooper from printing a false story is a lot of steer manure. Well, let's just suppose it's true for a moment. It does Karl Rove absolutely no good. The law says it is a crime to unmask an undercover agent; it doesn't make an exception for cases like this. Rove or Libby or whoever is accused will have to defend himself by casting doubt on the prosecution's case, not asserting the nobility of his motives. If she were doing something improper, as the RNC talking points suggest (again, that's a lot of hooey, but we're suspending disbelief for the moment), he shouldn't have taken it to the press; he should have taken it to the DCI. If Rove couldn't take it to the DCI himself, he might have taken it to his boss, who, one might suppose, had access to the DCI.

So, in the end, it's Bush survives, Rove fries and no one uncovers the big, big lies.

[hang a left]

15. I respect your opinion....I may not like it.....but I respect it......

Your theory does not take into account the secondary leak of Brewster, Jennings and Associates. Also not accounted for is who leaked to Libby and Rove. It seems to me that there was a concerted effort by, from press accounts, 3 administration officials, to leak Valerie's name. That appears to be a conspiracy. Also you are not factoring in the Judge's comments that Fitzgerald was on to something "HUGE".

Now I will agree with you that I don't think that Fitzgerald's case is going to lead to DSM and all the lies that took us to Bagdad. But I think it might be in the scope of his investigation to figure out the origins of the 16 words. Anyhoo.....

Maybe it is wishful thinking. But I want my tectonic plate movements!!!

[Jack Rabbit]

18. I want tectonic plate movements, too

Who leaked it to Rove? My guess is Libby. Who leaked it to Libby? No one had to leak it to him. He was taking regular trips to Langley with Cheney in the fall of 2002. The presumed reason for these visits was to pressure intelligence analysts to say what they wanted to hear. The two of them could have become acquainted with Valerie Plame Wilson at that time. She was working in an area of interest to them. Cheney was no doubt acquainted with Wilson; Cheney was Defense Secretary during the 1991 war while Wilson was the acting ambassador to Iraq.

However, it will be easy to establish that Rove and Libby knew, regardless of how they found out. Fitzgerald will have Novak and Cooper on the witness stand to say so. He won't have to go into how they found out.

Yes, there was a conspiracy. However, the conspiracy that will be discussed in court could simply be one to discredit Wilson, even if that meant exposing his wife. The wider conspiracy involving fabricating a case to go to war needn't enter in it. That's too bad; I'm as convinced as you that there was such a conspiracy.

Since I'm a notorious conspiracy theory skeptic, that's something in itself. However, getting things wrong should be the exception rather than the norm, at least if these people were actually looking for facts to determine whether or not the US should go to war against Iraq. Getting everything wrong like they did is really even more remarkable than if they if they had gotten everything right. If most of the case for war had panned out, no one would have cared about those erroneous sixteen words finding their way into the 2003 SOTU; that simply would have been written off to human error. The problem is that there were too many mistakes in the case for war to write off as human error. They couldn't have even been looking for facts; they decided to go to war without regard to the facts and started looking for talking points. This is one of the rare cases where it's simply easier to explain mistakes in terms of a sinister design than random acts of incompetence.

I hope you're right and that the investigation uncovers all this. Like I said, if Bush or Cheney are indicted, I'll eat crow and love every bite.

However, Fitzgerald will have an easier time prosecuting the unmasking of Mrs. Wilson from a narrower scope, so that's what I think he'll do.

[DoYouEverWonder]

16. In this case Rove and Libby can't protect their bosses

because their bosses are in it up to their ears and may have even been directly involved.

In the past, the wrong doers made sure to protect the president by establishing 'plausible deniabilty'. In this case, there is no plausible deniability. When Bush made the decision to put his loyalty to Rove above his loyalty to his country and the office of the presidency, then he crossed the line into co-conspirator territory. This time around, it's one for all and all for one and they will all go down together. I just hope they don't take too many of us with them in the process.

[Jack Rabbit]

19. I agree; unfortunately, I don't think Fitzgerald could prove it in court

Bush would simply say that Rove told him nothing; since Rove is probably saying the same thing if he's saying anything at all, Fitzgerald will not be able to prove anything against Bush. One thing they learned in Watergate was not to tape your conversations when discussing criminal conspiracies.

[DoYouEverWonder]

20. One small problem

is the memo that was passed around on Air Force 1 during the Africa trip. AF1 is a very confined space and if meetings were going on, Bush would certainly have been in the middle of most of them. Plus we know that Fitzgerald was able to get the phone records for all the calls made from AF1 during that trip, so obviously this trip has become one of the focal points of this investigation. This memo and trip implicates a number of people, not just Rove and/or Libby.

[Jack Rabbit]

21. That is a distinct possibility

However, building a criminal case would require proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Do you think you can make that case here? More importantly, do you think Fitzgerald would think that he could?

This might make a weak impeachment referral. The Republicans on the Judiciary committee would have no trouble brushing it aside.

You would need at least one witness who would tesitfy that Bush talked about this. You probably won't get one.

[marions ghost]

25. I'm following this...

thank you all for going into this from the legal standpoint, and discussing the connection to impeachment and the plot to take us into an immoral war. Your comments are helpful. Are we headed for a constitutional crisis? is a good question.

Since you take a conservative, pessimistic view of the outcome Jack Rabbit, what do you think of the fact that Rove may be sacrificed (more or less) and the rest remain immune. I mean, what do you really think of this state of affairs? If what you project is how it unfolds...then what do we do about getting some redress of grievances in such cases. Are you willing to say that in this instance, the executive branch has in fact ensured its immunity and that there is no legal solution? That in fact, we are doomed to suffer this kind of flagrant disregard of the will of the people without any realistic avenues for impeachment, such as we had with Nixon's case? So are you saying the system isn't working very well and therefore needs fixing, or are you saying this outcome you project should be seen as lawful and therefore acceptable?

What changes to the system would be needed to prevent this abuse of power in the future?

[Jack Rabbit]

29. Response

Since you take a conservative, pessimistic view of the outcome Jack Rabbit, what do you think of the fact that Rove may be sacrificed (more or less) and the rest remain immune. I mean, what do you really think of this state of affairs?

First of all, I think Scooter Libby is going down, too. I think Bush and Cheney knew very well what was going on. I don't think anyone can prove it.

I am appalled.

I also expect that the Rove and Libby will be convicted and pardoned without serving a day in the pen. That is even more appalling.

Most appalling of all is that literally dozens of high-ranking Bush regime officials, including Mr. Bush, Mr. Cheney and three of the four top cabinet officers, should face charges of war crimes or crimes against humanity arising out of the invasion of Iraq and torture and inhumane treatment of detainees in US facilities in the war on terror and will not.

As far as I am concerned, that the case for war against Iraq was built on deliberate and malicious deception is a fact as firmly established as that the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor. Moreover, every false public statement by any regime official who knew better made with the intent of gaining public support, Congressional authorization or UN authorization for the invasion should be part of a bill of particulars against those who made such statements. Those lies are war crimes.

If what you project is how it unfolds...then what do we do about getting some redress of grievances in such cases. Are you willing to say that in this instance, the executive branch has in fact ensured its immunity and that there is no legal solution? That in fact, we are doomed to suffer this kind of flagrant disregard of the will of the people without any realistic avenues for impeachment, such as we had with Nixon's case? So are you saying the system isn't working very well and therefore needs fixing, or are you saying this outcome you project should be seen as lawful and therefore acceptable?

Right now I'm about as pessimistic as can be.

The world institutions that could have opposed Bush have failed prior to the war and continue to fail after the war. Since it appears that Congress will not impeach and remove and that federal courts will not try and convict those responsible for war crimes, an international tribunal should be convened for the purpose. Economic and diplomatic sanctions should be levied against the Bush regime until the accused are bound over for trial. This would include boycotts of divestment campaigns against transnational national corporations, especially those such as Halliburton engaged in war profiteering.

All steps must be taken to assure that Iraq will be a sovereign state with a government based on free and fair elections and that Iraq will control her own natural resources for the benefit of the Iraqi people. Foreign troops should quit Iraq and decrees made on behalf of Iraq by foreign administrators should be declared unenforceable.

What changes to the system would be needed to prevent this abuse of power in the future?

Our founding fathers were right: power is not to be trusted.

Obviously, stronger international institutions to check strong nations would be most helpful in light of what has just been said. Just as no man should have the absolute power to be an emperor, no nation should have the power to be an empire.

In my lifetime, I've seen the two most abusive occupants of the White House in American history, Nixon and the younger Bush. I am not particularly enamored of presidential government as a result.

The question is can we move to a system where power is less concentrated in an independent chief executive. That is where most of the potential for abuse of power lays.

A few weeks ago, I proposed on DU a new US constitution which featured a figurehead president and parliamentary system in which most power was concentrated in the House of Representatives, the Prime Minister and the Cabinet. A Senate would also exist, taking over some of the functions of the President in the present system, such as the power to veto certain acts of the House of Representatives. The judicial branch of government would remain much as it is presently.

Most important is that we need to start educating young people of the importance of being a citizen in a democracy. Democracy requires informed and actively engaged citizens. The citizens need to be aware of what their leaders and representatives are doing in their names and with their tax dollars. A lack of interest in public affairs by so many people has led us to the present situation, one which is characterized by Mr. Bush's tyranny.

[marions ghost]

31. thanks for your reply

and for clarifying your position. Less power concentrated in an independent chief executive sounds good to me. I would support the idea of taking some powers away from the president and giving them to the house and senate. I'm not sure if people could grasp having a president and a prime minister tho...that might be a little complex, although I get the point.
Could you imagine some changes in the procedure for appointment of Supreme Court Justices, or do you think that's OK?

A lack of interest in public affairs--not sure what to do about that. I think the media could do a lot better job since so many people get everything from TV. I don't necessarily blame the average person for being turned off by politics, or even for being uninformed. A lot of people don't have time or energy to try to make sense out of the barrage of information coming at them.

[Jack Rabbit]

32. President and Prime Minister

He's a figurehead president. In the document I drew up, he's a member of the Senate chosen by the Senate. His most important duty is to dissolve the House of Representatives after the government loses a confidence vote and call new elections. That what presidents do in parliamentary governments, unless the state has a crowned head like several European kingdoms.

Otherwise, the president can be put in charge of finding lost puppies in national parks and tossing the coin before the Super Bowl.

[Jack Rabbit]

52. I dug up the thread from May 23

Please click here.

I'm contemplating reposting this sometime. Right after I posted it, some the Senate filibuster compromise was announced and the thread died.

[DoYouEverWonder]

35. Well for every pessimist around here

we need at least one raving, hopeless optimist. Just as long as you don't give up and keep raging against the machine, that's what's really matters. In the end, reality will probably end up somewhere in the middle. At least I hope so.

[blondeatlast]

45. But could Fitzgerald decide to look into the motive if he thinks

it's relevant, as any reasonably intelligent person would?

Is he somehow forbidden to go after the motive?

[Jack Rabbit]

54. Of course he can

However, in order to gain a conviction, he'll want to keep it simple for a jury.

Fitzgerald can build a case Rove or Libby by asserting the motive was to discredit Ambassador Wilson for writing his op-ed piece in The New York Times. It doesn't matter that Wilson was right and the White House was wrong; it wouldn't matter if the nonsense Ken Mehlman and his media thugs have spouting for three weeks even remotely resembled the truth. Wilson crossed the Bush regime and the regime struck back in a way that involved unmasking an undercover operative.

That's all he needs to show to establish a motive. Looked at that way, it's a fairly simple case.

Now, if he wanted to go deeper and establish that there was deliberate deception on the part of the Bush regime to make a fraudulent case for war with Iraq, he'd quite likely run into problems of introducing classified documents into evidence. That would get a little messy.

If he's going there, he's probably going to bring charges not directly related to the unmasking of Mrs. Wilson. These would be charges involving the use of intelligence reports for fraudulent purposes. There's a very long list of people against whom such charges could be brought, including Bush, Cheney, Libby, Rice, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Feith and Bolton. The delaying tactics those people could toss out would assure they would not be tried until they are very, very old.

[Imagevision]

23. If Fitz is a threat? - Rove will simply start up the smear machine

you know it's going to happen.-- Especially if Bush & Cheney are named as unindicted co-conpirators -- Does anyone in here believe Bush and Cheney knew nothing about outing plame? yes/no?

[Jack Rabbit]

24. The Smear machine is already humming

Listening to Ken Mehlman and his minions the last couple of weeks, one would think the Wilsons committed acts of treason and Karl Rove saved America.

[lonestarnot]

27. Well it isn't working for those who are not blind sheeples that couldn't

be persuaded if a mac truck ran over their head!

[napi21]

30. You also have to remember that the Senate was under Dem control during

the Nixon battle. Just who do you think is going to go to Rummy and tell him he can't support his buddy?

I don't know how this will turn out.

[longship]

33. The Senate does not impeach!!!

Only the House of Representatives can impeach. Then, only the Senate can try the impeached to remove him or her from office.

Unfortunately, we are not in a similar situation right now. There are no Senate hearings, nor are there likely to be. There are no House Inquiries, nor are there likely to be.

Sam Ervin was working in an entirely different environment, the hearings were a bipartisan affair, with majority opposition party plus several Repubs on board. There was a concensus in the Senate that Nixon was in big trouble and would not prevail if and when he was impeached by the House, which was known to be inevitable as early as autumn 1973 when Nixon triggered the Constitutional Crisis now known as the "Saturday Night Massacre".

Note that now thing would be entirely different. The Repugs are a monolithic entity with nobody defecting. They don't give a shit what *** does; he's appointed and annointed by God. There is nobody who can go from the Senate to the DOD now because Frist won't allow it. The House can't launch an inquiry so that the impeachment process can begin because DeLay won't allow it. We're stuck until at least 2007 when the next Congress begins.

[DoYouEverWonder]

34. Two corrections

Longship is right, only the House can impeach, however it was the Senate that held the Watergate hearings, which ended up forcing Nixon to resign. Nixon never was impeached. And this is why we don't need impeachment now. Besides with a Repug control Congress, impeachment isn't even an option. Instead, this gang must be charged with felonies and forced to resign.

Second, Sam Irving should be Sam Ervin.

[H2O Man]

38. The House impeaches,

but of course the Senate then tries the case. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court presides over the trial, and a conviction requires a two-thirds vote of all senators present and voting, and providing that there is a quorum, the conviction results in automatic removal from office.

Regarding Nixon, the S.N.M. was an ugly part, but in and of itself does not represent the "constitutional crisis." That crisis was actually avoided, of course, when he turned over the tapes. But a constitutional crisis involves a conflict between at least two of the three branches of the federal government. When Nixon had hinted he would only comply to unanimous federal court rulings, it presented a potential for such a crisis .... the idea being that one branch cannot set the rules for another branch. (The 2000 election conflict was, by definition, a constitutional crisis.)

[longship]

53. Saturday Night Massacre == Constitutional Crisis

When the Constitution does not handle a situation where the chief enforcement officer of the country is able to fire a lower official under his pervue who is investigating the same chief enforcement officer, that is, by definition, a Constitutional Crisis. Everybody called it that then, and they were right. Hell, we almost had the Dept of Justice being run by a low level underling.

It was also the turning point of the Watergate affair. Before the SNM there was little or no talk of impeachment in Congress. Within weeks, official hearings were scheduled.

The Saturday Night Massacre was a very, very important event.

[Jack Rabbit]

50. Sam Ervin

Sam Ervin did not go the DoD as you said. It was General Alexander Haig, who was acting as White House Chief of Staff in Nixon's final days, who gave instructions that only the normal chain of command should be observed.

Nixon apparently said some things that were interpreted as sounding out his aides about taking extraordinary steps to remain in power. Although it doesn't appear as though he contemplated any such action any more seriously than that, Haig's directive was a good precaution.

[longship]

51. That cannot be true.

The Senate hearings began in the Spring of 1973, well over a year before the Nixon resignation. It was therefore not the Senate hearings which forced Nixon's resignation. The House Impeachment hearings began in Spring 1974 and concluded in July, just before Nixon resigned.

Between the Senate and Nixon's resignation there were several important events, including the Saturday Night Massacre (Oct 1973), Nixon named as unindicted conspirator by the grand jury (Mar 1974), and SCOTUS WH tapes ruling (July 1974).

Hell, the House didn't even begin discussing impeachment until year's end 1973.

[newscott]

36. What constitutional crisis?

The Senate will NEVER convict him.

In the unlikely event that it ever gets that far, a Presidentail pardon for whomever is left standing will be waiting at the end of the rainbow.

[DoYouEverWonder]

37. They will be convicted in the courts

not the Senate. The Senate dosn't convict anyone. And if you haven't heard there is an ongoing special investigation with a Grand Jury. Indictments should be coming down soon. It is just a question of who and what the charges will be.

[H2O Man]

39. Sure they do.

The Senate determines if a high-ranking official is convicted in impeachment hearings. The constitution is very specific about this: it is the only circumstance that legal trials are removed from a court's jurisdiction per say. The Chief Justice presides over the Senate trial, but the trial is removed from the judicial branch, and placed with the Senate.

[DoYouEverWonder]

46. In that one instance only

I meant in general. Since I don't believe this Congress will ever impeach anyone in Bush's misadministration, they will have to be removed from power in some other way.

At this point, the courts are our only option and if Roberts gets on the Supreme Court, that might not be an option either. Then it is up to the people and the court of public opinion. If enough Republicans turn against BushCo or if someone how the Fristian right realizes that Bush has nothing to do with anything christlike, then it will be their end. In the meantime, I hoping Fitzgerald has a few aces up his sleeve and that he plays them well.

[marions ghost]

47. courts depend on evidence

from all reports there was ample time to destroy evidence, which given the morality of this administration, we can only assume has been thoroughly taken care of. I say this will be a real test of WHETHER the courts remain a reasonable option for exposing criminal behavior in the executive branch.

If it's left up to "the court of public opinion" with our lapdog media...well... :banghead: then we'll just have to pull out all the stops around here...I'd say we should be gearing up for that very real possibility.

[DoYouEverWonder]

48. Fitzgerald has a reputation has a bulldog prosecutor

This Bush gang is delusional and that has made them very sloppy. There is evidence all over the place. I'm sure most of us on DU have enough evidence on our hard drives to convict the whole bunch and we don't even have access to the good stuff.

Also, testimony is evidence and it is apparent that most of BushCo lied to the Grand Jury and I believe Fitzgerald has enough contradicting testimony to get the whole bunch on perjury, which then becomes obstruction of justice because it was a coordinated effort.

[marions ghost]

49. I hope you're right

...my limited understanding of the way courts work is that hard evidence carries a lot more weight than testimony. Perjury doesn't seem to be taken very seriously in lower courts (the common belief being that "everybody does it") but I guess it's different when it's a Grand Jury maybe, hopefully?

Thanks for your comments DYEW. I'm trying to get a grasp on the legal perspective as I believe as you do, that it is the only way any light will be shed at all. But from what I've seen, this crew might be able to thwart the investigation yet, because they don't play by any rules and pride themselves on their ability to avoid scrutiny.

[blondeatlast]

40. Edit: self-delete. nt

[Zhade]

55. Get a million or two in the streets.

Seriously. March on the fucking White House if necessary.