Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

I'm getting a feeling that Fitz may throw a bigger bombshell than..

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
Rosco T. Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 03:30 PM
Original message
I'm getting a feeling that Fitz may throw a bigger bombshell than..
.. some of us think.

There's still the ongoing arguement about if you can/can-not indict a siting President.

Some say no, because the Constitution says impeachment.

Some say yes, because the Constitution doesn't explicitly say you can't.

I'm getting a real buzzy feeling...

Stand by for this issue to be resolved once and for all, I feel a 'constitutional crisis' approaching.

And when the Supremes get involved, Roberts will HAVE TO BE RECUSED because Dimson appointed him. We need to make sure of that LOUD AND CLEAR.

Miers will not be an issue because she won't be confirmed by then.

Buckle your seat belts.. I got a bumpy feeling...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
GreenPartyVoter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 03:31 PM
Response to Original message
1. Hope you are right! Hope to God something comes of all this
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
newscott Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 03:37 PM
Response to Original message
2. This would be easily resolved if Congress
realizes their asses are on the line too and they Impeach.

Then he can be indicted, no ifs and or buts.

He will probably be pardoned either way though.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tk2kewl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 03:39 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. he might get pardoned if the repuke congress forced him out
either through impeachment or resignation...

but if they wait too long and the Dems take the House... :woohoo:

... i don't see Pelosi pardoning the chimp, do you? :D
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AntiFascist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 03:57 PM
Response to Reply #4
21. Interesting theory!
Better to impeach now than later?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tk2kewl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 04:03 PM
Response to Reply #21
25. that's assuming dickie doesn't step down before 07
and shrubbie appoints some other troglodyte
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tk2kewl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 03:38 PM
Response to Original message
3. is this why Specter had wanted bush to hold off on the 2nd nominee
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jedicord Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 03:41 PM
Response to Original message
5. Thanks to the Repubs in the 90's, a precedent has been set
that it's OK to indict a sitting President. They did it to Clinton.

Ain't karma a bi__ch?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OldLeftieLawyer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 03:44 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. Who indicted Clinton?
Do tell.

This is news to me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
papau Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 03:50 PM
Response to Reply #7
12. civil suit vs criminal inditement is like perjury vs court sanction for
not being totally a truth teller in a civil case.

RW talk radio has morphed one into the other.

You are of course correct - but you would not find out that truth from our media.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OldLeftieLawyer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 03:53 PM
Response to Reply #12
16. Oh, dear
You do not get indicted in a civil action, dear. You get sued, served, whatever, but indictments (watch that spelling) are strictly criminal.

Clinton was never indicted.

I don't listen to RW talk radio, and neither should you.

Neither should anyone. Ever.

Our media NEVER reported that Clinton had been indicted.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Walt Starr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 03:56 PM
Response to Reply #16
20. Question for you about your opinion
Edited on Wed Oct-19-05 04:02 PM by Walt Starr
Given Article I, Section 3., clause 7 of the consitution, can a sitting president be indicted?

I know Robert Bork says no and the DOJ stance is no, but I think the waters are murky because Bork also said a sitting Vice Pesident can be indicted.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OldLeftieLawyer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 04:00 PM
Response to Reply #20
23. It's been debated for years
All you have to do to read up on this fascinating topic is google "indict a sitting President of the United States". There's lots of stuff there.

If I were you, I'd pay particular attention to the name Leon Jaworski. He did a lot of work in this area.

The current answer is no, but if the proper set of circumstances presented themselves, if the Congress had the requisite majority, if the offenses were egregious enough, I'd argue - tentatively - that it could happen. But, I seriously doubt that it will ever happen.

This is why Richard Nixon became an unindicted co-conspirator and why Gerry Ford so quickly pardoned him. To do otherwise would have risked an instability that would have been dangerously detrimental to the stability of our Republic.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Walt Starr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 04:08 PM
Response to Reply #23
26. I've read up on Jaworski and understand his reasoning for urging
the Watergate GJ to name Nixon as an un indicted co-conspirator.

I don't necessarily agree with it, but I understand it. To my way of thinking it's far worse to leave a criminal if office than the consequences of indicting a sitting president. For example, I simply see no way whatsoever that the current congress would impeach bush, let alone the Senate convict him, regardless of how egregious the crimes or how solid the evidence.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OldLeftieLawyer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 04:12 PM
Response to Reply #26
27. It would be prudent
to see if, in fact, any crimes have been committed.

So far, no one knows.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Walt Starr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 04:13 PM
Response to Reply #27
28. True enough, but why an internet message board
if not for speculation?

:evilgrin:

I would have to admit, though, any indictment of any sitting president would be an immediate constitutional crisis setting up the SCOTUS to make earthshattering legal rulings.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OldLeftieLawyer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 04:21 PM
Response to Reply #28
30. Well, since there are other real and vital
matters taking place in the world, why waste time on such fantasies?

There's so much more that's worthy of my attention.

Your last sentence sounds like the final line of every law school admissions writing test. The writer thinks it's provocative, but, in fact, it's just trite. It's been debated to death, and the answer I gave you first is still the only agreement that's ever been reached - in all its nebulous glory.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Walt Starr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 04:34 PM
Response to Reply #30
35. Well, that's your opinion and you're entitled to it
Edited on Wed Oct-19-05 04:35 PM by Walt Starr
My opinion is that there is absolutely nothing in the world with as much importance as this Grand Jury and its decision. So I will continue to speculate on it, thankyouverymuch.

And yes, it is my considered opinion that egregious crimes against the United States were committed by members of this adminstration and the only thing at issue is wheter Patrick Fitzgerald and his team have compiled the necessary evidence to convict.

The right never gave Clinton the benefit of the doubt and considered him guilty until proven innocent. I reciprocate with the bastard occupying the people's house currently.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
King Coal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 06:32 PM
Response to Reply #35
55. Walt, OldLeftie may be entitled to her opinion, but not her own facts.
The fact is: A president has to stand up some time. And a good prosecuter will be waiting right by him, and as soon as he stands up, INDICTMENT CITY BINGO!!

I've seen in happen over and over in Continental countries.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Samantha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 09:24 PM
Response to Reply #35
69. "Indict" refers to criminal charges
"Criminal" charges refer to Federal or State laws. Federal and state laws are superseded by the Constitution, the Supreme Law of the Land. Otherwise, the Constitution could be overturned, and thus elections overturned, by political enemies of a sitting president or vice president.

The only way Bush* and/or Cheney could be removed from office is through the impeachment process or resignation. After that, the criminal charges could be pursued.

This is not the first time this issue has arisen. See above.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
King Coal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 06:34 PM
Original message
Trite? What in the hotel bill is trite about it?
I should have gone to law school, but no, I had to march in the band.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OldLeftieLawyer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 07:11 PM
Response to Original message
64. Trite, because every applicant to law school
writes stuff like that.

Having read far more of those applications than should ever be legal in the United States, I've seen variations on that line over and over and over. It's a compelling matter, true, but the kids I voted for were the ones who wrote about more creative things, like eggshell skulls and liability, pianos that could fly, grandmothers with meth labs in the basement, and what to award the kid who was turned into a doorstop by a defective toy.

Some of those applicants turned into pretty wonderful lawyers, by the way. I've even hired some of them
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Walt Starr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 07:49 PM
Response to Reply #64
66. So where was I claiming my DU post was an application to law school?
Edited on Wed Oct-19-05 07:58 PM by Walt Starr
:shrug:

Ya got me!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
King Coal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-20-05 09:17 AM
Response to Reply #66
77. I don't know Walt. But
next time pick Granny and the Meth Lab and you might be accepted.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IntravenousDemilo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 06:14 PM
Response to Reply #28
51. If the SCOTUS can raise him up into office,
then the SCOTUS can take him down just as easily.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
papau Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 06:31 PM
Response to Reply #28
54. "earthshattering legal rulings" - Like giving the election to the loser?
:-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joe Chi Minh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 05:11 PM
Response to Reply #23
44. Don't you think any departure from the neocon "status quo"
is bound to actually constitute some measure of stabilisation?

Personally, I'm inclined to view this contention that the stability of your Republic would be gravely imperilled in such an event, as mistaken; rather, that countries are actually very robust and probably none more so than the US with all its legislative checks and balances.

The fact of political accountability at this level being pursued so professionally would actually have the reverse effect, i.e. providing immense encouragement to the population, including the traditional Republicans, not bereft of Christian values and ideals, and stabilising the Republic.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 05:57 PM
Response to Reply #44
49. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Joe Chi Minh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 06:51 PM
Response to Reply #49
60. Nobody with any sense wants to tempt Providence,
but I can't see it happening.

And of course while, in principle, accountability is not the same as investigating whether crimes have been committed, we can see, here, that that is precisely the case, the one implicates the other seamlessly, precisely because they have committed crimes in pursuit of political gains; i.e. both spheres of accountability will have been served, even were they to be proved innocent of crimes.

Well, I suppose it was a tremendous stroke of luck that they were foolish enough to anger the CIA, with the result that the latter set up this Grand Jury investigation. But it is operating and I can't think of any parallel system of accountability in the UK.

As for the neocons' attempted destabilisation of the Clinton presidency, that seems to have been grotesquely misconceived from start to finish. An outrage, if it hadn't been such a side-splitting farce.

As regards your take on Clinton and Paula Jones, most of us felt the same with regard to Major. Adultery was one thing, but having that affair with that Thatcherite stop-me-and-buy-one... well, most people were appalled at his taste.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Samantha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 09:16 PM
Response to Reply #20
68. I don't think the waters are murky - you cannot indict a sitting President
Edited on Wed Oct-19-05 09:27 PM by Samantha
Jaworksi (spelling?) researched this issue throughly during Watergate and concluded it could not be done inasmuch as the Constitution was the Supreme law of the land. No Federal law supersedes the Constitution. To remove a president, one must impeach him or her for high crimes or misdemeanors (I cannot spell anything tonight; it's late; I am tired). After a president is removed from office (or a vice president), he or she could be tried on criminal charges.

During this last election controversy, while the results of the Ohio election were being "contested," Jonathan Turley made an appearance on MSNBC. He said the law was clear. If election irregularity were proven in Ohio prior to the inauguration, Bush* would not be inaugurated. If election irregularity, i.e., theft of the election, were proven AFTER the inauguration, oh, well. The only way Bush* could then be removed, Turley specifically said, EVEN IF THERE WAS EVIDENCE OF ELECTION FRAUD, was through the Constitution, the Supreme Law of the Land.

I believe it is so because were this not the case, many political enemies of any sitting President or Vice President would use Federal laws simply to remove a political adversary. Thus, the Constitution eliminates that possibility, i.e., that Federal or State laws can be being used for political purposes to overthrow the results of an election.

Jaworksi further asked in his thoughtful process, and if one ignored the obvious and did attempt to indict a sitting president, that process would throw the Country into total Constitutional crisis. And who would arrest the President? And if an attempt were made to do so, would not the Secret Service protect him? And what if the President called up the military to defend his or her presidency? That would be totally within his authority to do. And there you would have it --the military doing battle with Federal or State law officials.

Elections do have consequences as McCain recently reminded us. One of those consequences is that in order to overthrow one, the Constitution has set of guidelines that eliminates the possibility this can be done via a subordinate set of rules of law, i.e., federal or state laws.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
papau Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 06:29 PM
Response to Reply #16
53. True - I used Rush and Fox as "media" - my error - and I will
watch my spelling - but I ask forgiveness for the Adult ADD with fat fingers and bad eyesight - it is not just being a bad speller - there is also forgetting to hit spell check and even when running spell check retyping the word again incorrectly and/or not seeing that you are clicking on the wrong variation being offered up as an alternative.

I need a secretary to do my internet postings!

:-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OldLeftieLawyer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-20-05 02:39 PM
Response to Reply #53
78. You got your message across -
that's all that matters.

But, as for using Rush and Fox as media, well, Sister OldLeftieLawyer just might have to take a ruler across those chubby little digits if you ever do it again.

;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jedicord Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 04:55 PM
Response to Reply #7
40. He wasn't indicted, but the Supreme Court ruled it was OK to
indict a sitting president.

Sorry for the confusion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OldLeftieLawyer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 05:00 PM
Response to Reply #40
42. No
This never happened.

You're thinking of when the Supreme Court ruled that sitting Presidents (Clinton in 1997) could be sued in civil court.

Very different situations. And, I think, a very bad decision, covering only acts performed before he took office.

But, the matter of whether a sitting President can be indicted has been one of my profession's favorite debate topics for years and years.

The answer so far is "no."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Walt Starr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 07:51 PM
Response to Reply #42
67. There's a good reason the answer is "no"
That's because no Grand Jury has ever done it before! Until that happens and there is a ruling on it, that "no" is simply the de facto position because it has never happened.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Walt Starr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 03:46 PM
Response to Reply #5
9. Clinton was never indicted. There is no precedent either way
Edited on Wed Oct-19-05 03:52 PM by Walt Starr
No sitting president has ever been indicted and no court has ever ruled on the matter.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tk2kewl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 03:48 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. clinton was forced t testify in the civil suit however
and word on the street is that the Wilsons may sue shrubCo
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OldLeftieLawyer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 04:50 PM
Response to Reply #10
38. Uh, not likely

I seriously doubt that the CIA contract Valerie Plame signed would allow her to sue anyone for interfering with her work. Imagine the questions she'd be asked in interrogatories and discovery.

More gossip "on the street" from people who know nothing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
papau Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 06:34 PM
Response to Reply #38
57. Husband is suing???????
:-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jedicord Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 04:59 PM
Response to Reply #9
41. Are you sure?
I've been trying to google a link, and I must admit I'm stating as fact (oops) something that is relying solely on memory (not that good of one, either). I sure seem to remember that the Supremes ruled it OK. Maybe it was just presented to them by Starr (or somebody) in hopes of such a ruling.

I know the WSJ was demanding an indictment while he was in office.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OldLeftieLawyer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 03:43 PM
Response to Original message
6. Feelings don't bring indictments
Instead of going all up in the air with theories such as this - where DID you get it? - why not just relax and enjoy life and wait?

In fact, the likelihood that there will be no indictments is, right now, equal to the likelihood that there will be indictments.

No one knows anything, and to speculate is a sheer waste of time and energy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AlCzervik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 03:45 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. I was reading in the wapost that he won't be putting out a final report
and i read 2 takes on why--the first was becasue "He's not authorized to do so" and the 2nd take was becasue they think he's getting ready to hand down indictments. Does that 1st part sound right?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OldLeftieLawyer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 03:52 PM
Response to Reply #8
14. The first part is the law
Without a special court order, the special investigator has no authority to issue a report. It's highly unlikely that he'd ever get that court order, by the way.

The second is not at all connected to the first, as some people are wrongly concluding. If he brings no indictments, that's it. Show's over. People pack up and go home.

It's that simple One has nothing to do with the other.

Good question, by the way.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AlCzervik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 03:54 PM
Response to Reply #14
17. See thats why i got to you, 1st you hook me up with some great
stuff that helped my awful lactose intolerance problem and then you answer this legal question in a way i can understand. You're the best!! :toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OldLeftieLawyer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 03:55 PM
Response to Reply #17
19. HAHAHAHA!
Go eat some ice cream and ignore this Fitzgerald stuff until something happens. I'll wake you.

Thanks for that GREAT big laugh here. .........................

Isn't that stuff terrific? I'm glad it's helping you, too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AlCzervik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 04:00 PM
Response to Reply #19
22. yes it works very well, now my family can actually be around me
and as far as the Fitz stuff, i'm watching and waiting but i'm not counting on anything. I can only imagine the level of ugly this place will be if he doesn't indict.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OldLeftieLawyer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 04:01 PM
Response to Reply #22
24. Between you and me,
I've been avoiding DU - sort of - because the intensity of the fantasies reminds me of how it was leading up to the November 2004 elections.

Who needs another crash like that?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Carni Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 04:15 PM
Response to Reply #14
29. If the second scenario happens that will suck BIG TIME :( eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OldLeftieLawyer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 04:21 PM
Response to Reply #29
32. Be prepared
You might want to recall November, 2004.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
klook Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 04:39 PM
Response to Reply #14
37. Yep, I heard this explained on NPR
Irvin Nathan, former deputy assistant attorney general with the DOJ's Criminal Division, mentioned that the Special Investigator (Fitzgerald) doesn't issue a report, unlike the Independent Counsel (Kenneth Starr).

Nathan said that if there's a Declination in the case, we will likely never get an official explanation--just the inevitable tell-all books from witnesses and insiders.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OldLeftieLawyer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 05:03 PM
Response to Reply #37
43. WOW!
Thank you. I have missed the most obvious part of why all this confusion and anxiety about a "report."

Civilians (non-lawyers) don't realize that there's a difference between a Special Investigator and an Independent Counsel.

Of course. Under my nose the whole time, and I never realized that those two roles were blurred to most people.

Ah. Thanks again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robertpaulsen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 03:50 PM
Response to Original message
11. Good question about Roberts!
I'm wondering about a precedent for that. Wasn't Nixon v. US an 8-0 decision against Nixon? Was the one abstaining justice recused because Nixon appointed him? I'll have to check my history on that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robertpaulsen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 03:53 PM
Response to Reply #11
15. Here's more info on what I think is the precedent.
Opinion
Written by: Chief Justice Warren E. Burger
Joined by: Justices William O. Douglas, William J. Brennan, Potter Stewart, Byron White, Thurgood Marshall, Harry Blackmun and Lewis Franklin Powell, Jr.
Associate (later Chief) Justice William Rehnquist recused himself, and did not participate in the trial.


The case
Following a subpoena of the Watergate tapes by special prosecutor Leon Jaworski, Richard Nixon sought to have them quashed on the ground of executive privilege. The Court ruled 8-0 that the tapes should be released.

The Court determined:

that the courts have the final voice in determining constitutional questions and
that no person, not even the President of the United States, is completely above law.
Most importantly the Court determined that a president cannot use executive privilege as an excuse to withhold evidence that is 'demonstrably relevant in a criminal trial.'

more...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Nixon

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hang a left Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 09:57 PM
Response to Reply #11
75. Hi rp
I read somewhere that there isn't anyone that can recuse a SC justice. It is up to the justice to recuse himself. If he chooses not to, then nothing can be done about it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flyarm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 03:50 PM
Response to Original message
13. I AM WITH YOU ON THAT...
and after todays letter from Schumer to * i feel it even more clearly..* knew and he testified but not under oath..but what exactly did he know..when did he know it...i think fitz will keep this all for trial ...but he can really make those he does indict squirm...and i think it will be explosive..
the media dipshits are trying to down play..but the smart ones are keeping doors open in a way..because they know...they Know the shit is going to hit the fan..big time...

i think fitz can charge bush with obstruction..nad perjury..but it would be held over like it was on clinton till after he leaves office..isn't that how they got clinton?? with his law licence suspension after he left office??
either way..this could all lead to impeachment..its why the powers that be took delay and have compromised frist i believe..so they can not be made vp and to neutor them in congress...

and then the trials...thats where i think they get * by the balls!!

first take down cheney ..just like agnew..then go to trial..and take down * there!

just my 2 cents...fly
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
proud patriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 03:55 PM
Response to Original message
18. um, this question assumes there is talent in the WH now
:think:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alcibiades_mystery Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 04:21 PM
Response to Original message
31. The bombshell will be no indictments
Bank it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SupplyConcerns Donating Member (305 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 06:24 PM
Response to Reply #31
52. I disagree, but we're getting way ahead of ourselves here
We'll inevitably be disappointed if and when Bush isn't personally indicted.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
senaca Donating Member (173 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 06:43 PM
Response to Reply #52
59. Plame, Winning 2006 and DSM
I'm hoping that Plame is just the first of many salvos. This may seem naive, but I'm imagining Speaker of the House John Conyers calling for an investigation into DSM of which I'm hoping that pertinent information in Fitzgerald's investigation will be shared. I'm waiting for the trials of Delay, Abramoff, Ken Lay etc. I'm looking for sweeping changes because of all this. There are probably other cases coming down the pike that I'm missing. Plame just seems like the tipping point in conjunction with the sense of pervading uncertainty people are feeling.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AbbyR Donating Member (734 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 04:27 PM
Response to Original message
33. I sure hope you're right...
but I'm probably the biggest pessimist on earth, and I'm not getting my hopes up. I still expect every last one of them to get a pass. They've gotten away with so much that I've come to expect it. Poor Bill - if it had been him, he'd be in jail by now. Nah - they'd probably have figured out some way to execute him. But Bush gets away with everything. I'll never understand it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
whatever4 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 04:33 PM
Response to Original message
34. I mean, really
The smartest thing for the Republican party to do would be to cut ties with this president and his lackeys. Just cut bait. Leave BushCo swinging in the wind, they don't deserve support, at all. Seriously. If you think long term, if they thought long term, they'd realize that, no matter what, public opinion is building to reject the ideas of Bush and Co. When they do, they won't be changing their minds back. It's not that hard to see. It's an issue of trust, and many broken trusts.

So, it's like, they can pay us now, fess up now, sacrifice this man and his admin now. The faster that happens, the faster the rampant injustice and violence they've caused can be stopped. Or they, the Republican party, and associated supporters too I guess, can keep holding on to this losing bet, knowing they're bound to lose, and the rest of America knowing too. I can't imagine they'll pay less if they wait for a later. There isn't much point in waiting for things to improve. Pay now, or pay later, and I think later will be more.

They might as well just get it done now. Get it done, get it over with. Unless they, those so many "they" people are so well off themselves that they have no fear about the coming difficulties. For themselves and anyone they might happen to give a damn about.

For goodness sakes, they ought to take action to withdraw support for this admin now, speak out, speak impeachment, while we're still strong enough, as a nation, to manage. It might be far more difficult to do later. Signs are indicating more difficult times aren't so unlikely. It's going to be another blow to the national psyche, but it might be better now than later, is what I'm thinking.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
journalist3072 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 04:35 PM
Response to Original message
36. Fitz is taking his time for a reason...
I've said all along that Fitz is taking his sweet time for a reason.

He's dealing with some very weighty issues here, involving crimes at the highest levels of government. I think he wants to make sure he has all his ducks in a row, so that when charges are brought, no one can ask for them to be dropped on technicalities or legal grounds.

He's probably dotting the "I"s and crossing the "T"s.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joe Chi Minh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 05:16 PM
Response to Reply #36
45. And making them sweat is no bad thing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
journalist3072 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 05:30 PM
Response to Reply #45
46. Exactly!!!!! eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tight_rope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 09:31 PM
Response to Reply #36
70. Maybe that's why Cheney bought a house in Maryland....
He must know his ass is about to get kick out of that peoples house (he will resign) and he will need somewhere to lay his fat greedy ass while awaiting his trial.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
journalist3072 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 09:50 PM
Response to Reply #70
74. He bought a house in MD? eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lovuian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 04:52 PM
Response to Original message
39. The Magna Carta of 12 15 states No king is above the law!!!
How can you have a President unable to be indicted!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kestrel91316 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 09:45 PM
Response to Reply #39
73. Is the Magna Carta part of the US Constitution or the US Code???
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FreedomAngel82 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 05:36 PM
Response to Original message
47. I think so too
Since I first was into this case a few months ago or so I had a feeling he was going after someone higher up whether Cheney or Bush. I just didn't think he was going after Karl Rove. If it was Rove he would've had the proof by now I think. Rove just didn't have that type of security clearance. And I find it very interesting how Cheney is backing away from Bush now and the Miers appointment and as someone in another post (the elephant in the room) mentioned how Bush is passing up Gonzalez and other people and appointing Miers who is his personal lawyer. Something is up I think. And now two aides have gone to talk to Fitzgerald so I think this thing will definitely shock the nation once he's done with the case.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
many a good man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 05:41 PM
Response to Original message
48. Bush v Gore 5-4 becomes US v Bush 4-4 ?
Another interesting question I just thought of:

Must Roberts recuse himself from presiding over a possible impeachment trial? Who would then preside if the Chief Justice can't???
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cascadiance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 06:53 PM
Response to Reply #48
61. Well, if that's the case, wouldn't Mieirs have to recuse too?...
... if she were approved? Then it would be 4-3 to impeach with Kennedy as acting chief justice!

Somehow I don't think we'd be that lucky with them recusing themselves. I think the whole point of having Mieirs and Roberts is to help Bushco in these very instances! They certainly won't recuse themselves unilaterally and voluntarily. They'll need to be challenged to do so!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 06:01 PM
Response to Original message
50. Yes a conxittiutional crisis IS coming
buckle up and hang on fer the ride, make sure you stock up on :popcorn:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cynatnite Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 06:33 PM
Response to Original message
56. Perjury and obstruction of justice seems rather tame...
It seems to me, given the gravity of this, that those are weak charges to make.

I've been thinking about this and it seems that those charges just aren't that big of deal.

Am I wrong about this?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
notadmblnd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 06:34 PM
Response to Original message
58. nah, I'm seeing the Dems taking back the house and or the senate in 2006
and the impeachment proceedings commenced post haste.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cascadiance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 06:55 PM
Response to Reply #58
62. The key is for the Dems to hopefully not allow an unimpeachable
new VP be put in place before 2006 elections. Need to be able to take both Bush and Cheney (or some other criminal that is appointed VP) in one fell swoop to get President Pelosi in place in 2007!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
notadmblnd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 06:57 PM
Response to Reply #62
63. That's why I won't be bitching if he selects his girlfriend Condi.
nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stevietheman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 07:15 PM
Response to Original message
65. Just saw the Judicary committee heads say Miers confirmation...
process will probably go past Thanksgiving, esp. since she sent them back incomplete/inadequate answers to their questions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kestrel91316 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 09:36 PM
Response to Original message
71. I have thought all along that a case for wartime treason by the whole WH
crew could be made here, but I'm no attorney and it's probably just wishful thinking......

But can you just imagine...........????
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tight_rope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 09:42 PM
Response to Original message
72. I'm with you on this one...I had my doubts but too much has come to light!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
corbett Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 10:44 PM
Response to Original message
76. I Don't Dare Hope
It's too bad that * has become such a prude because he sure could use a humidor and stained blue dress right about now!

https://www.workingforchange.com/order/index.cfm?OrderF...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Aug 20th 2014, 05:45 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC