What if there are no indictments?

[YDogg]

Poll question: What if there are no indictments?

How disappointed will you be?

Until such time as it is known what Fitzgerald does as a result of the investigation, this is somewhat premature, but I'm curious to know just how high hopes are that high ranking members of the bush administration will be indicted.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

1. So this is Fitzmas.... how long will it be...

'til justice has spoken.. in the land of the "free"...

I will be greatly dismayed if this doesn't make watergate look small in comparison.

[jarnocan]

2. another COOL indictment pool and important ACTION link.

http://www.millionphonemarch.com/pool.htm this is another poll -NO really a pool. and it is really awesome How many and Who will be indicted? Includes brief discriptions and links on names to bios and pics. Also an VERY, VERY, VERY ,VERY important action link on page as well, that leads to more great resources and information. I posted it on CARE2 and OLS and.... whatever. Please check it out it is fun and informative.
I also began another poll on which day, IT is happening! I can't WAIT! www.worldcantwait.org this Nov. 2nd we need to let them know how we feel.IMHO.

[MADem]

3. There will be indictments

Because if there are not, the WH will be ringed by an angry mob carrying torches and pitchforks, the size of which will make the Million Man March look like a quiet family pic-a-nic.

Will there be CONVICTIONS, though, that is the question. The chimp will have to weigh that issue carefully. The public needs a whipping boy, and said whipee will have to be very well compensated for doing his bit in the can. If not, he will start talking, or slip in the shower and hit his head....

[Walt Starr]

4. There is no chance whatsoever that there will be no indictments. n/t

[YDogg]

5. I want to believe, I want to believe, I want to believe ...

I'm just keeping my fingered crossed. Tightly. Very tightly.

[Walt Starr]

9. At an absolute minimum, Libby gets indicted.

I figure it'll be a helluva lot worse than that.

I also figure Judy Miller will get indicted, too.

[YDogg]

11. I hope there are negative ramifications for Judy Miller.

At best, she was duped (I don't believe that). At worst, she let her ego stand in the way of everything that legitimate journalists hold dear. She sold out her profession and her country, and every one of us, of every party.

I wonder what and how she was paid for her services, or whether her desire for "journalistic" immortality was all it took? She may have achieved that, after all.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

12. Miller likely not indicted; NYT Ombudsman says Miller & NYT not compatible

I read that Fitzgerald assured Miller that she would not be indicted when he persuaded her to testify again.

Separately:

Miller has also come under increasingly sharp criticism by editors and reporters in the pages of her own newspaper over her conduct. Times Ombudsman Byron Calame wrote Sunday: "the problems facing her inside and outside the newsroom will make it difficult for her to return to the paper as a reporter."

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=1242367&page=3

[Frustratedlady]

6. It will be like the Fitzmas I

received a music folder and a sweater set, while my bratty brother got a pool table. :( In this case, I would get the shaft and * would get the last laugh!

[Toucano]

7. Asking people how they might feel?

I hoped this would ask people what they might DO.

I'm not being critical, I guess I was just hoping for ideas. :)

[YDogg]

10. Good point. But we have to deal emotionally with the cards we are dealt...

... as a prelude to action.

[McKenzie]

8. I voted "None of the above" - here's why

I suspect the Fitz investigation can be considered "democracy by proxy". It is possible that some senior figures have realised that the only way to restore democracy is to remove this shower using legal mechanisms. In effect, there is no other way to halt these people; the voting system is rigged and the key positions have been filled by neocon placemen/women. The Fitzgerald inquiry is trying to address a vacuum in the democratic process.

I voted "None of the above" because I will be more than just disappointed if Fitzgerald does not bring charges that are sufficient to mortally wound the Bush administration. This is make or break time. Notwithstanding the damage to the credibility of the neocon cabal that indictments of smaller players might cause, their track record suggests they will just carry on regardless. They must be removed or neutralised. Consequently, everything hinges on what charges are brought by Fitz and, more importantly, against whom.

There are two possibilities: Either Fitzgerald's charges bring the neocon cabal down or they will carry on regardless, even if it means having to ignore a huge public outcry (something they have done over Iraq so far). Fitgerald's credentials are such that his findings will be regarded as the real deal. That is both encouraging as well as a source of concern. Sure, there will be a massive outcry if the neocons are left to govern, but what are people then going to do to stop them if someone with Fitzgerald's credentials fails to bring down the neocons?

[PowerToThePeople]

13. Other. Mass rioting... n/t

[More Than A Feeling]

14. *sound of me banging my head against the wall at the thought*

If Fitzgerald does not indict, law and order will have no meaning in America anymore, and it will be a victor's law administered by the strongest survivors of a Darwinian nightmare.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

16. Fitzgerald does not indict

You might want to understand the process before you go lamenting it.

The grand jury indicts, not the prosecutor.

Doesn't anyone watch "Law and Order" any more?

:::: sigh ::::

[OldLeftieLawyer]

15. You know what will happen if the grand jury doesn't issue indictments?

Nothing.

Oh, sure, there'll be all sorts of wailing and screams for impeachment and much gnashing of teeth.

But, in the end, it will all just continue as it has, because the Democrats and the American people have lost their ability to do much except whine.

Look at where we are today, hoping for indictments against White House staff members, most likely on charges that they lied to the grand jury, when, in fact, not any of what they might or might not be charged with has anything to do directly with the current State Of Our Union.

Where are the candidates who are gearing up and making noise and speaking out in loud and unmistakeable voices, calling out these thugs in the White House, demanding our withdrawal from Iraq, thumping over and over the heads of those who would deny Americans adequate health care, demanding that the tax laws recently passed be repealed, that the air and water now so befouled by corporations who paid handsomely to have our clean air and water laws relaxed must be rescued from these deep pockets monsters, and refusing to back down no matter how bad the smears get?

Where is our collective spine?

Has it come to this? That we can only hope that an independent investigation into possible perjury before a grand jury will somehow set our country right again?

How pathetic we are. How did we ever let ourselves get to be this beaten and impotent?

[flyarm]

20. i wholeheartedly agree with you!!!

i have been asking this question since 9/11 ..where have the balls of americans and our reps gone??>

we are gutless..because we let the worst failure in this nations history slip by and most hid in fear!

fly

[Joe Chi Minh]

21. Doesn't Fitz offer them guidance?

Are not the facts of such a nature that anyone with a reasonable degree of common sense would have to act in bad faith themelves, not to issue indictments? I doubt if there are many grey areas, Fitz will be advising on, with such a plethora of overt criminality on offer.

Or do you, perhaps, think perhaps that the Grand Jury will not have sufficient respect for Fitz to heed any of his advice (which because of the obviousness of the crimes, would, in effect, almost amount to directions")? You seem persuaded of the significance and force of the wrong technicalities, while having no faith in the effectiveness of the system of dealing with technically routine (in the sense of manifest) crime.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

22. Oh, you kidder ................

Your statement about "a plethora of overt criminality," well, you're obviously operating on inside information to which no one else - outside of the Fitzgerald staff - has access. There is currently no indication that any laws have been broken, simply because no one knows what's going on.

You really are a funny one. I love the way you play with language, but, then, I've always been a mad fan of doubletalk. Well done, KC.

[Joe Chi Minh]

23. The pleasure's all mine. And I expect

the basis of it to be confirmed in spades, you Old Ambiguous-seeming Lawyer, you!

[Quixote1818]

17. That would be like the Grinch that stole Fritzmas! NO!!!!!

:wtf: :argh: :mad: :grr: :rant: :banghead: :grr: :hurts: :argh: :wtf: :mad:

[dalaigh lllama]

18. Very disapointed, and I might add

I'll probably go into a deep funk, just like I did on 11/3/04

[flyarm]

19. see fly jump from bridge!!

:nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :hide: :hide: :hide: :hide: :hide: :hide: :hide: :hide: :hide: :hide: :hide: :hide: :hide: :hide: :hide: :hide: :hide: :hide: :hide: :hide: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke:


fly