Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

My treason-gate/Plame predictions.....

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
 
tableturner Donating Member (199 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-01-05 09:28 AM
Original message
My treason-gate/Plame predictions.....
It's hard to be patient, especially with the term of the grand jury soon ending (which could be extended), but for now, while waiting with baited breath, here are my predictions. I'd love to read what you think.

1) Bush and Cheney un-indicted co-conspirators for being in on the plot from the beginning (cannot indict a sitting president or VP, but it signifies that the grand jury would have indicted if they were not in those two positions).

2) Indictments: Rove, Libby, Rice, Ari Fleischer, Gonzales, Judith Miller, Novak, two or three other of the White House Iraqi Group (Hadley, Matalin, others maybe, but considering who her husband is, Matalin may have flipped ).

3) Charges:
a) Bush, Cheney, Rice, Gonzales, Libby, WHIG people:
1) Intelligence Identities Protection act, the original and specific law about outing an agent.
2) Espionage act (releasing any classified info to someone who is not cleared to see it) .
3) Conspiracy relative to all of the above.
4) Perjury
5) Obstruction of Justice
6) Knowingly lying to Congress
7) Being complicit in the forging of the fake Niger papers
8) You can bet the farm that Fitzgerald, like all prosecutors, can find a slew of technical law violations, plus more major ones.
b) Assorted charges for all the others involved.

4) Notice I left out charges for Fleischer. A year ago, a major media source, I can't remember which, had a small blurb stating that someone had flipped and was telling the prosecutors that Bush and Cheney knew everything right from the beginning. I think it's Ari (but it may be Matalin, additionally, or instead of). He quit right after this thing blew up, has been almost totally out of public view, was an underling who most likely had no planning role, but he lied to Fitzgerald, the press and the public (which is not nearly as bad as what the top guys did). Key point: you may remember that it was reported that he had testified that he had no prior knowledge of the Plame situation, nor of her identity. You also may remember the recent revelation that witnesses told Fitz that Ari, on the now famous presidential trip to Africa, was seen with the memo describing Plame's identity and the fact that the info was top secret. They have him nailed. What else can he do? Go to jail for 10 years, and be cast as a traitor, even though he was much less complicit than those above him who might get off scot free were Ari not to flip?

Results:

1) Bush and Cheney resign.

2) Bush pardons all his crew including Cheney (which may not stick because pardons related to crimes covered under impeachment proceedings are not valid under the constitution, although this is a bit murky).

3) Bush makes deal with Hastert, the incoming president, that he will spare the country an impeachment and trial if he will give Bush a pardon, which also may not stick.

4) GOP pigs lose Congress.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Phoebe Loosinhouse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-01-05 09:32 AM
Response to Original message
1. I have followed Plame very closely for a long time
And I think your predictions are very valid if you have followed all of the permutations of the case over this very long haul. (Although I don't know the Ganzales connection and I might have been tempted to throw Bolton into the mix)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blue Belle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-01-05 08:10 PM
Response to Reply #1
55. I agree... Bolton should be up there too.
And I'm also curious how Gonzalas figures into this mix... as well as Condi.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JoMama49 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-01-05 09:32 AM
Response to Original message
2. Nice synopsis - i like it - sending it off into the ethers with my
hope and prayers!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jim3775 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-01-05 09:38 AM
Response to Original message
3. Bush and Cheney will never resign
Edited on Sat Oct-01-05 09:41 AM by jim3775
They will play the "partisan judiciary" card and probably get congress to pass special legislation that will gut the DOJ and the federal judiciary.

I agree with cheney being an un-indicted co-conspirator, i think bush will be left out of this.

Rove and libby will be indicted, i don't know about condi or gonzales. It is still unknown whether being told somebody is a covert agent and then reprinting that fact is actually illegal so novak could very well not be indicted. I think a few state department officials we have never heard of will be indicted along with the members of the WHIG that you mentioned.

Bush will instantly pardon his crew and wage an all out war on the "liberal infiltrated" judiciary.

Edit: Bolton could very well be indicted along with those state department officials.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NewJeffCT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-01-05 10:09 AM
Response to Reply #3
12. not just partisan activist judges - an out of control prosecutor
We've heard them already try to lay the groundwork on that one. Since Fitzgerald also brought down the Illinois Republican party, he'll be labeled as a partisan Democrat, too.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HughMoran Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-01-05 10:13 AM
Response to Reply #12
15. Don't you find that when people protest so much...
it eventually falls on deaf ears?

I know Bush thinks that he has to repeat points over and over so they become "fact."

But some of the repeating doesn't seem to work anymore. Maybe too many people are catching on: "9/11...9/11...9/11" "the blame game... the blame game ...the blame game" "partisan judges... partisan prosecuters... etc."

Especially when the facts overwhelm what is being repeated by these mofos (e.g., Delay's indicter has prosecuted 3x as many dems)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NewJeffCT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-01-05 10:21 AM
Response to Reply #15
20. they control most of the media
This satire by Tom Tomorrow has Watergate happening today:

http://www.panopticist.com/archives/119.html

http://www.workingforchange.com/printitem.cfm?itemid=19157

It's not far from the truth... if they throw enough bullshit out there, some of it is bound to stick. There was so much going on with Clinton that many just figured, "where there is smoke, there is fire." no matter how often the rape charges, the multiple affairs, etc were debunked.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joe Chi Minh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-01-05 06:08 PM
Response to Reply #20
49. But how much more so,
in the other direction, when truths are known beyond all doubt! Much better to have truth on your side than bullsh*t.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Toots Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-01-05 10:33 AM
Response to Reply #15
23. Delays indicter was the Grand Jury not a Prosecutor
People need to understand that fact. The Prosecutor only showed them the evidence and had them hear the testimony but they do the indicting...They are4 just common folk and not some partisan witchhunt as the GOP would like you to believe.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NewJeffCT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-01-05 10:39 AM
Response to Reply #23
27. however, as they say
a good prosecutor can indict a ham sandwich... the prosecutor is the one that brings the charges before the grand jury.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
elehhhhna Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-01-05 11:12 AM
Response to Reply #27
35. I call BALONEY on your ham sandwich line--
The Reeps are parroting that line right now & they are confused (as ususal) about our legal system. One can SUE or file suit against a ham sandwich. It would be impossible to have a Grand Jury hand down an indictment of said ham sandwich. Surely the ham sandwich would be no-billed.

Please, DU'ers--Friends don't let friends confuse civil law with criminal law.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NewJeffCT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-01-05 01:15 PM
Response to Reply #35
40. my point was...
what do you respond as the Democratic talking head on a Hardball or Newsnight, etc, when the RW head drags out that line?

You can say what you said above, but the 5 second one liner from the RW talking head sounds better.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Catrina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-01-05 01:44 PM
Response to Reply #40
41. How about Reagan's famous line
each time they do it 'there they go again' ~ and then continue with 'what will all the children, oops, I mean criminals do now, each time they are caught? Make the same claim: 'that prosecutor is out to get me, because he's partisan', is that the new American defense against all criminal charges? And then just laugh!! and say 'I hope all defense attornys out there are paying attention!! and laugh harder.

They can't keep doing that, people will simply tune them out as more and more indictments come down.

Another strategy for Dems might to have a list of all those who have already been indicted memorized, eg, the Rep. Governor of Conn., Safarian, Abramoff and his partner, Larry Franklin, etc. and then attack back with 'Were all these Republican indictments and convictions also merely political? Let me read you a few!!

Like Pavlov's dog, they need to be trained that as soon as they play the 'it's just partisan politics' card, that will trigger a list of the Republican criminals the public may not even be aware of. After a while, they will be scared to even say the wrord 'partisan'.

And if they hit back with 'what about Rostankowski, etc. (which they've already done' ~ I would interrupt right away with 'so you're saying they were all innocent also?' Dems have no strategy, they're never prepared ~ once they have air time with a screaming rightwinger, they should use the opportunity to let off a string of the convictions we've already seen, but which have gotten little coverage.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
liberalla Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-01-05 11:46 PM
Response to Reply #41
58. Enjoyed your post
I think you have a couple good suggestions there!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
elehhhhna Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-01-05 03:11 PM
Response to Reply #40
46. You say "Mister Tweety, I have eaten a ham sandwich and I can tell you
that Tom DeLay is NO HAM SANDWICH" he he
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joe Chi Minh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-01-05 06:25 PM
Response to Reply #40
50. When you have truth on your side,
why introduce partisan politics into matters? Let the facts speak for themselves.

If certain Democratic politicians had behaved in a criminal or harmfully stupid manner, it would not be partisan politics if the Republicans took them to task about it, since they would be doing no more than affording the American people the opportunity to the learn the truths concerned, truths detrimentally affecting both the government and the life of the nation.

Only in possession of such knowledge can the American people be expected to take appropriate action through the channels available to them.

That is all that Democratic spokespersons need to say, ideally, more succinctly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrankBooth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-01-05 03:22 PM
Response to Reply #27
47. Well, Ken Mehlman uses the ham sandwich line
And I'm sure Hannity & klan have already received their talking point faxes with that phrase, so I'm sure we'll be hearing a lot of it.

And those guys would never stoop to being partisan, would they?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
marions ghost Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-01-05 10:42 AM
Response to Reply #3
30. what's the point about this antiquated "pardoning" anyway....
isn't that just a way to get buddies off the hook.

Why do we put up with criminals being pardoned by the president?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joe Chi Minh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-01-05 06:52 PM
Response to Reply #30
52. It would be regarded as some kind of joke,
anywhere else in the world. It is difficult to believe that it actually happens with the advent of each new President. Obviously, the brainchild of that fountainhead of all that's good and honourable in America: your military-industrial complex.

"Gee, some of my staunchest supporters are currently serving long prison sentences. I want them released pronto! (Not, of course, that he'd be asking anything special. It seems to be the most coveted perk of the job, doesn't it?)

Mind you, that sounds more like the egregious General Dreadle in Catch 22, doesn't it? Or that general in "Kelly's Heroes, bawling out, 'The guy's a LOSER! A loser I tell you! Why I've even got his broad," as he picks up a photo of her from his desk.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
marions ghost Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-01-05 10:18 PM
Response to Reply #52
56. Is there any limit on how many can be pardoned?
or can you pardon everybody in the govt if you want? Yeah it conjures up the worst kind of banana republic general....maybe King Herod in Life of Brian

I can't see any reason why this pardon option is a good thing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sarah Ibarruri Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-01-05 09:53 AM
Response to Original message
4. GOP Pigs lose Congress
From your mouth to God's ears. It does my heart good to hear these things. I also particularly am enjoying Roberts being confirmed amidst indictments, scandals, and the ever-drooping popularity of his political party. :toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Glenda Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-01-05 09:57 AM
Response to Reply #4
7. Maybe I am mis-reading your post
Why are you enjoying Roberts being confirmed...

Anyway, welcome to DU! :pals:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Glenda Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-01-05 09:53 AM
Response to Original message
5. That's interesting...
I'll keep a copy of your post, and look back at it after the indictments :)

Now, are some of your Results from you being optimistic, or do you think logically these are the most likely things to happen?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nite Owl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-01-05 09:54 AM
Response to Original message
6. Wasn't Clinton indicted as
a sitting President. Think it was for the woman in Arkansas and there was a big thing about how indeed a sitting President could be indicted. Maybe this could backfire on them which would be such sweet revenge.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rox63 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-01-05 09:59 AM
Response to Reply #6
8. No, Clinton was impeached by Congress
But he was later aquitted. A sitting president who would be indicted (if he were not president) must be impeached instead. He can only be indicted once he is no longer president.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hootinholler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-01-05 10:16 AM
Response to Reply #8
18. I think Owl was referring to a civil suit.
Can't recall the name, alleging sexual misconduct before the first election. In any event, a civil suit is not an indictment.

-Hoot
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nite Owl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-01-05 10:41 AM
Response to Reply #18
29. Yes that suit.
I can't remember her name, Paula? something. There was some big thing that Clinton wanted it delayed and he had to appear because the repukes said it was ok for him to do as a sitting President, I think there was a major decision about it. Maybe it was just a civil suit but this was precident setting at the time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hootinholler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-01-05 12:47 PM
Response to Reply #29
38. Yep,
The precedent was in the application of the Federal Shield laws which hold immune officials from lawsuits for official actions. You can sue the government, but not the person. IIRC, the case went forward because it was ruled a non-official act.

-Hoot
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lone_Star_Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-01-05 01:55 PM
Response to Reply #18
43. Wasn't there some loophole there about the alleged event taking place
... prior to his being in office? I don't think you can even sue an active president in civil court.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Toots Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-01-05 10:35 AM
Response to Reply #6
24. No he was sued by that person but never indicted of any crime.
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Turn CO Blue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-01-05 10:00 AM
Response to Original message
9. Oh my, I can only hope that you're correct on all predictions!

I tend to think, however, that Darth Cheney would rather be frog-marched than voluntarily resign.

But I have to agree with you, that something much bigger is going to come down next week than the pessimists expect.

When the indictments are announced, especially if Turdblossom is done-for -- my co-worker and I are going out to Applebee's to splurge on Triple Chocolate Meltdown (not sharing either! We'll each have our own!)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HughMoran Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-01-05 10:09 AM
Response to Reply #9
13. "Triple Chocolate MELTDOWN "
Sounds appropriate. And delicious! :hi:

I'll have to find my own way to party
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Turn CO Blue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-01-05 10:18 AM
Response to Reply #13
19. LOL, I love the handle! HughMoran, are you series???? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HughMoran Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-01-05 10:29 AM
Response to Reply #19
21. "Series" is my middle name
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Turn CO Blue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-01-05 10:35 AM
Response to Reply #21
25. I'd say "welcome to DU" but I suspect you've been here awhile
with a different name.

obligatory waving smiley: :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HughMoran Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-01-05 10:40 AM
Response to Reply #25
28. Oh, you're a sharp one, Turn CO Blue!
Still, I like the welcoming ;)

:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DoYouEverWonder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-01-05 10:02 AM
Response to Original message
10. Most of the people on this trip will be indicted


has co-conspirators. Except of course Bush, who will be named an unindicted co-conspirator, which is the same charge that forced Nixon to resign.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Glenda Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-01-05 10:07 AM
Response to Reply #10
11. That's interesting...
I feel I should read more about Nixon's demise, because maybe this is parelleling that?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
longship Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-01-05 02:09 PM
Response to Reply #10
44. Watergate dates.
Nixon was named as "unindicted co-conspirator" by the grand jury on March 1, 1974. At that time, the House had called for hearings which had not yet begun. It would be five months before the resignation.

Nixon resigned when the smoking gun tape was discovered where he asked the CIA to interfere with the FBI's investigation. With this shocking revelation, all support in the Senate evaporated overnight. Goldwater and company visited Nixon in private and reported the bad news that the Senate would likely vote to convict.

I agree that the WHIG group could all be indicted. Hell, that all the top West Wingers. Might as well throw Crashcart and Chimpy on the bonfire as well. And just for good measure let's pitch in Powell, Bolton, anybody else standing around. They're all probably guilty of something bad, after all they're Repugs.

It's gonna be big. Anticipation!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OmmmSweetOmmm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-01-05 10:11 AM
Response to Original message
14. From your fingers to the Universe's eyes! eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hootinholler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-01-05 10:13 AM
Response to Original message
16. (cannot indict a sitting president or VP)
Um, Agnew? Not positive but, I believe he resigned because he was indicted.

-Hoot
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
annabanana Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-01-05 07:23 PM
Response to Reply #16
53. ah yes.. nolo contendre
(that was the first latin legalese that I learned after in flagrante delicto!)

(sorry spell check doesn't work in latin)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sellitman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-01-05 10:15 AM
Response to Original message
17. It's all Clinton's fault!!!!!!!
:sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EST Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-01-05 10:32 AM
Response to Original message
22. I love your optimism, however, I am afraid it's a bit
overly optimistic.
For one, the great prevaricator, Robert Novak, confessed early and often. He had no intention of "taking one for the team." He is safe from all attacks (legal) and did nothing, himself, that was prosecutable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
berni_mccoy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-01-05 10:35 AM
Response to Original message
26. I would add the charge Conspiracy to Commit Treason
That way they can not be pardoned. That is the only change I may make to your prediction.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
unrepuke Donating Member (763 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-01-05 10:42 AM
Response to Original message
31. Here are my predictions . . .
1)


2)


3)














___________________________________________
Hear the crickets chirping? :boring:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ananda Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-01-05 11:18 AM
Response to Reply #31
36. lol
I agree with all three of those predictions, unrepuke.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
symbolman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-01-05 10:55 AM
Response to Original message
32. Great thread, good calls..
For those of you who have been waiting I've been apologising for the Rove's War (Plame Gate) not being in the mail yet, for a couple of reasons - one, I was pretty sick for a month, and the other, I REALLY wanted to capture the best info I could, did a lot of research and within a few days I'll be shipping the Rove's War at about 150 minutes of what I consider good red MEAT on two DVDs..

It will open the eyes of some folks, but I think if nothing else it will clear up a lot of the mess you get from the media, so many talking and feigning and ducking, even those that know what's going ON are doing it.. so I've gone through hundreds of hours of TIVOd Hearings, the Downing Street Memo hearing I filmed, and this film will have a pretty large cast of characters..

Once I've shipped to everyone that donated (and yes I know some folks are pissed, and I do apologise publicly here, sorry, sorry - two emergency rooms visits are not my idea of fun and cramp my style )
I'm going to kick out a huge press release getting the word out that I've created with nearly a year of research what I think is the definitive story of Rove & Co and their nefarious plans..

For instance I compare the breakin in Rome just about the time Bush was being sworn in, to Watergate and how ROVE who just happens to have been using the FBI as his personal Gestopo since Texas, once "broke in" to Dixon's office, stole his letterhead and printed out party favors which he delivered to the Red Light district of Chicago and soup kitchens to come on over to Dixon's office and get Free Beer and Free women, etc - don't you think it's possible in Rove's position to have "plumbers" of his OWN?

I don't think that's tin foil baby, THAT is his Modus Operandi, he just gets grander with every cheap trick, having been suckled by "Mr Willie Horton" himself as a mentor..

This will be a must have for political junkies and I've put everything I have into it, there are some fun moments too, brought to you by Jon Stewart himself, and graphics to break up the filth being presented and get some perspective back while watching..

Finishing up the soundtrack (writing it all myself) and if I haven't mentioned it yet, did a Satirical version of "Secret Agent Man" called "Secret Agent Plame" which is a mambo version for the credits with some fun lyrics..

Grab some popcorn the real fun is about to start! :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nvliberal Donating Member (618 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-01-05 10:58 AM
Response to Original message
33. Wishful thinking.
At most Rove could be indicted, but that would be it.

Plamegate, I'm afraid, is way overblown by liberals and others who think this going to be the straw that breaks the back of the administration.

C'mon. If the scandal surrounding the hurricanes, SO much worse than some pennyante scandal involving a CIA operative, doesn't bring the administration down, NOTHING will.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
troubleinwinter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-01-05 01:15 PM
Response to Reply #33
39. Uhhmmmm...
Yuh. Sure.

Treason and shutting down an entire long-running CIA operation and risking many operatives' and associates' lives is just an "overblown" "liberal" "penny ante" scandal not worthy of much attention......

Look over there! A hurricane response! "NOTHING" will "bring down the administration" but that! "NOTHING"!

Yuh. Sure. :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bearfan454 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-01-05 11:03 AM
Response to Original message
34. That seems like a best case scenario for the country.
I will settle for half of that. Anything is better than nothing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
indepat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-01-05 11:20 AM
Response to Original message
37. Dream on
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
longship Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-01-05 01:53 PM
Response to Original message
42. Good, but some corrections.
Edited on Sat Oct-01-05 02:31 PM by longship
2) Bush pardons...

Whether or not Bush is involved, pardoning would trigger a Constitutional Crisis of major significance. This might in turn trigger any number of very scary scenerios, almost none of which end up good. I would hope that the Dems and the press would pick up on this and pull us back from the precipice. However, if they cowtow to the Repugs, the Repugs would have carte blanche and our republic will be deader than a Tyson chicken.

I like your Fleischer scenerio. We haven't heard from him in a long, long time. He resigned *quickly* when this business occurred. Others have speculated that somebody has turned. You may have hit the nail on the head with Ari.

Your alternate, Matalin, is also one I like. She is in the background far enough that she could do a lot for Fitz without raising flags. Also, she is known to have been in the midst of the affair from the very beginning. She was on AF1 on the Africa trip where the whole thing was probably hatched.

They might not have Chimpster. The West Wing would try to insulate him from any nefarious doings. But, unfortunately, they cannot claim that he didn't know about it. In July, 2003 he said that he would find the leaker and that whoever it was, "would no longer be part of this administration". He might have made a mistake by accepting responsibility for finding--ooops, or impeding the finding--of the leaker. Fitz sees two years of nothing from the West Wing. The inevitable conclusion is cover-up. That's how they get Chimpy.

Cheney is neck deep in this. He's probably toast. I'll bet also these people:

Condi Rice -- indicted as the principle leaker?
Bolton -- alternate leaker.
Hadley -- As Rice's deputy, he's in this thing deep
Rove -- many counts
Libby -- many counts
Matalin -- conspiracy, perjury
McLellan -- perjury
Hughes -- WHIG member. conspiracy charges?
Chimpy -- I just don't know. He's so stupid, he just might slip by.

Counts will include perjury, conspiracy to suborn, obstruction of justice, conspiracy to obstruct, and the intelligence and secrets act violations for the principle leaker and possibly conspiracy to violate those acts. That's cuts a pretty large swath.

The question is how many West Wingers will be left to pick up the pieces?

on edit: Hughes should be on list.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Peace Patriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-01-05 02:37 PM
Response to Original message
45. The "pigs lose Congress" part will only happen if we can get rid of
Bushite corporations (mainly Diebold and ES&S) controlling the vote tabulation with SECRET, PROPRIETARY programming code. Big order of business, not easily or quickly done. But maybe Fitzgerald will take that on next.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tavalon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-01-05 03:24 PM
Response to Original message
48. That is beautiful
A little over the top (Christmas is still a few months away, I'm afraid, and the tooth fairy is on a cruise). but nice.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Independent_Liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-01-05 06:52 PM
Response to Original message
51. We can only hope.
Peace, bro.

:)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beetwasher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-01-05 07:34 PM
Response to Original message
54. Ok, Here's A VERY BOLD PREDICTION
Edited on Sat Oct-01-05 07:35 PM by Beetwasher
We may actually see the word treason in the indictments. Not against Bush or Cheney, but possibly someone a bit lower and w/ indictments against Cheney of SOME sort and maybe Bush as unindicted CoC.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tableturner Donating Member (199 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-01-05 11:23 PM
Response to Original message
57. As the original poster of this thread, here are some more thoughts....
Thinking a little more, I probably would remove Gonzalez from the list and add Bolton.

Relative to pardons, I said "which may not stick", meaning that I think there is some settled law severely limiting pardons within an impeachment context. Maybe one of our constitutional lawyer lurkers can comment.

The reason for a pardon, its intent, may well raise the act to one of criminality, when otherwise it would not be a criminal act. Even though pardoning is within a president's legal powers, if it is handed out with the intent of botching an investigation, wouldn't that be obstruction of justice? It's one thing to pardon a person in a situation in which the facts are known, or if the pardoning of a subject is executed by a president, not to prevent the exposition of the truth (especially a truth casting a president as a criminal), but to merely and specifically prevent the imposition of a penalty upon a criminal. It's quite another thing to use it as an instrument of a crime.

If, for example, in a far-fetched scenario used only to make a point, a president were in cahoots with criminals who were readying a murder, and if the president's pardoning somebody (not even necessarily a person related in any way to the aforementioned group of criminals) had been set up by the president and his co-conspirators to be the signal for the murder, wouldn't that president have committed a crime? Wouldn't such a pardon be part of an act of murder?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hang a left Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-02-05 12:07 AM
Response to Reply #57
59. I think you were right on about Gonzales
I think his charge could very well be obstruction. Remember he was the one that got the call from the DOJ about the investigation and asked if he could wait until the morning to notify the WH. Then he turned around and told Libby that night.

I used to think Bolton was Miller's source, but, now I think it was Cheney.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
serryjw Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-02-05 12:36 AM
Response to Reply #59
60. He gave up SCOTUS for *
Moron! WHY in God's heaven earth would I want some one so stupid on SCOTUS?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tableturner Donating Member (199 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-02-05 08:44 AM
Response to Reply #59
61. Actually, you were right about Gonzalez...
I take back my rescission of Gonzalez from the list. You are correct about his role, having given warning that documents and information would be needed the next morning.

I also wonder if some actual or amateur lawyers have any comments about my thoughts from post #57 on pardons and obstruction of justice.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tableturner Donating Member (199 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-02-05 10:19 AM
Response to Original message
62. Source to Stephanopoulos: President Bush Directly Involved In Leak Scandal
http://thinkprogress.org/2005/10/02/bush-directly-involved

My predictions just got a little support!!
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 Tue Apr 23rd 2024, 03:01 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