Daily Kos

Plame affairs

Sun Oct 02, 2005 at 02:49:24 PM PDT

This is getting good. On ABC's This Week:

[Stephanopoulos:] Definitely a political problem but I wonder, George Will, do you think it's a manageable one for the White House especially if we don't know whether Fitzgerald is going to write a report or have indictments but if he is able to show as a source close to this told me this week, that President Bush and Vice President Cheney were actually involved in some of these discussions.

And this is entirely relevant, because Fitzgerald may be moving toward the "conspiracy" route.

But a new theory about Fitzgerald's aim has emerged in recent weeks from two lawyers who have had extensive conversations with the prosecutor while representing witnesses in the case. They surmise that Fitzgerald is considering whether he can bring charges of a criminal conspiracy perpetrated by a group of senior Bush administration officials. Under this legal tactic, Fitzgerald would attempt to establish that at least two or more officials agreed to take affirmative steps to discredit and retaliate against Wilson and leak sensitive government information about his wife. To prove a criminal conspiracy, the actions need not have been criminal, but conspirators must have had a criminal purpose.

In other words, he may not just be targetting the two leakers themselves (Libby for sure, and maybe Rove?), but everyone involved in orchestrating the smear campaign against Wilson. That would definitely include Rove. And if Stephanopoulos' source is correct, that could go much, much higher.

It's a good time to be a criminal defense lawyer.

  • ::

Tags: Patrick Fitzgerald, Karl Rove, George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Valerie Plame, Joseph Wilson (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 281 comments

  •  shit, meet fan. (4.00 / 17)

    I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man's reasoning powers are not above the monkey's. - Mark Twain

    by route66 on Sun Oct 02, 2005 at 09:53:31 AM PDT

    •  Does anyone have "Plame for Dummies" ? (none / 0)

      I have a lot of friends who I would like to explain this whole Plame situation too, but I end up sounding like a conspiracy theorist.  Is there a concise non-partisan summary somewhere of this Plame/Rove debacle that I can reference for my "If it ain't on CNN it ain't news" friends?
      •  this might help (4.00 / 3)

        http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0719/p02s01-uspo.html

        I wonder if Dubya's thinking about naming Fitzgerald to the Supreme Court right about now?...

        I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man's reasoning powers are not above the monkey's. - Mark Twain

        by route66 on Sun Oct 02, 2005 at 10:18:53 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  They tried (none / 0)

          to get him off the backs of the corrupt Illinois machine by bribing him with the GOP nomination for the Senate seat Obama won.  Didn't work.

          I think he just likes bringing down bad guys.

          •  If that is true (none / 0)

            Then I just heard about a Republican I can trust. First one in a long time.

            But I don't know that yet...

            They had fangs...they were drinking blood....They had this look in their eyes, totally animal. I think they were young Republicans. (Buffy the Vampire Slayer)

            by wrights on Sun Oct 02, 2005 at 10:53:53 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Don't think he's a Republican; I remember (none / 0)

              reading that he's not registered with any political party.
              •  Fitzgerald (4.00 / 2)

                Interesting guy in the sense that he was brought in by former Republican senator Peter Fitzgerald (no relation), perhaps knowing he would go after Fitzgerald's corrupt enemy, Governor George Ryan, who indeed is now on trial. The astounding thing is that Fitzgerald appears to be also following trails that potentially lead to Richard M Daley and George W Bush. Patrick Fitzgerald is the prosecutor Ken Starr wants to be when he grows up.
            •  Independent (none / 0)

              I've read that he's an independent; at least he was while he was here in NY, anyway.

              Fear not the path of truth, for the lack of people walking on it. -- Robert Francis Kennedy

              by narrowback gal on Sun Oct 02, 2005 at 03:25:01 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  Thank god (none / 0)

            There's still an honest man out there. Maybe there is some hope for this country.
            •  Don't count on it! (none / 0)

              I wish u were right but I fear that this is going to end badly.

              "It's better to die on your feet then live on your knees" E. Zapata

              by Blutodog on Sun Oct 02, 2005 at 12:30:22 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Maybe so (none / 0)

                But I will say this: from everything I've read regarding Fitzgerald, if he ends this with no indictments, I can accept it.

                This thing has gone on for two years, and no one can say he hasn't been thorough.  Whatever happens, I think, from what I've seen, than I can live with the result.

                Thatn's not to say, however, that I think Rove et al. will get off scott free, nor that I don't have a certain...anticipation...for how things will end.

                •  What keeps dancing through my head is ... (none / 0)

                  He could not of managed to push for Miller's testimony to the extent of sending her to jail, if he did not have something solid nor would he have I don't think.

                  http://www.artistval.com

                  by Alizaryn on Sun Oct 02, 2005 at 07:35:36 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I think you're right (none / 0)

                    at the same time, this again speaks of a prosecutor who is very thorough.  If he were intent on covering something up or letting a whitewash proceed, putting Miller in jail (while satisfying from a karma point-of-view) would have been rather pointless.

                    Yeah, he could have been putting on a show.  But I kind of doubt it.  Other Republican whitewashes have been far less attention-getting.

                    •  8 redacted ages (none / 0)

                      in Judge's finding re: "does Miller go to jail?" – there's something there.

                      "They're telling us something we don't understand"
                      General Charles de Gaulle, Mai '68

                      by subtropolis on Sun Oct 02, 2005 at 10:58:42 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  the "Plot Against Joe Wilson" is there (none / 1)

                        on page 82 of the pdf, about middle page, there is this juicy tidbit:

                        Had Cooper based his report on leaks about the leaks--say, from a whistleblower who revealed the plot against Wilson--the situation would be different.

                        the appelete ruling speaks of "The Plot Against Joe Wilson" as an accepted fact of history and evidence

                        if that "Plot" turns out to be criminal in intent (Which it is) then we're looking at a case for conspiricy, at the least

                        that leaks of classified information are involved means that this is a criminal conspiricy that may involve treason agfainst the People Of the United States

                        Karl Rove and Scooter Libby have no right to play "20 Questions" with the Secrets of the United States Government

                        here's a link to the pdf of the Appelete ruling

      •  Here's a couple to refer to (4.00 / 2)

        This one not too terribly complicated (one page) as it doesn't go into a whole lot of detail.

        Questions and Answers on CIA Leak Case

        And then there's this from the NYTimes:

        Chronology: Judith Miller and the C.I.A. Leak Inquiry

        A ship adrift in a sea of rhetoric & recycled clichés.

        by Terre on Sun Oct 02, 2005 at 10:22:54 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  http://tinyurl.com/8ghl8 (1.00 / 5)

          http://tinyurl.com/8ghl8

          http://tinyurl.com/b97vk

          Where Republicans tread, innocent people end up dead.

          •  Excuse me? (none / 0)

            But what do your links have to do with my post or to the one I replied to?

            A ship adrift in a sea of rhetoric & recycled clichés.

            by Terre on Sun Oct 02, 2005 at 11:43:08 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  It means you can complain all you want (none / 0)

              about Republican scandals but it won't get the citizens an increase in the minimum wage, it won't get unemployed people an extension of benefits to a year if they need it. It won't get seniors a real prescription drug benefit, etc.

              That's why I have come to the point where I do not care about the plame affair, the delay corruption and the frist stock fraud because alot of citizens still suffer even if they get thrown out of office by prosecution.

              We need progressive legislation now and not schadenfreude.

              •  well, i can see why you are disgruntled, however (none / 0)

                that is the beginning of getting these asses out of power.
              •  Ur right (none / 0)

                It's sad to say but none of this will matter until all these pirates are tossed.

                "It's better to die on your feet then live on your knees" E. Zapata

                by Blutodog on Sun Oct 02, 2005 at 12:34:00 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  I care about many other things (4.00 / 4)

                and most especially the lack of healthcare, since that's the dilema I find myself in.

                However, I don't generally highjack a diary/comment to post an unrelated promotion of my own brand of activism, which you seem to be doing on a regular basis.

                I understand your frustration, but diary your concerns separately, instead of pimping on my comment and in this diary, or consider putting those links in a signature line.

                A ship adrift in a sea of rhetoric & recycled clichés.

                by Terre on Sun Oct 02, 2005 at 12:37:51 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I agree Terre, this type of post (none / 1)

                  can be best done on an open thread, or by their own diary.  And, additionally the links are often made without any comment which makes it even more annoying. "unproductive"!

                  The White House will be The People's House--B.Obama

                  by Phil S 33 on Sun Oct 02, 2005 at 12:55:12 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

              •  It's not schadenfreude . . . (none / 0)

                 . . . to feel glee when Justice is served. Schadenfreude is talking pleasures in others' MISFORTUNES.  "Misfortunes" means bad luck, or a turn of events beyond an individuals control.  

                It sounds to me like Delay committed a crime, and even if he didn't, everything I've read about him would indicate that he's mostly a scumbag. That's not misfortune, that's being a scummy fucking scumbo. Now he gets his just desserts.

                I think it's great to see him step down, and I think his illusions that this is "temporary," are his alone.

                •  agree (none / 0)

                  The schadenfreude is going to be watching the Bush votes try and answer questions like Americans had to answer about the stupid things they did in WW1 (liberty steaks and lynching Lutherans for praying in German) and WW2 (internment of the Japanese Zoot Suit riots).
          •  Maybe Blogads would be a better way to sell...? (4.00 / 2)

            Spam comments not appreciated.

            Americans are apt to be unduly interested in discovering what average opinion believes average opinion to be. (J.M. Keynes)

            by davinic on Sun Oct 02, 2005 at 12:16:04 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  Try the Plame leak timeline ... (4.00 / 4)

        ... on dkosopedia:

        Plame leak timeline

        You may also want to just type "Plame" into the search engine on the dkosopedia main page.

        Why, no ... I'm not voting for John McCain.

        by by foot on Sun Oct 02, 2005 at 10:28:19 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  At your service. ;) (none / 0)

        BushCo Policy... If you aren't outraged, you haven't been paying attention. -3.25 -2.26

        by Habanero on Sun Oct 02, 2005 at 05:17:40 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  WMD Lie (none / 0)

        The Plame Case is about the BushCo lie: WMD in Iraq.  Those of us who have followed this story may forget this most important fact too often.  
        In essence, in the run-up to the war, BushCo was trumpeting WMD.  Chaney apparently hoped to firm up reports from a raw source, later discredited, that Niger was providing aluminum tubes to Saddham to help him build "nucular" weapons that (without an Air Force or rocket power) could be launched against the US.  Chaney's request was directed to the CIA.  The CIA sent Joe Wilson off to corroborate the tale.  Why?  The appointment via the CIA was based on his previous experience as ambassabor to that county. (Competence, a novel concept.) When Wilson failed to report what Chaney and company wanted to hear, he was ignored so he went to the NYTimes with what he failed to find.  Predictably, the Republican Slime Machine went all ballistic and the rest is history.
        Meantime, back in Kos land, we're getting suckered as well where we forget and ignore the basic importance/lesson for national security of this story.  It's not about indicting Bush/Cheney.  It's not about "unindicted co-conspirators", its not about obstruction of justice, etc.  It is about the lack of WMD.  WMD was the red herring for this preemptive invasion of another country/Iraq and preemptive war is immoral, abhorrent, and stupid policy
        •  Brewster-Jennings (none / 0)

          Yes, of course, but I think it's also much more than that.  Brewster-Jennings was the energy-based "business" front company with worldwide reach on tracking nuke buyers, sellers, and transactions.  They probably constituted the US' #1 Asset to surveil, track, and, hopefully, forestall, nuclear proliferation.  They were, for instance, the lead in discovering and ultimately foiling the infamous AQ Khan Network.

          Bolton was nominally in charge of nonproliferation at State, though he apparently pissed everybody off and was thus actually a hindrance in this critical effort.  Why do u think Lugar, long a champion of nonproliferation wrt the former Soviet Union and worldwide, was so lukewarm on Bolton?  So not only did the inept Bolton screw up the critical "loose nukes" initiative, the Bushies, in their zeal to justify the War, destroyed the best thing we had going in tracking nuke traffic (can u spell "Mushroom Cloud"?) worldwide.  

          That, to me, is the ultimate irony.  Their obsession w/the WMD that wasn't in Iraq led them to kill our best weapon against worldwide proliferation.  

          There is another theory out there--that Brewster-Jennings, as an energy concern, just got much too close to verrry sensitive information relative to the Saudis, the Bushies, and their cozy relationship, and, perhaps, Halliburton, and thus had to be wiped out, whatever the cost.  

          I think it may be this realization that the judges in the Plame case found so eye-popping that they authorized the pursuit of Judy Miller.

    •  It could go... (none / 1)

      Fleischer, Rice, Powell, Libby, Rove, Cheney, Bush?  Hmmm...nah, they wouldn't tell him.

      Choose Our President 2008

      •  Don't forget Ashcroft and (none / 0)

        Scotty in the Headlights' predecessor

        "Just watch me"... Pierre Elliot Trudeau

        by PeteyPuck on Sun Oct 02, 2005 at 10:32:29 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  and (none / 0)

          John "I get my choice of jobs?" Bolton.....

          I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man's reasoning powers are not above the monkey's. - Mark Twain

          by route66 on Sun Oct 02, 2005 at 10:55:23 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  If Rove and Libby are your staging area (4.00 / 3)

          There's not THAT much higher to go, just one level, really.  Of course the horizontal damage could be pretty wide.  If you look at the Bush Family criminal enterprise, I'd put Condi higher than Fleisher but lower than Rove, despte whatever their official titles might be.
          •  Just on the face of it. (4.00 / 2)

            This has Rove written all over it.  In theory Rove reports directly to bushco.
            Libby reports directly to Chenyburton.
            The idea that a conspiracy to punish and "out" wilson(s) for interfering in the concert of 'war lies' would be unknown to the VP and bushco in a priori ridiculous, and not at all the style of what passes for management in this administration.
            There may be a plausible deniability switch built into this downhill track, but that don't affect the reality of the 'Iraq group' as it's regular membership and structure are known.
             
      •  Chain gang! (4.00 / 2)

        Nothing less will suffice.

        Guess what. Kossacks continue to be very rude. I am for Obama, but I'm not a Kossack.

        by DCDemocrat on Sun Oct 02, 2005 at 12:23:22 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Floyd Abrams, legal genius (none / 0)

      Floyd Abrams, who seems about as capable of telling the truth as George W. Bush,  now claims he sought a deal with special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald on Judith Miller's grand jury testimony a year ago.

      "There is no god, and I am his prophet." SocraticGadfly

      by steverino on Sun Oct 02, 2005 at 10:27:10 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I don't think that anything new happened (none / 0)

        Look closely at the facts and I think you will agree:

        I don't believe Fitz caved or gave anything new, I don't think that Libby gave any new waiver. I think that the only thing that changed is that Judy got sick of jail.

        This was all about negotiating, and who had the strongest position, and who wanted things to change.

        Nobody had a reason to cave to Judy. Not Scooter (he was very happy with her not testifying) and not Fitz, since it was clear to him (not a stranger to tough bargaining) that she was desperate; Abrams was planting stories all over the universe; he took a chance on getting public opinion to "Free Judy". It backfired, and made her look weak. So Fitz was just waiting for the inevitable.

        I think that Judy just decided to take what she had, and run with it, spinning as best she could. So she called Scooter and only reaffirmed that he had previously signed a waiver and then she took the deal that Fitz had offered three months ago. Then she put a lot of spin on it like she had gotten a new waiver and a new Fitz deal. Neither one of which was probably true. But Judy's spin made it sound like she had won on all counts. Of course the crack media never asked the right questions, as usual.

        So this all affirms what we knew already about Judy Miller: she twists the facts around the policy. Welcome to Bushco.

        fouls, excesses and immoderate behavior are scored ZERO at Over the Line, Smokey!

        by seesdifferent on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 07:52:13 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  "Rovak's to Blame for Valerie Plame" (none / 0)

         Useful mnemonic.
  •  Time. 4. Some. (none / 1)

    Responsibility.

    ~ have a powerful day ~

    by moeman on Sun Oct 02, 2005 at 09:55:12 AM PDT

  •  Can Bush/Cheney be indicted? (3.84 / 13)

    I don't think so.

    We're discussing it and what to do if they are named as unindicted co-conspirators.  My belief is that if the congressional dems don't start immediately calling for resignation citing the "Nixon precendent" then they no longer deserve our vote.  Period.

    This. Is. Most. Definately. A. Litmus. Test. Issue. For. Me.

    •  Oh God, not the 'litmus test' (4.00 / 4)

       Pretty soon you'll get a letter telling you you're being bad for, like, having expectations.
      •  Yep (2.00 / 4)

        I just gave him a "2" for marginal ....

        Raising the issue?  By all means.

        Keeping it in front of the repubs faces?  Absolutely.

        Litmus test?  If this hypothetical Dem votes "correctly" on every thing else - talks till they drop in a single person attempted filibuster of the next SCOTUS nominee, etc., etc., but doesn't demand impeachment or resignation - they are no longer "good people"?

        "That's hard to explain without using the phrase 'you gullible toad.'" Dilbert

        by gbussey on Sun Oct 02, 2005 at 10:20:15 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I expect my President (4.00 / 19)

           to not be a crook.

           I expect my Rep, if he's not a crook with him, to demand the President resign if he is a crook.

           If they can't even call for the resignation of a crook, I'm not sure the appellation 'good' applies no matter HOW they vote.

          •  Ther are all crooks (none / 0)

            Seriously, LOOK at the reality of this situation.

            The leader of the house is indicted
            The leader of the senate is being investigated bigtime.
            And here we sit all discussing if SP Fritz will
            indict the President and of his men.

            And thats not even the worse part of this sick reality.The worse part is.

            The media is not only NOT covering it, the media is PART of it.

            THAT my friends is REALITY in AMERICA 2005.

             

        •  FNA right they're not. Litmus tests RRRRAWWWK!!!! (none / 0)

          •  Hate to get statistical on you ... (4.00 / 2)

            But let's assume we have 100 folks here.  And each has his/her own "litmus test" - and there is a 99% chance that our Democrat in question will pass each test.  And to be a "good" Democrat, you have to pass EVERYBODY's litmus test.

            Here's the math.   .99 to the 100th power = 36.6%, and we have just relegated 63.4% of us to the trash heap.  Even if there were only 10 litmus issues (let's see, SCOTUS, resignation, education, CAFTA, Iraq, Social Security, Medicare Part D, Energy, Taxes, Healthcare) and we agreed 99% of the time, we'd still be reducing our ranks by 10%.

            That is why I think talking about litmus tests is emotionally satisfying but not very functionally productive.

            "That's hard to explain without using the phrase 'you gullible toad.'" Dilbert

            by gbussey on Sun Oct 02, 2005 at 10:48:40 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  That's fine but (4.00 / 6)

              please dont use ratings to disagree. There was nothing wrong with the person expressing an opinion, which is all it was as far as I can see.
              •  You get a "4" for a reasonable request (none / 0)

                ... and I explained my "2" (marginal) rating when I gave it.

                But I'll try to be good in the future ;-)

                I think, however, that your comment about my rating reflects a problem with the whole rating system as it is.  It is like "4" or "1" or nothing.  Anything short of a "4" is interpreted as a "bad" rating.  I liked a suggestion I saw somewhere around here earlier - just go with thumbs up, thumbs down, and a thumbs sideways system.  And I guess those trusted folks could still do their "0" thing with a hook??  :-)

                "That's hard to explain without using the phrase 'you gullible toad.'" Dilbert

                by gbussey on Sun Oct 02, 2005 at 11:59:49 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  ...sorry... (none / 0)

                  ..have to agree. Giving someone a practially troll rating bacause you disagree is Unproductive.  The rating system here is fine, now back to the topic at hand.

                  If now calls for resignations are made after the possible charges above are handed down (a la Nixon), then we're going to have to talk about some sort of mass organized grassroots effort to get them out.  Not just organize for the next election, but an Out of Iraq and Out of Office - Resign NOW effort.  

                  "Since When Have You Westerners Accepted the Teachings of Christ?" - His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada

                  by sandmancan on Sun Oct 02, 2005 at 03:57:50 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

              •  Oh - and while on the subject (none / 1)

                At the risk of getting "2"d (or worse) again - check out the ratings my original comment got.

                Perhaps those folks giving me "2"s really did think my comment was marginal.

                But maybe they just didn't like what I said and the rating I gave, and passed out a little payback?

                Inquiring minds want to know...  ;-)

                "That's hard to explain without using the phrase 'you gullible toad.'" Dilbert

                by gbussey on Sun Oct 02, 2005 at 12:05:04 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Yeah it's not entirely your fault (none / 0)

                  I think the ratings explanation seriously needs a redo. Or more the labels, i.e. "marginal" seems to mislead people especially.

                  However. Having said that.

                  There is a way it works and it becomes clear if you watch a bit more. Just giving 1s and 4s is a good rule of thumb actually.

                  The other numbers are trickier (thus why you should just avoid them for the moment) but here's a tip: The 2s you got were exactly what they're for. The ones you gave, were not.

                  Cheers,

                  •  Interesting view (none / 0)

                    I've been around for long enough to know the dangers of giving anything less than a 4 - unless it is a clear trollish post - and thus usually when I've given a "2" (3 out of 89 ratings) I've taken the time to explain.  I figure if you are going to do less than a four, have the courtesy of explaining why.

                    "That's hard to explain without using the phrase 'you gullible toad.'" Dilbert

                    by gbussey on Sun Oct 02, 2005 at 12:25:12 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Oh I only meant this one, in this thread (none / 0)

                      didn't look at all your ratings.

                      Nutshell: Rating down is to get rid of trouble. To keep the place working and functional.

                      It's not to show agreement or disagreement with an opinion.

                      Thus a "2" for what's seen as "ratings abuse", that's about right. For a difference of political opinion, nope.

                      Hope that helps.

                •  PS 4 back to you for politeness also nt (none / 0)

            •  asdf (none / 0)

              Okay, but my litmus test is being honest and standing up for what is right.
      •  Bama (none / 0)

        Bama Obama.....

        Who is left to represent what we used to call the middle class?

        by keepinon on Sun Oct 02, 2005 at 01:18:37 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Yes, I think they can (none / 0)

      be indicted.  Any criminal prosecution would likely have to wait until Bush is out of office, however.

      John McCain, 100 years in Iraq "fine with me"

      by taylormattd on Sun Oct 02, 2005 at 10:00:01 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Cheney definately can be indicted (4.00 / 6)

      Spiro Agnew was while a sitting VP (the no contest plea, sentencing and resignation all took place almost immediately thereafter).

      The question of indicting a sitting president has never been answered, apart from impeachment (which is another word for indictment). The general belief is that if an action of a president during the course of his official duty is indictable, it is to be referred to the House for consideration. If a president murdered someone, he likely would be arrested and charged like anyone else.

      •  How about if a president... (4.00 / 4)

        ...murdered thousands?

        "There's no difference between one's killing and making decisions that will send others to kill.  It's exactly the same thing, or even worse."   --GOLDA MEIR

      •  That was a State indictment (none / 0)

        From Maryland. Fitzgerald's grand jury is considering Federal indictments. I'm no lawyer but I'm pretty sure there's a HUGE difference.
      •  Impeachment and Indictment (none / 0)

        are not the same things.  One is a political process, the other is a criminal process.  Could the President be indicted?  Yes.  Could he be tried while in office?  Unknown at this point, but with the SCOTUS we have presently, I doubt it.  But the President could be indicted, then impeached, and if impeachment is sucessful, then tried.
      •  Agnew was indicted for what he did as governor of (none / 0)

        Maryland rather than anything he did when he was Vice President. So, it still may be that a sitting Vice President cannot be indicted for having violated a criminal statute. But I don't know this for a fact.

        This Reagan Republican wants George W Bush to stand trial in the Hague.

        by CityofGod on Sun Oct 02, 2005 at 05:59:36 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  According to the World Book Encyclopedia: (none / 0)

          In 1973, federal officials began to investigate charges that Agnew had accepted bribes from contractors in return for helping them get state government work in Maryland. The investigation covered the period Agnew had served as Baltimore County Executive, governor, and vice president.

          Agnew pleaded nolo contendere (no contest) to a single charge--that he had cheated the government of $13,551 on his federal income tax payment for 1967.

          The Vice-President can be indicted. Agnew was.

    •  Jaworski chose not to... (4.00 / 2)

      ...there were conflicting opinions about whether Nixon could be indicted, and Jaworski chose to list him as a co-conspirator.

      But since the we have had the Supreme Court rule in Jones v. Clinton that a sitting President can be sued in civil court. That seems to undermine the presumption that the office provides exemptions from serious charges.

    •  My diary with analysis of the question... (none / 1)

      ...is here.

      "There is nothing false about hope." -- Barack Obama

      by DC Pol Sci on Sun Oct 02, 2005 at 11:35:13 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  The Bush Impeachment (none / 0)

      Assuming that indictments come down on Libby and Rove, and evidence points toward Bush and Cheney as conspiring to publicly identify Plame, what are the chances that impeachment proceedings can be started?

      Of course the real lesson of Watergate was DON'T HAVE ANY TAPE RECORDERS RUNNING, but we do have e-mails nowadays.

      Again, assuming a sweet indictment comes down, what odds are we talking about? 1 in 10?

      "The best way to determine what a person wants is by surveying what he gets." -Erle Stanley Gardner

      by KOTCrum on Sun Oct 02, 2005 at 07:07:56 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Me, too (none / 0)

      For two reasons: the court case (if there is one) will establish that the motive for the outing of Ms Plame was to punish Wilson for unmasking the false (not flawed) claim that took this country into an unprovoked war against a sovereign state -- in short, the false claim that provided the cover for a war crime.  If the Democrats do not hammer that point home, they might as well start running as Republicans.
      •  It all depends on the price of gasoline (none / 0)

        If I could draw a graph here, I would.

        on the horizontal axis: price of gasoline
        vertical: chance of impeachment

        hyperbolic curve

        once the price of gasoline gets over about 3.25 a gallon, the chance of impeachment (it's political, crimes are just the excuse) starts going up fast.

        the only thing that will get Bush impeached by a Republican congress is the economy. If it gets bad enough, any excuse will do.

        Impeachment of Bush would then give the Republicans the ability to say, "okay, now give the new guy a chance to fix this... "

        fouls, excesses and immoderate behavior are scored ZERO at Over the Line, Smokey!

        by seesdifferent on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 08:02:57 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Book "Em Dan-o (4.00 / 5)

    Lock 'em all up.
  •  Lord, let us pray (none / 0)

    That this won't lead to the destruction of our country, or our planet.
    •  OH stop (none / 1)

      the sky is not about to fall.  Some well deserving self satisfied ego-maniacs yes but this Country is not in danger.  A good cleansing is clearly in order.

      -4.63,-3.54 If the people will lead the leaders will follow

      by calebfaux on Sun Oct 02, 2005 at 09:59:33 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  You need to understand! (none / 0)

        The main groups who control the Republican party fall into two categories, those who will do anything to stay in power, and those who will do anything to bring forth Armageddon. Biblically, the precedent was set when the Jews put Christ on the cross, in the hope that it would force him to come down and lead the Jews against the Romans.
        •  Good wins in Armageddon.. (none / 1)

          ..and sorry, i have to say, your stance on this one might need to be referred to your subtitle. :>

          Really though.  The power structure of the repubs will not allow any one man take down their whole political party.  They don't have a death wish, they are pragmatic when survival is on the line, history tells us that.

          No, Bush and Cheney could very well go down quietly and in disgrace with the White House getting solumnly handed over to Speaker Hastert (or, if this drags out past the 2006 elections, Speaker Pelosi becomes Prez)... wishful thinking?  maybe so, maybe not.

          •  The Republican party... (none / 1)

            Needs an Enema...

            DeLay is where the tube goes...

            They had fangs...they were drinking blood....They had this look in their eyes, totally animal. I think they were young Republicans. (Buffy the Vampire Slayer)

            by wrights on Sun Oct 02, 2005 at 10:43:47 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  If you really want to peel the onion (none / 0)

            you have to accept that all these politicians are just front men.  The real power is not with people like Bush and Cheney.  Look at the way Bush obediently mashes face with the Saudis when told to.  One can only imagine the speed at which he drops to his knees before Jeffrey Immelt, or the nameless, faceless Masters of the Masonry or whoever the fuck.  </tin foil>
            •  ...conservatives.. (none / 0)

              ..attached Masonry in the last cycle in an attempt to do what they do best - create some nonexistent issue or bogeyman.

              "Since When Have You Westerners Accepted the Teachings of Christ?" - His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada

              by sandmancan on Sun Oct 02, 2005 at 04:01:39 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  Yet... (none / 0)

        ...if they stay in office...we are. The last five years ought to tell ya. And I'm no Chicken Little.
        Our future with them would look grim...Iran, Iraq civil war continues...more and more of the same cronyism, religious unIntelligent Design, and destruction. But besides that...

        *John McCain is aware of the Internet*

        by MichaelPH on Sun Oct 02, 2005 at 10:09:57 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  What? Why do you say that? (none / 0)

      What do you expect would happen that would destroy the country?
  •  Thank you kos for frontpaging... (4.00 / 12)

    There was a diary about this, but it sort of fell off the front page.

    I think we also shouldn't forget the intrigue that surrounds the Miller/Libby/Plame letters we analyzed in my diary on the subject yesterday.  Lots of intrigue here.  Every player in this drama (except Fitz!) stinks to high heaven.  They "turn in clusters" and their "roots connect them" indeed!

  •  Server (4.00 / 3)

    If Bush gets charged with conspiracy, Kos is going to have to double the number of servers he's running. :)
  •  There seem to be three arenas: (none / 0)

    1. Leak of Plame identity

    2. Conspiracy to smear Wilson

    3. Cover-up of #1 and 3

    If Bush is involved in #1, the GOP may be able to successfully muddy the waters about his role. If he's involved with #1 and #3, the situation gets very, very difficult for him indeed.
    •  Excellent point (none / 0)

      It's the cover-up that gets them, you know.

      There is of course possibility #4. That Bush is involved in the conspiracy to lie to the American people about the true threat Iraq presented.

      I still think #3 is the one likely to get Republicans to take notice. But #4 is the one that will get Independents to swear off Republicans forever.

      This is the way democracy ends Not with a bomb But with a gavel -Max Baucus

      by emptywheel on Sun Oct 02, 2005 at 10:03:37 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Is our politicians learning? (4.00 / 3)

        Haven't they learned yet that it's always the cover-up that gets you?

        Turn ons: progressives, Democrats with spines Turn offs: conservatives, people named Bush, John McCain

        by Unstable Isotope on Sun Oct 02, 2005 at 10:24:28 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  #4 (4.00 / 2)

        If it is proven, or exemplified, that high-ranking members of the Bush Administration conspired to stovepipe information, or change analysis, which went to the President in the form of reports or speech language, and Bush lied to the American people about the true threat that Iraq presented then the President was in one of two situations:

        1. He was given the wrong information, which he did not double-check by listening to his military commanders and so he is incompetent and should be asked to resign and, failing to do so, be impeached; or

        2. He asked for or knew that the information he was given in reports or speech language was inaccurate and meant to misrepresent the threat that Iraq presented in order to wage war for his political benefit and/or the financial benefit of friends and supporters and so he committed treason and should be impeached and/or indicted.

        I think Dick Cheney should be investigated and indicted in the Plame matter since it was he who, with Scooter Libby and others in his, made weekly visits to Langley to get information from the CIA groups regarding terrorist threats.
      •  #4 IS the biggie (none / 0)

        ...and #4 is the one that matters, long-term. Could it be true?

        Nice work on all of this, Mr. Wheel.  

  •  Unindicted Co-conspirators (4.00 / 4)

    I was just dreaming of Bush and Cheney being named as unindicted co-conspirators, and in my mind I could hear the music come up followed by, "Heaven. I'm in heaven ..."
    •  Could someone... (none / 0)

      ...explain that label to me and what the legal consequences are.

      *John McCain is aware of the Internet*

      by MichaelPH on Sun Oct 02, 2005 at 10:13:32 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  No legal consequences (none / 1)

        In criminals matters the President cannot be indicted, except by impeachment, for actions performed in his capacity as President. It can be proven that he was a conspirator, but only the House can indict him, and only the Senate can try and convict him. That does not apply to civil cases, which is why Clinton was sued.
        •  I don't think this is correct. (none / 0)

          It is undecided whether a president can be indicted while in office.  Impeachment/conviction and indictment/conviction are two totally different processes with different procedures, purposes, and results, and they may not be mutually exclusive.
          •  The President can be indicted. (none / 0)

            And convicted. He may even be sent to prison. But he cannot be removed from office for these convictions unless he is impeached in the House and convicted in the Senate. That's my reading of the Constitution:

            The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

            Spiro Agnew, for example, did get indicted and was forced to plea bargain in federal court. According to the World Book Encyclopedia:

            In 1973, federal officials began to investigate charges that Agnew had accepted bribes from contractors in return for helping them get state government work in Maryland. The investigation covered the period Agnew had served as Baltimore County Executive, governor, and vice president.

            Agnew repeatedly denied any wrongdoing. But on October 10, he resigned as vice president under an agreement with the Department of Justice. Agnew pleaded nolo contendere (no contest) to a single charge--that he had cheated the government of $13,551 on his federal income tax payment for 1967. The judge declared that the plea was "the full equivalent of a plea of guilty." Agnew was fined $10,000 and sentenced to three years of unsupervised probation. House Minority Leader Gerald R. Ford succeeded Agnew as vice president. Ford was sworn into the office on Dec. 6, 1973.

            In 1974, the Maryland Court of Appeals disbarred Agnew because of his nolo contendere plea. The court's action prohibited Agnew from practicing law in the state. In 1981, another Maryland court ordered Agnew to pay the state the amount of the bribes it declared he had accepted, plus interest. In 1983, Agnew paid Maryland $268,482.

            Theoretically, Agnew could have continued in office despite his conviction. The only legal impediment to such a course would be impeachment.

        •  A civil case (none / 1)

          against a sitting president. I still can't believe that that was allowed to happen. Imagine if a 9/11 attack had happened while the grand jury was asking him crap like, "Did you touch her breasts?". I couldn't believe that more people weren't dumbfounded by that whole concept.

          John McCain - Fifty-four Forty or Fight!

          by kitebro on Sun Oct 02, 2005 at 10:52:01 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  This is the result (none / 0)

            of filling SCOTUS with lawyers and judges who have minimal experience outside their profession.

            If O'Connor -- a former state Senator --  is replaced by another career lawyer, we will have a Court in which no member has ever held elective office, for the first time in history.

            Only such an ivory tower Court could ever have allowed Jones v. Clinton to proceed.

    •  Does this (4.00 / 9)

      remind anybody else of Watergate?
      •  The crimes committed (3.80 / 5)

        by the Bush Administration are far worse (e.g. an administration-wide conspiracy to punish a whistleblower, Joe Wilson, by committing a treasonous act--illegally disclosing classified information about the CIA, to cover-up an administration's intentional lies to Congress about WMD's, to invade a sovereign nation illegally, without provocation)  than the crimes committed in Watergate.

        The difference is that now the GOP controls both houses of Congress, and because of this, Congress is silent.  To this point, justice has been elusive.
        --------------------------------------------------------------------------

        -4.75, -5.33 Cheney 10/05/04: "I have not suggested there is a connection between Iraq and 9/11."

        by sunbro on Sun Oct 02, 2005 at 11:16:16 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Like you, I dare call it TREASON (4.00 / 2)

          Before I begin, I ask you to consider this:  The Disclosure of Plame's identity ruined the CIA's credibility when they try to assure potential assets in hostile countries that we will keep their identities secret.  After the Novack story ran, every governmen