Skip to main content

View Diary: Did Ari Fleischer Testify Against Bush in Plame Case?? (185 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Ari left, meaning he probably ratted Bush out (4.00)
    to save his own skin.  This could actually mean that Bush is toast too, you know.

    Ari would flip for sure, and his leaving seems to indicate that!

    This diary could be real cause for celebration!

    This could be the missing link--that we all missed because we hate Rove so much...

    Nice deducing Sherlock!

    •  I wonder if I should change the title (none)
      Did Ari Feel the Heat and Testify Against Bush?
    •  Dunno (4.00)
      I think Fleischer's resignation was planned long before his departure date, IIRC.

      'We have a single system...the only question is the price at which the proletariat is to be bought and sold.' Henry Adams

      by jorndorff on Sat Oct 08, 2005 at 12:54:37 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  But (none)
        I agree there's a decent chance he turned.

        'We have a single system...the only question is the price at which the proletariat is to be bought and sold.' Henry Adams

        by jorndorff on Sat Oct 08, 2005 at 12:55:16 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I'm really starting to think he did rat Bush out (3.75)
          The Internets are full of rumors from "sources" who say Bush and Cheney will be named as unidicted co-conspirators.  We know Powell and Ari were on that July 7 flight.

          Plus even if Ari did plan to leave in May, he knew what they did was start a war over phony documents and that he did not want to get caught on a sinking ship.

          When he had to testify, he was no longer in the Administration and would certainly try to save his own skin.

          •  How well does Fleischer know Stephanopoulos? (none)
          •  well... (none)
            what happens to an "unindicted co-conspiritor"

            Gimme an arrest!
            Gimme a mug shot!
            Gimme IMPEACHMENT!

            The only Bush I trust is my own - I want my freaking democracy back! My Little Tribe

            by mytribe on Sat Oct 08, 2005 at 03:54:52 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Why "undicted"? (none)
              We should be exploring this issue, if the grand jury comes back and indicts some, names others only "unindicted" co-conspirators.

              Does this mean the grand jury, Fitzgerald and any affiliated counsel didn't feel they could successfully indict these co-conspirators -- meaning, a court would throw out these charges either because of the inadequacy of evidence, because the law does not support the indictment of a seated whatever-official-this-is, or some other reason I've not speculated here?

              We should hash this matrix of possibilities out along with the repercussions well in advance of the pronouncements.  Would be nice to have Plans A, B, C, etc. in place so that we know what to press for next.

              •  Preview is my friend: "unindicted" (none)
                Ugh...Too excited by that terminology, apparently.
              •  Because of... (none)
                ...historical precedence. Nixon was a "unindicted co-conspirator", and forced to resign. The media would eat it up, draw all the parallels between the two, and in general create a malestrom that could radically alter public opinion - more important in the long run than trying to make an indictment stick. It would be a great political move.

                And Powell totally turned as well. I'd bet money on it.

                •  But what was the reason? (none)
                  There was a reason that Nixon wasn't indicted, a legal argument if memory serves.

                  Unfortunately I can't remember that much detail, can't remember why Nixon wasn't prosecuted...

                  •  If memory recalls... (none)
                    ...Nixon was named as an unindicted co-conspirator because Special Prosecutor Leon Jaworski said that a president must first be impeached and removed from office before he can be indicted.

                    I'm unsure of the statute on that. Anyone?

                    •  Jaworski made that decision (none)
                      before the Supreme Court ruled that President Clinton could be sued while in office in the Paula Jones case.
                      •  But That Was Before the New Loyalist Court n/t (none)

                        We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy....--ML King, "Beyond Vietnam"

                        by Gooserock on Sat Oct 08, 2005 at 07:57:40 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Precedent bites. (none)
                          The GOP established that presidents are vulnerable to prosecution.

                          So... I'd bet good money that the Supremes wouldn't touch it.  

                          Those on the Court know how much harm was done to the Court's public standing with Bush v. Gore.  That was bullshit... but to overturn a precedent that allowed the GOP to harry Clinton into impeachment so that Bush couldn't be prosecuted?  They'd have made themselves laughingstocks.

                          Worse... if the Democrats EVER got control of both houses of Congress again, it would be superb grounds for impeaching every Supreme who voted to overturn the precedent.

                          "Too many policemen, no liberty; Too many soldiers, no peace; Too many lawyers, no justice." Lin Yutang (1895-1976)

                          by ogre on Sun Oct 09, 2005 at 12:47:52 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                  •  From another diary (none)
                    ...which I can't site right this minute, said that a sitting President can't be indicted.  However, by naming him as an unindicted co-conspriator, it indicates high crimes and/or misdemenors were likely commited.

                    "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." - Edmund Burke

                    by CyberDem on Sat Oct 08, 2005 at 05:00:59 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  thank you (none)
                      you made my day

                      I love the smell of impeachment in the morning (or evening, as the case may be!)

                      The only Bush I trust is my own - I want my freaking democracy back! My Little Tribe

                      by mytribe on Sat Oct 08, 2005 at 05:07:34 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  impeachment (none)
                        Not likely to happen no matter what action results from the grand jury.  The repubs will claim it's political bullshit and the press will drop it in a couple of days.  Nobody disputes that Bush misled (lied) to congress to get involved in Iraq, yet he was re-elected and the press spoke of his political capital.  We should all remember that democracy is now in hibernation and there's no democrat that screams loud enough to awaken it.  
                        •  Democracy only dormant on the surface (none)
                          Below the surface, we paddle like hell.

                          Every single one of us on the left and swing voters who've realized too late they've been dupred should be working like crazy to undo the Republican majority.  

                          Just do it.  Sell baked goods to raise money.  Collect pop cans for redemption.  Contact the local Dem party and ask if you can help with voter registration or phone banking. Write letters to the editor to take your local Repug to task.  There's a jillion ways to help.  

                          I'm not going to roll over and play dead.  We've been at this for 5 years; it's taken this long before we were taken seriously.  But imagine what we can do if we really, really focused and organized -- unlike our half-hearted efforts in 2000 and tepid efforts in 2004.

                        •  For Repubs, Impeachment Is Great Idea (none)
                          It's their only way to distance themselves from the on-going Disaster Master Bush, and to counter the Corruption charge. Of course, a lot of their leadership is likethis with Bush. But when the rank-and-file run they'll want to be seen with Anybody But Bush.

                           

                          All that is required for the triumph of evil is that the good do nothing. Bitching and moaning is nothing.

                          by Jim P on Sat Oct 08, 2005 at 11:56:52 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                    •  There's nothing (none)
                      of that nature in statute.

                      The Constitution was often read to imply that, but it was not absolute--and the Court shot down the idea that a president couldn't be pursued in court when they allowed Clinton to be.

                      "Too many policemen, no liberty; Too many soldiers, no peace; Too many lawyers, no justice." Lin Yutang (1895-1976)

                      by ogre on Sun Oct 09, 2005 at 12:50:19 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

              •  Separation of powers (none)
                Indicting the president would provoke a constitutional crisis. For one thing, who is going to arrest him?  For this reason, it's felt that Congress is best left in charge of dealing with Presidential misconduct, and that's why impeachment is written in to the constitution.

                Under some circumstances it's possible to imaging the president being indicted, but probably not these.

                There was an excellent dkos diary on this a few days back. I suggest googling.

                Wetmachine for your daily dose of technoparanoia.

                by j sundman on Sat Oct 08, 2005 at 05:09:46 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  .i. (none)
                  for about three seconds i tried to imagine the scene at the white house gate as marshalls went to arrest the president. what the hell would that conversation be like???

                   ....and then i remembered that as commander-in-chief bush wouldn't have to rely on the secret service for protection - he could simply order a few hundred marines from the nearby 8th and i barracks (say company a, company b, and security company) to secure the white house perimiter - and he'd never have to leave the comfort of the residence to evade arrest. and then of course he could simply go fill out the pardon paperwork for himself and everyone else...

                  ...i like to think the marshall v secret service or law enforcement v military scenario is far far fetched. but 1) these thugs have done much i thought impossible 2) thats just the sort of extraordinary thing that makes indicting a sitting president damn tricky.

          •  why would Cheney have to be an unindicted (none)
            coconspirator? I think Fitz will name his as a flat out conspirator.
    •  What is Ari doing now? (none)
      If he is on KStreet or hiding in a think tank somewhere, they would say alot.  If he is still public, sorta, he has not ratted out the Bushes.  If no one can find him, yes he probably did spill the beans in exchange for his hide.  Maybe John Dean beens talking to him.  Does he still do a website?  His "Worse than Watergate" story really was true.
    •  But (none)
      Ari resigned on May 20th, 2003, before the leak, no?  Did he give reasons for leaving?

      If Jesus Christ came back today and saw what was being done in his name, he'd never stop throwing up... - Hannah and Her Sisters

      by AlyoshaKaramazov on Sat Oct 08, 2005 at 04:19:32 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  His last day was (none)
        July 14, 2003, even though he turned in his resignation earlier.

        He was on Air Force One when the infamous INR memo was reviewed.

        •  And 'Jeff Gannon' had this to say : (none)
          Two items, taken from my diary back in February:

          First:  'Jeff Gannon' brags on a forum about asking a question of Ari Fleischer on Feb 28 2003 - and curiously no mention that this was his first time in there:

          #45 from Jeff Gannon on March 5, 2003 03:26 AM
          This is a question I asked Ari Fleischer at a White House press briefing on Friday:

          Q There have been reports out of Maine that the children of deployed service personnel are being harassed as a result of their elementary school teacher's expression of anti-war views in the classroom. Could you comment on that?

          MR. FLEISCHER: I'm not familiar with any specific report, but I can assure you that the President, in all instances, believes that it's important for all to honor and respect the first amendment.

          Not the answer I was looking for, but at least I was able to get the issue in front of the mainstream press.

          SOURCE

          Confirmation

          More on this

          And:  'Gannon' had THIS to say about Fleischer's resignation:

          White House Spokesman Ari Fleischer to Resign
          By Sarah Wagner
          Talon News
          May 20, 2003
          WASHINGTON (Talon News) -- White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer announced Monday that he will resign from his position before the President's re-election campaign takes off.

          . . .

          Talon News White House Correspondent Jeff Gannon expressed surprise at Ari's announcement. "There was no indication that Ari would be leaving any time soon," Gannon said. "Ari has skillfully handled a sometimes hostile and unruly crowd in the press room."

          Pentagon spokesman Victoria Clarke and Republican strategist Ed Gillespie have been named as possible replacements. However, many predict the job will go to White House Deputy Press Secretary Scott McClellan.

          "Scott McClellan would be an able successor to Ari Fleischer," Gannon added.

          . . .

          CACHED SOURCE (it was wiped from Talon News' website)

          My diary from Feb 16 2005 has many excellent comments.  It's HERE

    •  Aren't Ari's parents (none)
      Liberal Democrats? I seem to recall Ari on the Daily Show or similar saying that his parents were dismayed by his working for the Bush administration, but Ari was trying to bring them around to Republicanism or whatever.

      Maybe Ari's folks got him to come clean?

      Granted, that might take some lye, and significant scrubbing...

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (116)
  • Community (57)
  • 2016 (44)
  • Elections (37)
  • Environment (34)
  • Media (33)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (32)
  • Republicans (31)
  • Hillary Clinton (30)
  • Iraq (27)
  • Law (27)
  • Barack Obama (26)
  • Civil Rights (25)
  • Jeb Bush (24)
  • Climate Change (24)
  • Culture (22)
  • Economy (19)
  • Labor (18)
  • Bernie Sanders (17)
  • Senate (16)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site