Skip to main content

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

Comment Preferences

  •  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.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site