Skip to main content

View Diary: Bush knew about Rove and Plame (213 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Also (none)
    It's obstruction of justice.

    That being said, Bush can't be indicted.  However, if "perjury" (I put it in quotes because I don't believe Clinton committed perjury when he said he did not have sexual relations as he understood that term) constitutes "high crimes and misdemeanors" for the purposes of impeachment, then I can't see any reasonable basis for any arguments against impeaching Bush for obstruction.

    Also, does anyone have the timeline for when Bush went in to talk to Fitzgerald?  Was it after Rove allegedly told Bush about it?

    This is getting very interesting.  Also, if the Niger forgeries are actually part of Fitzgerald's investigation, I could imagine this getting really really ugly for Bush.  Lying and obstruction are impeachable; proof of manufacturing false pretenses for war might be viewed by large swaths of the country (including Red America) as treasonous.

    •  It does not matter WHEN (none)
      Bush found out that indeed Karl Rove had a hand in leaking an cover agents name.

      He still had a legal and moral responability to report that information because there was an investigation launched immed after her name was leaked. Even though the name of the person changed of who was leading the investigation 2 or three times he put his hand on that bible and he took the oath of office.

      He is busted.Fitz may not get him legaly but we now know that he told yet another huge lie against this nation for cronyism.

    •  wrong, do it again (none)
      That being said, Bush can't be indicted.

      that is a false and misleading statement

      bush can be indicted, but he must first be impeached and removed from office

      the Constitution says you can't indict a sitting president, and the Constitution provides a way to remove said president

      so if we want to indict him, we have to impeach him first

      If you don't eat your meat, you can't have any pudding. How can you have any pudding if you don't eat your meat ???

      •  "If you don't eat.... (none)
        "We don't need no edukashun...."


        by martik on Wed Oct 19, 2005 at 02:37:29 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  actually it's not (none)
        yes, you're right, Bush can be indicted once he's out of office.

        however, it's well settled that acts performed under the auspices of his presidential duties are not criminally prosecutable, and i think it's basically a non-starter that a judge (or appellate judges) would rule that Bush's actions here were performed by Bush the citizen and not Bush the president.

        It's a basic separation of powers issue.

        I.e. if Bush the citizen killed somebody in cold blood, he could be prosecuted for murder once he left office.  However, if Bush the President ordered the assassination of that person, he couldn't be prosecuted for that in federal court (international tribunals maybe but not fed court).

    •  June 24, 2004 -- Bush talked to Fitz (none)
      definitely after whenever it was in 2003 that Rove allegedly 'fessed up to Bush.

      at least, so reported Murray Waas, in an Oct. 7, 2005 story in the National Journal.

      In his own interview with prosecutors on June 24, 2004, Bush testified that Rove assured him he had not disclosed Plame as a CIA employee and had said nothing to the press to discredit Wilson, according to sources familiar with the president's interview.

      This info, thanks to today's post by Josh Marshall

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (169)
  • Community (68)
  • Civil Rights (44)
  • Baltimore (42)
  • Elections (35)
  • Culture (35)
  • Bernie Sanders (34)
  • Economy (31)
  • Texas (29)
  • Law (27)
  • Environment (26)
  • Labor (25)
  • 2016 (24)
  • Hillary Clinton (21)
  • Education (21)
  • Rescued (21)
  • Freddie Gray (20)
  • Health Care (20)
  • Barack Obama (19)
  • Racism (19)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site