Bush is packing the SC to stop any treason charges

[The Sushi Bandit]

against him and Dick from Plame-gate fallout.

O'connor needs to stay!!!!!!!!

[Meeker Morgan]

1. Treason charges? Fantasy! n/t

[roguevalley]

2. only the chief justice presides over the impeachment thingo. I don't

know that the supremes have more to do than that do they?

[fooj]

3. Guess who the rat bastard just appointed as CJ?

Grrrrrrrrrrrr...

Peace.

[Fridays Child]

4. Don't know but, as stated in an article from yesterday...

Gonzales gets to approve any indictments coming out of Fitz' Grand Jury. He'll probably kill the whole thing, before it evewr goes to trial.

[BikeWriter]

5. That would negate any legitimacy this administration has.

[unblock]

6. bwahaha!

since it started out illegitimate and went downhill from there, "negating" its legitimacy would make it -- legitimate.

:evilgrin:

[BikeWriter]

8. Nah, double negatives only work in kid's games.

Not in governments.

[unblock]

9. yeah, yeah!

what about double positives?

:evilgrin:

[BikeWriter]

10. Okay, I'm positively negative about this bunch, too.

:huh:

[IntravenousDemilo]

15. That's not untrue. n/m

[Birthmark]

7. There will be no treason charges.

None are possible under the Constitution since I don't think that even Novak can be construed as an "enemy" - as defined by the Constitution, anyway.

As someone else has pointed out, only the Chief Justice presides over an impeachment trial in the Senate. But the Senators have great power and ultimately decide guilt or innocence. If Bush is named as an unindicted co-conspirator, then it will be Congressional Republicans who have to save him. And that might not be the smart political play for them in an election year. ;)

[WinkyDink]

12. Revealing a covert operation isn't treason?

Then, pray, what WOULD be "aiding and abetting" the enemy? (No, a reporter isn't the official enemy, but PUBLICIZING this info IS "AIDING".)

Don't quite know what you mean by not "possible under the Constitution".

[Birthmark]

14. No, it's not treason.

Now, if they had outed Plame to Saddam during the war, that would be treason. The Constitution sets a very high bar for treason and this doesn't meet it since there is no enemy involved.

[Rockholm]

11. I can guarantee if it did go to the CJ and he said "no"

there would be a major, major uproar in the country and I for one would then demand the impeachment of Chief Justice John Roberts.

[texpatriot2004]

13. I have to agree I think too many people are fed up and this

would be the last straw.