The Sushi Bandit
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Oct-18-05 04:01 AM
Original message |
Bush is packing the SC to stop any treason charges |
|
against him and Dick from Plame-gate fallout.
O'connor needs to stay!!!!!!!!
|
Meeker Morgan
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Oct-18-05 04:09 AM
Response to Original message |
1. Treason charges? Fantasy! n/t |
roguevalley
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Oct-18-05 04:10 AM
Response to Original message |
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
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Oct-18-05 04:13 AM
Response to Reply #2 |
3. Guess who the rat bastard just appointed as CJ? |
Fridays Child
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Oct-18-05 04:30 AM
Response to Reply #2 |
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
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Oct-18-05 04:51 AM
Response to Reply #4 |
5. That would negate any legitimacy this administration has. |
unblock
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Oct-18-05 04:56 AM
Response to Reply #5 |
|
since it started out illegitimate and went downhill from there, "negating" its legitimacy would make it -- legitimate.
:evilgrin:
|
BikeWriter
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Oct-18-05 05:03 AM
Response to Reply #6 |
8. Nah, double negatives only work in kid's games. |
unblock
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Oct-18-05 05:14 AM
Response to Reply #8 |
|
what about double positives?
:evilgrin:
|
BikeWriter
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Oct-18-05 05:18 AM
Response to Reply #9 |
10. Okay, I'm positively negative about this bunch, too. |
IntravenousDemilo
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Oct-18-05 04:39 PM
Response to Reply #8 |
15. That's not untrue. n/m |
Birthmark
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Oct-18-05 04:57 AM
Response to Original message |
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
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Oct-18-05 05:33 AM
Response to Reply #7 |
12. Revealing a covert operation isn't treason? |
|
Edited on Tue Oct-18-05 05:35 AM by WinkyDink
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
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Oct-18-05 03:21 PM
Response to Reply #12 |
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
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Oct-18-05 05:33 AM
Response to Original message |
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
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Oct-18-05 02:47 PM
Response to Reply #11 |
13. I have to agree I think too many people are fed up and this |
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Mon May 13th 2024, 02:38 AM
Response to Original message |