MalachiConstant
(368 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Oct-24-05 09:52 PM
Original message |
who else will be indicted? |
|
does anybody suspect that anybody else will be indicted besides scooter and rove? what are the chances cheney himself might be indicted? it's probably a longshot that bush and/or cheney would be indicted, right? wrong?
|
saltpoint
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Oct-24-05 09:56 PM
Response to Original message |
1. Don't know. But how useful it would be for the GOP |
|
to see a second president from their party under extreme legal pressure in the last quarter of a century. I personally like the way History deals the GOP a Nixon and a Dubya in that relatively small time period. I also like the idea that whether they like it or not, and whether Dubya and Dick are indicted, Republicans with half a brain -- well, Republicans -- will have to re-evaluate their allegiance with regard to the actual words of the Constitution. They won't be able to just shrug this off. A spectre of accountability has already crept into the press, and if it can penetrate there, it can penetrate anyplace.
This should be a bad week for the Bush administration and goddamit it couldn't happen to a more deserving pack of liars.
|
MalachiConstant
(368 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Oct-24-05 09:58 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
|
but i guess we'll just have to wait and see.
|
saltpoint
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Oct-24-05 10:03 PM
Response to Reply #2 |
4. It would NOT piss me off at all to see Condiliar indicted. |
|
Do I have this wrong? Isn't there a list of Cabinet-level people who review the State of the Union address before it's read to Congress?
And itsn't the head of the NSA on that list? Either Rice knew the Niger claim was bullshit and let it pass anyway, or she was asleep at the switch and didn't read it.
Her job would suggest that she ought to have paid better attention.
|
newscott
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Oct-24-05 10:02 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
3. It says a lot more about the judgement of the majority of |
|
Americans who are stupid enough to fall for this bullshit every 10 years or so.
Although with the election shenanigans of 2000 and 2004 maybe they weren't that stupid this time.
|
saltpoint
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Oct-24-05 10:04 PM
Response to Reply #3 |
5. Good point. I'm fiercely hopeful that some good news could |
|
still emerge from this Fitzgerald indictment other than a comeuppance for Republicans.
After Watergate, the Democrats did well in the elections and held on for some time. Maybe there will be a sea change of sorts this time too.
|
napi21
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Oct-24-05 10:05 PM
Response to Original message |
6. No way to tell yet. Most of what we see and hear is wishful thinking. |
|
I don't think it's going to be much longer though. Tuesday or Wednesday will be D Day.
|
nevergiveup
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Oct-24-05 10:06 PM
Response to Original message |
7. I think Chump Cheney will be the surprise |
|
I also think Libby will go down but Rove will walk. A new UN Ambassador might also be in order.
|
MalachiConstant
(368 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Oct-24-05 10:08 PM
Response to Reply #7 |
|
that bolton was involved in this
|
onenote
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Oct-25-05 12:00 AM
Response to Original message |
9. bush won't/can't be indicted |
|
The Office of Legal Counsel of the Justice Department has twice issued opinions, first in 1973 and again during the Clinton presidency, finding that a sitting president may not be indicted. There is no way Fitzgerald is going to disregard that opinion.
onenote
|
MalachiConstant
(368 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Oct-25-05 12:21 AM
Response to Reply #9 |
|
i knew there had to be something that would rule it out. oh, so much for wishful thinking...
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Sun May 12th 2024, 06:03 PM
Response to Original message |