Comments on: The Email Question

By: Leen

Leen — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 14:19:16 +0000

As John Dean has pointed out. The impeachment of lower level officials Feith, Hannah, Addington…Cheney means they can never serve in any future administrations.

Refocusing the Impeachment Movement on Administration Officials Below the President and Vice-President:
Why Not Have A Realistic Debate, with Charges that Could Actually Result in Convictions?

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20061215.html

By: Leen

Leen — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 14:16:11 +0000

“when the best you can possibly hope for is Cheney’s Cheney to have a sudden Come to Truth Jesus and still be credible as a reformed neoconspiratorial lying treason monkey?”

All I fucking want to know is where would a peasants ass be if they had lied to a grand jury and obstructed justice. In prison and everyone knows it. The peasants to to prison and more often than not the big murderous rich thugs fill our air waves with more of their bloody fucking lies.

“no one is above the law” just a bowl of hooey

By: alinaustex

alinaustex — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 09:30:28 +0000

There have been impeachments of other former officials . You know if we had majorities in both the Senate , the House and the Whitehouse -should not our collective committment to defend our Constitution prevail and former Vice President Cheney would be subject to an ongoing Congressional impeachment proceedings for High Crimes -such as treason for destroying the NOC Brewster Jennings intelligence network by illegally declassifying its exsistence – (OH wAIT , we have majorities and the Whitehouse ). As everyday passes we have our Constitution under direct threat from the legacy of the ongoing criminal conspiracy known as gwb 43 .
HELL BELL’s have an impeachment for Cheney and let the chips and the political fallout be damned -We need to save our Constitution- Elected officials what happened to Defending Our Constitution from all enemies both foriegn and domestic – it appears that Big Dick could have outed Plame ( committing treason ) and then had Libby cover it up ( obstructing justice ) -lets get the facts out -lets impeach Cheney
Maybe if Speaker of the House Pelosi can’t grow a pair and go after these traitors – Secretary of State ( to parphrase Tina Fey ) Clinton can ‘gladly loan her her’s “

By: MadDog

MadDog — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 03:56:02 +0000

And LD’s comment brings up the thought that perhaps Fitzgerald made a case about indicting Cheney to his superiors over at DOJ (i.e. Comey), and got shot down.

There’s no evidence of that, but who really knows what Fitz did behind closed doors.

By: JThomason

JThomason — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 03:55:19 +0000

Sorry if this is redundant but I guess I should call it an “affair.”

By: JThomason

JThomason — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 03:48:44 +0000

You know prosecuting the narrative may be procedurally unsound but how long did it take for the Dreyfus thingy to turn?

I guess I really should call it an “affair.”

By: emptywheel

emptywheel — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 03:42:49 +0000

Well, and then there’s the matter of needing both Judy and Scooter. ANd Judy did all she could to make herself a totally non-credible witness.

By: LabDancer

LabDancer — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 03:36:43 +0000

Precisely, learned NAL.

Those exclaiming at the horror of this smokin’ 302 and suggesting castigation of Fitz for not having indicted Cheney are suffering from a lot of neuron cramps at a lot of stations, including:

[1] Today is almost November 2009–5 years after the interview, a year before the Libby indictment, more than 30 months after the end of the Trial of Libby, around 18 months before Fitz was through with Rove, two years before publication of the earlier of the two books which focus on the pleak, two years before Armitage fessed up, etc etc etc.
Just about anyone can credibly claim to be blessed with the see-all gift of hindsight; foresight, though–that’s a far more painstaking phenomenon, and at that limited to the very few, like yourowngoodself.

[2] I would have a hard time accepting that Fitz envisioned whatever autonomy he might have as extending to seeking indictment of an elected official, leave aside one that high up the food chain.

[3] A sound constitutional argument could be made that, assuming there was evidence strong enough to indict, the appropriate order would have been a. impeachment b. trial on impeachment c. indictment maybe.

[4] To paraphrase our hostess, how precisely would you propose to advance a credible prosecution against a veep who has clearly been flopping about the questions like an aphasic giraffe on roller skates, dropping at least as many “can’t recalls” as self-serving mis-statements, only consistent in passing the buck to others, like “poor” Scootzie, when the best you can possibly hope for is Cheney’s Cheney to have a sudden Come to Truth Jesus and still be credible as a reformed neoconspiratorial lying treason monkey?

[5] Who’s to say Fitz didn’t determine to go after Cheney with the only weapons he had: whatever he could make of the available evidence and procedure. For some of us, the Trial of Libby was really the Trial of Cheney By Proxy.

By: Leen

Leen — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 03:20:50 +0000

Bet you lawyer folks would like to be in the room as Scooter Libby and Tenet read Cheney’s interview and other documents.

think he might get pissed enough to flip?

You folks and your commitment to justice give me hope. Later

By: JThomason

JThomason — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 03:17:44 +0000

“Now Karl Rove has become “fair game.”

That was the term that the president’s consigliere applied to Valerie Plame, according to Newsweek, in a conversation with MSNBC’s Chris Matthews immediately after the publication of Robert D. Novak’s column that identified Plame as a CIA operative.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/12/AR2005071201367.html

Its always nice to have something to do, especially when snowed in, though I am not sure this is definitive.