http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/13/AR2005101301955.html?referrer=email&referrer=email
Scandals Take Toll On Bush's 2nd Term
By Jim VandeHei and Peter Baker
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, October 14, 2005; Page A01
A series of scandals involving some of the most powerful Republicans in Washington have converged to disrupt President Bush's agenda, distract aides and allies, and exacerbate political problems for an already weakened administration, according to party strategists and White House advisers.
With Deputy White House Chief of Staff Karl Rove returning to a grand jury as early as today, associates said the architect of Bush's presidency has been preoccupied with his legal troubles, a diversion that some say contributed to the troubled handling of Harriet Miers's nomination to the Supreme Court. White House officials are privately bracing for the possibility that Rove or other officials could be indicted in the next two weeks.
COULD ROVE BE MOSSAD???
Bush/Cheney to be indicted??
Hallelujah! Has our prayers been answered! God is good, yes He is!
http://www.frontiernet.net/~aperio/trump.html
Will Bush/Cheney be indicted??
http://news.phaseiii.org/article5959.html
"The wheels are coming off the Bush administration, but it matters little since the problems facing America go much deeper. The Arctic Beacon reported months ago about the impending indictments against Bush and Cheney, receiving criticism in some circles over the use of "credible sources" surrounding Special Prosecutor's Patrick Fitzgerald's grand jury investigation."
*
While such would be nice to see, there are two problems.
[1] Bush is a sitting President. Therefore, he is immune to prosecution from normal criminal indictment facilities (mostly, district attorneys representing "the State", alleging criminal malfeasance etc.). The only way he can be "indicted" is through a House impeachment procedure,
though IANAL.
[2] The House is of Bush's own party, and is unlikely to vote for impeachment unless things get worse than they already are.
I don't know about Cheney, though. In any event, Bush is innocent until proven guilty in the Senate -- and Clinton was indicted but not convicted (impeached, but not removed).
*
Ken Starr thought otherwise:
"The independent counsel, Kenneth W. Starr, has concluded that he has the constitutional authority to seek a grand jury indictment of President Clinton before he leaves the White House in January 2001, several associates of Starr said this week. "
http://partners.nytimes.com/library/politics/013199clinton-starr.html
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/white_house/jan-june99/indict_2-1.html
There is no Senate vote on removal, ONLY on the guilt or innocence of the impeachment charges at hand. Such a verdict was reached and it was "Not Guilty" and Rehnquist pronounced Clinton to be "Acquitted" on all charges.
*
> "The wheels are coming off the Bush administration,
It never had wheels, it was dragged by Bush cash and power
*
Hm...well, now I'll have to look. Who convened Starr?
Interestingly, Ken Starr was a Solicitor General under George Bush, and apparently was hired by then-Attorney General Janet Reno for the Whitewater mess. He was a Republican according to
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1997/gen/resources/players/starr/
Apparently the Executive was at least honest enough under the Clinton administration to investigate itself. I couldn't see a Republican today hiring a Democrat special prosecutor, somehow.
(DeLay isn't quite the same; he's being indicted under Texas statutes. However, the prosecutor in Austin -- Ronnie Earle -- is a Democrat.)
Indeed. But we were discussing Bush's possible impeachment. I can't say I see it at this time -- not after that fiasco.
Still, I suppose it's barely possible for a Congressional investigation, if the people start screaming loudly enough, but the problem is DeLay's indictment clouds things.
*
Reno did not choose Starr.
"When the Whitewater scandal first surfaced, Attorney General Janet Reno appointed a special prosecutor to investigate the matter. This prosecutor, a Republican former United States Attorney named Robert Fiske, was subsequently replaced by independent counsel Kenneth Starr when the investigation was transferred to the jurisidiction of the Office of the Independent Counsel. Independent counsels are appointed by a panel of federal judges, to avoid a potential conflict of interest by the Attorney General (a Presidential political appointee)."
http://tinyurl.com/b93at
*
"The wheels are coming off the Bush administration,
< It never had wheels, it was dragged by Bush cash and power
Ok, how about "the AwOL Administration is getting harder for Repugs to drag?" It can't happen soon enough...
I don't think that even the "repugs" want to "drag" it any more. They're starting to realize the wheels are coming off the entire repubLIC, and that even their sainted "party affiliation" isn't enough to put it back together again.
Of course, if they hold their nose and look the other way long enough, they could have the whole mess completely sold to the state of Israel before too long.
Hey, let's just sell out our soverignty and let Uncle Ariel fix everything. That would get BushCo off the hook, wouldn't it?
*
I'll agree that it should have happened sooner. Around mid-2004 would have been *very* nice. :-)
As it is, do the Dems have a better solution at this point? If not, we're in real trouble.
*
> It can't happen soon enough...
Oh, yes it can! In fact, it can happen TOO soon.
A simultaneous indictment of both Bush and Cheney would almost certainly lead to simultaneous impeachments. If both are impeached by the House and removed from office by the Senate, the Speaker of the House ascends to the Presidency. Right now that would be Dennis Hastert, who would be no real improvement over President Dumbya and Vice-President "Go ##### Yourself".
An indictment must be timed so that the impeachment and removal process is NOT completed prior to the 110th Congress . . . with a Democratic majority and Democratic Speaker . . . is elected in 2006 and seated in January of 2007.
*
What is to prevent Cheney from resigning? If the House changes hands Bush could well have Cheney resign and a new VP confirmed before the new congress convenes just like Nixon had Ford confirmed in 1973. The VP would be under no impeachment cloud, and could simply pardon Bush should he be impeached. The Presidency would still remain in the hands of the Republicans. Impeachment, while emotionally satisfying, might not result in the expected outcome.
*
There would be nothing to prevent Cheney from resigning, but that doesn't guarantee that a replacement would be confirmed. Remember, per the terms of the 25th Amendment, an appointed Vice-President must be confirmed by BOTH the Senate AND the House. Nixon was just starting to get into deep political yogurt when he selected Ford, who was a well-liked House Minority Leader, and was not under indictment or imminent threat of impeachment at the time.
I doubt that a Democrat-controlled House would be all that eager to confirm any Bush appointment made in an obvious attempt to circumvent its will. Even in the Senate, assuming Republicans still maintain a small majority in that house, I believe any palatable Bush appointee would have to be a compromise candidate, acceptable to both parties AND to Bush. And there's one thing we know for sure about Bush . . compromise is NOT in his vocabulary.
*
As I recall, Ford was nominated sometime in October of 1973 and then confirmed in December of that same year. I would think that it would be fairly easy for Cheney to resign in early November (after it became clear that the House had changed hands) and then have his replacement confirmed before the new members took their seats in January. I think a sitting House, lame duck though it may be, can still confirm appointments and if they hurried the administration would be working with the same congresscritters they are today. In any event, it would be somewhat unlikely for the opposition to gain control of the Senate, where the trial would be held under (you guessed it) Roberts.
I don't think they would wait until a new congress was installed to get their ducks in line, so to speak. I think they would begin to take action the minute it was clear there was going to be a Democrat controlled House, in other words, in early November at the latest.
*
Control of the Senate looked like an impossibility six months ago. It's still not likely, but the possibility is now there, where it wasn't before.
They would be hard-pressed to get a confirmation through both houses in two months. Even under Republican control, I think it would be political suicide to vote for confirmation of a VP hand-picked by a President under federal indictment. Only those who'd already lost their seats and had no plans to reenter politics would vote for such a nominee.
*
Maybe so. I'm more pessimistic about what they might get away with than you. :^) Is it lawful or possible to indict a sitting President or VP??
I think that Hastert would be an improvement. Yes, Hastert is a fascist Republican, but he's not an oil fascist; although we know his ethics are in the sewer because he's a Republican, he's in the upper part of the sewer, where there is a little less crap.
> An indictment must be timed so that the impeachment and removal process is NOT completed prior to the 110th Congress . . .
No! That would likely be too late. Bush/Cheney might find some reason to declare martial law to protect Congressional Republicans from losing their seats in 2006.
We've GOT to impeach Bush ASAP, while we still have some of the trappings of our democracy. The impeachment would send a strong signal to Hastert that BushCo-level corruption is not acceptable; it might keep him slightly honest.
You are an optimist if you think that America will still consider itself to be a democracy by 2007 with BushCo in control.
The fascists have committed crimes so grave that they can never give up power lest they be tried, convicted, imprisoned, tarred and feathered.
The fascists will NOT surrender power to a Democratic government in 2009. Between now and 2009, BushCo has to find a way to formally and finally end the operation of our Constitution.
We've got to get these people out of our government ASAP.
--
This would be downright funny to watch if I could watch it from another planet.
*
Yes. No citizen (President or otherwise) is above the law. This was debated intently prior to Clinton's impeachment. It was determined that indictment is possible, but impeachment is preferable.
I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for Bush to undergo either.
*
Serving Freedom
and Liberty
