posted
Didn't Bush swear to fire anyone who was indicted? Regardless of whether or not they were actually convicted?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, iirc the exact wording was originally that he'd fire anyone that was "involved" in leaking the info. More recently he said he'd fire anyone "convicted of a crime" in this case. Some people jumped on that as backpedalling, but you could make an arguement that unless someone was convicted there is no proof that that person was involved.
So that's a pretty big difference from firing anyone indicted.
posted
My guess is that Cheney's Chief of Staff, "Scooter" Libby will be indicted - he may be up for perjury and obstruction of justice.
Based on what we know and what's public, he's the surest bet. What else will happen, if anything, may depend on things we don't know.
Fitzgerald is the ideal prosecutor for this kind of thing. He's played no favorites in going after Republicans and Democrats here in Illinois. It's kind of amazing he got assigned to this at all.
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
What I think is amazing is that with this wave of appearance of Republican corruption, the party itself doesn't seem to be suffering in the polls, it's all going on Bush.
If these were Democrats, you'd hearing screaming from every mountaintop from pundits. I bet Ann Coulter even finds a way to make this all out to be a vast left wing conspiracy against her party.
Really it just boggles the mind.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
After a thurough legal consultation, and a 2.5million donation to various off shore accounts, the indictment is out and they will procede to prosecute........................Bill Clinton.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
How is it that Icarus and Dan_Raven have posted almost exactly the same number of posts over a three and half year period? That's just weird.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I read a Time article about companies that have created an exchange economy for future prediction. They argued that they usually make pretty good predictions.
posted
Well, it looks like tomorrow (Friday) just might be the day.
I'm betting on indictments against:
Libby (almost certainly) Rove (probably)
And if someone could give me decent odds, I'd love to lay a ten dollar bet on Dick Cheney, who apparently lied on "Meet the Press" when he said he didn't know anything about Wilson or his wife. (Lying on "Meet the Press is legal and a DC tradition, though) We know now that Cheney got the info on Wilson's wife directly from the CIA. But did Cheney lie to investigators when they interviewed him? He wasn't under oath, so perjury wouldn't be in the offing, but it makes me wonder...
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
See, the problem is that Cheney told his chief of staff. Now, part of the question in my mind is whether or not that was illegal or just bone-headed. And, whether after that, when Libby told people in the press, that was illegal or just bone headed.
Rove, I just don't think they'll get anything on him. And Cheney too.
It would surprise me, anyway.
I wonder if Libby is being set up to take one for the team, though.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
