PLAME: Mark Shields on PBS Says There Will Be an Indictment

[Stephanie]

Says "that's what my reporting tells me." Says may be on perjury, or may be on more serious charges.

[biscodawg]

1. i hope so n/t

[i miss america]

48. Me too and the sooner the better

[laststeamtrain]

55. OMG! They've arrested Larry 'Bud' Melman! Or is it Clint Howard? N/T

[biscodawg]

64. thats not a frog step

thats a frog drag :D

[wryter2000]

2. Go, Shields

I wonder what story CBS will lead off with on the day Rove is frog-marched out of the White House.

"Another American teenager disappeared at an island resort today..."

[zbdent]

4. Nah, it will be about a shark attack at

Gitmo . . .

[bilgewaterbill]

77. Then I hope they indict that damn shark! nt

[TalkingDog]

85. MegaStar Pedophile Shark Attacks Lost Rich White Woman!!! n/t

[kohodog]

71. The real question is what will NYT do!

The letters they published for Miller were outrageous.

[savemefromdumbya]

93. scary

I expect they will bomb DC? (when W is out of town?)

[im10ashus]

3. Did he allude as to who it may be?

Or what the punishment would be? The bf is watching Seinfeld reruns now and I am not about to get sucked in.

[Stephanie]

6. re: Rove

If it's the worst charge, knowingly revealing a covert agent, it's ten years.

[im10ashus]

9. Wouldn't it be treason?

Punishable by death? Or am I entertaining those fantasies of mine again?

:-)

[Eloriel]

22. There's a very specific, legal definition of treason

and as treasonous as this seems to most of us, it doesn't fit that definition, I don't think.

[Island Blue]

23. Don't kill him - that would make him a martyr

Make him live in a tiny cell with a lonely, hairy ass man named Snake. That would be much, much better.

[Zen Democrat]

28. Rove would LOVE that. The only thing about prison he would enjoy.

[achtung_circus]

35. Did I mention

that my friend Snake has a rare condition that causes excess testosterone production. This manifests itself in disturbing ways.

Enjoy, Mrs. Rove.

[Fritz67]

38. Clearly...

If Rove goes to prison, they should strip him naked, stack him in a human pyramid, let Dobermans bark at him, and attach electrodes to his genitals.

Since that isn't torture, you know.
:sarcasm:

[me b zola]

43. As he is made to wear the human excrement of his captors

...then water board him...since none of that is torture.

[newscott]

40. Well if he's not killed then he'll just get pardonned anyway.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

76. Not if his boss gets indicted, too.

[im10ashus]

15. I'd settle for that.

But I will still entertain those fantasies of mine.

[Cush]

7. they were talking about Rove & Cooper

so maybe they were alluding to Rove?

[burrowowl]

5. Keeping fingers and

toes crossed, especially for the more serious charges!

[lancdem]

8. I wouldn't be surprised if when all is said and done

a number of people will be indicted, not just Rove. He might be the first, but he won't be the last.

[shraby]

11. I can hardly wait till they start subpoening his

records. :bounce: :bounce:

[dogday]

12. and I am wondering if he will be the biggest fish

Whoever had this infomation had access to top secret highly classified documents.... Did Karl have this type of access?

[lancdem]

19. I don't know if he did

But I think this goes higher.

[FreedomAngel82]

45. It has to go higher

Rove didn't get his promotion and his new title till after this last year. I believe it was a couple days or weeks after November 2nd. Who had Karl's job before him? I think it probably goes to that Iraq group that Cheney and Rice have at the White House since Cheney was going to the CIA A LOT. Don't forget John Bolton. There is some reason why they're not releasing those documents of him to the foreign relation's committe.

[Pithy Cherub]

51. It seems highly likely that there will be unindicted co-conspirators

as well. That will also politically muddy the waters. It will take a year or more to get to any trials for the indicted and unindicted and 2006 elections are looming large during the filming season of "The Culture of Corrunption". Naturally, this flick is only starring prominent repunlican criminals.

I will do my duty and watch the destruction of the republican regime avidly! :patriot:

[lancdem]

53. I think you're right about the unindicted co-conspirators

[Jack Rabbit]

63. I really think unidicted co-conspirator is a cop out

Show me in the Constitution where it says the president cannot be indicted.

[Pithy Cherub]

67. patience is a virtue... Buying time before bringing charges

is something prosecutors will use to their advantage. Call somebody a liar first, then prove it... ;)

[Jack Rabbit]

68. I will agree with that ONLY IF . . .

. . . it will really take a little longer to get the goods on the Frat Boy.

Otherwise, if they've got the goods, then they should nail his aardvark to the wall. NOW!!

[Pithy Cherub]

70. hear ya and with ya. 1974 with a creepy twist...

Congress felt compelled to investigate Nixon and start impeachment proceedings. This congress ain't feelin' it (yet)...

So prosecutor has to present the case to one primary audience, the justice sytem and then in the court of public opinion. For that evidence matters and a much slower careful building of the case. Before they got to Nixon they had shortsheeted all of his puppets from underneath him. Can do no less here, so the entire infested BFEE goes down. My duty is to watch and applaud efforts :patriot:

:toast: (just as much in a hurry as you)

[Jack Rabbit]

74. That's not quite it

EDITED for typing

Nixon and his lawyers were spreading around the idea that since the Constitution says a sitting member of Congress cannot be indicted except for a serious offense, that it implies that the president cannot be indicted.

That's a lot of horsepuckey. The reason members of Congress have immunity from prosecution while Congress is in session is so that members of the executive branch, especially the president, can't harass them with petty steer manure. The Constitution says nothing about shielding the president from prosecution while in office. If his own executive branch thinks he needs to be prosecuted, there's no reason why he shouldn't be.

Clinton tried to make similar arguments during his problems; if lurking freepers want to go back to Mr. Robinson's house and call me a left wing hypocrite, I've got a few words that will disappoint them: I thought Clinton was out to lunch on that point, too. There is no reason a sitting president can't be indicted for a criminal offense, sued in civil court or face any other legal action that the rest of us would face under similar circumstances.

Anyway, I have heard one story that the Watergate grand jury actually returned an indictment against President Nixon, but Special Prosecutor Leon Jaworski persuaded them to simply name him as an unindicted co-conspirator. Of course, the impeachment process was going along smoothly, so Jaworski had little need to risk a court fight to bring Nixon to trial while in office.

The case against Bush might be different. Congress, under control of the Republicans, might be unwilling to impeach and remove Bush, no matter how serious the crime or compelling the evidence. Under these circumstances, Patrick Fitzgerald, unlike Leon Jaworski in 1974, has little to lose by pressing for a criminal indictment of Mr. Bush if the facts warrant that.

[Stephanie]

75. wow those are excellent points

thanks - indictments are a satisfactory alternative to impeachment, IMO

[Pithy Cherub]

78. You're applying excellent legal logic to a criminal government enterprise.

"If his own executive branch thinks he needs to be prosecuted, there's no reason why he shouldn't be." And there it is, the problem in all its glory. It would seem likely that pressure is being brought to bear in ways we can't even imagine, OK, see. ;) Who does the US Attorney report to again?

Article. III.
Section. 2. of the Constitution
The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but not when committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

Also, we the people, have a role to play. That is what the freepers now truly fear, the turning of the tide in the court of public opinion. Congress would then have to fulfill (dragged kicking and screaming) its constitutional requirement to conduct an impeachment.

You sir, and I are committed to the Law being followed in its intent, letter and spirit. There are just several modes of transport to get
there.
On edit: spelling, oh the spelling...

[Jack Rabbit]

82. Exactly

Fitzgerald would have to have his ducks in line. The stronger the case, the better. We certainly couldn't afford for this to look like a nit. If the president of the United States is to be charged, it had better be something more serious than jaywalking with evidence that will persuade the public, including those who voted for him, that there is a more than reasonable chance that he will be convicted.

Bush would probably try to bring suit to quash the indictments, arguing that a sitting president has immunity. However, pressure would then be brought to bear on Congressional Republicans to impeach and remove.

Complicating the matter would be that Cheney may also be involved in this up to the eyeballs. There may be an even stronger case against him. It was Cheney's office that asked Ambassador Wilson to go to Niger.

[Stephanie]

86. Cheney's office asked the CIA to send someone

and the CIA sent Wilson -

[Pithy Cherub]

87. In an unbelievably ironic method,

the Vice President of the United States has mirrored al Qaeda by setting up his own cell structure. The sum of its (cell) parts being greater than the whole provides actually MORE means to gather evidence. The VP's right hand folks did not know what the left hand folks were doing. An Ollie North idiot-type springs to mind.

Strategically, it would be about setting up the interlocking pieces of evidence that support either demolishing the layer right underneath the VP and/or that the Bush administration condoned treasonous acts on their watch - hence unindicted, for now. Either is politically fatal. As you stated, it can not be on an evidence nit. Trying to quash indictments brings about its own firestorm, and we the people, would be very helpful during this time.

A very agile prosecutor would be able to compile multiple sources from separate goups to generate an overall working hypothesis that is supported by the evidence. We wait...

[txindy]

73. Bingo! My money's on Bolton, as well.

There is no reason for them to refuse to release those documents, unless one of the names he requested info. on happens to be Valerie Plame.


They're all vindictive little b@stards. There's no true loyalty or selflessness in 'people' like that. That's why when one of them gets indicted, he's going to roll on all the others like an Energizer Domino. ;)

[biscotti]

10. Then the Dweeb,

David Brooks, had to throw a cheap shot about Joe Wilson. Saying the story will be, "Who is this Wilson? He was just a writer for the Nation but he is married to a CIA employee.
That made me angry.

[Stephanie]

13. David "Teeny Little Girly Hands" Brooks was trying new GOP talking points

What if it was just water cooler talk? What's this liberal Wilson doing here? Oh, you know, married to that CIA agent Plame. Oh, okay, I see.

[Jane Austin]

56. So . . . .

I'm NOT the only one who's noticed his teensy hands!



(Edited so my post makes a modicum of sense.)

[Stephanie]

62. girlfriend!

I have been calling him David "Teeny Little Girly Hands" Brooks for a long time now - you can search the archives for "Teeny Little Girly Hands" and I'm sure it will appear. With photographic evidence. Glad to know you have also noticed.

[Jane Austin]

80. Ever since I noticed it, I can hardly hear what he's saying.

It's very distracting.

[Stephanie]

83. Well he waves them around the whole time.

Forcing you to look at them. They are quite dainty.

[Ilsa]

29. I heard also. Tried to make it sound like

cooler gossip instead of treason. Yeah, David, it's only them trying to harass a whistleblower because he dared to publicly question the spin the Admin was spewing to create support for an illegal war. Nevermind that she was a NOC and did work on WMD.

[Straight Shooter]

14. I want Rove indicted, tried, and convicted in the court of world opinion.

I want his name associated with treason, with petty vengeance, with lying, with backstabbing of the lowest order. I want Benedict Arnold to be "old news" when it comes to treason, and I want everyone in the U.S. and all over the world to think of Rove when they hear the word "traitor."

And I want everyone to look upon Little Boots as guilty by association. Birds of a feather and all that.

[Stephanie]

17. not just by association

reportedly, he was aware of what they were going to do before they did it

[Straight Shooter]

25. Really?

I had not heard of that latest twist, that bush was aware (although I don't doubt it for a second). Do you have a link, or by chance a little more info and I'll check it out.

I was trying to keep my expectations low, so many disappointments over the last few years x(

[Zen Democrat]

30. Fitzgerald interviewed Bootsy for 70 minutes last summer.

And his lawyer was present during the questioning. Seems like he must have had a lot to question him about.

[Straight Shooter]

33. Yes, I remember now. Thanks.

I wonder how many times Little Boots responded,"I'm sorry, I just can't recall. Heh heh heh."

[bvar22]

21. I'm with you.

the words "Rove" and "Bush" should become synonymous with "Traitor" and "Coward".

[PuraVidaDreamin]

24. oooh, I like this... hmmmm...perhaps my next freeway blog

Rove+Bush=Traitor+ Coward

I think I finally understand algebra!

[Virginian]

60. No one will ever name their dog Rover ever again.

Because it sounds so much like that Four letter word "Rove." Who wants a treasonous dog?

[brettdale]

16. Who and When?

Any idea who and when this will go down?

[Stephanie]

18. sounds like Rove

I think it will be after the grand jury term ends, which is when?

[lancdem]

34. October

I'm not sure Fitzgerald will wait that long.

[wallwriter]

41. Waiting for football season is hard enough...

[XemaSab]

20. Treason during war time?

I think they should take him into the high stone walls of the pentagon and shoot him.

[Jack Rabbit]

47. Now, now, now, this is America (as much as these creeps would change it)

EDITED for typing

We don't just stand him up against wall.

We do this in the west Texas tradition of Judge Roy Bean.

We give him a fair trial. Then we hang him.

[XemaSab]

49. Where are you going to get 12 peers for rove?

He's one of a kind...

[Jack Rabbit]

50. I think you can find a dozen Rove peers in a pit of rattlesnakes.

Don't you agree?

[XemaSab]

52. I may reconsider the idea of shooting him

I think just letting him have some time alone with his "peers" may suffice.

[tandem5]

26. link to audio clip...

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/political_wrap/

on edit: starts at time index ~6:35

[Stephanie]

57. thanks!

:hi:

[Skinner]

81. Thanks for the link.

I'm having difficulty picking out some of the words. Anyone want to double-check my transcription?

SHIELDS: The problem is this for the White House, as I see it. That there's going to be indictment, purgery or discharge probably, that my reporting tells me. But what they face is that they're going to reveal the underside of the Bush White House.

(Discussion starts around 6:35. Shields quote starts around 9:00.)

I can't tell if Shields says "there's going to be indictment" or "there's going to be indictments" or "there's going to be an indictment."

I can't tell if Shields says "discharge publicly" or "discharge probably."

[tandem5]

88. the way I hear it...

"there's going to be an indictment."

and

"discharge probably."

[Cush]

89. think he says "This charge"

[tandem5]

91. yeah you're right nt

[Stephanie]

92. "perjury, or THIS charge"

by which he means what they have been discussing, Rove either knowingly leaked the name of a covert agent, or he leaked it but knowing she was covert

[smoogatz]

27. What brought Nixon down

was the coverup--not the Watergate break-in, not the secret war in Cambodia, not the enemies list or any of the rest of it. Not the crimes themselves, but covering up the crimes--which is obstruction of justice and itself a crime.

[librechik]

31. IMPEACH BOOTSY!!!

:nuke:

[Chichiri]

32. Just to clarify . . .

there will be an indictment for KARL ROVE?

Because that was left a bit vague -- are they indicting my Aunt Joanie? Joe Schmoe from Texaco? Bush himself? (we should be so lucky)

It's Rove, right?


:woohoo:

[Stephanie]

58. They were discussing Rove and the entire case

and then Shields said he expected an indictment. He did not say I expect Rove to be indicted - but that would be my best guess as to who he meant.

[snippy]

36. By all rights there should be several indictments on a variety of counts.

Such as:

1. Conspiracy to lie to Congress about the justification for invading Iraq.

2. Lying to Congress about the justification for invading Iraq.

3. Conspiracy to illegally reveal Plame's identity and status.

4. Illegally revealing Plame's identity and status.

5. Conspiracy to obstruct justice in the investigation of the revelation of Plame's identity and status.

6. Obstruction of justice in the investigation of the revelation of Plame's identity and status.

7. Perjury.

I think every member of the WHIG and several staffers of such members probably committed one or more of these crimes. For more about the WHIG's probable involvement in criminal activity, see this post. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=142863&mesg_id=142952

[bunny planet]

44. Brilliant sig pic Snippy. Perfect.

[im10ashus]

59. LMAO!

It's as plain as the nose on his face.

:rofl:

NOw all we need is Jiminy Cricket telling us "it's all gonna be okay."

[Quakerfriend]

37. I have heard rumors that someone important (other than Rove )

was going to be brought down, as well.

This blogger, who purports to have inside info., says that BOLTON is this second person.

[lancdem]

39. Do you have a link to this blog?

[wallwriter]

42. Bolton makes more and more sense

I read a quote somewhere that says he is Cheney's guy. And Bolton was doing a bunch of outside-the-job-description investigation into classified personnel files. That is the activity that has gotten his nomination in trouble. That is the info they won't hand over to the Senate that puts him at risk of the filibuster. Who was he looking into? If they let the Senate find out it was Plame, the shit would hit the fan. It may still.

[FreedomAngel82]

54. I think it's Bolton too

Why else won't the White House release those documents on him?? What are they hiding? I think Cheney could have something to do with it too. I think this whole thing will be very interesting play out. It reminds me of when people in the astrology group predicited that a blonde woman will bring down Bush and Plame/Wilson has blonde hair. Is she an orginial blonde though? :shrug:

[Independent_Liberal]

46. It seems we're getting closer and closer to impeachment...

...with each passing day.

[primavera]

61. Sounds like wishful thinking to me

Karl Rove could hack a child to pieces in front of a thousand witnesses and the Repukes would still make sure he never got so much as a slap on the wrist for it. Justice is dead in this country.

[im10ashus]

69. Okay Picasso!

THAT picture is complete.

:-)

[followthemoney]

65. Brooks stated for the record that he knows nothing...

But I already knew that about him in a more general sense.

[Stephanie]

66. so true

he has a recent book out to prove it

[brettdale]

72. When will this go down

When will this go down?

[tandem5]

90. Wednesday, July 13th at 3:23 PM EST

This is what *my* sources tell me... of course my sources are actually three snoopy pez dispensers I talk to every night just before bed.

[Lannes]

79. This is a good article from last september

Hope he is prophetic!

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2004/0409.drum.html


September 2004

The Scandals Finally Break

By Kevin Drum

What do we have to look forward to if George W. Bush is elected to a second term? One word: scandal.

Don't believe me? Consider the highlight reel of reelected presidents over the past 50 years. Ike won a second term and watched in dismay as his chief of staff was forced to resign over a vicuña coat. Richard Nixon buried George McGovern in 1972 and then resigned a year and a half later when Watergate finally caught up to him. Ronald Reagan sweated out his second term wondering if he'd be impeached over Iran-Contra. Bill Clinton didn't have to wonder: Two years after his reelection, he was defending himself in the first impeachment trial in over a century.

Coincidence? Don't believe it. There are three good reasons to think that second terms naturally lend themselves to scandal, and George Bush is almost preternaturally vulnerable to every one of them. Let's count them off.

First, power corrupts. It's a truism that as leaders become used to the idea that no one can really hold them to account, they increasingly push the envelope of acceptable behavior and eventually push too far. Not just in America, but in practically every democracy, this inevitably leads to abuses of power that eventually turn into scandals both small and large.

George Bush is more susceptible than most to this dynamic. Partly this is because his party controls Congress, so he has no real political oversight to keep him honest. But it's also because both Bush and the current Republican Party leadership have already demonstrated a ruthlessness and disregard for traditional political norms unseen since Nixon was jotting down his enemies list: holding open votes while they bully recalcitrant colleagues, ramming through midterm redistricting, suspending the Freedom of Information Act in all but theory, and cavalierly hiding routine budget data from Congress--all combined with a general mania for secrecy that leaves even John Dean in awe. It's a dangerous and intoxicating brew, and George Bush has demonstrated the combination of ruthlessness, siege mentality, and religious faith in his own righteousness that makes it almost inevitable that he will take a step too far.

Second, there's the problem that second terms are, well, second terms. It takes more than two or three years for a serious scandal to unfold, and problems that start to surface midway through a president's first term usually reach critical mass midway through his second term, a phenomenon that shrewd political observer Kevin Phillips calls "the sixth-year itch." It's like a political SAT: What's the next year in the series 1958, 1974, 1986, 1998?

You don't have to be a math whiz to know that 2006 is the next stop. And once again, George Bush is especially vulnerable to this since his first term already has several good candidates for scandals waiting to flower. Take your pick: Valerie Plame? The National Guard? Abu Ghraib? Intelligence failures? Or maybe something that hasn't really crossed anybody's radar screen yet, sort of like the "third-rate burglary" at the Watergate Hotel that no one took seriously in 1972.

Third, there's the fact that scandals tend to take center stage during second terms because there's nothing to draw attention away from them. In 2000, for example, Bush ran on a platform of education reform, Medicare prescription benefits, and tax cuts--9/11 added the Iraq war as a fourth signature issue. But what's left for a second term? Education and Medicare are done deals, even most Republicans understand that tax cutting has gone as far as it can, and no one expects Bush to start another war.

This leaves a dangerous void, and so far Bush has done nothing to fill it, campaigning almost entirely on his record in the war on terror. He will surely toss out a few new issues during and after the Republican convention, but it's obvious his heart isn't really in them. What's more, it also isn't clear if any of his likely pet projects--Social Security privatization or tort reform, for example--can generate much congressional enthusiasm.

If Osama bin Laden detonates a suitcase nuke in Los Angeles, all bets are off, of course. That aside, the most likely course is a continuing low-level insurgency in Iraq, a mediocre economy, and a halfhearted second-term agenda from the White House. If you combine that with a thin legislative majority, an outraged Democratic Party, and a public increasingly leery of Bush's Texas-style conservatism, what you get--aside from a few rancorous battles over Supreme Court nominations--is a presidency adrift.

It's the perfect breeding ground for a major scandal, and George Bush is exactly the right guy, with exactly the right personality, to step right into it.

Kevin Drum is a Washington Monthly contributing writer and the blogger of the magazine, Political Animal, at www.washingtonmonthly.com.

[im10ashus]

96. That's great.

I remember reading that too. Let's hope it IS prophetic.

[FourStarDemocrat]

84. I've got a Question for the legal experts out there...

If Rove (or others)are indicted and stand trial, can Judith Miller be subpoenaed to be a government witness, or can she still refuse and remain in contempt of court?

spelling edit

[savemefromdumbya]

94. SO, what if the President and VP had a hand in it?

If the President and VP had a hand in the leak - where do they stand? If the executive branch commits a crime?

[LaPera]

95. What a joke! Helplessly hoping...Dems as usual.