What if Bush KNOWS he's going to be indicted over the Plame leak...

[FormerRepublican]

Wouldn't he then pressure O'Connor to step down and appoint his 2000 election theft buddy to the Supreme Court? Since the Supreme Court will preside over a trial and the Senate will be the jury, if Bush knew he were going to be indicted, he would pack the SC with his cronies (because he knows the Senate is already his). Which he has done.

It may be Bush's intention to engineer the 'trial' so that he gets indicted, goes to 'trial', gets off through an engineered trial and still stays in office.

The horrifying scenario of my nightmares - BushCo is proven guilty, but refuses to leave office. Lord knows they don't care what the public thinks and are more than happy to screw us over.

What, if any, options would we have in that case?

Roberts is a partisan hack. Any guesses as to whether the law would take a back seat to politics in his rulings from the SC bench?

[rsdsharp]

1. The Supreme Court doesn't preside at the trial.

Only the Chief Justice does. For your theory to work, Bush would have pushed out Reinquist, who is holding tight despite cancer.

[FormerRepublican]

7. Perhaps that's the reason WHY Rehnquist is refusing to leave?

If you recall, BushCo drones have been speculating exactly that for the past two months.

Perhaps the plan was to have both O'Connor and Rehnquist resign, but Rehnquist has so far refused and is mucking up the plan. Remember all the rumors about him resigning, but then he came out and said no way even after he'd been hospitalized? Recall that they've been speculating ad naseum about who BushCo would appoint to the Chief Justice slot. Perhaps they were afraid it would be O'Connor, and that's why she was pressured to resign in addition.

IMO, they're up to something.

The only question is - are the BushCo drones in the Senate THAT messed up in the head? Would they attempt to get Bush off if he were indicted? From what I've seen thus far, I think the Senate 'pukes are so crazy in the head that they would aid and abet Bush in committing treason to support the party.

[aquart]

10. Preside over TWO impeachments?

Wouldn't that be a record?

[rsdsharp]

15. I don't understand what you are saying.

The plan was for Renquist and O'Connor to both retire so that (a) Bush could name the (bat shit far right) Chief Justice who would preside at his impeachment trial, and (b) to ensure that successor wouldn't be O'Connor? Hey, if you don't want O'Connor to be chief, don't nominate her. It's that simple. Even if the first part of the plan is true, Renquist isn't going along. Regardless of who presides, I don't think, Constitutionally, he (or she) can direct a verdict from the Senate, so absent a ruling that incriminating evidence can't be introduced, the presiding Judge would have very little impact on the impeachment trial.

[FormerRepublican]

17. I think it would also be about managing public perception.

There might be public outcry for O'Connor to be named Chief - seems I recall some rumors like that when the assumption was that Rehnquist would retire and the SC Bush would be nominating would replace him. That could be nixed by getting her to resign. In addition, any cronies whose conviction were appealed to the SC could get a walk with the right make up of the court.

WRT who's chief, I think the idea would be more along the lines of knowing that every base was covered. 'Pukes firmly in place in the Senate to come up with the right verdict, and right chief justice in place to guide the trial in the right direction to shape public perception.

A judge actually has a lot of leeway in allowing or not allowing certain testimony. Perhaps they need to have the right info included, and the right info excluded, in order to make the fixed trial look somewhat legitimate.

[Ready4Change]

9. Could/would it be appealed to the Supremes? n/t

[On the Road]

2. If Bush is Indicted and Convicted

I agree there's a good chance he'll stay in office (actually hadn't thought that far ahead). That's bad, but not horrifying -- he'll be extremely weakened in that condition. And there would be no replacement to run as an incumbent in 2008.

[warrens]

4. If he's indicted and convicted

He WILL be impeached and convicted. Treason is, you know, one of the highest crimes and misdemeanors there is. And any Rethug who protected him would be slaughtered in the next election.

[merbex]

18. Frankly, I can't imagine any HIGHER crime than treason for a

Chief Executive of a nation

What is worse than committing treason against the country you have sworn to uphold agianst all enemies?

[stevietheman]

8. Removal by military force would be an option at that point

It certainly would be sad if we got to a point in this country if we had to call for a coup to restore the Constitution, but somehow I think Bush will push us to that point.

[FormerRepublican]

11. Yes...

...but who's going to get them to do it?

BushCo controls every branch of government. Who is left to order the military to Washington to eject BushCo from power? Would the military - given conflicting orders - do the right thing?

To be honest, I think we're headed toward a MAJOR Constitutional Crisis. The only real option left would be public outrage sufficient to march on Washington and removal of BushCo by the populace. In that instance, would the military protect BushCo or join citizens in removing him? What would the Secret Service do?

With all the "I'm so innocent" propaganda out there, and 'puke tendencies to follow BushCo blindly, we could be in for a major hurt in our near future.

There is no doubt in my mind whatsoever that BushCo would never willingly leave office regardless of the evidence presented against them.

(Edited to correct my typos)
And if the 'pukes in office think they have elections jury-rigged, why would they fear re-election enough to do the right thing?

[Old and In the Way]

3. Wouldn't Roberts have to recuse himself?

Who knows if Bush has gotten a "quid pro quo" from the nominee to cover him? Given his obvious partisanship in the 2000 electrions and the fact that he is Bush's nominee....I'd hope that we could expect him to stay on the sidelines if Bush is indicted.

I wonder if any Democrat would address this hypothetical when they hold his nomination hearing?

[RDANGELO]

5. If Shrub is convicted,

the Republicans will impeach him to salvage any future for the party.

[skids]

6. Hrm... just some half-serious tinfoil.

If the CJ presides over the trial, then maybe Rhequist's "fever" episode wasn't an accident. In that case, he'd be pretty one pretty PO'd CJ.

[skip fox]

12. Cheney seems more likely. In either case, rule one is minimize

political damage. (The other will always be pardoned.) So . . . the rules: stretch out the disclosure as long as possible, resign on a Friday afternoon prior to Fitzgerald's reports/indictments, never say a word about it except to lawyers if you can help it.

[FormerRepublican]

13. I think the problem is these guys think they are above the law.

And I think they think they ARE the party. Thus, whatever is good for them is automatically good for the party.

I just can't see these guys resigning for any reason, and in today's political environment, I can't see the 'pukes abandoning them in the midst of their crime, either.

I just have a bad feeling about how this could play out.

And why was there another London bombing today, when Rove hit the front page of the Washington Post? Was it coincidence, or another attempt to deflect attention from Rove?

OK, I'm a bit paranoid, but these jokers have me feeling that way. I almost start to feel as if I'm living the Pelican Brief in real life. Where's Greg Grantham when you need him?

[hang a left]

14. I would think that the appointment of Gonzales as AG...

would have more impact on the investigation and indictments than the CJ. But what do I know.

And to top it off, I am tired of waiting. I have been waiting 2 long years. Fitzgerald says he knows who the leakers are. All he has been waiting for is Cooper and Miller. Cooper has testified, Miller NEVER will, especially if she is covering for Cheney or Bush. It won't happen. If he doesn't have the criminals where he wants them by now, he never will. I say get the hell on with it.

[truebrit71]

16. Agreed......Unless.....

..as someone else suggested Mr. Fitzgerald is hunting big game....REALLY big game....