There WILL BE NO JUSTICE IN PLAMEGATE

[berni_mccoy]

Sorry, I've always been one of the exceedingly hopeful types.

But seeing what happened in the House today and after hashing the ideas around, I've come to the conclusion that...

NO ONE IS GOING TO PRISON FOR PLAMEGATE.

If Bush's cronies are indicted, Bush has absolute power to give out a BLANKET PARDON. It is his CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT. The only way Bush would not be able to pardon people is if the laws that were broken were state laws (and they were charged thusly) or if Bush was impeached first (which won't happen). Bush could pardon them for TREASON and they could still continue working in the Administration, unhindered (it's been hased out in this thread http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=4998678&mesg_id=4998678).

THE ONLY THING that will be accomplished by the PlameGate indictments is minor political damage that will be well healed by the 2006 elections.

Even IF this administration is proven to be 100% Guilty, there is nothing short of a revolt by the American people that would get them out of office. And I have my doubts that would happen,let alone be successful. Americans will continue to be ruled by an elite group of fascists. I am no longer optimistic about the outcome of any light of truth that is shown on the evil that these people do.

Sorry for the negativity. I just lost hope. Welcome to the FSA.

[tk2kewl]

1. i think if he issues pardons he will be the lamest of lame ducks

and it will ensure that the the pukes are swept out of congress in 06

[joemurphy]

5. Ford's pardon of Nixon probably cost him his election when he

ran against Carter. Bush would have zero credibility if he did that.

[Atman]

8. BUT THEY DON'T CARE! When will you realize that!

As long as Gallup and Diebold are on they're side, they can do anything they damned well please with impugnity.

[tk2kewl]

11. to a point

no one will accept stolen elections if the country is 70% against the pukes

[The Doctor.]

68. I should like to believe you are correct...

but given the choice between taking action and stting on a comfy couch bitching about how bad it is; Americans are far more 'prone' to the second choice.

[rocktivity]

20. DING DING DING! Tk2kewl, you're our grand prize winner!

...(I)f he issues pardons...it will ensure that the the pukes are swept out of congress in 06.

Operation Bush Brush, I'm calling it, and it's been kicked off by New Jersey gubernatorial candidate Jon Corzine. He's running a commercial which asks if his opponent Doug Forrester is "mainstream or extreme," followed by "He's George Bush's choice. Is he YOURS?"

He'll be the "lamest" of lame ducks? He'll be a friggin' QUADRAPLEGIC!

:headbang:
rocknation

[tk2kewl]

22. I've heard Corzine's ad on CBS 880 radio. I like it!

:thumbsup:

[annabanana]

66. I hope that Dems nationwide recognize a winning tack

when they see one..

Tie all the pubs tightly to bush (local, regional & national) and watch them sink!

[Kagemusha]

2. Then you know what this is really about?

A scarlet "C" for corruption stamped on these people for the entirety of US history. That would be a sorry consolation prize but, it would be a stain upon the entire conservative political machine of our time. That's not a small, insignificant thing. If there is going to be a revolt (an electoral one, I would hope), it may well be as a result of proof of corruption and justice denied to the nation.

[Marr]

12. Agreed. Assuming the charges are well-founded, there is *no*

way to wiggle out of this. Blanket pardons would be just as damning as blanket convictions. Maybe even worse- as it would be a condemnation of the entire conservative "machine", rather than just a collection of corrupt sycophants.

[YouthInAsia]

3. ALA Lyndon Johnson

[Benhurst]

4. The Republic [July 4, 1776--December 12, 2000 ] R.I.P.

I hope you are wrong, but fear you aren't.

[bryant69]

6. Well I hope you'll forgive me

if I decline to join you in the FSA. The truth is these stories are hurting the Bush Assministration. Miers is nobody I want on the Supreme Court, but there's a reason she's up for the nomination and more extremist candidates aren't.

Assuming the pressure continues to build, and I see no reason why it wouldn't, it will continue to hurt Bush and his goals.

I think you also discount the political harm Bush having to pardon Rove or Scooter would cause him. Sure he can do it, and probably will, but it will hurt them.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[mattclearing]

15. I challenge you to give me one reason other than

her donations 15 years ago why she is less extremist than the other possible nominees.

It simply isn't true...she is as batshit crazy as any of them.

[bryant69]

23. I guess it depends on where you stand

But do you really think President Bush was going to put up a person you like? Do you think that was ever on the table?

I'm not saying we should support her or any nonsense like that - but she has a more mixed record than some of the others Bush could have put up (and of course a much smaller one).

If the Bush Adminsitration were feeling as strong as it felt a year ago, they would have put up a more ideologically pure candidate, and said "fuck you" to the democrats. THe fact that they feel the need to put up a stealth candidate shows their weakness.

[mattclearing]

31. You didn't answer my question. n/t

[bryant69]

35. I respectfully refuse the opportunity to jump through this particular hoop

She may well be even more insane than other candidates like Priscilla Owens or Edith what's her name or other well known conservative lunitics. I have very little evidence one way or the other. I don't get the impression that she's as ideological as some other possible nomineeds but I could be wrong.

My point is this, since you apparently missed it. They could have put up a clear Conservative. Their base wanted them to put up a clear conservative (and, indirectly, let us Democrats know our place). The Bush Adminsitration chose not to; but instead opted for a stealth candidate. Why did they do that?

I suppose your theory is that she is crazier than any other candidate, and it was just an accident that she had no legal record and would appear as a stealth candidate. My theory is that they really did want a candidate who wouldn't set us off too much.

So is putting up a stealth candidate a sign of strength or of weakness?

[mattclearing]

42. I can agree to that.

Bush doesn't seem to want to pick a fight with this one. He wants it to go smoothly so as to avoid an all-out war.

I'm just saying that all indications are that she's as bad as anything we could imagine.

[DS1]

7. At this point I'd be happy if "PLAMEGATE" was the last scandal

EVER to have GATE slapped on the end of it :eyes:

[RDANGELO]

9. If he does

it will be a severe scar on his legacy and his party which will take a big hit for it. If there are several indictments, it is a lose, lose
situation for him and his party.

[Birthmark]

10. Pffffft!!!!

No pardons anytime soon. The Democrats have (finally!) found a catch-phrase, "Culture of Corruption." They are already running with it. If Bush pardons those responsible (before some jail time is served) then the catch-phrase is promoted to reality in the minds of the voters. Few will vote knowingly for the corrupt.

Of course, that assumes that there are indictments and convictions.

[Gidney N Cloyd]

30. Catch phrases don't work on repubs.

They just spin them around and use them on dems. No matter how little sense it makes.

[Birthmark]

52. We shall see.

Prior to Katrina, nothing worked on Bush, either. Now...40% approval.

Oh, the time they are a-changin'

[Atlanta Progressive]

13. A pardon of a convicted Rove...

would be the best thing that could happen to us.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

67. Exactly - a conviction of Rove is what matters

Let Bush pardon them all. Let him bring eternal dishonor down on himself and his legacy. If it were a mass murderer instead of a traitor, Bush could pardon him too. But it won't take away the stench of what happened. I hope it goes to trial and we get to see the testimony in its full amplitude. I hope it leaves an eternal mark on the United States that no pardon can remove.

[thinkingwoman]

14. What happened in the House today? nt

[yodermon]

16. BUT:

1) Can * preemptively pardon his cabal before a trial? (but AFTER indictments?)

2) Wouldn't it also require a monumental level of apathy/complicity on the part of the press to under-report this in such a way as to prevent massive, massive outrage, leading to a 2006 repuke bloodbath, ergo impeachment?

*'s numbers are in the 30's remember. And Dem's are polling ahead of repukes for '06.

[berni_mccoy]

19. Answer

1) Yes. He doesn't even need indictments to pardon.
2) The press has NOT been apathetic lately and while Bush's popularity has tumbled, I think the Admin/repubs in congress are saying "So What? What are you gonna do 'bout it? Indict us? Hahahaha."

[yodermon]

32. Well, depends on 2006.

If shrub* does a wholesale pardon, and we win majorities in 2006 as a result, then he & cheney can be impeached. You think they don't fear this? Maybe not. If shrub* pardons all, and Dems STILL don't gain majorities in 06, then *phew* hang it up, I'm done.

Before this happens, Cheney wld step down, McCain would be appointed VP, shrub* resigns, and *viola*, McCain runs as incumbent in 2008. If they DON'T do the McCain 2-step, then Pelosi(eg) gets elected Speaker and ends up as Pres, post-impeachment, by rules of succession.

The machine will try to stay in power, one way or the other. But hopefully it will damage itself irreparably in the process.

[berni_mccoy]

39. Won't happen

Read my post, #28 below.

[Zensea]

21. Yes,

Ford pardoned Nixon without Nixon having been indicted on any charges.

[newscott]

17. I think if Bush does that he either sinks his party for the next

20 years or is himself impeached by the Republicans who will do it to save the party.

The second part is highly unlikely, but I'm looking for any silver lining I can find.

[Mist]

18. Remember the CIA brought the original complaints--they won't take

everyone getting off scot-free too well.

[berni_mccoy]

26. The CIA has been cleaned out by Goss

And new marching orders given. They are a data mining operation for Bush.

[Mist]

27. Aren't there a lot of "resigned" agents who could make trouble?

When Goss was put in place, there were quite a few resignations.

[berni_mccoy]

29. How and what kind of trouble?

Really, anything worse than already has been uncovered?

Illegally dragging us to war
Using Mafia-style tactics to quiet dissent
Proven incompetent leadership

Greater administrations have fallen for much much less than already has been uncovered.

These guys should have already been ousted.

[tulsakatz]

24. even if he does pardon someone..........

......he has already clearly stated that anyone who had been convicted of a crime would be fired.

That sounds pretty clear to me but I'm sure Bush would find some reason to wiggle out of it.

I agree though, that if he does start pardoning people, that would damage him much more than he is now.

[berni_mccoy]

25. And pappy said "Read My Lips"

These guys aren't men of their words.

[berni_mccoy]

28. WHY DOES EVERYONE IN THIS THREAD THINK

That if Bush Pardons those involved that it will lead to a sweeping defeat of the republicans in 2006? That simply won't happen.

Ask yourself this: If you had a democratic rep in 2000, did you vote them out because of Clinton? No, and neither will any republican supporter of a republican congressmen.

Yes, there are other contributing factors, but the reality is there are only about 14 seats that are going to provide realistic opportunities in the House and the Dems are protecting more seats in the Senate than republicans.

[Straight Shooter]

47. Even at the height of impeachment hysteria, Clinton had strong approval.

bush is sinking like a stone. There's a big difference. The public perception of bush is increasingly negative. Clinton maintained his hold on public approval, despite the horrific tide of Congressional spitefulness.

Latest *cough* polls also show public approval for Dems higher than for Repubs. Not a strong margin, of course, but I believe the trend is upwardly positive for Dems.

[berni_mccoy]

49. Yeah, and repubs still gained seats in the next election

What's your point?

Pres popularity has no correlation to congressional election results.

[Straight Shooter]

53. My point is I'm not going to roll over and play dead.

I don't remember exactly what happened in the 2000 campaign, but I'm well aware that Gore distanced himself from Clinton. I think that strategy cost the Dems dearly. The perception of Gore's weakness filtered down to perception of weakness in Dems generally.

So, here we are, still fighting the perception of weakness.

Anyway, here's my point: We need to tie the Repubs to bush like an albatross around their frickin' necks. The perception of his corruption is the perception of the GOP corruption. I really think people are getting fed up.

[berni_mccoy]

54. Actually, I could argue that Gore won

He won popular vote and would have won the recount, but it was stopped by the Supreme Court.

So I don't see that being precedent that tying repubs to Bush will cause them to lose their seat.

[Straight Shooter]

57. If you argue that Gore won, you would be absolutely correct.

I'm saying, though, that he was harmed by distancing himself from Clinton, IMHO. The voting numbers were such that they could be manipulated. Had the gap been tremendously wider, then it's very possible that America, the world, and DU would probably be much happier places today.

Anyway, we're comparing apples to oranges. The political climate is different now. People just don't look at bush without thinking of the GOP. As someone told me years ago, "The bush family owns the Republican party."

They've been making their damn bed, they can lie in it. I remain cautiously optimistic.

[yodermon]

61. So tell me:

How will repubs distance themselves from thier president over the next year? It's already happening, but it will have to happen exponentially if bush* issues blanket pardons to his INDICTED administration. Are you saying that repubs up for re-election could continue to publicly support the shrub* and his POLICIES in such a scenario?? He'd be political kryptonite! "He pardons espionage, but I support his war on terra?" wtf? The 1st plank in their platform would have to be "I call for chimpy's resignation!"

Are you *that* cynical? or am I just that naive?

[longship]

33. Glass half-empty, eh?

Please get a hold of yourself and think for a minute.

Remember October 20, 1973? If you do not remember that date you need to look up "Saturday Night Massacre" in Google.

Here's the Wikipedia entry.

Any attempt by the executive branch to interfere with this investigation will result in a rather large crisis. This speaks to the core of Constitutional powers and the abuse of that power to obstruct justice. If you doubt that, consider what a noticably shaken John Chancellor said on live on NBC:

Good evening. The country tonight is in the midst of what may be the most serious Constitutional crisis in its history. The President has fired the special Watergate prosecutor, Archibald Cox. Because of the President's action, the attorney general has resigned. Elliott Richardson has quit, saying he cannot carry out Mr. Nixon's instructions. Richardson's deputy, William Ruckelshaus, has been fired.

Ruckelshaus refused, in a moment of Constitutional drama, to obey a presidential order to fire the special Watergate prosecutor. And half an hour after the special Watergate prosecutor had been fired, agents of the FBI, acting at the direction of the White House, sealed off the offices of the special prosecutor, the offices of the attorney general and the offices of the deputy attorney general.

All of this adds up to a totally unprecedented situation, a grave and profound crisis in which the President has set himself against his own attorney general and the Department of Justice.

Nothing like this has ever happened before.

More than 50,000 telegrams poured in on Capitol Hill today, so many, Western Union was swamped. Most of them demanded impeaching Mr. Nixon.

In my career as a correspondent, I never thought I'd be reporting these things.

A Presidential pardon will plunge the country into a Constitutional crisis. Nobody wants that. Nobody.

[berni_mccoy]

36. Different time, different reality

The House and Senate had a completely different political make up. Articles of Impeachment had been drafted up and were ready to be introduced in the House.

There is no way it would be considered 'a Crisis' today. By issuing pardons, the President would be executing the "Will" of the Congress. In Nixon's day, that wasn't the case.

[longship]

44. So we should just give up, eh?

No use in even fighting these guys? Just let them run ripshod all over the Constitution? Obstruct justice.? Violate any law they want?

It's all okay because we're in a different political reality now?

We have to take strong stances here.
Cite historic contexts.
Relentlessly hammer away at Congress, the press, our party, and anybody else who stands in the way.

Most importantly we have to set aside defeatism which has gotten us precisely nowhere for the past decades.

We're strong only when we stand together and take strong, principled stances. We cannot give up now. Our country needs us too desparately for us to cave-in now.

[berni_mccoy]

50. I'm not saying to give up... I'm saying...

don't get your hopes up that people are going to jail over PlameGate.

Despite EVERYTHING that has come to light about these criminals, they stay in power.

[longship]

60. Please understand what you are suggesting.

When you suggest that Rove/Cheney/Bush et al will walk because of a presidential pardon you are suggesting that the rule of law in the country has broken down to the point that a chief executive can willfully violate any law and not be held accountable.

Clearly the use of the pardon in this case is an impeachable abuse of power on top of which exposes the chief executive to obstruction of justice charges when removed from office. And that's on top of the original charges from which he was attempting to escape by invoking the pardon.

I know that I'm going on and on about this, but I recognize how gravely serious this would be and am wondering if you yourself have considered the consequences of such an action by Chimpy.

[freeplessinseattle]

69. The point is, the media reportd it as crisis, which

matters as far as affecting the voting public. if today's media is as forthright and appalled then we may very well see a change in voter's choices, regardless of impeachment. They already know that many people achieved their positions thru GOP cronyism, now they don't know who to trust anymore.

[Murdock]

37. With all due respect...

Watergate and the current investigation are vastly different situations.

Back then the Repubs didn't have Diebold to fall back upon, they didn't have the total control over the Federal Government, we had a simblance of balance.. And they damn sure didn't have their Pravda to spin things and shape public opinion.

Bush has *already* gotten away with far worse than the Saturday Night Massacre and there's nary a peep about it.

[longship]

45. Defeatist!

nt

[Missy Vixen]

58. He doesn't care

>A Presidential pardon will plunge the country into a Constitutional crisis. Nobody wants that. Nobody.<

Remember the Clinton impeachment, complete with drumbeats of "the flag is falling"? The press, to use a term, has been had. Those who've awoken after their long sleep are NOT happy. The Republicans are almost finished at this point; they can't absorb one more scandal.

This may be over sooner than we think. * doesn't like being told he's wrong. I'm wondering if he will resign.

IMHO,
Julie

[longship]

62. Please read my other posts in this topic.

Could you sit still while your country is turned into a lawless republic where the government can be totally unresponsible for obeying laws simply by the wave of a pen? A pardon at this point would mean precisely that. Impeachment should be fast and sure. That's "should". If it isn't we are truly lost.

[Missy Vixen]

63. No, I can't either

I read the thread before I responded. I'm sorry if my response was less than artful. :blush:

>Could you sit still while your country is turned into a lawless republic where the government can be totally unresponsible for obeying laws simply by the wave of a pen?<

No, I really couldn't. At the same time, I'm very afraid that we are there. I'm also afraid that the issues with voting ensure that we cannot vote our way out of this. I want impeachment as well, but if it's not even being discussed after the Katrina debacle, I'm not sure what would get those on the other side of the aisle to start discussing it.

Julie

[longship]

64. Not your art ;-)

It was people's suggestion that Chimp would use the pardon power to escape accountability for Rove/Plame that is worrisome. I want to make sure that everybody here understood the gravity of the matter.

I shudder at the casual way such suggestions are flung about on these forums. I get the feeling that people are so damned cynical that they have lost some of their ability for rational thought. So there are numerous "Bush'll get away with it" posts all over these forums.

Many of them claim:

1. That Bush Sr.'s pardon of Reagan's Iran-amok people is the same situation as Chimpy's pardoning his own people.

2. That somehow Chimpy could walk away scott-free using such a pardon.

They ignore historic and legal reasons why such a thing would not happen. They ignore the utterly deep shit that this country would be in if it *did* occur. It's just casually placed into a forum seemingly without thought about the context or the consequences. Hell, I've had people actually argue like it's something that will just happen and nobody will do anything about it. Like shoplifting a candy bar or something.

Everybody needs to understand that a presidential pardon in the Rove/Plame affair would mean the end of the rule of law in this republic. There would likely be a very, very serious and very grave responses to such an event. It is nothing to be wished for.

[Walt Starr]

34. WOW, somebody gets their wheaties pooped in

and then they have to come here to try and poop in everybody else's wheaties.

:eyes:

[berni_mccoy]

38. Believe me Walt, I've looked for an optimistic answer

There just aren't any wheaties to poop in.

[Walt Starr]

43. If I felt that way, I'd just slit my throat and get it over with. n/t

[spinbaby]

40. I get very pessimistic with this crew

I half expect that arms will be twisted and the grand jury will declare that there's nothing to this, thus "proving" that Republicans are being hounded by vindictive Democrats and rogue prosecutors.

I gave up optimism in the last election.

[Murdock]

41. The problem is..

That most of the people still believe we live in a Democratic Republic.. That is no longer the case, we are now living in a Theocratic Fascist Dictatorship and in dictatorships there is blanket immunity for whatever the dictator wants to do.

[Darkhawk32]

46. Does anybody actually think that after 2 years (2 friggin' years).....

that a person like Patrick Fitzgerald is going to say...

"Nah, nothing here. Move along folks!"

I don't think so.

There WILL be indictments!

[berni_mccoy]

48. Yeah, I believe there will be indictments.

So what. Bush will just hand out pardons.

[Darkhawk32]

59. Let him. Great '06 campaign material. n/t

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

51. What's to stop an international body indicting Bush &CO for war crimes?

There will be justice. The American people have not totally become the nation of pod people.

[berni_mccoy]

55. What's it take to GET them to do that?

That's a more important question.

There have been many worse things happen in other countries... and the international community did nothing. Why will they step in here?

[Road Scholar]

56. I think the only resolution will be a modern revolution. nt

[Independent_Liberal]

65. Defeatist attitude like this is the reason WHY we keep losing.

We have these people running scared right now. We CANNOT let up. We must fight them at every turn. Sitting around worrying about what might not happen won't do any good. It's too bad so many people around here have that attitude. We have to make these people squirm every chance we get. We won't win on everything we do, but we can't back down. That's the biggest mistake in my opinion. Just because they've gotten away with so much in the past doesn't mean they'll get away with everything all the time. If we act now, we can prevent them from getting away with more in the future.

Please keep fighting and never give up.

[mmonk]

70. I think having the American people know

will help. The wild card is the useless American media.