Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

"First time in 135 years that a senior WH official is indicted."

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
Bouncy Ball Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-28-05 12:15 PM
Original message
"First time in 135 years that a senior WH official is indicted."
Edited on Fri Oct-28-05 12:27 PM by Bouncy Ball
"This is going to go on and on. This is going to consume the REST of the bush presidency."

One of the commentators on CNN just said that.

Anyone who is disappointed by this is either a bush supporter or is not really comprehending the entire scope of this and what it means and will mean for the bush administration and today's republican party.

Edited to add quotes around thread title, because this is a quote from NBC and CNN.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
nickinSTL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-28-05 12:16 PM
Response to Original message
1. wow, really?
first time in 135 years?

I knew this was big, but... :wow:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ticapnews Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-28-05 12:17 PM
Response to Reply #1
4. It was under US Grant
The aide was indicted, did not resign, was acquitted, then resigned. According to Michael Beschloss.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SupplyConcerns Donating Member (305 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-28-05 06:41 PM
Response to Reply #4
51. I was named after Grant. We can do better this time.
Granted, he wasn't anywhere near as bad as the current administration. I want the names "Bush" and "Cheney" to be disgraced and stigmatized so badly that no one would consider naming their children after them. One doesn't see too many kids named Adolf Mussolini Smith these days, right?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kolesar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-28-05 12:16 PM
Response to Original message
2. Was Libby a higher official than any of the Reagan admin. criminals? eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bouncy Ball Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-28-05 12:18 PM
Response to Reply #2
5. He must have been.
Were there indictments against any senior official in the raygun administration?

I know Poindexter resigned, didn't he?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
VolcanoJen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-28-05 12:18 PM
Response to Reply #2
10. Wasn't Cap Weinberger the Secretary of Defense???
Edited on Fri Oct-28-05 12:21 PM by VolcanoJen
That's a Senior Offical, isn't it?

ETA: I guess Cabinet Members don't count as Senior White House officials, since they're cabinet members? I dunno.

But Cap was definitely indicted (and pardoned) for Iran/Contra. In fact, I think he was pardoned before his conviction, and before the trial began.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bouncy Ball Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-28-05 12:22 PM
Response to Reply #10
15. From Wikipedia, on the Iran-Contra scandal:
Oliver North and John Poindexter were indicted on multiple charges on March 16, 1988. North, indicted on nine counts, was initially convicted of three minor counts, although the conviction was later vacated upon appeal on the grounds that North's Fifth Amendment rights may have been violated. The violation was said to be the indirect use of his testimony to Congress which had been given under a grant of immunity. Poindexter was convicted on several felony counts of lying to Congress, obstruction of justice, conspiracy, and altering and destroying documents pertinent to the investigation. His convictions were also overturned on appeal on similar grounds as North's. The Independent Counsel chose not to re-try North or Poindexter.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-28-05 12:26 PM
Response to Reply #10
19. Very technically bechloos is right
Cabinet members are NOt white House officials, these guys are INSIDE the WH... so technically this is the first senior WH official.

:toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
July Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-29-05 06:51 AM
Response to Reply #10
57. I heard some news guy describe Libby's THREE jobs:
Chief of staff to Cheney.

Cheney's national security guy (sorry, I don't know the title).

Assistant to the President.

My guess is that the last of these puts him higher than anyone in Iran/Contra. Just a guess, though.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lancdem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-28-05 12:18 PM
Response to Reply #2
11. And what about Haldeman, etc. during Watergate?
I'm not complaining, of course, but that 135-year statement surprises me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Elidor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-28-05 12:24 PM
Response to Reply #11
16. Yeah, that statement can't be right
Haldeman, Erlichman, Dean, etc.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bouncy Ball Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-28-05 12:26 PM
Response to Reply #16
20. I don't know.
I'm hitting Wikipedia articles. What was said on CNN and NBC was that "this is the first time in 135 years that a *senior* White House official has been indicted."

Maybe it's the third time in 30 years? LOL! Always republicans!!!!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Elidor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-28-05 12:30 PM
Response to Reply #20
26. Haldeman was Chief of Staff. That's as senior as it gets without being
An elective office.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DelawareValleyDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-28-05 12:47 PM
Response to Reply #16
36. All three were long gone before indictment
Edited on Fri Oct-28-05 12:48 PM by DelawareValleyDem
All three were out of the Administration by the end of April 1973

edit: May to April
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Velveteen Ocelot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-28-05 10:33 PM
Response to Reply #16
54. I think they were indicted after Nixon fired them.
So technically they were only former White House officials at the time of their indictment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rox63 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-28-05 12:17 PM
Response to Original message
3. Wasn't Agnew indicted in office?
Or had he resigned by then?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Coexist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-28-05 12:18 PM
Response to Original message
6. Begala has certainly grown a set since his days at the awful
shouting-match program.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
onenote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-28-05 12:18 PM
Response to Original message
7. wasn't Agnew indicted?
How are we defining "senior White House official"? And weren't some of Nixon's men indicted?

onenote
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
progressoid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-28-05 01:28 PM
Response to Reply #7
42. No, I think he resigned first
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SaintLouisBlues Donating Member (755 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-28-05 12:18 PM
Response to Original message
8. Not since the U.S. Grant Administration, as per NBC
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
janx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-28-05 12:18 PM
Response to Original message
9. Yep. And the implications are immense.
It's very clear that he was covering for Cheney. No one has come out and said it directly, but the implication is clearly there in the MSM.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bouncy Ball Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-28-05 12:19 PM
Response to Reply #9
13. Yep, yep, yep.
Wolfie just said something about a "shadow across the bush administration."

Wolfie is kinda stupid, but didn't he used to be a much more obvious shill for the bushites?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EVDebs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-28-05 03:37 PM
Response to Reply #13
44. Didn't he mean a 'cancer on the Presidency' like John Dean said ?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
walldude Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-28-05 03:44 PM
Response to Reply #13
45. Yes he was.. but if they now don't at least elude to the truth
then they can kiss their jobs goodby. The commentators can say what they want but these "journalists" are all looking at Miller and realizing that BushCo is not all powerful and if they go down all the people who lied for them and pushed their propaganda are going down with them... :woohoo:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beltanefauve Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-28-05 10:26 PM
Response to Reply #13
52. I wonder just how much Wolfie knows
and I wonder if his being sent in to preside over the World Bank was, in effect, being "kicked upstairs", and out of the way...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Catherine Vincent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-28-05 12:18 PM
Response to Original message
12. Gawd I hope so!
:cheers:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClayZ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-28-05 12:21 PM
Response to Original message
14. Bang the bells 5 times loudly!
:woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sepia_steel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-28-05 12:25 PM
Response to Original message
17. Yeah baby! nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Amonester Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-28-05 12:26 PM
Response to Original message
18. Ding. Ding. Ding. ;-)
Anyone who is disappointed by this is either a bush supporter or is not really comprehending the entire scope of this and what it means and will mean for the bush administration and today's republican party.

:bounce: :bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Democrats_win Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-28-05 12:27 PM
Response to Original message
21. Maybe NBC was wrong? Watergate indictments:
On March 1, 1974, a grand jury had indicted seven former White House aides — Haldeman, Ehrlichman, Mitchell, leading aid Charles Colson, Gordon C. Strachan, Robert Mardian, and Kenneth Parkinson — for obstructing the Watergate investigation. Nixon had been named an unindicted co-conspirator,

http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1791.html

(The seven "plumbers" i.e. Liddy, had already been indicted but were not really WH people)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bouncy Ball Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-28-05 12:27 PM
Response to Reply #21
23. I heard it mentioned that Rove and Cheney might be
"unindicted co-conspirators."

It felt really sweet to hear that.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SeattleVet Donating Member (708 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-28-05 12:40 PM
Response to Reply #21
33. Had they already resigned before the indictments came out?
"...seven former White House aides...".

Scooter didn't resign until after he actually got indicted. Maybe that's the distinction. Libby still held the position when the indictment was handed down. I don't remember if the Nixon gang had all resigned in anticipation of being indicted.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Democrats_win Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-28-05 12:46 PM
Response to Reply #33
35. That's right, they resigned before indictements: resigned 8/73
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SeattleVet Donating Member (708 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-28-05 12:49 PM
Response to Reply #35
38. Just checked - looks like they either resigned or got fired
before the indictments came down. Nixon fired a few quite a while before. The current crowd is too busy "bringing honor back to the White House" to resign before they go down.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClintonTyree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-28-05 05:29 PM
Response to Reply #21
46. Key word there..."former" White House aides.
They were already gone by the time they were officially indicted.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wryter2000 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-28-05 12:27 PM
Response to Original message
22. I agree
With the first report this morning that made it sound like one charge of making false statements against Libby only, it did sound like not much was going to happen. Seeing as the indictment is much more serious and Rove will have to turn to escape indictment himself, this is turning out very well.

Plus, as that paragon of truth, Ann Coulter, points out, a continuing investigation keeps them from putting it behind them and "moving on." I'd rather have all of them going to prison right now, but this is very, very good.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bouncy Ball Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-28-05 12:30 PM
Response to Reply #22
25. Don't make me start agreeing with that ass Coulter.
But yeah, this is going to go on and on and on and on and on. It's going to overshadow the REST of the bush administration.

This is JUST the beginning. That's the very bad news for repukes.

And just think: mid-term elections in one year.

Hmmmm. :wheeee:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PurpleChez Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-29-05 06:35 AM
Response to Reply #25
55. This one set of indictments makes it even more difficult...
...for the rethugs to maintain their godly, moral bullshit

...for * and his accomplices to avoid being consigned to the turd pile of history

...for the ribbon magnet and W sticker crowd to continue plaguing the rest of us with their delusions about Chimpy being the Greatest World Leader EVER

...for congressional rethugs and cowardly dems to acquiesce to whatever raft of shit * floats their way for fear of angering bushco's Brown Shirt Revenge Gestapo
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bouncy Ball Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-28-05 12:29 PM
Response to Original message
24. I want to emphasize was someone said upthread.
Indictments of cabinet members and indictments of senior White House officials are different. Libby was a senior White House official until today.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bridget Burke Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-28-05 12:33 PM
Response to Reply #24
30. We need some detailed research on various indicted higher-ups...
Break it down by White House Officials versus Cabinet Members.

Next, break it down by Republicans versus Democrats....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bouncy Ball Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-28-05 12:35 PM
Response to Reply #30
32. I think any lurking freepers would be very disappointed to see
how many repukes would be on that list.

Or maybe they wouldn't be surprised at all.

LOL!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClintonTyree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-28-05 05:37 PM
Response to Reply #32
47. Yes, but they were all "patriots"....
committing crimes for the good of all Americans. :eyes: Shit, the freeps would drag their balls over 50 miles of broken glass just to eat the peanuts out of Ollie North's or Gordon Liddy's shit. They worship criminals, but by their twisted logic these guys are "true patriots". :silly: Don't ask me to explain it, I have no idea what goes on in the freeper mind, not do I ever want to. :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PurpleChez Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-29-05 06:43 AM
Response to Reply #47
56. Damn!!!!
Three minutes ago I stopped myself from saying something about * being corn shit on the turd pile of history. Thought it was too over the top. I will never self-censor again!! Bless you, ClintonTyree! And damn the Rethugs!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ian_rd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-28-05 12:31 PM
Response to Original message
27. Forgive us for being disappointed, but the reason is ...
...at least for me, that Rove again and again and again has won no matter what, and we're afraid that he will escape from this legal trouble wihtout facing what he's done.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bouncy Ball Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-28-05 12:32 PM
Response to Reply #27
28. Why be afraid?
Do you think Libby isn't going to squeal like a pig?

These guys have no moral fortitude. He'll talk. He'll do whatever it takes to negotiate.

How exactly has Rove won here? LOL!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skidmore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-28-05 12:32 PM
Response to Original message
29. The Administration of Accountability has sure covered itself in....
..er....glory, hasn't it? Slam that one home again and again!! How does this square with the values of "God's Party"?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bouncy Ball Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-28-05 12:34 PM
Response to Reply #29
31. I love the fact that I've heard several people on TV mention
that they campaigned on the basis of bringing honor and dignity back to the White House.

I laughed when I heard it back then. But of course now more people can see how much of a lie that really was.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KansDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-28-05 12:52 PM
Response to Reply #31
39. I remember when Bush appeared on the Tonight show...
(or was it David Letterman?), during Campaign2000, he was asked by Jay/David that, if elected, what would be the first thing he would do when I arrived at the White House? He answered "give the Oval Office a good cleaning" (in reference to Bill Clinton). This was followed by audience guffaws and chuckles, but I grew more loathsome of George W. Bush with that remark. Now it appears the entire country will need a "good cleaning" after these punks are kicked out!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
uppityperson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-28-05 12:43 PM
Response to Original message
34. I'm still laughing. Consume them, good.
consume them indeed. Imagining wtf is going on at the WH, though isn't mr.bush in Virginia? WH website has a speech of his from today in VA, they even put in the heckling from the audience.
"AUDIENCE MEMBER: Mr. President, war is terror.

AUDIENCE: Booo! "
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/10/20051028-1.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bouncy Ball Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-28-05 12:55 PM
Response to Reply #34
40. He took off early for Camp David, going to stay there all weekend.
Time for some rest for that "hard-workin'" pretzeldent.

:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lone_Star_Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-28-05 01:00 PM
Response to Reply #40
41. Time for a drink is more like it.
Or several. I bet they're putting the Camp David liquor distributors on speed dial right now. :rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClintonTyree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-28-05 05:42 PM
Response to Reply #41
48. You'll find him tomorrow morning........
at the bottom of a Jack Daniels bottle. Little Boots is going to crawl inside and hide, his problems are just starting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
prescole Donating Member (416 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-28-05 12:47 PM
Response to Original message
37. Midterm elections will be crucial
if Bush is to be impeached. Follow the yellow cake road.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stlsaxman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-28-05 06:34 PM
Response to Reply #37
50. "... follow the yellow cake road!" hahahahahah
most excellent! good one!

:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
elehhhhna Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-28-05 03:04 PM
Response to Original message
43. ...but NOT the last. LOL!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spanone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-28-05 06:06 PM
Response to Original message
49. Kick
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Guaranteed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-28-05 10:28 PM
Response to Original message
53. Oh...my GOD. Imagine if this is true.
This is unbelievable. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Apr 24th 2024, 04:37 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC