Could bush fire Fitz before he drops the bomb?

[Check12]

From Ray McGovern on Buzzflah

Fire the Special Prosecutor? Shades of Watergate

When the Watergate scandal reached a similar stage in October 1973, President Richard Nixon, ordered Attorney General Elliot Richardson to fire the intrepid special prosecutor Archibald Cox. Richardson resigned rather than carry out Nixon's order; and so did his deputy William Ruckleshaus. So Nixon had to reach farther down into the Justice department where he found Robert Bork, who promptly dismissed Cox in the so-called Saturday Night Massacre.

Fitzgerald is at least as vulnerable as Cox was. Indeed, in recent days some of the fourth estate, Richard Cohen in the Washington Post and John Tierney in The New York Times, for example, seem to have accepted assignments to help lay the groundwork for Fitzgerald's dismissal.

Will the White House decide to fire special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, and simply absorb the PR black eye, as Nixon did? There is absolutely nothing to prevent it. Can you imagine Attorney General Alberto Gonzales refusing on principle an order from President Bush?

Could Bush himself be named an un-indicted co-conspirator? If that or something like it happens, we can expect a circling of the wagons and Fitzgerald cashiered.

If the case Fitzgerald has built, however, is not strong enough to implicate Bush personally, it seems likely that the president will acquiesce in wholesale frog marching of others from the White House and then go off for a Thanksgiving vacation in Crawford -- opps, more likely, Camp David. For Cindy Sheehan is planning Thanksgiving in Crawford: she still hopes to see the president so that he can explain to her personally what the "noble cause" was for which her son died.

http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/05/10/con05387.html

[kurth]

1. Hell - why not?

Worked wonders for Nixon.

[Dogmudgeon]

2. Sure.

But it would be like admitting even more guilt than Fitzgerald has evidence for.

Archibald Cox' dismissal was the "last straw", after which Nixon's fate had been sealed.

But there won't be frog marches. They're reseved for unpopular people, those who have fallen out of favor with the Powers Who Be, people who are being made examples of, and people with too much melanin in their skin cells.

--p!

[FreedomAngel82]

4. I'm sure he could but I think

it would look bad to the press and ask too many question's on why he's firing the prosecutor etc.

[Dogmudgeon]

14. Look bad? At least!

When Cox and Co. were fired en masse, everybody knew that Tricky Dick was a cooked goose. It was like telling the world "I'm guilty!".

Bush is hemmed in; Cheney is hanging on to the window sill from the outside for dear life as the fire begins to consume the window frame. Rove is probably looking at doing some time, as is half his staff.

I don't think Bush will do it. He's kept himself too clean with his demands for complete loyalty, and his dumber-than-a-carton-of-shit act. And while the victims are being fed to the blade, he won't lift a finger to do more than quite some bible passage or another.

Only Bush and Condi will squeak out unscathed; Bush as explained, and Condi because she's too quick-witted to get involved in any of the emotionalistic, ravanchiste crap that drives people like Rove and Cheney. But there could be a serious bloodbath over this, not just with prison time, but including divorces, mental breakdowns, and suicides.

Thus, the Bush Administration, for all intents and purposes, comes to an ignoble end.

--p!

[Rosco T.]

3. Wouldn't suprise me if Fitz had the indictments on a 'Dead Man Switch'...

.. the announcement the he's fired, the indictments are released automatically.

[alittlelark]

5. Sure, if he wants to suffer the consequences....

Sometimes, in chess, sacrifices must be made.


b*sh is not enough of a man to make those sacrifices.

[tocqueville]

6. a poster on huffington post shares your concern

"Unfortunately you are ignoring the 800 pound gorilla in the room. Partisan Federalist Society judges infesting our judiciary. Bush has been stacking the courts with corrupt partisan cronies. They will do everything in their power to derail trials and overturn guilty verdicts.

Read Lawrence Walsh's book Firewall about Iran Contra. He writes about the GOP judges derailing his investigation. Judge Sentelle, a Jesse Helms protege, overturned Ollie North's conviction. Keep in mind that Lawrence Walsh was a republican.

Just remember Bush vs Gore to understand how far partisan GOP judges are willing to go.

So, I am afraid it is too late for our democracy."
Posted by: DonB on October 20, 2005 at 12:22am

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jim-moore/the-most-important-crimin_b_9183.html

[kster]

11. Na,The people will only

put up with so much of the courts "are being stacked", we know RIGHT FROM WRONG.

[calimary]

21. Besides, I'm not sure you'd have a dramatic protest resignation

movement in THIS White House the way you did after Nixon fired Cox. There actually were some semi-principled people in the Nixon administration, who wouldn't play anymore, once it started getting this dirty. I think there are too many snakes in this pit for anyone to step forward this time. They'll all close ranks around each other. The only ones who won't are those trying to plea bargain or otherwise position themselves to take some of the heat off their own asses - like Hannah and Wurmser have apparently been doing - in flipping for Fitzgerald.

[Spurt]

7. Shrub can't fire Fitz.

http://citizenspook.blogspot.com/2005/08/treasongate-us-attorney-generals.html

[niallmac]

8. No, I don't believe he can fire Fitz...

http://www.yuricareport.com/Corruption/BushNoPowerToFireProsecutor.html

[longship]

9. Not if he wants to remain president he doesn't.

Another Saturday Night Massacre would sink Chimp very quickly.

[radio4progressives]

10. Here's a very compelling and strong argument Against your theory..

below is a very interesting reading submitted by David Swanson on these questions (lifted from afterdowningstreet.org -link provided below) which i've included many passages here, but please go to the link and read the full text. I've emphasied a few lines in bold text below for quick reference pertaining to the question raised in this thread as well as questions in other related discussions.

It is not only interesting reading, but a great lesson in constitutional application on the matter of sitting presidents' and settling the question as to imunity protections from the laws of the land. I snipped an interesting introduction which began with the matter of indicting Vice Presidents with reference to Burr.


http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/3820

Indicting a Sitting President

Submitted by davidswanson on Wed, 2005-10-19 16:14. Activism

By Richard M. Mathews


<snipped>


For a President, there is no clear precedent one way or another. The closest is the case of Nixon. The Grand Jury reportedly wanted to indict Nixon.


Prosecutor Jaworski convinced them to avoid the issue of whether the President may be indicted by naming him as an unindicted coconspirator. This was sufficient to get a subpoena for Nixon's records including the tapes. Nixon argued that the subpoena was invalid because he was not subject to indictment.


The Supreme Court sidestepped the indictment issue by ruling that they did not need to answer that question in order to reach their conclusion that the subpoena was valid. United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 687 n. 2 (1974).

There is not a single word in the Constitution that supports a claim that the President cannot be indicted.

On the contrary, the Constitution merely says this about impeachment:
Article I, Section 3, Clause 7:
Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.
Article II, Section 4:
The President, Vice President and all Civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.


Note that in the above sections the Constitution treats impeachment of the President exactly the same as impeachment of any other Officer. The only place where the Constitution treats the President differently with respect to impeachment is in that the Chief Justice sits as the presiding officer in the Senate trial of a President:
Article I, Section 3, Clause 6:
The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

Since the Constitution treats the President identically to all other Officers, and since there is substantial precedent for indicting other impeachable officers including judges and members of Congress, it follows that the President may also be indicted. Courts have specifically held that a federal judge is indictable and may be convicted prior to removal from office. United States v. Claiborne, 727 F.2d 842, 847-848 (9th Cir.), cert. den., 469 U.S. 829 (1984); United States v. Hastings, 681 F.2d 706, 710-711 (11th Cir.), cert. den., 459 U.S. 1203 (1983); United States, v. Isaacs, 493 F.2d 1124, 1142 (7th Cir.), cert. den. sub nom., Kerner v. United States, 417 U.S. 976 (1974).


Note also that Article I, Section 3, Clause 7 brings up the issue of indictment.

It clearly indicates that those subject to impeachment are also subject to indictment "according to Law." It in no way suggests that the law be suspended until after the impeachment and/or Senate trial.


The New York Times reported on 1/31/99 that "Starr has concluded that he has the constitutional authority to seek a grand jury indictment of president Clinton before he leaves the White House in January, 2001."

Professor Eric Freedman of the Hofstra University School of Law has submitted extensive written and oral testimony to Congress stating that a sitting President may be indicted. He questions under what circumstances this power may be used. See, e.g., E. Freedman, "The Law and King and the King as Law: Is a President Immune from Criminal Prosecution Before Impeachment?" 20 Hastings L.Q. 7 (1992).


Among Freedman's arguments in support of the position that a sitting President can be subjected to criminal proceedings, Freedman contends that the 25th Amendment can be used as a mechanism for having the President leave office temporarily if a criminal trial or resulting sentence precludes the President from performing his constitutional duties. The Amendment kicks in if the President "is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office," then the
25th Amendment applies (the quoted text is straight from both the 3rd and 4th sections of the Amendment).



In practice, I do not expect the 25th Amendment to actually be applied. For all of the arguing by Presidents that their ability to function would be impaired by any court action, I bet all such arguing will disappear when they are faced with the 25th Amendment. All of a sudden, an indicted President will announce that he can discharge 100% of his duties despite the indictment. All concerns about being preoccupied with the prosecution will disappear. Nevertheless, the 25th Amendment is a useful argument to counter any claim that a President may be unable to discharge his duties.


Many of the arguments that a President cannot be indicted are trumped by the 25th Amendment. If the President can be removed temporarily to deal with criminal proceedings, the Office of the President can continue unimpeded. It is the Office that must be protected, not the person who sits in it.

Also, many of the arguments against indictment are really arguments against arrest. If the President remains free during criminal proceedings, he can perform his job just fine. Criminal proceedings need not impede the President any more than impeachment proceedings. If criminal proceedings take too much of the President's time or if incarceration should be necessary, clearly the 25th Amendment provides more than adequate remedy to protect the Office of the President and the continuation of the government.

The official government position on indictment of the President is contained in several papers circa 1974 (regarding Nixon and Agnew) and 2000 (Clinton). These argue that the Vice President can be indicted but the President cannot. The arguments regarding the President are weak.


First, the papers admit that "the plain terms of the Clause do not impose such a general bar to indictment or criminal trial prior to impeachment and therefore do not, by themselves, preclude the criminal prosecution of a sitting President."


The papers also admit that there is difficulty in assigning an implied immunity to the President when the Constitution expressly provided immunity to Congress in the Arrest and Speech or Debate Clauses of Article I, Section 6. If the Founders had meant to give immunity to both the President and Congress, why did they only expressly say so for Congress? If they only meant to define for
Congress the boundaries of a broader immunity, why did they not expressly define the broader immunity for the President? The argument that there cannot be an implied immunity in addition to the express immunity is not conclusive, but it is very strong. The papers dismiss it without providing adequate justification.


The papers then go on to argue that there is an implied immunity. They invent this from reading between lines in cases that do not apply. There is no case that rules on the indictment of a President.

In fact, the same arguments that were used in these papers to argue that a President cannot be indicted were used unsuccessfully to argue that Nixon's tapes could not be subpoenaed and that Clinton could not be made to testify to a Grand Jury. Courts overruled those arguments. No final court decision has ever accepted as strong a principle of executive privilege as would be required by these arguments that the President cannot be indicted.


The papers consider the possibility that the precedents that say that other Officers can be indicted while in office do not apply to the President. The papers end up admitting that they cannot justify such an argument.


The papers admit that a trial of the President would not be precluded due to being "too political for the judicial process." If other Officers can be indicted and tried fairly, so can the President.



The papers raise question of whether it is practical to have a prosecutor who is part of the Executive Branch prosecute the President. The experience we have developed with independent prosecutors in the cases of Nixon, Clinton, and the CIA leak case show that this is not a problem. Nixon may have tried to fire the
prosecutor, but he did not succeed. Furthermore, if a conflict of interest cannot be resolved, the 25th Amendment provides a resolution. If the President and the Cabinet refuse to apply the 25th Amendment, then the prosecution may need to be delayed -- but that does not mean that a prosecution should not be allowed in all cases.



<snipped>

They argue that the House and Senate are a more appropriate place for a necessarily political trial of the President, but they ignore the fact that the Constitution explicitly states that impeachment does not preclude indictment. The Founders were apparently not impressed with an argument that Congress and only Congress could be involved in such a matter.

The papers also express the concern that "A criminal trial of a sitting President, however, would confer upon a jury of twelve the power, in effect, to overturn this national election." Of course, we have already had a Court of nine judges overturn a national election. In Bush v. Gore, the Court was clear in claiming jurisdiction over choosing the President. It is inconsistent to
claim that a court cannot take jurisdiction over determining whether the President has committed a crime.


<snipped>


The main argument that indictment of the President should not be allowed is that it would impair a government function. Yet if it did impair a government function, namely that the President "is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office," then the 25th Amendment's requirements are satisfied.

Bork argues that the 25th Amendment shows the importance of the President because it is the only example in the Constitution of providing for the temporary replacement of an Officer. He completely misses that by providing for that replacement, the 25th Amendment puts the protection of the Office over the protection of the individual. By protecting the Office, the need to protect the
individual from indictment is eliminated.



Next, the papers turn to more court cases that they claim shed light on this issue. Since no court has ever made a relevant ruling, these arguments rely on extrapolating from dicta found in these cases. The arguments are admitted to be very thin.

The 2000 paper oddly claims that U.S. v. Nixon supports these claims of immunity. Nixon lost that case. It was found that he did not have sufficient immunity to protect him from a subpoena. It is hard to extend that into an argument that he was immune from indictment.

It is noted that U.S. v. Nixon stated that the lack of an explicit immunity clause for the Executive in the face of an explicit immunity clause for Congress is not necessarily dispositive on whether the Framers intended the President to have some exclusion for confidentiality, but that is because confidentiality is
a separate issue from arrest. Arrest is restricted for members of Congress but not for the President. Furthermore, the Court eventually found that the President did not even have a sufficient exemption for confidentiality to block the subpoena.


Ultimately, the Nixon Court found that "the legitimate needs of the judicial process may outweigh Presidential privilege" and that "either the doctrine of separation of powers, nor the need for confidentiality . . . without more, can sustain an absolute, unqualified Presidential privilege of immunity from judicial process under all circumstances." Such is certainly the case for a
felony indictment related to official acts and abuse of power.



In Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 731 (1982) and Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681 (1997), the court found limited immunity from civil prosecution. The argument that this immunity extends to criminal matters is defeated by the plain language of both cases. Both cases explicitly called out that this immunity applied to civil cases onlys. In Fitzgerald, the Court concluded, "When judicial action is
needed to serve broad public interests - as when the Court acts, not in derogation of the separation of powers, but to maintain their proper balance, cf. Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, supra, or to vindicate the public interest in an ongoing criminal prosecution, see United States v. Nixon, supra - the exercise of jurisdiction has been held warranted. In the case of this merely private suit for damages based on a President's official acts, we hold it is not."

It is also worth noting that the dissent in Fitzgerald called out that giving immunity in a civil case could mean that " criminal laws of the United States are wholly inapplicable to the President." The dissent (signed by four Justices) states that "I find this approach completely unacceptable." Justice Burger responded that "It strains the meaning of the words used to say this places a President 'above the law.' The dissents are wide of the mark to the extent that they imply that the Court today recognizes sweeping immunity for a
President for all acts. The Court does no such thing. The immunity is limited to civil damages claims." Together, these five Justices stand as a majority insisting that the President is not above the law.


If Fitzgerald did not give the President immunity from criminal prosecution, the Clinton case most certainly did not. In Clinton, the court weakened the immunity in Fitzgerald. The majority opinion that the "President is not above the law" still stands.

Those who claim Presidential immunity from indictment base their claim on admitted weak arguments that are not supported by the plain text of the Constitution. The Constitution as it now stands, with the 25th Amendment, provides little to no protection for a President in the case of a felony indictment.

References:

"Impeachment: An Overview of Constitutional Provisions, Procedure, and Practice" http://usinfo.org/ref/house/impeachment.htm

Hearing: Impeachment or Indictment: Is a Sitting President Subject to the Compulsory Criminal Process? September 9, 1998. S.Hrg. 105-969. Serial No. J-105-119. GPO Stock No. 552-070-23918-9. $11.00.

A Sitting President's Amenability to Indictment and Criminal Prosecution http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/sitting_president.htm



Memorandum from Robert G. Dixon, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, Re: Amenability of the President, Vice President and other Civil Officers to Federal Criminal Prosecution while in Office (Sept. 24, 1973)

Memorandum for the United States Concerning the Vice President's Claim of Constitutional Immunity (filed Oct. 5, 1973), In re Proceedings of the Grand Jury Impaneled December 5, 1972: Application

[chknltl]

12. Imagine how this would affect the VOTERS on either side....

....Shrub is in too large of a tailspin here and the repukes know it. There is an election right around the corner, I believe everything filters through that notion right now. Should shrub fire Fitz, this would increase the amounts of voters who feel that our Democracy has been removed from the people. Any repuke who sided with shrub in that firing would loose a part of his or her base. I believe that shrubco has through it's own ineptitude painted itself into a corner here. One which will leave it without friends.

Besides wouldn't it have made more sense to fire Fitz back when this was a much smaller story in the "msm" then it is now? The "black eye" then would have been easier to cover. I believe shrub firing Fitz now would hurt the party even worse than allowing the process to go on. Outside of ineptitude, I do not see how he can possibly justify this course of action. These are strange times for Democracy here in America, we have a ringside seat. :popcorn:

[autorank]

13. Only if he wants to admit guilt. Only if he thinks Fitz will roll over.

They can fail to reappoint him as Federal attorney for Chicagoland, which would send a signal that Bush is guilty as Hell.

As far as his second job, Special Counsel, it doesn't look like he can be fired. This excellent KOS piece outlines it all pretty clearly.

Now, they did have the SCOTUS steal the 2000 election so those of you who say, they can do anything, damn right they can!

What would that mean -- "I'm guilty, no, wait a minute, I'm guilty as Hell! and don't you ever forget it!!!" Bush...

Bring it on, cut t the chase, bring a million people to DC and tens of thousands elsewhere into the streets. This would be the spark that lights the fire or public fury. Count on it. Remember, without any Corporate Media reporting to speak of, * is at 52%-58% disapprove!

This act is it's own coverage, it would be immediate and clearly understood in the outrageous nature of the act.

Give it a shot...:wtf:...you're going down anyway. :evilgrin:

[dennis00]

15. Secret Service

Is the Secret Service a law enforcement entity? Can the Secret Service arrest the president? Sadamn's gun was in the Oval Office. Bush was showing it off as a souvenir. I wonder if it is still there. This all is a what if. What if Bush is indicted and is told to leave the Oval Office and refuses. I always wanted to be a screenwriter.

[autorank]

16. Damn good basis for a mind blower.

Call it "Salvadore Allende Redux" or something else if you want people to see it:)

[dennis00]

17. more what if

Night Of The Living Dead Redux. 2000 American service people killed in Iraq and Afghanistan invade the White House in the middle of the night. :mad:

[autorank]

22. totally over the top, i hope George Romero lurks...it will ge tmade

[nookiemonster]

20. I'm not sure, but I think Federal Marshals would have that task.

eom

[Bluesplayer]

18. I'd forgotten that

Judge Bork was Nixon's axe-wielding bitch.

[0007]

19. Duh?

The King can do anything
but the people own
the guillotine