Plame pardons question

[Gregorian]

Does anyone here think that this trial will race forward in time for pardons? And will it matter if anyone IS pardoned?

I don't think it's assuming too much to say that someone is guilty in this case.

(From what I can tell, they want this to happen quickly. And being that we have such consistent justice in this country (/sarc.), I would guess that the trial will not go anything like Kobey, or Peterson, or Jackson. But will be done before the end of this current regime.)

[lancdem]

1. There's going to be a trial?

Did I miss some big development?

[Gregorian]

5. I guess I need it explained.

I was hoping you'd spare me the embarrassment of having to ask. It is a trial, isn't it? I'm assuming you were being sarcastic. My sarcasmometer is in the shop.

[PsN2Wind]

2. The Dem's should be putting up a bill

that says pardons cannot be given to people convicted of breeches of national security such as divulging the identity of CIA operatives, etc. Let the Repubs argue against that.

[Gregorian]

3. I thought the same thing. I doubt they could pull that off.

My question is pretty vague. I think it might be too early to be asking it, anyways. I want some head to roll, after all we've been through.
I suppose noone knows how the timing of this trial (or whatever one wants to call it) will play out. I mean, it appears we know exactly what happened. It's just a matter of proving it.

[PsN2Wind]

4. I too doubt they could pull it off

but they might cause some embarrassment to the repubs by making them refuse to move the bill forward. Little steps against them to show the sheeple that they, the repubs, are all about party and that all else is secondary.

[shraby]

6. Please read the last Plame thread #17

we have put together a couple of papers about Plame and also need them distributed as widely as possible.

[Gregorian]

8. I forgot about the search function.

I looked at a 300 post topic, and simply gave up. I read the first half of #16, and, well, I can't spend my entire day on DU.
But I'm back on track.
Thanks.

[buycitgo]

7. they can't

would have to be a constitutional amendment