Light dawns on my marble head..re: Plame indictments

[Sperk]

I would make NO sense indicting anyone now, Bush will just pardon them and then steal the election! Assuming this is a real investigation and not just another show, they would be setting themselves up for all their hard work just going down the drain, or should I say the "black hole" that is full of Repug scandals. It makes sense to see if Kerry wins despite the thug's tactics. Kerry BETTER NOT pardon a single one of these crooks. IT IS NOT IN THE BEST INTEREST OF OUR COUNTRY TO JUST MOVE ON!!! Haven't we learned that yet?

[lil-petunia]

1. they don't have to be indicted to be pardoned.

nothing prevents the shrub from pardoning them now, even before any indictments.

Nixon did that one year, as did Ford, and Bush 1.

ergo, timing is immaterial. I say indict now.

[mopinko]

2. * will just pardon the guilty

indicted or not. he knows who they are.

[Sperk]

3. Pardon them for what? How do you pardon someone for something

they have not been charged with? What does that pardon sound like? I pardon anyone in my administration from anything they might be charged with in the future? Educate me people....I don't get that.

Remember when they asked * if he would pardon Clinton if he was elected. Chimpy said something to the effect of.."How do you pardon someone who hasn't been charged with anything?"

[H2O Man]

4. trivial pursuit for DUers:

The last indictment of a Bush1 administrator, which was the result of a special prosecutor, occured how many days before the 1992 election? Who was indicted? How did the indictment refer to President Bush1?

Just curious how well people remember that era.

[NewJeffCT]

5. Wild guess

Eliot Abrams? Just a wild guess, as I got out of college in '89 and spent most of the early to mid 90s futilely chasing young women and then being depressed about my lack of success with the opposite sex...
so, I was more focused on that at the time.

[H2O Man]

8. very close....

I'll give you another hint: look up what happened to Cap Weinberger four days before the 1992 election, in an indictment that specified that Bush 1 was fully aware of the details of Iran-Contra.

[NewJeffCT]

9. Unfortunately, my internet search doesn't work well at work

For some reason... I'll have to look tonight.

But, Bush 1 successfully buried Iran-Contra with his pardons. Looking back, most think Watergate was the worst scandal in recent memory, when it really pales in comparison to Iran-Contra or all the BS going on with Bush 2 re: Plame, Niger, Pakistan, Cheney, etc.

Unfortunately, the media is a lot more compliant now, and also lazier.

[H2O Man]

10. you are absolutely right ....

Iran-Contra was far worse than Watergate. The Plame/yellow cake forgeries/ neocon scandal is actual Iran-Contra Act II. I think that it was a mistake on the Kerry campaign/DNC to not focus some attention on the Iran-Contra scandal, and his role in the investigations that led to criminal convictions of people serving in this administration.

In 1992, conservative republicans shit when the special prosecutor laid Iran-Contra at Bush 1's door just before the election. While in theory there is not supposed to be any influence on these cases from the other branches, on the federal level, the judicial branch almost never takes an action that could alter an executive or legislative election. Walsh refused to shift gears.

[NewJeffCT]

11. and, if I am not mistaken

Lawrence Walsh was an old school Republican with integrity, sort of like Fitzgerald now?

Unfortunately, most people now look back at Iran-Contra as Ollie North defying Congress saying he only did it for his country and don't realize the depth of everything else involved. There was a reason why Reagan had more people indicted/convicted of crimes than all other 20th century presidents combined.

[H2O Man]

12. yes, he was....

the administration felt they were betrayed by one of their own.

Walsh had integrity to a large extent, but he certainly had more than enough information to justify charging Bush 1 with federal offenses. He seemed to be very close to doing so. And it's a shame he didn't.

[Stephanie]

6. There is a hearing scheduled for early December

regarding the Judith Miller subpoena. We are not going to get satisfaction on this issue for a long time.

[H2O Man]

7. I believe it's 12-8

if the higher federal courts refuse to hear her appeal, as I think they will, it should happen fairly quick from there.