Which would be most effective in terms of RESULTS? Senate Inquiry or Special counsel?

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

In an ideal world, the Special Counsel would be the way to go if one is looking for actual prosecutions. The major problem in my opinion is that once again, just like the Plame case, it will be slow going for YEARS with appeals of Executive privilege, refused subpoenas, etc.etc. The highly vaunted Fitzgerald was unable to do much of substance because he had "sand thrown in his face"?!
I think Fitzgerald was a paper tiger. If a really really competent Special Counsel is appointed and if all the stonewalling executive privilege pleas are fast tracked, then perhaps this would work.

I am totally against a Conyers run Congressional Investigation. Half the people on the Congressional committee have been nitwits with little expertise or investigative skill in my opinion ( some exceptions of course). Conyers has yielded nothing in terms of results from any of his previous grandstanding. Does he still have subpoenas out? He didn't have the guts to enforce his own subpoenas.

Now a SENATE INVESTIGATION might yield up a motherlode in terms of at least allowing Americans to REALLY know the horrors that were perpetrated in their names. Half of that committee are former USA's themselves. Leahy and Whitehouse would have Bush and Cheney crying and dribbling water down their shirts in 10 minutes. They possibly would offer immunity in return for testimony in order to get the facts, which is the biggest downside. But, on the other hand, if one is offered immunity, one can't plead the fifth.

[lazer47]

1. Conyers is a joke, Only a Special Prosecutor will do,, as long as

he is unfettered and totally independent

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

2. Independent Counsel by FAR

[notadmblnd]

3. Special council

to many politicians have been compromised and have much to hide.