<p>Well, assuming someone is indicted (I still think there is a good chance there won’t be any), we could take up another pool regarding whether he/they will plead guilty. In other words, fall on their swords to protect the President (and Vice President?)</p>
<p>30 to 1?</p>
<p>Petard??? Okay…25 to 1. What difference would it make as GWB will pardon all sins at his first opportunity.</p>
<p>There will be indicments - I’ll bet on that for sure. Libby would be my top choice, then Rove and Cheney would be the icing on the cake. And yes, I’m taking particular glee in all of this - not from a partisan stand point but because I see no other way to wake this country up to the lies and manipulations of this administration. Unfortunately, in this politically dysfunctional country it always takes a crisis to get people to see reality. Whether or not they convict, it will shed light on a corrupt administration that puts politics and power before national security. </p>
<p>If Bush pardons it will open him up to new scrutiny and possible impeachment.</p>
<p>Presidential pardon in the last throes of power is an American tradition and who cares if GWB has additional scrutiny in the llth hour…impeach a lame duck in his 11th hour??? Says who. I don’t agree w/ GWB but rather see this all coming toward us.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>I agree with your analysis, liz, except I don’t think Bush will be afraid to pardon. With the republican majority in both houses, Bush will not be impeached. Timing is everything. He’ll do it when we’re thinking about something else-- a war with Iran, maybe.</p>
<p>If the Republicans want to think beyond this administration then I don’t think they’ll let a pardon happen. Midterms are one year away.</p>
<p>Convictions are more than a year away.</p>
<p>Precisely - which is one reason I think that (in exchange for some very handsome payoffs), they might be “persuaded” to plead guilty. If they are indicted, of course. ;)</p>
<p>Over 95% of cases are pleaded out - the indictment is usually enough to convince people to cut a deal. It’s actually a very low standard: taking all evidence most favourably to the prosecution, is there probable cause to believe that a crime was committed and the person committed it? 12 members of the grand jury have to vote affirmatively - I think there can be between 16 and 23 grand jury members. Very low standard… if you can’t get an indictment, there’s probably issues with the case. A bare majority has to believe that it’s possible that this crime happened. </p>
<p>Just saying. </p>
<p>Anyway - very sad that our country has gotten to this point. Smart money is that Cheney resigns and Condi takes over, which will align her for 2008. Then again, she might be harmed by that - the taint of the administration might follow her. </p>
<p>Anyway… just musing about…</p>
<p>Cheney bowing out and Rice stepping up…then your opine is Hillary v Condi?? Is Condi seen as an “Uncle Tom”?</p>
<p>What about Jeb? And does Condi appeal to the moderates? I’ve never understood why people think she is presidential material.</p>
<p>How many indictments were there with the first Bush Administration. Will Bush be able to pad the Supreme Court before his administration’s cases come up.</p>
<p>do i win? a leak on the leak - NYTimes says only Libby gets indicted Friday.</p>
<p>quoting myself from pg 1:
</p>
<p>Jeb’s got “naughty kid” baggage - not to mention wife, daddy and brother baggage. Plus, hurricanes seem to follow him around like hounds to a fox…we don’t need hurricanes movin’ up the Chespeake …</p>
<p>I saw Charlie Rangel on TV…I’ve never seen him look so depressed. It was startling.</p>
<p>Rove is not off the hook yet.</p>
<p>From the NYTimes: </p>
<p>“Karl Rove, President Bush’s senior adviser and deputy chief of staff, will not be charged on Friday, but will remain under investigation, people briefed officially about the case said. As a result, they said, the special counsel in the case, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, was likely to extend the term of the federal grand jury beyond its scheduled expiration on Friday.”</p>
<p>Keep dreaming, Liz. Merry Fitzmas.</p>
<p>Aries, I’ve seen the Condi-for-Cheney scenario and don’t find its sourcing or argumentation credible…of course, now I forget the source.</p>
<p>There are going to be some very nasty and embarrassing facts brought out in all of this, I think, including what Cheney/Libby withheld from the Senate Intelligence committee when they were looking at Iraq. The U.S. egging the Italians to produce “intelligence” to buttress its arguments about WMD are going to be pretty smelly. Maybe Driver can hold FF’s hand as the Roberts report goes down the toilet.</p>
<p>I am agnostic as to what the legal damage will amount to; the political damage will be considerable. Which is exactly what the corrupt, maggot-ridden mass of rot deserves.</p>
<p>
I agree…it’s going to blow the problems at the CIA wide open, none too soon…it’ll all come out at Libby’s trial, and the agency will try to cloak it, but that’s where the real rot is, and that’s why Fitzgerald was able to keep this thing going, including the jailing of Miller.
Now we’re entering DailyKos lala-land. When I saw the look on Rangel’s face, TheDad, it made me think of you.</p>
<p>What judge will administer or hear this case?? I am curious. Will testimony be secret from Cheney? So will the rumor about Judith Miller’s associations with powerful men come to be true regarding Libby??? How does Tenet work into this mess???</p>