GregHowley.com

You're an idiot. First of all, a president can't be "indicted" for anything without first going through impeachment proceedings. I pretty sure we would have heard about it if the President was impeached.

Secondly, the special prosecutor would have no authority to issue indictments on anything other than the Plame leak case.

Finally, not only is "lying" not a capital offense, it's not even a crime. If he lied under oath it would be a different matter (though I don't recall when President Bust has testified under oath).

I mean really, c'mon. That story is asinine from start to finish (an American special prosecutor issued a subpoena to a forign head of state?) - did you ever take high school civics?

Nice to meet you too, Richard.

So I'm an idiot for reporting that this situation exists on Technorati? You'll notice that I'm only mentioning the frenzy, and not claiming that an indictment has occurred.

By the way, his name is Bush, not Bust.

"Bust" is rather appropriate though, a Freudian slip perhaps?

I'm neither a lawyer nor a constitutional scholar, but I am pretty sure that a president can be indicted if he has committed a crime. The Valerie Plame investigation could potentially produce a situation in which the president was in violation of the law, with the Fitzgerald having powers to indict.

Calling the blogger an "idiot" is not very clever in any case. Not only did you call him an "idiot" for false reasons, as he himself pointed out, but you likewise spoke about the law as if you are knowledgeable on the subject. Could you cite a source for your legal opinion? As I said, I am not a lawyer or a constitutional scholar, so I would be happy to be shown the facts.

Lo and Behold - "Bush Indictment" has just fallen off as I've watched. From #1 to #3 to not-in-the-top-ten-at-all. I wonder if Technorati pulled strings behind the scenes.

Well,
The story about the indictments, found at www.arcticbeacon.com states that it has sources saying that Newsweek has already gone to print, and will hit the streets MONDAY with the story... In 1974, by the way, indictments against several Whitehouse staff including Nixon were held in secret for some time to allow for an orderly release... The article goes on to say that Justice John Paul Stevens is in Chicago today brokering a deal to avert a national crisis.
I'm just sayin'...
I'll wait until Monday before writing this off.
We all know they're crooks, so is anyone really surprised?

HI,

I run the blog www.strangeisnotafruit.blogs.com and from what I can tell I was one of the first to put this article up in Blogland. Judging by the amount of traffick I got on that article I see it has stirred quite a lot of interest.

I simply say 'wait and see' we can shoot the shit till the cows come home but it won't change a damn thing. I believe that certain machinations are taking place behind the scenes and that this indictment story may well be for real. That said I wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't. Thus far it seems the argument against it is largely based upon the fact that the mainstream media have not said a word. A few minutes careful study would reveal that this is EXACTLY what you would expect from such a situation. Near silence.

Just remember what the office who supposedly issued the indictments said when asked if the stories were true...

'No comment'

They neither denied or confirmed the story, which, for the astute amongst us, ought to speak volumes.

Wait and see. Keep an open mind, and if it turns out to be bunk then so what> nothing lost right?

Cheers,


Phil

One could argue that when Bush gave his State of the Union address he was discharging one of the few duties the Constitution imposes (He shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient) and as such was under oath (as he swore one, to discharge his duties).

If he knowingly lied about the material facts, and that done before Congress, in his official capacity, it might be argued, and a case made; based on results therefrom, he committed a high-crime or misdemeanor.

TK

Most NATO countries sprayed with chemtrails for 8 years. Chemtrails implicated in directed energy weapons and mind control.

Someone high up must have authorized this torture of American citizens.

Psychotronic weapons classified as WMD by the U.N. in 2002.

Hope this gets investigated right along with all of the other crimes.

Treason.

"The article goes on to say that Justice John Paul Stevens is in Chicago today brokering a deal to avert a national crisis. "

ahahhaehheeee, that's great double talk. Don't we all feel SOOOOOOOO much more "comfortable"?!!? OK, let's all go back to sleep!!!

I wonder what kind of "national crises" is he seeking to avert?
Maybe it would be a very cleansing re-affirming national crises. Like, US Citizens, it is time to WAKE-UP!!!

Basirah

There is nothing holding a president cannot be indicted and therefore convicted of a crime just as anyone else. The impeachment process simply exists to discipline public officials such as the president for acts or failures to act that are violations of their duty as government officials. Impeachment and conviction thereunder are not the exclusive remedy for such acts or failures to act. As to lying, when a lie is knowingly made, or, made with reckless disregard and failure to exercise due dilligence to determine the truth, with the intent that others would rely on the false statement, and they do so rely to their damage, the lying party has committed fraud. Fraud is actionable both civily and criminally in cases such as this. And, since the fraud is committed by an official subject to impeachment, it may be prosecuted through civil actions by filing a civil lawsuit, through criminal actions by filing an information or indictment (depending on the rules of the jurisdiction in question), or through impeachment. The matter will then be placed in the hands of the courts in the case of civil or criminal process, or the appropriate government body in the case of an impeachment.
There may be nothing to the winds saying Bush et al have been indicted; it may be the truth. Those really in the know are not talking, as they should not. In broad terms Bush and those surrounding him probably could be reasonably charged with crimes based on fraud, theft, and homicide; those cases would in many instances be bolstered by charges of racketeering. Whether or not this will happen depends on the will, strength, and ethics of the prosecutor. Mr. Fitzgerald gives every indication that he scores highly on all three. Time will tell. We are blessed with living in what may come to be considered the most critical time in the history of the United States on a par with, perhaps higher than, the Civil War. -- Yosarian

If there is evidence that the President of the United States has been actively engaged in a conspiracy to deceive and mislead the United States Congress and the American people about the basis for going to war against Iraq. If true, such conduct constitutes a High Crime under Article II, Section 4 of the United States Constitution: "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."

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.

Hot Dog!

The day all of this happens should be declared a National Holiday!

We could name it "Mental Health Awareness Day"!

Unless of course that name is already taken.