Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

I wonder why a special prosecutor would be paying a visit to *'s lawyer.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
Mutley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-29-05 06:49 PM
Original message
I wonder why a special prosecutor would be paying a visit to *'s lawyer.
http://www.sethabramson.blogspot.com/

3 Hours Before the Indictment of Cheney's Chief of Staff, the Special Prosecutor Pays a Mysterious Visit to President Bush's Criminal Defense Attorney

Paragraph Buried in New York Times Story Suggests President Bush Is Now the Target of a Criminal Investigation

From Talking Points Memo.

Things that make you go hmm.

So, let's see here:

1. According to the block-buster New York Daily News story from last week, Rove has the power to blow the President out of the water by telling investigators that Bush knew he (Rove) was the leaker prior to speaking with federal investigators. Meaning--according to an unchallenged major-media news report--Rove can confirm that the President of the United States committed two crimes: obstruction of justice and making false statements to federal investigators. Indeed, these two offenses have already been effectively established by the Republican majority in Congress as impeachable offenses (cf. William Jefferson Clinton).

===============================================

There is so much more at the link.

Isn't this interesting?

:popcorn:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
TallahasseeGrannie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-29-05 06:51 PM
Response to Original message
1. cuz he's the President? Job Perk?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mutley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-29-05 07:00 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. I don't know.
I really wonder.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JJackFlash Donating Member (541 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-29-05 07:08 PM
Response to Original message
3. right
Edited on Sat Oct-29-05 07:16 PM by JJackFlash
"...obstruction of justice and making false statements to federal investigators."
Not only that, but the law requires that anybody with knowledge of a leak of classified information must take action for the sake of national security. * did nothing for two years but lie to cover it up. Ergo, he is a co-conspirator. Isn't he?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mutley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-29-05 07:10 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. He surely is!
:popcorn: << I just can't get enough of this little guy lately. Who knew one little smilie could have so much meaning?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JJackFlash Donating Member (541 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-29-05 07:23 PM
Response to Original message
5. previous post from "understandinglife":
THE WHITE HOUSE OBLIGATIONS UNDER EXECUTIVE ORDER 12958

Under the executive order, the White House has an affirmative obligation to investigate and take remedial action separate and apart from any ongoing criminal investigation. The executive order specifically provides that when a breach occurs, each agency must “take appropriate and prompt corrective action.”8

This includes a determination of whether individual employees improperly disseminated or obtained access to classified information. The executive order further provides that sanctions for violations are not optional.

The executive order expressly provides: “Officers and employees of the United States Government … shall be subject to appropriate sanctions if they knowingly, willfully, or negligently … disclose to unauthorized persons information properly classified.”9

There is no evidence that the White House complied with these requirements.2

http://www.democrats.reform.house.gov/Documents/2005071...


Penalities would likely fall under 18 USC 793 and IIPA, in the matter of intentionally disclosing intelligence assets and willfully harboring and protecting those who disclosed the assets.

.............................................

"...the White House has an affirmative obligation to investigate and take remedial action separate and apart from any ongoing criminal investigation."

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mutley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-29-05 08:06 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. Wonderful find JJackFlash.
Brilliant!!!

That is one link for the bookmark page if I've ever seen one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vickers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-29-05 09:37 PM
Response to Reply #5
8. veddy interesting
:thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mutley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-29-05 09:35 PM
Response to Original message
7. kick
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mutley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-30-05 08:49 AM
Response to Original message
9. kick
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
elehhhhna Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-30-05 09:47 AM
Response to Original message
10. Subpeona? Sealed indictment? Warning Target letter? Hmmmm.
Early holiday gift?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mutley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-30-05 10:48 AM
Response to Reply #10
11. This would be enough to satisfy me for 20 holidays.
:D
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri May 03rd 2024, 01:20 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC