QUOTE(Lek @ Mar 8 2007, 08:22 PM)
1. Should the AG office begin a criminal investigation against Rove, Cheney or other Bush officials involved in Plamegate?
Most certainly! But unlikely! Why? Cuz we (or system) is allowing lowest level fall guy sacrifices to be the "establish justice" response to wider spread crimes of office holders. There are many other examples, such as LT Cayley in Vietnam, where those who know, know the guilt was actually very high, and very wide, yet we allowed it to end with that "one sacrificial goat"! (No aspersions cast upon Cayley intended)
2. Should Congress investigate these apparent high crimes and misdemeanors to see if an impeachable offense took place?
Most certainly! However, I'd like to see some more fixes tried, such as:
1. Let the jurors of any trial have the formal power to convene a Grand Jury on any and all "other's" they find worthy of such, e.g. Rove, Cheney, Bush, etc., during their deliberations, as a formal part of their formal "determinations". And, the gov't. must then respond ASAP! (I think the jurors have the power anyway, cuz: All powers not....are reserved for the States and the people!)
2. There is too much focus on only impeachment for office holder guilt-fixing. I say they can be arrested, tried, and convicted without being impeached. They are still citizens! They are still under the law of the land, just like us taxpayers and draftee candidates! And the Commandeer in Chief is under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and its demands for courts martial too.
3. There should be a cessation of this "rule of law" phrase, and what I see as it's associated practices, which comes out of thin air, e.g. the Yale Law Review, as merely opinions, and has the bad practice of ignoring the Constitution, not being consistent, and doing what I hear referred to as "clausal law" wherein cases are decided on parts (a few clauses) of the law and not all the law and nothing but the law.
4. Making the "not arresting" of "fellow office holders or fellow govt. employees/bosses" for illegalities a crime itself. After all, most, are there to to protect and defend the Constitution in some sense, and such arresting is doing just that. The juried courts will finish the job. My favorite "example test case" would be those not arresting the Commander in Chief for any of his "not keeping to his protect and defend the Constitution" duty, supposedly because of "their duty" to obey their commander-in-chief. I think we should have had some action here on Article 51 of UN Charter, Geneva Converntion, Nurenburg(sap?) rule, secret courts and trials, non habeas corpus, etc., etc. There is guilt for omission as well as for commission, yet we let the former be ignored.
5. There is no way for the House to be impeached for illegalities, like "not impeaching" when it should, except to jointly impeach itself. This is a blank spot needing filling! (It's not any better than the fox and the chicken coop now!)
6. I admittedly stray from the topic on this one, but mea culpa, I think juries are the interpreters of the Constitution and of the laws. Cuz: Once again, "All powers not....are reserved for the States and the people." And, the Supreme Court, the present supreme claimant, is not given that power. Furthermore, there are demands for jury only trial decisions that are being decided by other means at present.
OK, blow me away folks! Best regards to all though!---Lek
As we speak, Waxman has declared he will open an investigation of Traitorgate. And Valery Plame will testify!
I think it's per se impeachable for a government official to be running a dirty tricks campaign out of the VP's office using taxpayer money and government staffers. The Libby case has established Libby was tasked with doing just that. The next step is up.