Friday, October 21, 2005

Freaky Friday ...Citizen Spook Speaks....What's Next?

Prissy Patriot Pre-Indictment Special UPDATE: There's more....

afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/3857

Alternet.org By Jan Frel..Juicy excerpt (Note-still speculation):

Among the things I hadn't seen before:

-Fred Flights, an assistant to John Bolton, is a named name who could be indicted.

-Sens. John McCain and Lindsey Graham have been suggested as replacements for Dick Cheney.

-Colin Powell told John McCain he showed the infamous memo with Plame's identity on it to just two people; Dick Cheney and George Bush.

-Fitzgerald is looking at the precedent set from the indictment of Tricky Dick's veep Spiro Agnew to pursue against Cheney.

That's red meat folks.

White House Defense Shaky in CIA Leak Case By PETE YOST, Associated Press news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051021/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/cia_leak_investigation;_ylt=AmwT7uS0DxPN3FfVPunw5Gys0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3OXIzMDMzBHNlYwM3MDM-

....the administration's supporters maintain in a defense that looks increasing shaky as new evidence accumulates.Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald now knows that Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, met three times with a New York Times reporter before the leak of Valerie Plame's identity, that Libby initiated a call to NBC newsman Tim Russert and that Libby was a confirming source about the wife of Bush administration critic Joseph Wilson for a Time magazine reporter.

Presidential political adviser Karl Rove has testified that it's possible Libby was his source before Rove talked to two reporters about the CIA operative.

Want to keep up with all the latest indictments in political circles? Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald has just the thing. His new website. Not much on it yet, stay tuned.... http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/osc/index.html

Citizen Spook breaks his silence! citizenspook.blogspot.com

TREASONGATE: A Sitting President Can Be Indicted? (the answer is YES) And so can a sitting Vice President.

From Spook: For a change, I'm not going to give you my own analysis. Instead, I'm going to quote arch conservative lawyer, the legal sidekick of Rush Limbaugh, the infamous Mark Levin of the Landmark Legal Foundation, aka "The Great One". Let's have a look at what he has to say, and what Rush totally agreed with, regarding the indictment of a sitting President. This comes from an an official Landmark Legal brief:

LANDMARK LEGAL FOUNDATION Can A President Be Indicted While in Office, Or Must He First Be Impeached?

BY MARK R. LEVIN AND ARTHUR F. FERGENSON (Readers, this was written with Bill Clinton in mind)

An excerpt from the Landmark Legal Brief:

Second, the language in Article I, Section 3 makes clear that impeachment is not an exclusive remedy. A president is still subject to criminal prosecution, if warranted. He can be impeached and removed from office, but this is a limited remedy. Given this limitation, the Founding Fathers wanted to make clear that impeachment would not immunize a president and bar subsequent criminal prosecution. Obviously, this concern only arises in cases where impeachment precedes criminal prosecution. Therefore, if criminal prosecution precedes impeachment, it is not an issue.

Criminal prosecution and conviction does not remove a president from office. Impeachment is the only mechanism for his removal, absent issues of disability. Therefore, there was no question when the Constitution was written that impeachment would be available after a criminal prosecution. Consequently, there was no need for the Founding Fathers to provide language that preserves the impeachment power after a criminal prosecution.

Moreover, if a president truly believes that it is unconstitutional to indict a sitting president, the president has the power to stop the indictment against himself, or direct its withdrawal. He also has the power to grant himself an unconditional and complete pardon and thereby bar the prosecution. Since he has these powers, if an indictment is brought against him by the United States - meaning, by the Executive Branch that he heads - and he asks a court to dismiss it, he is asking for an advisory opinion. Under the Constitution, federal courts are forbidden from issuing advisory opinions. They do not exist to relieve the president from difficult political decisions. This is so even if the decision could lead to his impeachment and removal from office.

The possibility of impeachment does not immunize the president from criminal prosecution. He remains, at all times, a citizen of the United States who is answerable to the law.

January 23, 1998

Read more on Spooks site!

Thanks to Spongemom for this simple guide to world politics... spongemom.com/politicshillbillies.html

Socialism: You have 2 cows and you give one to your neighbor.

Communism: You have 2 cows; the Government takes both and gives you some milk.

Facism: You have 2 cows; the Government takes both and sells you some milk.

Naziism: You have 2 cows; the Government takes both and shoots you.

Bureaucratism: You have 2 cows; the Government takes both, shoots one, milks the other and throws the milk away..

Traditional Capitalism: You have 2 cows. You sell one and buy a bull. You herd multiplies, and the economy grows. You sell them and retire on the income.

American Corporation: You have 2 cows. You sell one, and force the other to produce the milk of four cows. Later, you hire a consultant to analyze why the cow dropped dead.

French Corporation: You have 2 cows. You go on strike because you want three cows.

Japanese Corporation: You have 2 cows. You redesign them so they are one-tenth the size of an ordinary cow and produce twenty times the milk. You then create a clever cow cartoon image called Cowkimon and market them worldwide.

German Corporation: You have 2 cows. You re-engineer them so they live for 100 years, eat once a month, and milk themselves.

British Corporation: You have 2 cows. Both are mad.

Italian Corporation: You have 2 cows, but you don’t know where they are. You break for lunch.

Russian Corporation: You have 2 cows. You count them and learn you have five cows. You count them again and learn you have 42 cows. You count them again and learn you have 2 cows. You stop counting cows and open another bottle of vodka.

Swiss Corporation: You have 5000 cows. None of which belong to you. You charge others for storing them.

Chinese Corporation: You have 2 cows. You have 300 people milking them. You claim full employment, high bovine productivity, and arrest the newsman who reported the numbers.

Iraqi Corporation: Everyone thinks you have lots of cows. You tell them that you have none. No one believes you and they bomb your ass. You still have no cows, but at least now you are part of a Democracy.......

Counter Culture: 'Wow, dig it, like there's these 2 cows, man, grazing in the hemp field. You gotta have some of this milk!'

Surrealism: You have two giraffes. The government requires you to take harmonica lessons.

Fatalist: You have 2 doomed cows...

Hong Kong Capitalism: You have 2 cows. You sell 3 of them to your publicly listed company, using letters of credit opened by your brother-in-law at the bank, then execute a debt/equity swap with an associated general offer so that you get all 4 cows back, with a tax deduction for keeping 5 cows. The milk rights of 6 cows are transferred via a Panamanian intermediary to a Cayman Islands company secretly owned by the majority shareholder, who sells the rights to all 7 cows' milk back to the listed company and proceeds from the sale are deferred. The annual report says that the company owns 8 cows, with an option on one more. Meanwhile, you kill the 2 cows because the feng shui is bad.

Arkansas Corporation: You have 2 cows. That one on the left is kinda cute…

Indian Corporation: You have 2 cows. You worship them.

Australian Corporation: You have 2 cows. Business seems pretty good. You close the office and go down the pub to celebrate.

Hot Links

clevescene.com/Issues/2005-10-19/news/news.html Knocking the Vote -Diebold says its voting machines are bulletproof. Hackers say otherwise.

Excerpt:The apparatus in question is the Accuvote 2000 Optical Scan, a boxlike computer that reads ballots as they are inserted. The data is collected and stored on a memory card that's later uploaded into a central tabulator. Diebold, the machine's Canton-based manufacturer, claims that the memory cards cannot be altered to influence votes. Sancho figured he'd find out for himself.

In May, he gave Dr. Herbert Thompson access to an Accuvote 2000. As hackers go, Thompson doesn't quite fit the mold of a pasty-faced kid playing Warcraft in Mom's basement: He's the chief strategist at Security Innovation, a Florida tester of online security for IBM, Microsoft, Google, and other large businesses and government agencies. If anyone can uncover a problem, it's this guy.

But not even Thompson could have expected this: He was able to manipulate a memory card using homemade devices. When he inserted it into the Diebold machine, 10,000 votes were awarded to one candidate, and the Accuvote detected no sign of fraud.

Prissy has been told by IT people that this is true, the machines are easily hacked at the local level. Without detection. They also said if they could gain access to the Diebold machines, it would be easy to tell, but Diebold isn't interested in proving to the public these machines should be trusted....Because?

">antiwar.com/mcgovern/?articleid=7697> Cheney's Chickens Come Home to Roost-by Ray McGovern

Indictments are expected to come down shortly as special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald completes the investigation originally precipitated by the outing of a CIA officer under deep cover. In 21-plus months of digging and interviewing, Fitzgerald and his able staff have been able to negotiate the intelligence/policy/politics labyrinth with considerable sophistication. In the process, they seem to have learned considerably more than they had bargained for. The investigation has long since morphed into size extra large, which is the only size commensurate with the wrongdoing uncovered – not least, the fabrication and peddling of intelligence to justify a war of aggression.

democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/10/20/1411211

Amy Goodman-Democracy Now-Thursday, October 20th, 2005-Robert Fisk: War is the "Total Failure of the Human Spirit- Great interview.

editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001349491 Blaming Media in Leak Case Not Working-Editor and Publisher

Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald now knows that Cheney aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby met three times with a New York Times reporter before the leak of Plame's identity, initiated a call to NBC's Tim Russert and was a confirming source about Wilson's wife for a Time magazine reporter.

And in a new twist, presidential political adviser Karl Rove has testified that it's possible Libby was his source before Rove talked to two reporters about the CIA operative.

Are Bush & Co. War Criminals? straight.com/content.cfm?id=9324

Davidson, cochair of an international group called Lawyers Against the War (LAW), says she is the only person in the world who has ever laid criminal charges against Bush. On November 30, 2004, Davidson walked into Vancouver Provincial Court and convinced a justice of the peace to accept seven Criminal Code charges against Bush while he was visiting Canada. She brought evidence to support her contention that Bush should be held criminally responsible for counselling, aiding, and abetting torture at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq and at a U.S. military jail at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Each offence carries a prison sentence of up to 14 years.

On December 6, Provincial Court Judge William Kitchen ruled in an in-camera hearing that those charges were a “nullity”. In law, this means they never occurred even though they had been approved. Kitchen permitted Davidson to reveal outside the courtroom that his decision was based on Bush’s “diplomatic immunity”.

whatreallyhappened.com/helms.html From WhatReallyHappened and the US Army War College- Regarding charges that Saddam killed scores of his own people: Having looked at all of the evidence that was available to us, we find it impossible to confirm the State Department's claim that gas was used in this instance. To begin with there were never any victims produced. International relief organizations who examined the Kurds -- in Turkey where they had gone for asylum -- failed to discover any. Nor were there ever any found inside Iraq. The claim rests solely on testimony of the Kurds who had crossed the border into Turkey, where they were interviewed by staffers of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Quotes of the Day

Don't forget Adelman, Mr. Fitzgerald.....

From NeoCon Kenneth Adelman's Project for the New American Century: Signatory to April 3, 2002 letter to President Bush calling for Saddam Hussein's ouster and increased support for Israel. His predictions on the war with Iraq:

- "Kenneth Adelman said these weapons are likeliest to be found near Tikrit and Baghdad, 'because they're the most protected places with the best troops. I have no doubt we're going to find big stores of weapons of mass destruction." (Washington Post , March 23, 2003)

- "I believe that demolishing Hussein's military power and liberating Iraq would be a cakewalk. . This President Bush does not need to amass rinky-dink nations as 'coalition partners' to convince the Washington establishment that we're right." (Washington Post , February 13, 2002, A27)

For fun- What's your political compass? digitalronin.f2s.com/politicalcompass/questionnaire.php More Sunday...

2 comments:

Drue said...

This administration gives me the shits.

The Prissy Patriot said...

Dearest Drue,

Prissy has a feeling the administration is getting a dose of the "green apple trots" themselves....

Prissy