You are herecontent / Analysis: Can Patrick Fitzgerald Indict Bush and Cheney?

Analysis: Can Patrick Fitzgerald Indict Bush and Cheney?


Analysis: Can Patrick Fitzgerald Indict Bush and Cheney?
by DC Pol Sci [Subscribe]
Sun Oct 2nd, 2005 at 11:14:45 PDT
If Patrick Fitzgerald is indeed either contemplating the indictment of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney or contemplating naming them as unindicted co-conspirators in the plot to out Valerie Wilson as a CIA agent, we are entering uncharted legal waters. The one example history presents us, that of Watergate, differs in a very important respect: Leon Jaworski, the Watergate special prosecutor, had a House Judiciary Committee that was willing to take action and provide a remedy in the form of impeachment. Since the current House Judiciary Committee is obviously not so inclined, Fitzgerald is essentially faced with three options: 1) Indict Bush and Cheney and provoke a constitutional crisis on the question of whether a sitting President is indictable; 2) Name Bush and Cheney as unindicted co-conspirators and watch them get off scot free, to be tried only in the court of public opinion; or 3) Do nothing and let them get off without even public criticism.

Can a sitting President be indicted?

DC Pol Sci's diary :: ::
This was discussed by Jaworski et al. back in the Watergate era, and they deliberately decided to avoid the question by going the unindicted co-conspirator route, hoping to press Congress into action so that it would be unnecessary to make precedent on the issue. They succeeded, and we were rid of Nixon, who resigned rather than face certain impeachment.

In the present era, the question threatens to bring on a constitutional crisis of unprecedented proportions, because the Republican House will almost certainly not take action in 2005 the way the Democratic House did in 1974 (with bipartisan support, mind you). What remedy will Fitzgerald have?

Here is the issue, as brilliantly outlined by Woodward and Bernstein in The Final Days:

The Constitution said clearly that if a President were impeached and removed from office, he was subject to criminal prosecution. But it was silent on the question of whether an indictment could be brought while he remained in office. If the President were indicted, his lawyers would challenge the indictment. The White House arguments would be strong . . . . What would the President do if someone started a nuclear war--ask for a recess?

Also the question of indictment would doubtless go to the Supreme Court. This would delay the trial of the other defendants charged in the conspiracy. . . .

There was the awful thought of an arraignment. How would Jaworski get a sitting President into court if, as seemed likely, he refused to come voluntarily? Would the special prosecutor send the marshals to pick him up at the White House and drag him to court? A ridiculous notion--but if it got down to raw power, the President had the armed forces at his disposal.

Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, The Final Days. New York: Avon, 1976, pp. 115-16 (paperback edition).

Though I can't find the quote for this one (I can swear I read it at some point), Jaworski believed that it clearly could not be the case that a sitting President could not be indicted for anything, however. Were that true, and were impeachment the only remedy for violations of law by the President, the President could forestall his impeachment permanently by serially murdering each and every Member of the House of Representatives. Since he couldn't be indicted or charged with the murders, he would get off scot free.

So the question, then, became at what point is a President indictable? Surely, he would be indictable for murder, but public policy considerations might motivate against permitting indictment for an offense such as obstruction of justice, the charge Jaworski was considering, while the possibility of impeachment still existed.

What if, with all of the evidence in front of them, the House Judiciary Committee had simply failed to act? What would Jaworski have done? This question seems particularly apropos of the current situation when one considers the makeup of the current House Judiciary Committee: not just Republican-led, but run by some of the worst Wingnuts the GOP has to offer. Of course, Sensenbrenner is chair, but Henry Hyde, John Hostettler, Darrell Issa, and Jeff Flake are also typical of the sort that Bugman has packed this committee with. To counter, Conyers is Ranking Member...

Of course, all of this is speculative. We don't even know if Fitzgerald has Bush and Dick in his crosshairs. But the Federal conspiracy statute cuts a very, very wide swath. If they did indeed attend meetings at which the matter was discussed, and if Fitzgerald indeed determines the outing of Valerie Wilson to have been the result of a criminal conspiracy, it is likely that both of them would be indictable but for the question of their official positions.

DO NOT FORGET, and I have emphasized this several times, that we are dealing here with a grand jury comprised of 23 citizens of the District of Columbia, a jurisdiction which voted 89 percent for John Kerry. Though overall, they are a cross-section of our D.C. community, the preponderance of jurors that I see walking around the E. Barrett Prettyman United States Courthouse for the District of Columbia at Third Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W. are middle-aged African-American females. Jurors in the District of Columbia, like those in Austin, Texas, do not rubber-stamp ANYTHING. They are some of the most thoughtful, deliberate people I have ever encountered. But they do not tend to be at all deferential to power, especially not to Republican power, and if they had the evidence in front of them to indict George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, they would not at all be afraid to do so. Woodward and Bernstein, indeed, note:

In the last week of February, Jaworski met with the grand jury. The panel had been investigating Watergate for nineteen months. He knew from those of his assistants who usually met with the jury that the jurors were determined to indict the President. They had voted unanimously in a straw poll to charge the President with a crime. When the vote was taken, some of them had raised both hands. . . .

The members of the grand jury had many questions. Some of them were so incensed at Nixon that Jaworski was afraid he might have a runaway grand jury. With slow and reasoned argument, the special prosecutor told them that he understood their feelings and shared their frustrations. . . .

Following Jaworski's advice, the jury named Richard M. Nixon, President of the United States, as an unindicted co-conspirator in the plot to obstruct justice.

Id. at 120.

What will Fitzgerald do? And what are the arguments for going either way?

LINK TO ORIGINAL

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

As usual anything dealing with government has been complicated and protective of government rather than the people it serves.
I have had an ever running thought to take the country back...

And that is that whatever groups can communicate well;
Attorneys such as Arnebeck to write the petition to Impeach;
Post in ALL major newspapers across the country and coordinate
legal offices to collect said petitions and have one clearing
house to compile the numbers of Impeachment by the People.

I hope the people capable of doing this will respond. Online petitions like the election tallies can easily be flawed and changed.
Legally there is nothing worthwhile about computer communications other than communications and hope to motivate; unless there is undisputable evidence that the computer program is secure and unchangable.

As usual anything dealing with government has been complicated and protective of government rather than the people it serves.
I have had an ever running thought to take the country back...

And that is that whatever groups can communicate well;
Attorneys such as Arnebeck to write the petition to Impeach;
Post in ALL major newspapers across the country and coordinate
legal offices to collect said petitions and have one clearing
house to compile the numbers of Impeachment by the People.

I hope the people capable of doing this will respond. Online petitions like the election tallies can easily be flawed and changed.
Legally there is nothing worthwhile about computer communications other than communications and hope to motivate; unless there is undisputable evidence that the computer program is secure and unchangable.

We can't let this go thru a legal maze...or it will wind up in the Supreme Court after Bush is dead...There has to be a way to get the Republicans to do their job and hold impreachment proceedings....

IF the Grand Jury indicts the staff including Rove and his partners, especially in relating to this law, they have to resign and can either be pardoned or face the same wrath as Tom Delay faces.

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000793----...

793(c) is the most important LAW OVERALL under these circumstances, that applies to their revealing classified CIA information in espionage.

The Vice President can easily be forced to resign, by being indicted, since he is of frail health now.

The President however is a constitutional crisis. Bush is naive and its not clear to this crime stacked Senate especially, if he really was responsible for these decisions. If he was and the evidence is clear, to convict him would take convincing the rabid neo-cons in the Senate to do away with him.

This includes Joseph Lieberman a neocon. While I believe its possible, its a hard notion to sell.

What I see instead however is we must remember that Bush was SELECTED, as according to the supreme court ruling and whereby Theodore Olson who was his legal counsel. If he is not an official PRESIDENT, and if his presidency is proven by the jury to be illegal, he can be REMOVED from office by way of top-brass army officials which would lead to an interesting period of in-fighting.

Remember, if he is not named as an un-indicted co-conspirator, and instead is indicted on one count of conspiracy and obstruction, or if the indictment against him that's been supressed is released- He will have no choice but to be removed from office somehow if temporarily.

And if everyone, including millions of people understand legally, Al Gore won the presidency, he is an illegal president and therefore WOULD BE SUBJECT to all and any laws citizens are subject to.

How does this sound, very interesting yes?

Doug E.

This is just a thought.Since the Constitution of the United States proclaims this being the government of the people,by the people and for the people,and our elected officials in Washinton are servants of the people whose purpose is to serve and represent the people ,but refuse the wishes of the people,can the people circumvent (overrule or go around) Congress and go directly to the courts to plea for impeachment or removal of the president? Let's say the majority of the people believed the President of not being of sound mind or criminal, and Congress refused to due it's duty,would the people have redress? Any lawyers out there?

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Support WarIsACrime



Donate.








Tweet your Congress critters here.


Advertise on this site!




Facebook      Twitter





Our Stores:























Movie Memorabilia.



The log-in box below is only for bloggers. Nobody else will be able to log in because we have not figured out how to stop voluminous spam ruining the site. If you would like us to have the resources to figure that out please donate. If you would like to receive occasional emails please sign up. If you would like to be a blogger here please send your resume.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.