It has been over 100 yrs that a sitting WH staff got indicted. Norah

[rodeodance]

O'donnel on msnbc Tweety now.

[Gabi Hayes]

1. how long since a sitting Veep got indicted? not very

http://www.isthatlegal.org/archives/2005/10/why_not_indict.html

[rodeodance]

5. She was wondering if they would resign tonight? or why not let go.

[rodeodance]

2. Said it would be unusual for for Rove or libby or whomever to be on

staff knowing the indicments are coming (if they know).

[rodeodance]

3. Norah saying all others had resigned or told to go before indictments

came (if they did come they came after resignations).

[rodeodance]

8. Then there was a brief discussion of all the scenaries that are being

worked out by Rove Libby lawyers.

[rodeodance]

12. There was also some discussion about how the WH would defend them.

[babylonsister]

4. Norah-talk about a tool. I've come to despise her. nt

[Joe for Clark]

6. She is technically correct.

Babcock was the last sitting staffer indicted, in the 1870s, for financial fraud. Although Nixon's people were also indicted, it was after they resigned.

[rodeodance]

10. Thanks for the verification.

[Halliburton]

7. I CAN'T STAND WHORA

she belongs at Faux

[HereSince1628]

9. A distinction with little difference. Corruption in the seat of power

isn't uncommon. Unfortunately it has become a hallmark for conservative republican administrations. The basis of this is probably the deep held conservative conviction in authority.

[tanyev]

Yeah, well, we've never made it to Hurricane Alpha before, either.

Quite the banner year.

[me b zola]

11. I saw it.

Good Gawd, are we going to have to deal with these creeps refusing to leave??? Politically it would kill them all, although they are already on life-support.

If they do stay, I truly fear for what they will do to the country. :scared:

[rodeodance]

13. or maybe they will not be indicted? the possibility exists.

[rodeodance]

15. It would be a long 3 years if this happened.

[napi21]

14. This will be the FIRST time officials in the WH and in Congress

we under indictments at the same time!

That was the question on Lou Dobb's show last night.

I got it wrong because I thought there were some of the Congress involved in Watergate, but I guess not.

Boy, good old W is doing a lot of "firsts", and they're all BAD!

[DoYouEverWonder]

16. Watergate was entirely isolated to the WH

plus in the old days, most officials had the courtesy to resign before they got indicted.

[Joe for Clark]

17. Boy he sure is.

You know what I think the big difference really is??

NO ONE has ever been indicted, not in OUR country, with an underlying cause of treason. These people killed other people, or are directly responsible for their deaths.

This is about that war. And Karma is a bitch.

Joe

[aquart]

18. Nixon and Reagan weren't that long ago. Not nearly.

[ThoughtCriminal]

19. Agnew?

I think he was indicted before his resignation. Short century.

[Joe for Clark]

20. No,

He resigned and then plead guilty (or no contest)to income tax evasion.

The dems do seem to have been a lot more organized then. Thoughtful.

When or if Bush goes down, and if Cheney goes down, and the speaker of the house has gone down - Do we end up with a president Condi Rice?

I hope that logic is wrong - I'd so much rather see an emaciated Bush for a few more years.

Hopefully our leaders have thought this through.

Joe

[WinkyDink]

21. Fine. Let All the Chimperor's Men

make modern history!!