tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2322271369444984672.post3326751970544292889..comments2023-11-05T02:28:57.754-06:00Comments on indict dick cheney: some answers: "why did james comey only now reveal the march 2004 events?"Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2322271369444984672.post-33597926716756043392007-05-28T23:57:00.000-05:002007-05-28T23:57:00.000-05:00FAQ: What Can I Do To Help Prosecute the President...<B>FAQ: What Can I Do To Help Prosecute the President?</B><BR/><BR/>This is what you can do: <BR/><BR/>1. Share the Blogswarm<BR/><BR/>A blog swarm on prosecuting Bush outside impeachment: <A HREF="http://www.haloscan.com/comments/katsiva/2337871452149292222/?a=13945#2389359" REL="nofollow">Visit here/Click this link</A>.<BR/><BR/>2. Share this discussion thread at <A HREF="http://Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2322271369444984672.post-27813106669913709682007-05-28T23:24:00.000-05:002007-05-28T23:24:00.000-05:00Here's another commentary: John H. Kim, EsqOf note...Here's another commentary: <A HREF="http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:hUJAkPyczxAJ:www.codepink4peace.org/downloads/CriminalProsecutionofPresident.pdf+president+prosecute&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us" REL="nofollow">John H. Kim, Esq</A><BR/><BR/>Of note, <I>"Although there was clear evidence of Nixon’s participation in 'a conspiracy to obstruct justice,' Jaworski declined to prosecute him because Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2322271369444984672.post-39579406901179885502007-05-28T23:09:00.000-05:002007-05-28T23:09:00.000-05:00[Summary: Prosecution is one option; impeachment i...[Summary: Prosecution is one option; impeachment is a second:] <BR/><BR/>Here's some more bad news for the President: Even <A HREF="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/paneltext090998.htm" REL="nofollow">Ashcroft</A> mentioned prosecuting a sitting President. Isn't this the second time we heard good news from Ashcroft -- the other was Comey's revelations on FISA.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2322271369444984672.post-7424386715684275852007-05-28T22:37:00.000-05:002007-05-28T22:37:00.000-05:00Here's Turley's contact information, maybe someone...Here's Turley's <A HREF="http://www.law.gwu.edu/Faculty/profile.aspx?id=1738" REL="nofollow">contact information</A>, maybe someone might want to talk to him on the phone, get a fax copy sent to you, and you could have a lawyer-to-lawyer pow-wow.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2322271369444984672.post-41426608051495553112007-05-28T22:33:00.000-05:002007-05-28T22:33:00.000-05:00Nolo: "immunity for governmental-acts set a pretty...Nolo: <I>"immunity for governmental-acts set a pretty high bar"</I>; indeed, but there is qualified immunity, as you well know -- in re Nixon and Clinton/Jones, President still accountable, and not absolutely immune to suit, prosecution, claims, or court action.<BR/><BR/>The article <A HREF="http://www.google.com/search?q=%22The+Prosecution+of+Sitting+Presidents%22+Turley&hl=en&filter=0" REL="Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2322271369444984672.post-8585174507275321662007-05-28T22:24:00.000-05:002007-05-28T22:24:00.000-05:00nolo,I understand: "i may take alook at the refere...nolo,<BR/>I understand: <I>"i may take a<BR/>look at the referenced law<BR/>review article -- given its<BR/>date, it likely argued for the<BR/>prosecution of president clinton."</I><BR/><BR/>Turley's not the only one who's written on it. If you get a chance, may want to review Bybee's commentary -- yes, the same one as who wrote the torture memo. I understand you may think it is BS; I'm not Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2322271369444984672.post-6841710707187974212007-05-28T22:09:00.000-05:002007-05-28T22:09:00.000-05:00anon -- we posted between eachother -- i will look...anon -- we posted between each<BR/>other -- i will look into this<BR/>tomorrow, but now i must sleep.<BR/><BR/>p e a c e. . .condorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11014613306197942748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2322271369444984672.post-7481196121254239632007-05-28T22:08:00.000-05:002007-05-28T22:08:00.000-05:00priscianus jr -- welcome!i think standing is an im...priscianus jr -- welcome!<BR/><BR/>i think standing is an important<BR/>barrier -- and, now, as i look at the<BR/>rest of turley's scholarship, available<BR/>online -- it seems i may have<BR/>been entirely too hasty in think-<BR/>ing it dismissable. . .<BR/><BR/>i will look, but if someone<BR/>could point me to a link for<BR/>the actual article, i'd be<BR/>grateful. . .<BR/><BR/>immunity for condorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11014613306197942748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2322271369444984672.post-43795734428554220942007-05-28T22:07:00.000-05:002007-05-28T22:07:00.000-05:00Priscianus Jr.,Thank you for your interest. Prosec...Priscianus Jr.,<BR/><BR/>Thank you for your interest. Prosecuting a President would be a criminal matter. You asked, "who would have standing to bring such an action? Organizations representing: voters, members of the military, telephone and Interest users, etc.? Individuals who have suffered injury? etc."<BR/><BR/>"standing" would apply to the State, and the Attorney General of the State would Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2322271369444984672.post-84471794886472939362007-05-28T22:01:00.000-05:002007-05-28T22:01:00.000-05:00welcome, anonymous --i admit that i have seen, and...welcome, anonymous --<BR/><BR/>i admit that i have seen, and<BR/>been intrigued, by your myriad<BR/>posts on this topic at many<BR/>other blogs. . . i may take a<BR/>look at the referenced law<BR/>review article -- given its<BR/>date, it likely argued for the<BR/>prosecution of president clinton.<BR/><BR/>not that it should matter, but i<BR/>will note that many of the pro-<BR/>republican-party condorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11014613306197942748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2322271369444984672.post-73864987581432557852007-05-28T20:18:00.000-05:002007-05-28T20:18:00.000-05:00This is certainly a fundamental question! We reall...This is certainly a fundamental question! We really need to be thinking about it. I'm not remotely a lawyer, but it seems to me the next question is, who would have standing to bring such an action? Organizations representing: voters, members of the military, telephone and internet users, etc.? Individuals who have suffered injury? etc.priscianus jrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07466057971073067882noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2322271369444984672.post-46705596016000715062007-05-28T14:31:00.000-05:002007-05-28T14:31:00.000-05:00Prosecuting Domestic EnemiesPutting aside the view...<B>Prosecuting Domestic Enemies</B><BR/><BR/>Putting aside the views of the author, interested in you comments on prosecuting a sitting President. [Ref: Jonathan Turley, "From Pillar to Post": <B>The Prosecution of Sitting Presidents</B>, 37 American Criminal Law Review 1049-1106 (2000)]<BR/><BR/>Congress isn't impeaching; your views on a non-impeachment, direct prosecution of cheney and Bush; Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com