Posted on 10/10/2008 3:23:10 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Who is HillBuzz?
Yeah, that's why President Nixon served two full terms...wait, no he didn't.
Fitzgerald could refuse to step down and also charge Obama with obstruction of justice. There would be a march on Washington to rival the “Million Man March” by Promise Keepers many years ago; the outraghe would be so big. It would force the Democrats to impeach Obama.
Hillary Supporters for McCain, aka PUMAs.
Here’s several millions (minimum) of PUMAs, etc..
Hillary Clinton Supporters For John McCain: http://www.hcsfjm.com
Party Unity My A$$ PAC/People United Means Action PAC: http://blog.pumapac.org
Democrats Against Obama/Nobama ever! http://democrats-against-obama.org
Just Say No Deal:
http://justsaynodeal.com
Take a look around these sites for a half hour or 45 minutes....(there are hundreds more linked to these, just look for links)
Mr. Fitzgerald is (at least nominally) a Republican.
We do not believe this will come out before the election, however, but we do believe Fitzgerald will continue his prosecution to the highest level, because that is what he does. Jean Valjean got off easy, compared to what it’s like to be in the crosshairs of perhaps the greatest prosecutor this nation has had in a generation. Patrick Fitzgerald is a force of nature.
Fitz would have a tough time, if possible at all, indicting a sitting president (should Obambi win the election).
If Obambi could be named as a co-conspirator before Election Day, or otherwise as a subject of interest (or similiar), it might be enough to raise questions in sheeple's minds.
But if he wins, the only way to get him out of office is to impeach him, convict him and remove him.
Fitz better get going on this if he thinks he really has the goods on Obambi.
I'll post some source material in a separate post.
Fitzgerald will be out of office as soon as Obama is in.
A Sitting President’s Amenability to Indictment and Criminal Prosecution*
The indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would unconstitutionally undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions.
October 16, 2000
MEMORANDUM FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
In 1973, the Department concluded that the indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions.
We have been asked to summarize and review the analysis provided in support of that conclusion, and to consider whether any subsequent developments in the law lead us today to reconsider and modify or disavow that determination.1 We believe that the conclusion reached by the Department in 1973 still represents the best interpretation of the Constitution.
The Department’s consideration of this issue in 1973 arose in two distinct legal contexts. First, the Office of Legal Counsel (”OLC”) prepared a comprehensive memorandum in the fall of 1973 that analyzed whether all federal civil officers are immune from indictment or criminal prosecution while in office, and, if not, whether the President and Vice President in particular are immune from indictment or criminal prosecution while in office. See Memorandum from Robert G. Dixon, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, Re: Amenability of the President, Vice President and other Civil Officers to Federal Criminal Prosecution while in Office (Sept. 24, 1973) (”OLC Memo”).
The OLC memorandum concluded that all federal civil officers except the President are subject to indictment and criminal prosecution while still in office; the President is uniquely immune from such process. Second, the Department addressed the question later that same year in connection with the grand jury investigation of then-Vice President Spiro Agnew.
In response to a motion by the Vice President to enjoin grand jury proceedings against him, then-Solicitor General Robert Bork filed a brief arguing that, consistent with the Constitution, the Vice President could be subject to indictment and criminal prosecution. See Memorandum for the United States Concerning the Vice President’s Claim of Constitutional Immunity (filed Oct. 5, 1973), In re Proceedings of the Grand Jury Impaneled December 5, 1972: Application of Spiro T. Agnew, Vice President of the United States (D. Md. 1973) (No. 73-965) (”SG Brief”).
In so arguing, however, Solicitor General Bork was careful to explain that the President, unlike the Vice President, could not constitutionally be subject to such criminal process while in office.
In this memorandum, we conclude that the determinations made by the Department in 1973, both in the OLC memorandum and in the Solicitor General’s brief, remain sound and that subsequent developments in the law validate both the analytical framework applied and the conclusions reached at that time.
In Part I, we describe in some detail the Department’s 1973 analysis and conclusions. In Part II, we examine more recent Supreme Court case law and conclude that it comports with the Department’s 1973 conclusions.2
. . . This is an excerpt from the following link. (Note the date of this memo.)
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/sitting_president.htm
...for refusing to belly flop into a giant pit of mud.
So many dots to connect - so little time.
Isn’t Patrick Fitzgerald a declared Independant? He was nominated by Republican former senator Peter Fitzgerald (no relation). He doesn’t strike me political...even though his office’s cases have incl. pretty high profile republicans (Gov. Ryan was a crook!). He strikes me like the old sheriff type who rounds up the bad guys and remains neutral.
Is a president-elect considered to be a “sitting” president? I wouldn’t think so, as he/she hasn’t been sworn in yet? That gives Mr. Fitzgerald til late January of 2009, doesn’t it?
Slightly O/T, this is exactly what is going to happen when the Rats try to blame this financial mess on Wall Street and “corporate greed.”
Those guys are not going to take it. Before too long, they are going to start singing like tweety birds who never notice the sun went down.
Just today I heard on Rush one of them spilling on Dodd, who sanctimoniously came out and bashed the CEOS, etc. Former CEO of Countrywide said something like “Of course Dodd knew he was getting a sweetheart deal on his mortgage (despite his denials). That was the POINT of giving him a sweetheart deal-—he won’t do favors for Countrywide if he ‘didn’t know’ Countrywide had lined his pockets.”
The Rats can’t push this off on Republicans and they can’t push it off on CEOs without eventually getting the biggest blowback they’ve ever seen. These guys have the goods on the RATS. So, I hope, they are cornered this time-—so long as WE keep up the pressure to fix blame for this debacle.
“Just conjecture & rumors for now, but who knows?”
Quite so. Doesn’t sound like anything truly “illegal” (but there are obviously a lot of missing details) UNTIL we find out if there ever was a quid pro quo.....and of course, at that point, an iron-bar linkage would have to be made and we know that doesn’t happen much in Dem-dominated poitical circles. So...I’m not holding my breath.
Hell the more he’s called a Messiah...the more he’s associated with Wright and Ayers...etc... the more he rises in the polls.....reminds me of 92...teflon this guy is...
A real indictment from Fitzgerald would be great...nothing sticks harder than a real indictment when the MSM won’t do their job.
This is like The Godfather and the Kennedys all at once.
The only possible way this could happen is if the Clintons are behind it...
There’s still some hope, but I’m not going to hold my breath.
Mark
Yep. But that’s still not a lot of time as these things go.
And once Obambi is elected, if that happens, the political cost of going forward gets a lot larger.
And once Obambi is elected, if that happens, the political cost of going forward gets a lot larger
Can you say CONSTITUTIONAL CRISES? Add in the FACT that Obama will NOT provide a valid birth certificate, then you have the making of a block buster made for home movie:
CRISES ON ELECTION DAY
I’ve heard people say things about not accepting an invalid president, WHAT ARE THEY GOING TO DO ABOUT IT? Not watch it on TV?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.