Reality-based unreality
In the fever swamps of the DU and Kos, the moonbats' connection with reality is growing ever more tenuous. They're having a hard time accepting the fact that they got a pile of horse crap for Fitzmas, and are desperately shoveling through heaps of steaming shit looking for the pony.
Many of them think they've found it, and the logic seems to go something like this: There must be a reason that Rove wasn't indicted (apparently the notion that Rove might actually be innocent is too ludicrous for them to entertain for even a nanosecond.) That must mean he's cut a deal with Fitzgerald, which in turn must mean that Fitz is out for bigger game -- Dick Cheney.
All right, let's just forget about Occam's Razor and the complete lack of any evidence for this fantasy. I have a legal question. Can the vice president even be indicted? I seem to remember that it sparked something of a constitutional crisis the last time it was tried (Spiro Agnew.) Doesn't he have to be impeached? Any constitutional lawyers out there? If not, people with half-baked, uninformed opinions will do. Rank speculation is acceptable too.
Comments
Well, I guess mutant registration puts an end to any hope we might have still been harboring of ever getting to the bottom of this.
Kinda makes sense now that we can put all the pieces together...Florida 2000, Plame Leak, Ohio 2004, Rove not indicted, Mutant Registration...the pattern is becoming abundantly clear for anyone not swimming in right-wing Koolaid to see. What next? George Soros guilty of insider trading? That would really put a cap on things now, wouldn't it!
Posted by: withoutfeathers | June 15, 2006 09:22 AM
what constitutional crisis? Agnew was caught, copped a nolo contendereoeroeo plea and resigned. Under Article whatever of the Constitution, Nixon chose Ford as VP.
There was a constitutional brouhaha 2 weeks after Agnew quit when the 'Saturday Night Massacre" took place.
But the Agnew thing was not a crisis, unless the No. 2 guy in gov't accepting bribes is seen as a crisis.
Posted by: fred | June 15, 2006 10:16 AM
The VP is the No. 2 guy in succession, not the No. 2 guy in government.
I think the Speaker of the House is considered the No. 2 guy in government.
Posted by: withoutfeathers | June 15, 2006 10:27 AM
Sorry: I forgot about Karl Rove. The Speaker of the House is the No. 2 guy when Karl Rove is not around.
Posted by: withoutfeathers | June 15, 2006 10:29 AM
As I recall, Agnew insisted until the last that the VP, like the president, could not be indicted but must be impeached. Some legal eagles agreed with him at the time, but he was indicted anyway, and Nixon and Haig feared the "double impeachment" scenario and pressured him from office. I suppose "constitutional crisis" is in the eye of the beholder.
Posted by: BNJ | June 15, 2006 10:30 AM
you might be right, BNJ. Perhaps it was a behind-the-scenes "crisis", not one played out in public.
And feathers, yes, my wording was off a bit--although technically the VP is #1 in succession, meaning he's first in line. #2 would be the Speaker (followed by, if I recall Professor Al Haig, the Secretary of State! lol)
Posted by: fred | June 15, 2006 11:23 AM
Great line. :-D
Posted by: CRB | June 15, 2006 01:52 PM
FILCHED! from the old Reagan story about pessimists and optimists! No footnote Barry!
Posted by: fred | June 15, 2006 02:21 PM
C'mon, *everybody* knows the Reagan story! It's required reading. No attribution necessary. ;-)
Posted by: BNJ | June 15, 2006 03:13 PM
i've already reported you to the Reagan Library for plagiarism.
Mr. Johnson, tear down this blog!
Posted by: fred | June 15, 2006 05:01 PM