Looks like the rumour sites have been saying Turd Blossom is going to be indicted (or even has been already) for perjury and a few other charges.

The cynic in me says that even if they do, it won't go very far, and a pardon will occur even if it does.

The cynic in me says that even if they do, it won't go very far, and a pardon will occur even if it does.


History is unfortunately on that side.

Indictments are for liberals, you silly-billy!

If Reagan had been indicted and tried for treason for cutting a deal with the Iranians in 1980, maybe we wouldn't be in the pickle we're in now. But, you know, lying about consensual sex is a much bigger crime than brokering a deal with our enemies to keep American civilians held hostage for an extra two months so you can win the election!

If Reagan had been indicted and tried for treason for cutting a deal with the Iranians in 1980, maybe we wouldn't be in the pickle we're in now. But, you know, lying about consensual sex is a much bigger crime than brokering a deal with our enemies to keep American civilians held hostage for an extra two months so you can win the election!


Reagan cut a deal with the Iranians? That's gotta be the craziest thing I've heard in my life. You're kidding, right? Is there any factual basis for that?

Reagan cut a deal with the Iranians? That's gotta be the craziest thing I've heard in my life. You're kidding, right? Is there any factual basis for that?
there's a decent circumstantial case for it. why the hell would they have released the hostages on the precise day of reagan's inauguration? that always struck me as amazingly weird.

Reagan cut a deal with the Iranians? That's gotta be the craziest thing I've heard in my life. You're kidding, right? Is there any factual basis for that?

Yeah, enough credible investigators have done enough substantiated research to demonstrate the Reagan campaign cut a deal with Iranians because if the hostages got released in the fall of 1980, Carter might come out the hero and win. The problem will always be Reagan-loving politicians and pundits to muddy the waters.

If we can't settle the Reagan--Iran conspiracy, then they don't have to worry about other unpleasant questions, such as "Why was Neil Bush dining with John Hinckley's brother the night before the attempt on President Reagan's life?"

Anyway, Wikipedia is always a good place to start on a big subject:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_surprise_conspiracy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Sick

http://www.nysun.com/article/32727

http://wuzzadem.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/lrov5.jpg

http://www.nysun.com/article/32727

http://wuzzadem.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/lrov5.jpg



Of course the spokesperson is going to deny it. Dick Cheny also denied that there was going to be a shake-up in the administration on one of those news shows (can't remember which one) and the very next day, there was. I don't believe anything the White House says because over and over they have proved to be false.



Cat

just reading in the post how the head of the NSA was denying there was domestic surveillance going on, like, four days before the usa today story broke. this lot just denies until they're caught, and then after they're caught they deny that they ever denied it.

there's a decent circumstantial case for it. why the hell would they have released the hostages on the precise day of reagan's inauguration?



Because they were angry at Carter.  Why else?  You don't like the guy, he spends the last year of his presidency trying to release the hostages so what do you to kick him in the teeth?  Do it the second his successor takes the oath of office so that it happens during HIS presidency, not Carter's.  I was watching a documentary on the Presidents of the United States and when they were discussing Carter and his presidency, this is what they surmised was the reasoning behind it.

Because they were angry at Carter.  Why else?  You don't like the guy, he spends the last year of his presidency trying to release the hostages so what do you to kick him in the teeth?  Do it the second his successor takes the oath of office so that it happens during HIS presidency, not Carter's.  I was watching a documentary on the Presidents of the United States and when they were discussing Carter and his presidency, this is what they surmised was the reasoning behind it.
but why would they hate carter so much? do they really care that much who's in office? i rather doubt it, and plus, as a weak president unlikely to use force you'd think they'd have been all about carter; why would they go out of their way to make reagan look good, when his anti-iranian rhetoric during the campaign had been much stronger? i dunno...

but why would they hate carter so much? do they really care that much who's in office? i rather doubt it, and plus, as a weak president unlikely to use force you'd think they'd have been all about carter; why would they go out of their way to make reagan look good, when his anti-iranian rhetoric during the campaign had been much stronger? i dunno...



Probaby because of the Begin-Sadat meeting he had.  That had to have pissed someone over there off.

There are now two possibilities regarding the Karl Rove indictment:

Either Karl Rove has been indicted or Karl Rove has not been indicted.

What I'm seeing in the media is a giant smokescreen.

http://snopes.com/katrina/graphics/skybush.jpg

Looks like there's a lot of corrections coming out over this one.  This "reporter" is actually well known for fabircating sources and making his own news basically.

I'm sure there's an indictment coming, but I think this guy was a little too quick to make a story than to wait for it to actually happen.

Looks like there's a lot of corrections coming out over this one.  This "reporter" is actually well known for fabircating sources and making his own news basically.

I'm sure there's an indictment coming, but I think this guy was a little too quick to make a story than to wait for it to actually happen.

Hmmm...that method worked pretty well against Clinton.
::)