Nope. Why on earth would I trust this administration to convict itself?

I think he was offering to bet that Rove or Cheney would not be indicted, let alone convicted. But your point is well taken, since it appears that the plan is for Libby to take the fall, rather than to flip himself to dish on those above him. I propose a different bet: That if Libby is convicted of perjury, and that if the conviction is not reversed on appeal by then, he will be pardoned before Inauguration Day, 2008. Want to take that bet, club?

edited for clarity

Correct and no, I don't want that bet. There is plenty of, eh hem, recent precedent regarding dirty pardons.

Better Get Ready to Raise the Debt Ceiling
 

DEM Agenda -

• (CNSNews.com) - The Republican Party has wondered what's taking Democrats so long to unveil their election-year agenda. Amid press reports that it will happen any day now, House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi on Tuesday offered what amounts to a draft version.
  
  Americans who find it hard to make ends meet may like the promises they hear from the Democrats. But the companies that employ such Americans may not like the plan.
  
  In any case, the Republican Party says the Democrats' real agenda involves the censure and possible impeachment of President George W. Bush.
  
  In a speech to the Communications Workers of America on Tuesday, Pelosi mentioned Democrats' opposition to outsourcing. She said Democrats will end tax subsidies for companies that send jobs overseas.
  
  She also said Democrats support the "right of all Americans to organize," a sentiment that goes over well with labor unions such as the CWA.
  
  To protect workers who want to join unions, Pelosi said Democrats are "fighting" to pass the Employee Free Choice Act, sponsored by Rep. George Miller (D-Calif.) in the House and Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) in the Senate. "The bill will guarantee that when a majority of workers in a company want a union, they will get a union," Pelosi said.
  
  Democrats also support an increase in the minimum wage. Pelosi, describing the income of corporate American CEOs as "immoral," used Wal-Mart to make her point:
  
  "I was told that an entry level person at Wal-Mart, who works his or her entire career at Wal-Mart, would make as much as the CEO makes in two weeks. A lifetime of work versus two weeks in the executive suite -- this is not America, this is not fairness, this is not the basis of a strong middle class that is essential for our democracy. We must change that in our country," she said.
  
  Pelosi also mentioned the Democrats' "Innovation Agenda" to maintain America's leadership role in the global economy.
  
  America lags behind other countries that have universal broadband deployment, Pelosi said; but the Democrats' agenda "guarantees" that every American will have affordable access to broadband within five years.
  
  "We also believe that the nationwide deployment of high speed, always-on broadband and Internet and mobile communications will fuel the development of millions of new jobs in the United States," Pelosi said.
  
  Democrats support "energy independence" within ten years; health care for all American within five years; and "dignified retirement" (no privatization of Social Security) through an "AmeriSave" plan.

Yeah. I was outraged, too, when President George H.W. Bush issued the Iran Contra pardons on Christmas Eve 1992 to protect himself from the expected testimony in Caspar Weinberger's trial that he perjured himself in making his "out of the loop" comments.

http://www.nytimes.com/books/97/06/2...an-pardon.html

South Dakota question
 

Maybe some of you have been paying attention and can answer this question. A newspaper out today says: "Under the South Dakota bill, abortion will become a felony, but only the doctor who performs the procedure is subject to prosecution. The woman who seeks and pays for the operation is not."

My question: Does the bill (or law, right?) not permit prosecution of the woman, or does it provide for a safe harbor? If the former, couldn't a prosecutor go after women in these circumstances for conspiring with the doctor, or for aiding and abetting a felony for paying for it? If South Dakota law is anything like the jurisdictions I'm familiar with, such charges could carry penalties comparable to whatever the doctor is getting whacked with.

South Dakota question
 

South Dakota question
 

Interesting. We're not infringing on a woman's right to choose; we're just jailing any doctor who helps her exercise it.

South Dakota question
 

Well, is allows her to go to another state.

South Dakota question
 

It also creates a plaintiff problem: who's going to sue to overturn? A woman wanting an abortion is going to have to fight through a standing argument first (and I've been out of law school long enough not to pretend I know whether she'd prevail). And how many doctors in SD are going to sue? It's a small, small state. Hell, they have to import a doctor just to perform abortions, I understand.

South Dakota question
 

Does that answer the question? If the mother is charged with conspiracy or aiding and abetting, she's being charged with a crime under other provisions, not under that act.

South Dakota question
 

Is beeg, beeg state. More than 77,000 square miles. Very beeg.

http://www.50states.com/flag/image/nunst067.gif

Lame flag, though.

South Dakota question
 

He's from Texas. All states are small to him.

Fuck Alaska.

South Dakota question
 

Yes, I'm sure that's just what the AG will argue.

South Dakota question
 

Where's Red? We have have him do the research.

South Dakota question
 

Be sure to tell him it will improve his chances of making partner.

South Dakota question
 

And fuck South Dakota with that lameass flag.

http://www.50states.com/flag/image/nunst070.gif

South Dakota question
 

But they'd have to reference that Act to say what she was aiding and abetting or conspiring about, and that Act says that nothing in it can be used to get the preggo/formerly preggo woman. Without referencing the abortion Act thingy, she's not conspiring or aiding or abetting anything.

South Dakota question
 

So you can do it yourself... Like those at-home hair coloring kits, or one of those diabetic self-testing kits.

I could see Wilford Brimley pitching it:

"As a man, I understand that sometimes birth control might not work. Or maybe you were drunk and forgot. But as a law-abiding citizen, I also respect laws. Now, in South Dakota, you can't see a doc for an abortion. But luckily, the folks at American Health Devices have it all figured out for you..."

South Dakota question
 

There are a lot of websites popping up telling women how to do it to themselves. I'm not seeing how that's preferable to in a physician's office under medical supervision where counseling may be available.

South Dakota question
 

It's a culture of life thing. You wouldn't understand.

South Dakota question
 

Yeah, having sinners, who everybody knows are mostly the poor and minorities, die of infections and self-inflicted wounds helps achieve the long-sought goal of racial purity.

I would have thought an aristocratic Mexican such as yourself would understand these things, dear.

South Dakota question
 

Sigh. This is the subject of the LAT article I quoted a few days back. The answer is the former: The woman is precluded from criminal prosecution under this law, period.

South Dakota question
 

These are the sinners.

South Dakota question
 

I apologize for hurting your feelings by forgetting what was surely a lucid, timely, and informative post. But your "under this law" caveat is exactly what I'm talking about. Thanks to Burger, we know that the law says:

• Nothing in this Act may be construed to subject the pregnant mother upon whom any abortion is performed or attempted to any criminal conviction and penalty.

A prosecutor would argue that a woman charged with conspiracy or aiding and abetting is not being "subjected" to criminal conviction or penalty under "this Act" -- she's being charged with conspiracy or aiding and abetting, which are distinct crimes.

South Dakota question
 

Dude, check out the bold italicized above. It doesn't limit it to under "this Act." It says any at all.

South Dakota question
 

I think he was talking about population. Not a lot of people in the Dakotas.

At what point does the population of the Dakotas become so small that we turn them back into a federal territory?

As far as the flag is concerned there seemed to be this lazy trend in the middle to late nineteenth century where a bunch of states just slapped their state seal on a piece of cloth and called it their flag. No creativity at all.

Luckily this trend ended in the twentieth century so Arizona, New Mexico, Hawaii and Alaska all have pretty cool flags.

My favorite flag is Maryland's. There is a flag with some character.

http://www.50states.com/flag/image/nunst032.gif

South Dakota question
 

Tht's how I read it too.

S_A_M

P.S. Have I missed the big discussion on Carla Martin, the TSA lawyer whose misconduct has just ensured that Moussaoui will _not_receive the death penalty? (Tough case anyway, but . . . .) Fucking incredible.

South Dakota question
 

2. And I think Fringe already made the point that "conspiracy" is not itself a crime (nor is "attempt"). It's a conspiracy to commit a crime, in this case performing an abortion. Inchoate offenses are not themselves offenses, only in conjunction with something otherwise unlawful.

South Dakota question
 

BTW, did Texas rip of Chile?

http://www.plcmc.org/forkids/mow/ima...-largeflag.gif

South Dakota question
 

Sort of.

The exclusionary rule is apparently bad.

South Dakota question
 

What's to discuss, other than it's a massive fucking bungle. Then again, the basis on which they were trying to get him was pretty thin.

South Dakota question
 

Yes. Fringe didn't think she needed to bold and italicize the "any" the first time around. It seemed pretty obvious.

South Dakota question
 

Is that set, that he won't get the death penalty? Was there another ruling, or is it that the case falls apart without the testimony of the witnesses who were coached and given info they weren't supposed to have and otherwise mishandled?

South Dakota question
 

And I don't see how it really matters, anyway. I suppose there's some chance that SD could claim it's not putting an undue burden on women by forcing them to go out of state (where they could not be subject to prosecution by SD, but could if it were a crime to procure an abortion or attempt to get one, even out of state). But I don't think they're looking to split those hairs with this one.

South Dakota question
 

Government is weighing its options.

Are there only three people at TSA who could so testify, or are they barred from adding witnesses at this point? In other words, surely there are untainted witnesses.

South Dakota question
 

Apparently even the prosecutors candidly say that he's not going to get the death penalty unless the excluded witnesses can testify. They're asking the judge to reconsider her ruling tomorrow. I can't possibly see how he'd get a fair hearing if that were to happen, and is there an appeal process for the prosecutorial side on a hearing like this one?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060315/...NlYwMlJVRPUCUl

South Dakota question
 

Yeah, it seems like it's possibly important on a political level, but probably not from the constitutionality standpoint, since I don't think they are trying to meet any kind of "no undue burden" standard here. I would presume they are hoping to get Roe dumped, so that there no longer is any burden test to impose.

BURGER!!! Its. Its. Its.

South Dakota question
 

Maybe these are the only three people who would have made the decision to change security procedures if they'd known about the plot? I wonder how many false alarms those guys followed up upon prior to 9/11. I wonder how many false alarms they follow up upon now.

South Dakota question
 

I see that. But read it again:

"Nothing in this Act may be construed to subject the pregnant mother upon whom any abortion is performed or attempted to any criminal conviction and penalty."

Nothing in this Act may be construed to subject the pregnant mother ... to any criminal conviction and penalty. What if some other law, on its face, may be construed to subject the pregnant mother to criminal conviction and penalty?