The sender of the email seems informed enough to be able to cite sources, such as Congressional staffers and individuals called before the grand jury.  The information seems to correspond to other reports coming out in the press, though these lack the specificity of this commentary.

If Cheney and Rove both leave the administration, whether indicted or not, it remains to be seen how Bush recreates his political machine.  Bringing on an outsider like McCain or Graham as VP doesn't necessarily mean they will be part of any Bush inner circle, unless he is utterly bereft of policy and political initiative without the help of Cheney and Rove.  Then Bush would be forced to rely on whoever he brings in, and these people could recreate an administration from scratch.

Given also the recent New York Post report that Bush chastised Rove two years ago for the messy way he handled the Joe Wilson matter, it remains to be seen whether Bush himself is off the hook.

P.S. - don't be surprised if other blogs pick up on your post, Sean Paul

found over at onegoodmove

I got the same e-mail. It was purportedly from a "Wall St. source." It's bunk. Here's the key.

The Memo was faxed to Powell on AF One the day he and Bush & Co left for Africa. Cheney wasn't on the trip - or on Air Force One with Colin Powell and the President. So the entire thesis, which includes this:

during the meeting, powell recounted to the senator that he had traveled on air force one with bush and cheney, and brought to their attention a classified memorandum about the issue of whether there was indeed a transaction inolving niger and yellow cake uranium. the document included ambassador joe wilson's involvement and identified his wife, valerie plame, as a covert agent. the memorandum further stated that this information was secret. powell told mccain that he showed that memo only to two people--president and vice president. according to powell, cheney fixated on the wilson/plame connection, and plame's status.

is wrong.

Also, Andrea Mitchell says colin powell testified he showed the memo to Ari Fleischer.

Posted by: TalkLeft on October 19, 2005 04:23 PM

Is it just in tom clancy novels and hollywood that the potus and the vice never ever ever travel together???

working on his creative writing skills...

WHAT'S BEEN UNCOVERED

Powell Admitted to Circulating State Department Memo That Identified Plame To White House Officials on Air Force One. "After a June 12 Washington Post story made reference to the Niger uranium inquiry, Armitage asked intelligence officers in the State Department for more information. He was forwarded a copy of a memo classified 'Secret' that included a description of Wilson's trip for the CIA, his findings, a brief description of the origin of the trip and a reference to 'Wilson's wife.'... July 7, this memo and the notes were removed from the safe and forwarded to Powell via a secure fax line to Air Force One. Powell was on the way to Africa with the president, and his aides knew the secretary would be getting questions. Fitzgerald has become interested in this memo, the earliest known document seen by administration officials revealing that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA. Powell told prosecutors that he circulated the memo among those traveling with him in the front section of Air Force One. It is believed that all officials in that part of the aircraft had high-level security clearance." Los Angeles Times, 8/25/05;

Rumors suggest that Fitzpatrick is preparing a RICO case.

Legal issues pop up.  Can the RICO statute be used in these circumstances?  What impact on defendants if discovery of classified info is denied?  What executive privilege?  What impact of immunity swiftly granted by Congress at hearings?  Etc.

gwb and others need a sure vote on the SCT.

What is Harriet's one and only known qualification?  Gushing loyalty to gwb.

in this sentence:

during the meeting, powell

recounted

to the senator that he had traveled on air force one with bush and cheney,

recounted indicates that Powell is recalling from his memory. So, just because he recalls incorrectly does not mean that the basic point he is conveying is incorrect. This does not make the memo any less valid, at least with this particular incorrect fact.

I work in a field where I have witnessed incidents and then when reviewing said incidents with the people involved am amazed at what they say happened and what I witnessed. Yet, I know they did not lie.

in this sentence:

during the meeting, powell recounted to the senator that he had traveled on air force one with bush and cheney,

recounted indicates that Powell is recalling from his memory. So, just because he recalls incorrectly does not mean that the basic point he is conveying is incorrect. This does not make the memo any less valid, at least with this particular incorrect fact.

I work in a field where I have witnessed incidents and then when reviewing said incidents with the people involved am amazed at what they say happened and what I witnessed. Yet, I know they did not lie.

Posted: 20 October 2005 1200 hrs

Reporter at centre of spy probe appears before US Congress  

WASHINGTON : The reporter at the centre of a criminal probe into the unmasking of an undercover CIA officer defended her decision to protect her White House source, as the federal prosecutor wraps up his investigation of the case.

"I did the best I could under rather challenging circumstances," said New York Times reporter Judith Miller, who went to jail to protect the identity of a source within President George W. Bush's administration.

Miller made her comments at a Judiciary Committee hearing on protecting reporters from prosecutors seeking to compel them to reveal their confidential sources.

"Reporters, even flawed reporters, should not be jailed for protecting even flawed sources," said Miller, a Pulitzer prize-winning reporter who specialises in Middle East affairs.

Miller was jailed for nearly three months to protect the identity of a Bush administration official who provided information to her about CIA agent Valerie Plame.

She later testified before a federal grand jury investigating the leak, saying her source finally released her from a pledge of confidentiality.

Her source recently was identified by the Times as Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, a pivotal behind-the-scenes player at the White House.

Plame's outing allegedly occurred in retaliation for critical comments made to the media by her husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, condemning the Bush administration's justification for waging war against Iraq.

Ferreting out the source of the leak is the goal of the inquiry led by special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, who is expected to issue indictments in the case very soon, possibly within days.

Miller acknowledged that her actions protecting a White House official accused of political skullduggery were controversial, but she said it was done to protect journalistic freedom.

"When the dust clears, I hope that journalists and newsrooms will be emboldened - not confused or angered - by what I have done," she said.

"And I hope that you will ensure that no other reporter will have to choose between doing her small bit to protect the First Amendment, and her liberty," Miller said, referring to the section of the US Constitution which guarantees freedom of the press

more

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/afp_world/view/174379/1/.html

and his smirk doing the perp walk. HE lied and people have died.  He has instigated cronyism at the highest levels while starving people at the lowest. Drowning them. How is he any different from Saddam Hussein?

http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/357107p-304312c.html

always good to bear in mind: a good lie is mostly truth.

Like I said in the beginning of the post: "I want to state that while I think the email is probably incorrect in most, if not all the particulars, it's general thrust is imminently 'plausible.' Now, there is a big difference between plausible and true, granted. Plausible to me means that in the real world it could happen. Not will happen. But could. Ya dig?"

And I am damn glad I provided that disclaimer. Plausible indeed, but far, far from true.

Can you indcit a sitting president?"

Does anyone have an answer?

with spicy details which made it look plausible but was revealed too early.

So, what was the purpose of the spin email? Keeping you busy? Poisoning information chains? A bait?

http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/sitting_president.htm

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

(More at link)

The Republican Party has come close to sewing up national politics without majority vote.  Gerrymandering, undemocratic constitutional provisions (2 Senators from every state), "deregulated" control of popular tv by corporate interests, and "pay to play" system of taxation/intimidation of the big corporations have made a powerful machine.  On top of that, there is "legitimate demogogery" on religion and race.  Nasty, but part of democracy.

Plamegate has the potential to break the machine -- tear apert the existing network.  More importantly, it has the potential to discredit the dangerous ideologies of gwb and pals.

The spectacle of corruption is what we need most.  For our kids.

Whether gwb gets indicted is small potatoes.  Furthermore, I don't want him indicted.  I want him around for 3 more years as a smelly reminder of all that is wrong with the Republican ideology.  Hopefully, by the time he leaves, there will be a new generation of devout Democrats.

trader types I know.