wow - i think that it's a great move about the indictment - and i think that perhaps we'll see something good come out of this. ironic though that it's at the VERY end of the term for the republicans in office but i guess better late than never right?

i hope that the court overturns the vote on Prop 8.....

Very interesting news this morning!

Can someone with a law degree clarify something for me?
"Cheney and Gonzales will not attend the arraignment."
Isn't one of our civil liberties to be present at our own trial?
Beyond then not bothering to attend their own trial, why aren't they forced to be there? I would think prisoner abuse is a large enough charge for their presence to be required by the court.

How am I wrong?

They are involved through a third party, money in a company in a company involved in prison abuse - not a direct connection, their status as high profile might have something to do with it too.

I think this will be the first of many indictments for Cheney.

Some good news and some bad news.

"Vice President Dick Cheney and former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales will be arraigned on Friday in Texas, after a grand jury indicted them for prisoner abuse in a federal detention center. Cheney and Gonzales will not attend the arraignment. — AP "

Does this mean that all 57 states can now bring prisoner abuse charges against these two men?

Also, is it just me, or does it seem like the "change" Obama is talking about is change back to the Clinton administration?

It'd be nice if this was the kind of indictment we need to see brought against Cheney and Gonzales, but it's like a traffic offense compared to what they should face. They'll be pardoned as Bush leaves office anyway.

Very interesting and positive news this morning, except of course for the continuing distress of our economy.

As far as the CA Supreme Court hearing arguments against Prop 8, from what I've read it's the legality of how it amends the state's Constitution that is in question. It will be very interesting to see how this goes.

"Also, is it just me, or does it seem like the "change" Obama is talking about is change back to the Clinton administration?"

What's that old saying... better the devil you know?

Even though Obama hasn't hit office yet, it's amazing how his is impacting things. In terms of the stock market, the WSJ calls it the 'Obama Market.' I would say there is a lot more going on in the financial world than just Obama's presidency, but you can not deny that Obama's tax position has negatively impacted the overall financial health of the country. Wealthy people started pulling their money out of the market the day after the election, much to my (retirement's) dismay.

see you in jail, you scumbags!

So we should call our immediate future the Bush Depression.

Well it's witty Steph, but Bush did not cause the financial crisis. Obama winning the election DID cause wealthy people to start making their money liquid, not reinvesting, and changing their compensation packages.

I want to make is clear though, that I do not believe that Obama is the sole factor in the market's downturn. His win just didn't help matters much. I do think the WSJ is being a bit hysterical.

"Bush did not cause the financial crisis."
You guys should get together and decide if you want him remembered as an ineffective twit or an undermined man of action.
Obama's not responsible for other people's stupidity.

Don't worry, Bush will pardon his scum!

Here's another question: Is it the individual states' responsibilities to file what I would say are federal crimes, or is this a case for the national supreme court?

I don't know why you say that Kranky when everything I've read said that the majority of the wealthy voted for Obama. So they voted for him and are now so upset about his potential economic policy they are pulling their money out of the market?

WWWBD? What would Warren Buffet do?

Dave are you kidding?

steph - I am not going argue how history will remember Bush. It has nothing to do with my statement. Bush did not cause the financial meltdown. That is a fact.

I'd totally agree that Obama is not repsonsible for others' stupidity, but you can not argue that wealthy people protecting their interests are acting foolishly. I assume that wealthy people know how the manage their money conisdering they have managed to become wealthy.

diadem-

Yup - a lot of wealthy people voted for Obama based on his ideology, not his fiscal policies.

I spoke with a wealthy family member after the election (who did not vote Obama - full disclosure - he voted against him due to his stance on abortion). I asked him about Obama's tax policies and he laughed. His said something to the effect that about 5 wealthy people will actually pay their full tax burden, and he had started modifying his behavior to avoid as much tax as possible, ie: moving assets, renegotiating compensation packages, etc. The subsequent movement in the market proves this statement to be true. It has been shown time and time again that tax hikes bring in less revenue to the government for two reasons: wealthy do not spend, and they arrange their finances to pay as little taxes as possible.

Wealthy people did not become so because they are ambivalent about their money.