Judge Walton has turned down the Libby defense request that Special Counsel Fitzgerald's indictment of I. Lewis Libby be tossed out because Fitzgerald's appointment violated the Constitution (31 page .pdf)
That is not a surprise. The key question is, did the judge allow for an expedited appeal? Here is the 1 page order, which is silent on that.
Some reaction to the initial defense filing is here; here is background on the Fitzgerald response, and the final defense submisison.
Ringling circuitously, bar none.
===================
Posted by: kim | April 29, 2006 at 05:45 PM
Does anyone remember the 'prone' position in politics?
No need to be explicit, I'll get the hint.
=================================
Posted by: kim | April 29, 2006 at 05:47 PM
Peter uk asked last night how we can keep this Star Chamber business going? Well, I think the truth is the Dems (with some reason) always feel they won't be the ones whose political conduct is criminalized.
We have no constitutional scholars of note in Congress. (See McCain's comment yesterday that clean elections are more important than the First Amendment for an example of the kind of thinking there.)
The short answer is that if you do not trust the appointees of the elected administration (confirmed by Congress) to investigate and prosecute charges of official wrongdoing, you can deal with that at the ballot box. At a certain point anything else comes in conflict with the Constitution . We lasted a considerable time with that system , and we can very well return to it.
Posted by: clarice | April 29, 2006 at 05:56 PM
Hoi polloi has always been amused at the spectacle of the colossal carnage when ideology gladiates with truth.
=================================
Posted by: kim | April 29, 2006 at 06:01 PM
Clarice,
No fair quoting a senator whose coat size overshadows his IQ.
Did "appearance of impropriety" show up after Nixon fired Cox? It's odd to think that we've been saddled with this idiocy for over thirty years. This particular circle isn't ever going to be squared. It's hard to imagine how we manged to get through the first 187 years without Special or Independent or Whatever Today's Flavor Prosecutors.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | April 29, 2006 at 06:07 PM
JMHanes:
Your concern about "who's in charge of supervising Fitz is an interesting one and should be pursued vehemently. " Runaway prosecutor with a lame excuse to Judge Walton about how he is being kept in check. I remember when President Bush nominated Comey for his exalted position Schumer was very much in favor of the appointment. Now I think all positions in the legal area should be filled by lawyers at least on the same page as this administration. They have enough enemies as it is.
I keep thinking about the Martha Stewart case. There she stood to profit if she knew ahead of time about a certain stock taking a hit if a drug wasn't approved. Her secretary also admitted a certain phone message or e-mail was deletyed and then put back. Libby has done nothing wrong but because his version is not what Fitz is buying into we have Fitz influencing the gj to bring perjury and obstruction charges. Obstruction of what? I know I repeat myself but this is really a he said/he
said case and all miscommunication and misunderstanding. I'm putting my hopes in the DOJ to toss this fandango of a case and say thanks but no thanks to the hapless Fitz who I agree clarice isn't looking that good these days.
Posted by: maryrose | April 29, 2006 at 06:28 PM
The scary thing is you hear people start with, "well, of course we have to have something outside of the normal judicial system to investigate and prosecute politically powerful people." And then go on arguing how me just hafta somehow make this work. Go read the Wikipedia articles on Star Chamber and John Lilburne.
People who associate "Star Chamber" with arbitrary prosecution don't realize that it's more than that -- the Star Chamber was the 16th & 17th century version of a special prosecutor, specifically designed to prosecute politically powerful people because it was "obvious" that the regular courts couldn't do so. But what they found was that no matter how good the motives were in setting it up, it still didn't prevent the court from decaying into tyranny.
If you want to talk about American values and the founding fathers, this was exactly what the founding fathers were trying to prevent when they set up the constitution. Their forefathers had fled the English Civil Wars, and they were bound and determined to make sure that it couldn't happen here. So they wrote the Appointments Clause to make sure that everyone in the government was ultimately elected, supervised by someone elected, or checked by another branch of government which was elected. The Founding Fathers knew all too well that "independent" prosecutions always turn out badly.
cathy :-)
Posted by: cathyf | April 29, 2006 at 07:10 PM
Rick, write it up..It's past due time. Use Judge Walton's sad stretching exercise as a starting point, because the only way he could sustain this appointment was by ignoring the law and the facts of this case.
Posted by: clarice | April 29, 2006 at 07:30 PM
' I keep thinking about the Martha Stewart case. There she stood to profit if she knew ahead of time about a certain stock taking a hit if a drug wasn't approved.'
But all the evidence shows that she didn't know that.
Posted by: Patrick R. Sullivan | April 29, 2006 at 07:52 PM
Cboldt, I hope you will continue to post your comments. Just because most here haven't come around to all your views doesn't mean we aren't interested in hearing your opinions. It seems to me that most the responses to your comments have been sincere attempts to discuss the issues you present. I find it quite refreshing to have someone who presents what seems to be a fairly objective perspective.
Posted by: MJW | April 29, 2006 at 08:04 PM
Yes, me, too. I like cboldt even though we don't agree on this point.
Cboldt, if you think we're ganging up on you, you have to realize that we've been going around and around on this issue forever and most people have pretty fixed ideas on it. It isn't that your ideas are not valued or that you aren't somehow welcome because we we think differently.
Posted by: clarice | April 29, 2006 at 08:09 PM
cbolt, come back your ideas really aren't "goofy" and I would never beat on your horse Trigger.
Posted by: boris | April 29, 2006 at 08:12 PM
WILSON & PLAME LIVE AT ABC NEWS TABLE AT
CORRESPONDENTS DINNER
ON CSPAN NOW
Posted by: larwyn | April 29, 2006 at 08:19 PM
'Cboldt, I hope you will continue to post your comments.'
Indeed, just because I think they are false they haven't obstructed my investigation. Far from it.
Posted by: Patrick R. Sullivan | April 29, 2006 at 08:23 PM
UPDATED: The Los Angeles Times Suspends Hiltzik, Discontinues His Column and Blog
by Hugh Hewitt
April 28, 2006 04:42 PM PST
From the paper's website:
The Times is discontinuing Michael Hiltzik's Golden State column, which ran in the Business section, because the columnist violated the newspaper's ethics guidelines. This follows the suspension last week of his blog on latimes.com, which also has been discontinued. Hiltzik has acknowledged using pseudonyms to post a single comment on his blog on latimes.com and multiple comments elsewhere on the Web that dealt with his column and other issues involving the newspaper.
I posted longer except at "Times" thread.
Posted by: larwyn | April 29, 2006 at 09:03 PM
"If they fear the truth....
snip
then they should fear"
Black Panther on FNC now. They want to talk to Duke Lax Players .... to stand up for Black Women.....wants them punished, sent to jail.
Offering to be bodyguards with a legal assoc.
There to organize the black community.
"Wrap our arms around the family and the victim"
Fox: "No Guns, Mr. Shabbalt (sic)
Black Panther:"That's your word not mine"
Posted by: larwyn | April 29, 2006 at 09:10 PM
I suppose I was the bully on this thread, so I apologize to you cboldt.
I do hope you stay, it is nice discussing all of this with you. However, each of us could equally express our own frustration that YOU are apparently not listening to US because we keep having to counter with our own ideas or repeat ourselves because we aren't coming to an agreement. That can be a two-way street.
The goal can't be to convince someone, although sometimes that happens. To me, the discussion is the thing. Sometimes insightful, sometimes prickley, sometimes hilarious. I hope you stay.
Posted by: MayBee | April 29, 2006 at 09:24 PM
cathyf:
It's amazing how far we've come from the founder's original vision for America.
Posted by: maryrose | April 29, 2006 at 09:27 PM
Well, well, well ... just watched Joe and Valerie walk into the White House Correspondent's Dinner. I will never believe again that every male reporter in Washington did not know who she was ... SHE IS A HOT BABE! And tonight she is in a skin tight creme sheath syle wide strapped dress. Joe could use a haircut.
Posted by: Squiggler | April 29, 2006 at 09:43 PM
Squig,
For months I have been betting that if there are photo archives from all the Clinton shindigs, State events, Dem fundraisers and just D.C. society doings -Vanity Fair employer of Mrs. Tim Russert
and Mr. and Mrs. Greenspan A listers.
My point was that Val is a head turner and women always follow who is catching the men's eye - just to size up the competition.
This is not some dowdy non descript fade into background spy.
I know from personal experience, used to be a head turner and would month later meet males who had been at a certain convention/trade show - who would approach me with "I saw you at the
National Hardware Show last January".
Hope paralegals on Libby's team are scouring all archives from the partying Clinton 90's!
Case dismissed!
Posted by: larwyn | April 29, 2006 at 09:55 PM
Squig:
There Val and Joe are the toast of the town. As long as Fitz is in business they can flaunt themselves. This is probably their last Correspondent's Dinner. It's not a very exclusive guest list if they are invited.
Posted by: maryrose | April 29, 2006 at 09:56 PM
Barney frank:
I also wonder how posters at this blog can stay up until 3;00 in the morning on these threads. I have to get up at 6;30 in the morning for work and even earlier next week for Advanced Placement Testing so I'll be primarily reading and catching up in my spare time. You have made some excellent arguments on these sites.
Posted by: maryrose | April 29, 2006 at 10:00 PM
Oooh I'm being catty tonight, but Ann Compton SHOULD NOT wear sleeveless.
Posted by: Squiggler | April 29, 2006 at 10:01 PM
Larwyn:
So Joe's very important hair needs to be cut! Just remember "Pride goeth before the Fall"
Posted by: maryrose | April 29, 2006 at 10:02 PM
Hear ya' Lawrwyn ... if the men are ogling, their women were noticing. Hmmm, wonder if a Google image search would turn up those photos you are talking about?
Posted by: Squiggler | April 29, 2006 at 10:03 PM
Squig:
Agreed, her upperarms are too chunky.
Posted by: maryrose | April 29, 2006 at 10:03 PM
I really do like Joe Wilson's hair.
Here's my catty comment:
My point was that Val is a head turner and women always follow who is catching the men's eye - just to size up the competition.
Women keep an eye on the pretty woman that sleeps with other women's husbands.
Posted by: MayBee | April 29, 2006 at 10:08 PM
Even my city in flyover country has some glossies that cover the nightlife.
Bet that inhouse newsletters from State events and same from those charities raising funds would be sources.
This computer freezes on me whenever I go wondering thru cyber space.
But there must be "dumps" of photos from all the events. Bet Mrs. Cooper was frequent guest also, so "fat boy" would come along.
It has got to be there, somewhere.
Photogs like to capture the pretty ladies. (And STUDS, they like STUDS TOO!)
Posted by: larwyn | April 29, 2006 at 10:16 PM
Squig,
I was going to write about the "new president"
Wooooof Blitzer's guest was the star quarterback of the Pittsburgh Steelers.
As soon as he spotted Ann Compton, he asked if she would be interested in an "offensive line" position.
But I didn't want to be mean.
Just can't imagine who helped her pick that dress - they must despise her too!
Posted by: larwyn | April 29, 2006 at 10:21 PM
Tears are comming out of my eyes laughing at this alter-ego routine.
Only problem, they are seeing what a good "poker face" GW is.
Amazing!
Posted by: larwyn | April 29, 2006 at 10:25 PM
I was laughing out loud so hard, my bird started laughing too.
Posted by: Squiggler | April 29, 2006 at 10:35 PM
MSNBC is broadcasting live and had to bring it down.
Collett and Steve (have no idea who these people are)
C "Well that was from out of left field, never had word of that coming it was "pretty good".
S "Well, I thought it was a rehash of old jokes"
c "Well, yes but with the President standing right beside him...
S "jokes have all been made before.."
C " problems with speech and international relations......"
GAG GAG!
Posted by: larwyn | April 29, 2006 at 10:38 PM
Reminds me of the guy, was it last year, who had to follow Laura Bush. He bombed too.
Posted by: Squiggler | April 29, 2006 at 10:41 PM
I started clapping and the dogs went crazy, dancing around trying to figure out what was going on!
Looks like president is funnier than Colbert. I like Colbert.
Lets see what "collett & steve" have to say about Colbert?
Posted by: larwyn | April 29, 2006 at 10:42 PM
Colbert's best line so far:
"Joe Wilson is here tonight.
Joe Wilson, the most famous husband since Desi Arnez!"
Posted by: larwyn | April 29, 2006 at 10:51 PM
Flopping Aces
This is a must read.
Posted by: Squiggler | April 29, 2006 at 11:24 PM
Posted by: Squiggler | April 29, 2006 at 11:25 PM
Shoot I "larwyned" my post.
Posted by: Squiggler | April 29, 2006 at 11:26 PM
Hey, gang, if we're going to have a meow'ing contest, we really should take it to a shorter thread. Even my DSL is starting to groan under the strain of loading this one. How's about the "Waas on Rove" thread?
cathy :-)
Posted by: cathyf | April 29, 2006 at 11:31 PM
Could someone please help me? I'm trying to find the conversation we had last night about Mary Mahle(?), the ex-CIA agent fired by internal security who said she was a friend of Val's and who did an interview with Dana Priest.
Posted by: clarice | April 30, 2006 at 12:04 AM
It's Melissa, not Mary, and it's in the Times on Rove thread, starts about here
cathy :-)
Posted by: cathyf | April 30, 2006 at 12:14 AM
Lucy's love erupted her abdomen.
Uncontained the gobs from pressured lumen.
Too sick the cystic walls;
The patch from cyclist falls
Oh Mama, see the pretty red balloon.
=============================
Posted by: kim | April 30, 2006 at 12:19 AM
Lucy's love erupted her abdomen.
Uncontained the gobs from pressured lumen.
Too sick the cystic walls;
The patch from cyclist falls
Oh Mama, see the pretty red balloon.
=============================
Posted by: kim | April 30, 2006 at 12:19 AM
Thanks, cathyf..I kept scrolling and couldn't find it..
Posted by: clarice | April 30, 2006 at 12:29 AM