Powered by TypePad

« Libby - Friday Pre-Game Show | Main | Saturday Afternoon Thread »

February 16, 2007

Comments

hit and run

bio mom - you want a 3 year old and 5 year old with lots of pent up energy and very loud voices to come over?

Take my kids, please!

I love my kids.

I take my kids everywhere, but they keep finding their way back.

Charlie (Colorado)

Azaghal, I think you're right; my excuse is that I was answering jerry's questions. That and I didn't know about the multiple DoJ rejections. But I can see Tenet insisting because he could see it becoming a political hot football and wanting DoJ to be left holding it.

Alcibiades

But I can see Tenet insisting because he could see it becoming a political hot football and wanting DoJ to be left holding it.

And that is the kind of hero we all want running the CIA!

azaghal

Yes, Alci, I saw that at and have been emailing it around. CQ raises the Lieberman factor in an interesting way.

A Reservation About the Toensing Article

Like most of the posters here, I generally liked VT's article very much--so what's not to like?

Just this. Like most writers on this subject (Byron York is another example) VT stops just short of calling a spade a spade: she just won't come right out and say, this is a politically motivated and knowing abuse of the GJ system and of the criminal justice system in general.

This hesitancy manifests itself in several places. The most obvious is this:

THIS GRAND JURY CHARGES THE CIA for making a boilerplate criminal referral to cover its derrière.

The CIA is well aware of the requirements of the law protecting the identity of covert officers and agents. I know, because in 1982, as chief counsel to the Senate intelligence committee, I negotiated the terms of that legislation between the media and the intelligence community. Even if Plame's status were "classified"--Fitzgerald never introduced one piece of evidence to support such status -- no law would be violated.

There is no better evidence that the CIA was only covering its rear by requesting a Justice Department criminal investigation than the fact that it sent a boiler-plate referral regarding a classified leak and not one addressing the elements of a covert officer's disclosure.


Only covering it's rear? I think not.

A CYA referral would only have required a perfunctory one time effort. Instead, the referral was twice rejected at DoJ before Tenet personally demanded an investigation. That's not CYA and it's not perfunctory--that's an aggressive move to cause maximum political damage to the administration.

Moreover, a true CYA referral would have specifically cited the elements required for a violation of the IIPA. It would not have been couched in general terms about a purported disclosure of classified information. Why is that so? Because by specifically citing the elements for a violation of the IIPA the referral would have invited rejection because Plame's past clearly did not qualify her under the IIPA. That type of referral would have been a slam dunk for rejection, while effectively covering the CIA's ass. By couching the referral in general terms while accompanying it with a strongly worded letter from the Director of Central Intelligence, the referral implicitly invited--nay, demanded--a wide ranging witch hunt designed precisely to identify some farfetched violation of law that no one had ever dreamed of. Or to invite the manufacture of a process violation (perjury, obstruction, etc.) in the course of the investigation.

That was no innocent decision or CYA maneuver on Tenet's part--it was a well thought out political op designed to cause maximum political damage.

verner

Roanoke:OMG ! Where's my gun! ;-)

I could go bow hunting off my back deck--not that I would ever do so. Even though the little darlings eat all of my lily bulbs and herbs. They are beautiful...

On the other hand, backstrap venison fried up with a really good gravy, and served with homemade biscuits....

Charlie (Colorado)

OMG ! Where's my gun! ;-)

OMG are you go0ing to Shinto Hell.

If they had one.

Ralph L.

Why did Tenet keep his job so long? He ain't Hoover. An honorable man would have resigned on 9/12/01.

azaghal

Nara is a beautiful place in Japan. Don't miss it. The tame deer who roam freely and eat out of your hand add a wonderful experience to the beautiful place.

Toensing's article is outstanding!! I would have also indicted Schumer, who I still believe helped orchestate a lot of this with Wilson et. al.

Posted by: bio mom | February 17, 2007 at 09:10 AM


Those deer probably spread Lyme disease. Can you get a hunting permit there? I know the Japanese consider archery to be an almost spiritual art form.

Agree on Schumer.

roanoke

verner-

On the other hand, backstrap venison fried up with a really good gravy, and served with homemade biscuits....


Yummmmm! Think how good they'd taste after eating all of your herbs.

Deers -auto-marinade!

Charlie (Colorado)

And that is the kind of hero we all want running the CIA!

Hey, if he can figure out what a hot football is, he should be.

(Just to be clear, btw, my opinion has for years been that if they catch you being competent at CIA, they immediately transfer you to NSA. So my expectations of the DCI are low at best.)

royf

Jerry

whether the President or VP should leak a NOCs ID without doing any formal declassification

Gee Jerry since your so worried about leaks of CIA NOCs I guess you were totally revolted that Sen. Kerry wasn't censured, forced to resign and procecuted for leaking the CIAs head of intelligence name during a open Senate hearing on John Bolton.

That was a leak which put potentially hundreds of people at risk. I'm sure your the haed of the impeach Kerry the leaker committee, or not.......

roanoke

Charlie(Colorado)

OMG are you go0ing to Shinto Hell.

Well, I'm always up for a new experience...

I'm willing to bet they'd have karaoke there.

You know I was really hoping they'd open up elk season in Alaska...

Alcibiades

From the Toensing article: In January 2001, Libby was the lawyer for millionaire financier Marc Rich, whom President Bill Clinton pardoned shortly before leaving office. Fitzgerald, who was then an assistant U.S. attorney in the southern district of New York, and U.S. Attorney James Comey spearheaded the criminal investigation of that pardon.

Wow! I had completely missed this connection between Fitz and Comey. And on Mark Rich, so both had a reason to do in Libby.

roanoke

I'm off to go test a few "Mitchells"...

Charlie (Colorado)

I know the Japanese consider archery to be an almost spiritual art form.

Not "almost."

Charlie (Colorado)

You know I was really hoping they'd open up elk season in Alaska...

Come out here. We're up to our asses in the things.

Seriously. They've had to put up lighted warning signs on Colorado 93 because of all the elk vs car accidents.

Ralph L.

My experience with a few CIA technical people in another life:
1 very arrogant (the boss), 1 sensible (the underling), 1 named Albright we nicknamed Notbright (boss' boss), 1 so deceitful and obnoxious his own allies dissed him behind his back.
Example: We had a column of numbers added up at the bottom. He insisted that a fudge factor be applied to the total with an *. True total not to be shown. I blew a gasket and left the room when that was agreed to.

hit and run

verner:
I could go bow hunting off my back deck--not that I would ever do so.

Me too. If I owned a bow.

My neighbor and I were in his back yard last fall and someone was out shooting. They got too close, aimed the wrong direction and we had buck shot raining down on us.

We never figured out who it was. I suspect the deer may be arming themselves.

bio mom

The Nara deer are considered sacred.

Lyme disease is probably prohibited in Japan.

I raised three kids all close in age so I know what you mean. Now that they are adults, my outlook has changed. I miss the bedlam. Wouldn't have traded that experience for anything else in the world.

Charlie (Colorado)

1 very arrogant (the boss), 1 sensible (the underling), 1 named Albright we nicknamed Notbright (boss' boss), 1 so deceitful and obnoxious his own allies dissed him behind his back.

Yup. The sensible one now works for NSA or NRO, I'm sure.

Barney Frank

azaghal,

--Does it seem to anyone other than myself that presenting this material to the trial jury was impermissibly likely to lead the jurors to speculate about matters that were not supposed to be at issue in this trial?--

IIRC these docs were not only allowed, Walton even refused Well's requests to redact them if he was bent on letting the jury see them. Walton's solution was the usual boilerplate jury instruction of "please disregard the outrageous and prejudicial evidence you are about to see".
No evidence was even produced that Libby had read the articles or was the one who had underlined them, unless his GJ testimony did, which presuambly Fitz would have pointed out during the argument to allow them. But IIRC he didn't, which leads me to conclude that evidence does not exist.

But for Walton to not even redact those portions which had nothing to do with Libby's 'state of mind' and were clearly prejudicial is unfathomable. It's not like a handy remedy, the nearest laundry marker for example, wasn't readily available to him.
Am I remembering this wrong? They were not redacted correct?

Barney Frank

--OMG are you go0ing to Shinto Hell.

If they had one.--

Well, if we're talking State Shinto, they've got Nanking and Bataan and .....

azaghal

BF, I was referring to the tapes of Libby's GJ testimony not the articles, but I agree with your point and share your doubts as to what evidence Fitz could have adduced. To be honest, I'm not sure whether the defense raised any objection to the GJ tapes. Perhaps someone else knows.

Charlie, of course I understood your response was tailored to jerry's post. It was excellent.

Ralph L.

Someone plugged FDL in York's comments on WaPo, so I plugged JOM. Here's the response:
I wouldn*t call that rationality or humor, ral1960. In fact, it reminds me of Ted Well*s defense...a mass of verbiage intended to confuse.

By ifthethunderdontgetya
I guess he wouldn't think this site had rationality or humor if he read FDL all day, so he's honest in that sense.

verner

H&R: "Me too. If I owned a bow."

I've got one, but only for target practice.

H&R"My neighbor and I were in his back yard last fall and someone was out shooting. They got too close, aimed the wrong direction and we had buck shot raining down on us."

What an idiot. Whoever it was has obviously never taken the NRA gun safety class.

Though, unfortunately, it happens all the time. My dad walked around for years with a piece of birdshot in his ear thanks to one of his good hunting buddies. My father-in-law also has a piece of shot in his lower lip. They were both lucky.

H&R:"We never figured out who it was. I suspect the deer may be arming themselves."

Nah, they're more bio-terrorists.

Barney Frank

azaghal,

--In light of all that, does anyone have an opinion on the effect the 8 hours of Libby's GJ testimony might have on an appeal?--

Duh. Guess I should start reading posts from the top down.

You raise a very good point that I have not seen raised elsewhere. Why should the jury have been played any GJ testimony other than those portions related to the counts against Libby?
IIRC the defense did not object to the introduction of his entire testimony. I could be wrong but have no memory of them doing so (hope I'm not indicted). Does their non-objection effect Libby's right to appeal?

cathyf
Does anyone mind - Syl, Sara, cathyf, getting quoted on the drink recipes in a blog post, with linkage?
No problem!
hit and run

Charlie - I used to work in Golden. And we spent a lot of time on 93 going between Golden and Boulder. I miss CO.

Walter

Barney Frank,

The defense did object--filed briefs, argued, lost, etc.

Does their non-objection effect Libby's right to appeal?

Had they not objected, they would have lost their right to appeal. (In legaleze, "not preserved the right to appeal")

hit and run

verner - we actually did crack the case...turns out it was a kid - who is experienced and trustworthy - but who is not old enough that his grandfather should have let him go out by himself. We were all thankful no one was hurt and we know that it won't happen again.

I was just glad that at the time my kids were out of town. You shoulda seen my neighbor light up though.

verner

Barney, maybe Wells, who had obviously heard it all before it was allowed in, WANTED the jury to hear the whole thing. Maybe he has a little surprise for us all in closing related to something that was said, that we have not noticed.

And in any case, as Toensing points out, the contrast between how Libby was treated, and the others is pretty astounding.

By the way, Wells should save everybody's time and just read the Toensing piece to the jury (and oh, if he only could!)

Walter

Ralph,

"ifthethunderdontgetya" is a pun/homage. Comes from a line in a Grateful Dead song "If the thunder don't get you, the lightning will".

The song's title? "The Wheel"

FDL's favorite Libby author? emptywheel

It's just another example that not all humor crosses blog links, let alone cultural barriers. Even if you appreciate a good joke, if you don't have all the predicate facts, it's just not as funny.

verner

h&r:"You shoulda seen my neighbor light up though.

Yep, guns and fast cars will do it with parents. I have a very vivid memory from childhood. I was on the street, riding my purple schwinn fairlady (with the banana seat no less) with my friend. Her father, a very preppy Harvard grad, and a very big fellow, came out to the curb to check on us about the same time that an obnoxious 16 year old, who lived a few doors down from me, drove by going about 50 in his new mustang. My friend's dad hurled an almost full scotch and water(in a very nice glass as I remember) at the car.

Terrible waste of good whiskey, but it became neighborhood legend. And with that kid, it worked.

Keeping with tradition, my sister, who lives in Oak Park Il., has organized front yard parties with her neighbors where they borrow a radar gun from the local police, and clock drivers who speed down their street.

Jane

And we spent a lot of time on 93 going between Golden and Boulder.

I used to live in Boulder, and I can't begin to tell you think things that went on between Golden and Boulder.

It was probably before you were born H&R!

JM Hanes

azaghal:

"Yes, we know Fitz went on fishing expeditions to try to apply the Espionage law or some other less statute dealing with the release of classified information, but he was forced to discard them as options as well as the IIPA."

There was another outrageous argument over the jury instructions on this. Having submitted news articles to suggest that Libby might have been worried about an IIPA prosecution -- & knowing that Addington's (?) testimony cut the legs out from under that theory -- Fitz was trying to finagle an instruction which eseentially said there were other statutes in play that Libby might have been worried about as well.

This is just emblematic of how Fitzgerald operates. It's not just that he's tried to win this case through judicial rulings, rather than at the trial itself, but that he's proved so willing to mislead the court in trying to get the rulings he needs -- from his affidavit in the Miller ruling, to Russert's motion, from ex parte filings to off the record verbal negotiations both with his witnesses, and, I believe, with folks who should have been subjects of interest.

In both the Miller filing and the indictment press conference, Fitzgerald unabashedly revealed his MO: if you can't get your target for what you think he did, you get him for anything you can. He knew he couldn't haul the Administration crew in for the potential crime he was charged with investigating from the very start. That's why the first thing he did was to get Comey's official stamp of approval on expanding his mandate to process crimes. He's been manipulating that process ever since. He's been a one man wrecking crew, leaving a string of dangerous precedents in his wake.

verner

JM Hanes: "He's been manipulating that process ever since. He's been a one man wrecking crew, leaving a string of dangerous precedents in his wake."

Yep. and look who his biggest cheerleaders have been. Oh the irony!

hit and run

Yep, guns and fast cars will do it with parents.

I was hit by a car when I was 8. Another parent was dropping me off after soccer practice and I went around the back of his car and without looking started to cross the street.

But, it wasn't a case of someone driving too fast. It was an older gentleman, our house was the second one from the corner, he couldn't have been going more than 15-20.

I just hit my head on his grill and got knocked down.

Went to the hospital and got three stitches.

No scotch was harmed in unfolding of this incident.

Patton

If Fitzgerald actually believes as FDL says, that Libby was covering for Cheney, isn't Fitzgerald bound to tell the court and the jurors that is what he believes Libby's real motive is for lying??

All the lefties are saying Libby lied to cover for Cheney, not that he lied because he thought he outed Agent 69.

So they must think Fitz is lying to the court about Libby's motive.

hit and run

It was probably before you were born H&R!

Posted by: Jane | February 17, 2007 at 11:12 AM


Well, you would certainly think so, given the way I act.

Other Tom

I raised the question as to how much of the GJ testimony had been offered by the pros., and how much Libby had countered with for "completeness" under the rules of evidence. I was surprised to hear that the pros. asked for it all. I think, having heard the descriptions of what was in those eight hours, that Fitz may have bungled here--and badly--and that Wells got a win-win. If, taken as a whole, Fitz's behavior is off-putting to the jury, and Libby appears to be trying to help (a lot more than, say, Russert), that's all to the good. And if it doesn't have that effect, he's got another issue on appeal.

Help! Can someone link to a place where we can read the defendants' briefs in support of their motions to dismiss in the civil case?

Walter

MJW,

You made some good points in your summary of Libby appellate issues.

I've been noodling over an thought about the invalid delegation of authority.

The obvious advantage to winning on that ground is that there could be no retrial. Since Fitzgerald would not have had the authority to validly summon a grand jury, proceedings of that grand jury would be of no import. Hence no perjury charges.

Even if we aren't past the statutory limitation for false statements when a decision is handed down, Bond's sworn testimony that the summary contradicts her notes limits Libby's risk of a retrial. (&Yes, I know, it's unlikely we get to that point. I'm talking legal issues here--not political prognostication.)

But another advantage of having Fitzgerald's authority declared void ab initio is that Libby (not to mention everyone else) has a much better shot at being awarded attorney's fees for his defense if the prosecution had no valid right to force him to incur them.

Is it possible that Libby could have a civil rights claim in addition to the (more discretionary) request to the DoJ for reimbursement? I can't recall if such a claim would turn on "deprivation of civil rights under color of law" or "violation of a clearly established right". One could demonstrate the former by showing that the DoJ did not follow approved proceedures in appointing Fitzgerald. But how relevant would it be that there is no clearly established precedent showing that the appointment in this manner was illegal prior to a decision by an appellate panel?

The question isn't clearly stated above since I have (at best) only vague recollections of the civil rights tort statutes.

Given the history of various independent counsel appointment and reporting procedures in the appeals courts, I'd say this is Libby's weakest point on appeal. As I read the cases, they stand for the proposition that the courts will throw out an improper appointment when they see it. They just never seem to see it in the case before them. I suspect that Libby would get some variation of "It's a close case, and if X, Y, or Z were present, we'd throw the whole thing out, but we'll let this stand."

I can better understand the appeal of the appeal if there are significant advantages to a win, such as legal fees, practical immunity from further prosecution, etc.

boris

leaving a string of dangerous precedents

On the left there is no such thing as setting precedents when dealing with the right. Packwood and Thomas were not precedents for Clinton because ol' BJ was not a hypocrite about his "sex life".

As sood as the problem party is taken care of, fixing any leftover "precedent" is just a matter of a little postmodern spin.

JM Hanes

On the impact of the Grand Jury tape on appeal:

While the Defense may have objected for the record, I think the GJ tapes were a net plus for them, both at trial and on appeal. Aside from the fact that they pretty much get Libby off the hook for "not testifying" on his own behalf, it's probably better to have that testimony in its entirety rather than do battle over misleading excerpts (a la the indictment) chosen by the Prosecution to make Libby look as bad as humanly possible. Among other things, it also throws Russert's 20 minute star treatment into high relief.

Having allowed the wide-ranging interrogation into evidence, I suspect that Judge Walton's decisions on admissibility elsewhere may be fair game for scrutiny on appeal. That's just my reaction though; perhaps one of our legal eagles will comment further.

JM Hanes

Excellent point, Patton.

Ralph L.

"I just hit my head on his grill "
This explains a lot.

Does anyone know if this is Fitz's normal m.o., or has he gone power-mad like other independent prosecutors?

JM Hanes

Walter:

"As I read the cases, they stand for the proposition that the courts will throw out an improper appointment when they see it."

As I recall Judge Walton's opinion in this case, however, he chose for his "controlling authority" precedents that suggested he should avoid ruling on constitutional issues where possible. Could his decision not to rule on the propriety of Fitzgerald's appointment be, in and of itself, potential error then?

Sara (Squiggler

To the question above -- no problem.

I like Woodward's statement that the jury may find the charges so trivial, they'll acquit.

Sara (Squiggler

Dems fail to get enough votes to open the debate in the Senate, so another wasted day in Congress.

UglyinLA

Here's my take on things.

I've always had the feeling that this Libby trial is just an attempt to lay the foundation for the larger battle which is the battle to discredit Joe Wilson and expose the rouge elements in the intelligence community and the US Senate that were out to smear Bush and steal the 2004 presidential election. The way to do this was to elevate the stakes.

The Libby trial is primarily equivilent to strategic placements of pawns in a game of chess. Once Rove and Cheney became aware of the Rats seditious game plan (via the Rockefeller memo, Nov 2003), Cheney and Co decided that the best way to outmaneuver them was to show weakness and give their opponents a false sense of clean victory.

Metaphorically speaking, the game will be won when Cheney captures (exposes the plot) the king (Schumer, Rockefeller, Kerry.) In order to win this game, Cheney needed the ability to penetrate to the back lines of the Rats (read MSM) and the only way to do that was to draw them forward first. This has now been accomplished because the most important outcome of the Libby trial is that the media can no longer hide behind their curtain of "source confidentiality." With the complicit media trapped in defense and unable to aid in their attack, the Rats have no choice but to retreat. Once the rook (Wilson) is knocked off, the queen (Plame) will have no where to hide. But its too late. Another positive from this trial is that people are again paying attention to Plamegate and the pending Wilson civil lawsuit will be the point at which Cheney will launch his counterattack.

I realize its more than just a game for Libby. If he is found guilty by a bias jury, he could face jail time. Bush cannot allow that to happen. But not to get ahead of next Tuesday, I do like most of the consequences of this trial in regards to precedence of reporter testimony. In any event, thanks for listening to my POV.

Sara (Squiggler

I want Nancy "twit" Pelosi and Jack "senile coward" Murtha FROG MARCHED out of the Congressional chamber and charged with treason for giving aid and comfort to the enemy in a time of war and for being a couple of really dumb dumb cretins.

Walter

JMH,

The reluctance to rule on Constitutional questions applies to all levels of the courts. Sometimes it's fun to read Scalia's opinions just for the twists and turns he makes to show that the Court can resolve the question before it without referring to the Constition.

IOW, every precedent should either explicitly state that principle or implicitly rely on it. Scalia, among others, has written opinions that send cases back to lower courts just to have them address other, non-constitutional grounds for their decision before he opines on the Constitutional issue.

The pledge of allegiance case in California was disposed of that way. Apparently no one had noticed that the plaintiff had no statutory right to bring the case until it reached the Supremes.

Walter

UglyInLA,

It's an interesting analogy, but I must disagree with your metaphorical characterization of Plame as a "queen". The Left views her as a sacrificed pawn.

I would also take issue with the designation of Wilson as a "rook". One need only read a day or so of FDL to understand that he is properly viewed as a knight.

UglyinLA

Walter wrote: I must disagree with your metaphorical characterization of Plame as a "queen".

Noted. I meant to say MSM, not Plame, and missed it on my edit check.

thanks.

Ralph L.

Ugly, that's a Rovian plot worthy of Dkos, and I mean that in the nicest way, of course. I do think Bush uses the rope-a-dope strategery often, but not here. But it may happen anyway.

windansea

The Fitzle (a pizza)

smother with Comey sauce, top with fried Russerts, Corn, some aged Armitage cheese, bits of Hamster, and shredded WaPO clippings

burn over a slow Plame for three months until moldy

best served with a sour Wilson whine

azaghal

Thanks to everyone for their useful comments. Without being acquainted with the full history of special prosecutors, it still seems to me that an appellate court could not sidestep this appointment issue because it appears to fly in the face of a statute that was written for the express purpose of resolving constitutional issues surrounding such appointments. So, it's not merely a constitutional issue of appointments, its also an issue of showing deference to the clear wish of the legislative branch. We shall see. In the meantime, I for one can't imagine how to get 12 jurors (as long as they have some serious intent to do their duty) to agree on a single guilty verdict out of any of these counts. Hmmm. I should have said, useful and interesting comments. BTW, I'm posting this using the links browser in its graphical version: 2.1. It behaves very nicely for me on these long threads, loads quickly, even if its page display is a little odd.

Ralph L.

455 comments and things are right clunky on dialup. Who do I have to sleep with to get a new thread around here?

605 on A Vast Thready. Is that a record?

Sara (Squiggler

Ralph: We had in excess of a thousand comments on a John Kerry "lucky hat" Cambodian border thread last year.

Ralph L.

Winsea, that's great. Change three months to three years and it's perfect.

Syl

azaghal

That was no innocent decision or CYA maneuver on Tenet's part--it was a well thought out political op designed to cause maximum political damage.

I think they were p*ssed about OP and OVP 'going over their heads' and declassifying the NIE and trip report.

The re-re-referral probably had little, if not nothing, to do with Plame.

Syl

alcibiades

This is a public forum. I must take responsibility for my own comments. :)

Link away. :)

UglyinLA

Thanks Ralph. I do take pride in the fact that I have been kicked off of Dkos and DU. LOL

Ralph L.

Sara, not surprising. Kerry is such a target-rich environment.

Syl, I guess you can sleep better believing the CIA is petty and mean but not devious and insubordinate. Where's Sen. Church when we really need him?

Sara (Squiggler

Yikes, a man found dead in front of his TV that was still on. His body was mummified and dead for a year. No one even missed the guy. What a sad story.

Walter

"...appears to fly in the face of a statute."

The statute had expired prior to the appointment.

There are some regulations that arguably would be relevant, but, IIRC, they were (a) temporary and (b) advisory and (c) did not grant enforcable rights to defendants.

Hmm. I'll look them up again.

Sara (Squiggler

Ralph, the current complaining about thread length and a demand for a new thread(s) is something that seems very recent. I, for one, hate having a bunch of new threads because no one ever goes back and all the arguments just get argued over and over again ad nauseum. Has anyone considered that the weather may be affecting your connections? Constant thread changes definitely dilutes the argument.

hit and run

Ralph - Tom prides himself on only riding with the mongrel horde 2/5, not 24/7. Though at times he can be coaxed out of that...but your specific offer may not do the trick.

I tried to get Clarice to give me the keys to the kingdom, but alas she's smarter than a rock and saw right through that.

Sara (Squiggler

Also, on thread length. I'm on broadband through my cable company with a wireless router so I can use my laptop all over the house. I see no difference in speed with a longer vs shorter thread. I do see drop off when the number of people hitting the site goes up dramatically. That is something a new thread won't cure. When you have 5000 to 10,000 people trying to log on to one site at the same time, that slows everyone down and is a server problem, not a thread length problem.

hit and run

Sara - I'm with you on the multiple thread thing (Thread Herder was my reaction to wanting a single place for everyone to be). But, I also admit that my aversion to it is mostly at work where I like a nice, clean single place to catch up quickly before the boss catches me to not cut into my productivity.

I had not thought about those with dial-up though.....and I can certainly imagine big threads would be difficult....

Walter

28 CFR 600 et seq (and following)
Regulations replacing 28 USC 599, which expired when not renewed.

§ 600.2 Alternatives available to the Attorney General.
When matters are brought to the attention of the Attorney General that might warrant consideration of appointment of a Special Counsel, the Attorney General may:

(a) Appoint a Special Counsel;

(b) Direct that an initial investigation, consisting of such factual inquiry or legal research as the Attorney General deems appropriate, be conducted in order to better inform the decision; or

(c) Conclude that under the circumstances of the matter, the public interest would not be served by removing the investigation from the normal processes of the Department, and that the appropriate component of the Department should handle the matter. If the Attorney General reaches this conclusion, he or she may direct that appropriate steps be taken to mitigate any conflicts of interest, such as recusal of particular officials.

It appears that Ashcroft/Comey fall under 28 CFR 600.2(c)

Why Libby can't make them follow these rules:

§ 600.10 No creation of rights.

The regulations in this part are not intended to, do not, and may not be relied upon to create any rights, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or equity, by any person or entity, in any matter, civil, criminal, or administrative.

Walter

So, not temporary. But no help to Libby, either.

Jane

I doubt there were 5000 people logging on at 5:00 this morning (when I was lighting and heating the earth ala Jimmy Dean)mostly because there were 4 of us posting. And it was really really slow. (And I'm on wireless broadband too).

Sara (Squiggler

Jane, then I blame the weather and maybe an iced up tower somewhere. It only takes one node to be on the fritz or slow to slow down a whole segment that branches off that node. I wasn't having any problems this morning logging in from So. Cal. In the old Undernet days, sometimes a whole section of the country logging in would just disappear from view from a few seconds to a few minutes or even hours. When it would finally come back up, you'd see that life had gone on without you by those unaffected.

Jane

I blame typepad - for no apparent reason.

Rick Ballard

Walter,

Comey specifically denied that Fitz was limited by 28 SFR 600 in his second letter.

He's a double secret (no rules) Special Prosecutor.

Rick Ballard

second letter

Sara (Squiggler

I don't mean to sound insensitive to dial up users. When I started communicating online we only had 300 baud modems and everything was done with either UNIX or DOS commands, no Windows and no mouse to point and click. And I've been in a situation where I had broadband and then moved to an area where I had to go back to dial up and hated it.

sammy small

UglyinLA

It is going to be ugly today. Its got to hit 90 today, even near the beaches.

I like your plot as well. However, I would prefer that the pres change prosecutors and continue the investigation into the plot hatched by Munchausen and the NYT to abuse the legal system to attack a sitting VP. That could lead to charges akin to the attempt to overthrow Roosevelt

Ralph L.

I'm not concerned as much about speed. I have to refresh multiple times to get the bottom of the thread, or sometimes any of it. After posting, sometimes I have to go back to the main page to get back on the thread. It also doesn't remember personal info with this many comments. Works much better with less than 200.
Agree multiple active threads is very confusing. IMO, new readers could be intimidated from looking at 500 comments, and it's all about maximum public display of our wit and wisdom.

Ralph L.

"...but your specific offer may not do the trick."
Don't knock it til you've tried me.

Syl

Ralph

Syl, I guess you can sleep better believing the CIA is petty and mean but not devious and insubordinate. Where's Sen. Church when we really need him?

No--I can carry all of those in my head at once. :) I just think the re-re-referral was less about Plame than the other stuff.

Sara (Squiggler

Well a thread like this one can bite the dust since it was really a thread about nothing to start with and during the wee hours we made it even more about nothing than it started out. ::wink:: Sometimes, though it is fun to just have fun and lighten up and interact with online friends. One of the reasons I never enjoyed the newsgroups is because they always have frustrated hall monitors who are ready to flame someone for even thinking off topic let alone writing off topic.

Michael

I'd like to join in a digression which I missed by only a couple of hundred posts. (Man, who knew a Saturday would be such a comment rich environment?).

In two visits to Sao Paolo I found it markedly less dangerous than advertised. Partly it's the cockiness of an ex-New Yorker. When we lived in Frankfurt my then-wife and I would roll our eyes when people told us to avoid the "dangerous" parts of town.

Still, I'd gone down hearing the warnings and had prepared a dummy wallet with some cash and expired credit cards to be handed over if I encountered bad guys, but I never even felt a bad guy element to be about. I walked around alone at night and everything.

The part that was truly dangerous was driving. I have driven in some of the world's worst driving environments -- Italy, France, Boston -- and if it weren't for my Boston Combat Driving training I expect I'd have become completely unhinged. I did make a wrong turn into a favela (favella? slum) and entertained Bonfire of the Vanities possibilities, but again no prob.

What struck me most (other than sheer size, again with NYC in my background I was not accustomed to finding cities large) was the cheek-by-jowlness of the rich and poor. In the US we tend to keep all of our rich people in rich places and all of our poor people in poor places and to buffer these with strategically interspersed middle class people. I took my first ever helicopter rides in Sao Palo, and from the air you see that walled mansions with swimming pools are separated from the favellas only by the walls. The rich are gated in but the desperately poor are literally at the gate.

We now return you to more current digressions already in progress.

Sara (Squiggler

No--I can carry all of those in my head at once. :)

LOL. Studies show women are far better multi-taskers, doncha know.

hit and run

"...but your specific offer may not do the trick."
Don't knock it til you've tried me.

Posted by: Ralph L. | February 17, 2007 at 01:10 PM


Oh, if I had been given the keys to the kingdom...

hit and run

Michael - I wish I had the cockiness to have ventured out in Sao Paolo. But, the company was calling the shots, I was with two women. But, looking back, I coulda done so much more.

Ralph L.

Michael, that seems to be the national consensus about Boston. My parents said it was frightening to be driven around in Japan, perhaps because cars weren't in the bushido code, so they really let loose.

Smaller towns and cities aren't very econo-segregated, or mine isn't. Perhaps you suffer from big-city bias.

Ten years ago I realized there was a crack house behind mine, with the police station on the next block and 6 churches in sight, a palace just down the street.

Walter

Jane!

You know the 1983/1985 rules, right? Please help. Am I all wet or just somewhat damp?

Rick,
My phone isn't doing well on pdf's. Unfotunately, the Light of my Life has commandeered my PC to do more important things than JoM, viz. reading Harry Potter blogs.

But if I remember correctly, the letter was not inconsistent with 600.2(c), which seems to let the AG do what he wants.

I bet there's something in Fitzgerald's filings which throws a bucket of cold water on my speculation, if not me.

Sara (Squiggler

Well all, it is 80 degrees out so I'm going to get my bathing suit on and go for a swim and a nice Jacuzzi. See you later!

Syl

Sheesh, all this traveling makes me feel so parochial.

I've only been to the Caribbean.

Oh, I went to Canada by mistake once.

Syl

And Bermuda

during a hurricane passby

Try riding a moped across the causeway by the airport with a 70 knot wind.

Sara (Squiggler

There is a new thread to kee0p you busy while I'm gone.

Jane

You know the 1983/1985 rules, right?

Are you kidding?

hit and run

LOL. Studies show women are far better multi-taskers, doncha know.

Posted by: Sara (Squiggler | February 17, 2007 at 01:23 PM


I was thinking about this the other day. You know when you really put your mind to it, even as a male, you can [Penelope Cruz], you can, uh, you can, um er, what was I talking about?

Charlie (Colorado)

I used to live in Boulder, and I can't begin to tell you think things that went on between Golden and Boulder.

Jane, honey, is that you?!

(When were you in Boulder?)

Charlie (Colorado)

Dems fail to get enough votes to open the debate in the Senate, so another wasted day in Congress.

Any day in which Congrefs is prevented from doing anything is not a waste.

Tom Maguire

fdLOL - Per Ms. Wheeler on the radio, the firedogs are "probably as well informed" as the JOM crew.

"Probably"? Well, she may not be sure, but I am.

Great job, Clarice, and thanks.

cathyf
There are some regulations that arguably would be relevant, but, IIRC, they were (a) temporary and (b) advisory and (c) did not grant enforcable rights to defendants.
The real issue, Walter, is the Constitution -- which is obviously neither advisory nor temporary. According to the Appointments Clause, every employee of the United States must fall into one of four categories:

1) Elected. (President, VP, Congress.)

2) Appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate.

3) Appointed by and directly under the supervision of someone who is in category 1 or 2.

4) Appointed by and directly under the supervision of someone who is in category 3.

The courts have ruled that merely having the power to fire does not cut it as far as supervision goes. There must be actual active supervision -- reports, consultation. If Fitzgerald was supervised by someone in category 1, 2 or 3, just who was it? Fitzgerald and Comey filed responses to Libby's motions, making a ludicrous claim that Comey could supervise Fitzgerald by reading reports in the newspapers. But even granting that, Comey left government service in the summer of 2005, so who was Fitzgerald's supervisor when Miller was still in prison, let out and testified, and when the indictment was brought? The justice department filed no motion at all about the Appointments Clause issue -- how can Fitzgerald claim that he was supervised if his supervisor refuses to identify him/herself?

jerry

Thank you to Charlie for his generous answers to my questions earlier. I won't agree on some points but you certainly know a good deal more about this business than I do. And congrats on living in Colorado, one of my very favorite places.

There's something fishy about never getting a straight answer from any government official about Plame (ignoring the Matalins and Yorks and Toensings and those sorts), I uncharacteristically don't see a corrupt motive behind this.

Walter

Well said, CathyF!

But, consider that "...supervision by a superior officer is a sufficient but perhaps not necessary condition to the status of inferior officer." US v Gantt, 194 F.3d 987,at 999 (9th Cir. 1999) and that "officer[s] ... might still be considered inferior officers [without supervision] if the nature of their work suggests sufficient limitations on responsibility and authority." US v. Hilario 218 F3d 19, at 25 (1st Cir. (hey, that's cboldt's circuit!) 2000). (quote bastardized by both me and Walton). Add in Edmond and Morrison.

Suddenly the appointment clause has lost a good deal of it's ordinary and natural meaning.

It doesn't seem right, but quite a few clauses have been written out of the Constitution over the years. Sometimes they are revived, but usually they languished, unnoticed except by academics and tax protesters, for decades if not centuries. (Quick, when was the last time the Supreme Court used the 9th amendment to overrule something?) For at least a century, the Court ignored the 11th amendment, but Rehnquist almost singlehandedly revived it.

In our modern federalist republic, the government has accrued much more power than the founding fathers could ever have imagined. In order to maintain and administer this power, they need servants. Lots of them. So, unless the Supremes want to risk overturning the applecart, they will continue to twist the words of the appointment clause to enable the bureaucracy to flourish.

Because the Supremes don't just decide one case, they set the direction for hundreds of cases with each decision.

Now, it's certainly possible that this case will represent a transgression past the limits of permissible delegation. And if the solicitor general files a brief supporting certiorari and then appears on Libby's behalf, the Court would likely find this unconstitutional.

I'm not arguing policy here, just giving you my take on the practical realities of appellate review. I sometimes get these cases right; I sometimes get them wrong.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame