Read Closely!

Christy Hardin Smith of firedoglake decides that to respond to Dorothy Rabinowitz's criticisms of the Fitzgerald investigation and prosecution, she will simply trash Ms. Rabinowitz.  But turnabout is fair play! [And see "TURN AGAIN", below]

I have stalled near the top of her post - I made it past the distracting mis-spelling of "Juanita Broderick" but was overcome with laughter at this:

– She gives none other than Ann Coulter glowing reviews as the “Maureen Dowd” of conservative outrage branded commentary, and manages to try and link her with McCarthy as two positive peas in a marketing pod.  In what twisted world does this woman live where McCarthy and Coulter are positive additions to the public political scene under any circumstances?

Geez - I am pretty sure this is true for libs as well but believe me - amongst righties, being compared to Maureen Dowd is not a compliment.  And following the link (presumably, her readers do not), I see that Ms. Rabinowitz is panning Ms. Coulter, not praising her.  The criticism is subtle enough that firedog readers and (evidently) writers may miss it, but let me highlight a few clue-laden passages:

[Ms. Coulter] also thanks her publisher for his bravery--a suggestion that it took courage to publish this work. Here we are, only up to the acknowledgments page, and already enjoying a laugh. True, at one point a book representing the Democrats as the party of treason, and Sen. McCarthy as one of the greatest heroes of the age, might have given some publishers pause. Not today--the era that has put its money on outrage merchants and shock jocks.

Praise, or criticism?  Tricky!  Here is another headscratcher:

Ms. Coulter has not just set about rehabilitating McCarthy as a martyr destroyed by anti-American leftists--she has also set about rehabilitating the most notorious of his cases, the kind dramatized in famous film clips of the period. Cases like that of Annie Lee Moss, a black code clerk who had lost her job at the Pentagon when she was hauled before McCarthy's committee as a security risk and Communist Party member. She had been confused with a different Annie Lee Moss, the witness explained--and who Karl Marx was she could not even say. So evident was Ms. Moss's confusion at what she was doing there that applause erupted in the hearing room when Democratic Sen. Stuart Symington declared he believed her.

But the evidence against Ms. Moss was not insignificant, the author of "Treason" now maintains. The code clerk had said there were two other people called Annie Lee Moss listed in the Washington phone book--whereas the two others were actually Anna Lee Moss and Annie Moss. Dynamite evidence, as far as Ms. Coulter is concerned--case closed. After all, an FBI report had identified her as a Communist.

Praise, or criticism?  Stumped?  Try one more:

Yes, a book with everything--and we don't forget the classy prose. "Needless to say, the scrawny pinko was also a failure as a soldier," writes Ms. Coulter, about Peress.

We make the tough calls here at JOM, and I will plant the flag - "scrawny pinko" is not being offered as a serious example of classy prose.

Oh, well, Ms. Rabinowitz is a bit too subtle for some, I guess.  Ms. Hardin Smith does link to a Rabinowitz bio and summarizes it thusly:

– Apparently, her real job for the WSJ is as a television and media critic, as well as penning conservative mash notes for its op-ed page.

I will assume her readers did not follow that link either, so let me round that out a bit:   

Ms. Rabinowitz has been named a Pulitzer Prize finalist three times. She was a finalist in the criticism category in 1998 and 1995 for her television critiques and in the commentary category in 1996 for her editorial page features on false sexual abuse charges. She received the 1997 Champion of Justice Award from the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers in recognition of her journalistic achievements and commending her in particular for her writing on false sexual abuse charges. In 1993, she won the Distinguished Writing Award from the American Society of Newspaper Editors in the commentary category.

Ms. Rabinowitz is familiar with out of control prosecutors generically, although she has probably overlooked Ms. Hardin Smith.

MORE:  For the utterly tone-deaf, Ms. Rabinowitz drops the veil in her conclusion:

Ms. Coulter's work includes an admiring if brief biography of McCarthy's political career. One that for some reason excludes the senator's remarkable efforts on behalf of the members of the SS battle group who executed 86 American POWs in the Ardennes campaign in December 1944; otherwise known as the Malmedy Massacre. In his impassioned efforts on behalf of the accused--one never to be repeated in his investigative career--the senator charged that the U.S. Army had cruelly mistreated the former SS men.

All things considered, Sen. McCarthy's reputation would be hard to refurbish, but give Ms. Coulter credit for an all-out effort. The senator--who knew something about the art of outrage merchandising--would have understood the latest of his public advocates.

C'mon.

FULL DISCLOSURE and/or HELPFUL CLUE:  This post should be read as a criticism of Christy Hardin Smith and the firelapdog readers who failed to comment on this laughable error.

FULLER DISCLOSURE:  Yes, I am just passing time waiting for the Fitzgerald filing, which was due at 4:00.  'Que pasta?', as we say (while contemplating the dinner hour).

TURN AGAIN:  Beldar rises in defense of Special Counsel Fitzgerald:

No one has been a harsher critic of Amb. & Mrs. Bozo & Bozo-ette Joseph Wilson than me, and I am keenly aware of the dangers of "politics as usual" being "criminalized." Maybe the CIA shouldn't have referred this matter to the DoJ (although I think it should tend to err on the side of referring if it's at all a close case; but maybe this one wasn't). Maybe Attorney General John Ashcroft ought not have recused himself (although I think he was right to do so, given his past personal ties with then-reported chief suspect Karl Rove), and maybe his deputy, James B. Comey, ought not have appointed a special counsel (although I think he was right to do that, too, for reasons having to do with public confidence in the justice system and avoiding appearances of favoritism, and I said so at the time).

But when Mr. Fitzgerald got this case, it was already necessarily a false statement/perjury/obstruction investigation because what Mr. Libby had already repeatedly told the FBI agents simply couldn't be squared with the other written evidence and witness statements they had in hand.

*******

...

So in the exercise of his prosecutorial discretion, Mr. Fitzgerald did the responsible, prudent thing: What Ms. Rabinowitz paints as grand jury prolongation for purposes of "entrapment" ought instead be viewed as Mr. Fitzgerald throwing Mr. Libby the proverbial life-line by which Mr. Libby could have, and should have, extracted himself from the considerable hole he'd dug himself into before Mr. Fitzgerald was ever in the case.

Specifically, Mr. Fitzgerald used the formal and stately process of the grand jury proceedings to make further, much more detailed inquiries of Mr. Libby — under oath and with full stenographic and audio tape records. Mr. Fitzgerald asked sufficient questions to make absolutely sure that this wasn't just a mix-up, a slip of the tongue, a misunderstanding by the FBI agents. He ensured that Mr. Libby was represented by counsel standing by just outside the room. He expressly, repeatedly, and gravely warned Mr. Libby and his counsel that that Scooter Libby was the specific subject of an investigation that included making false statements and obstruction of justice in connection with his prior statements to the FBI. If ever there was a time to search one's memory, or even to express some doubts about one's previous recollection, then surely — obviously — this was that time! Mr. Fitzgerald might just as well have handed Mr. Libby an engraved invitation  reading "Just clean up your act, buddy, so I can cut you some slack on the FBI interviews, shut down this circus, and get back to Chicago to prosecute some genuine terrorists."

OK.  I am firmly on both sides of this - I have some serious issues with the way Fitzgerald conducted himself in this "investigation" (geez, he never even asked Armitage for his June calendar - what else did he miss?), but my official editorial position is this:

Fitzgerald as much as admitted after the trial (link to WaPo video) that he was brought in to investigate the very odd story being told by Libby (Rove's "I heard that, too" account of his exchange with Novak also raised eyebrows, until the journalism critics at the FBI got a load of Matt Cooper's sourcing from Libby).

My view is that prosecutors prosecute and special prosecutors especially so; the real blame should be directed at Ashcroft, who lacked the courage to shut the investigation down in December 2003.

Prosecutors prosecute.

 

Comments

[Maybeex]

Christ Hardin Smith

Jesus!

[Semanticleo]

I wonder if Maguire has heard the expression
"rope-a-dope" or 'Good Cop, Bad Cop'?

WSJ castigating Fitzgerald as comparable to Nifong?( a conflation frequently imbibed here)

Who woulda' thought Dorothy might wish to
mitigate her partisan jab by taking a swipe
at Malkin?

As for misspelling a name........well, let's just say she is not so subtle as to drop
a well-worn historical phrase and pretend it
is understood by the readers to be de facto,
"Hobbesian"

[BobS]

So thats gonna be the new new canned insult by libs, eh....to be called Ann Coulter?

I'm mortified.

[clarice]

How long before Hardin's post just *vanishes with a poof*?

My goodness but she is a total idiot.

[Rick Ballard]

"My goodness but she is a total idiot."

True, but is she also nasty, brutish and short like Tic?

[Maybeex]

Hey, TM. Now you have to delete my comment for me.

[Jane]

Sounds to me as if Rabinowitz' spot-on criticims of Fitzgerald hit Ms. Hardin Smith a little close to the bone.

[Looking_For_a_Way_out]

"My goodness but she is a total idiot."

Posted by: clarice

While I don't agree with Mrs. Smith about everything she writes, and could care less about this particular post, I will say her posts on the events in the Libby trial have provided far more valuable and accurate predictions of outcome than anything written here. For Plame/Libby info, I read this site, FDL, TL and TNH because I bear the liberal's burden of wanting to hear varying opinions and viewpoints, and I have come to recognize that some, though not all, conservatives view such a truth seeking approach as a weakness. But having gone to the trouble of reading it all, I can assuredly ask: Clarice, if Christy Hardin Smith is a total idiot, what the hell does that make you?

Personally, I think you're just jealous.

[Semanticleo]

"Personally, I think you're just jealous."

Careful. The iron maiden rules the rooster.

[Tom Maguire]

Christ Hardin Smith

Jesus!

SpellChek can go to h***. (Since it has sent me there...)

[Semanticleo]

"Personally, I think you're just jealous."

Careful. The iron maiden rules the rooster.

[PatrickR]

Christy doesn't much like facts herself:

'What, you might ask, was so patently offensive about Ms. Rabinowitz’ op-ed? As it is behind the subscription wall...'

And, as our host's link to it proves, no it isn't. So anyone can read zingers like:

'Given a judge enamored of the image of his courtroom as an outpost in the class struggle--a judge obviously determined that this government official had to be sent to prison now--the outcome of this plea hearing was clear. It would have been the same, one understood, if Mr. Libby had been a Medal of Honor winner in a wheelchair.'

That said, Rabinowitz is a notoriously erratic columnist. Virtually everything she said about Coulter's 'Treason' was factually wrong.

For instance, Annie Lee Moss was simply lying to McCarthy. He was right about her, she was the person who was a dues paying member of CPUSA. And years after McCarthy was dead and gone the FBI proved it--and Moss was still working in the Pentagon code room.

[clarice]

Looking, Not at all. I just think she's a moron as are her fans.

[clarice]

Here's Fitz' filing:

http://thenexthurrah.typepad.com/the_next_hurrah/files/070622_govt_reply.pdf>Fitz

[Semanticleo]

From Wik:

* Moss was never afforded due process, specifically the opportunity to confront and cross-examine the witness against her, namely FBI informant Markward. However, several senators did confront Markward during her testimony and did speak out in Moss' defense.

* The evidence alleging Moss' ties to communism was hearsay and unsubstantiated by testimony from any witness who was subject to cross-examination by the accused. The only person who testified (i.e., Markward) never herself produced the supposed list for public examination.

"....never afforded DUE PROCESS,,,,,,"

"hearsay and unsubstantiated by testimony from any witness who was subject to cross-examination by the accused."

Sound familiar?

[Jane]

I will say her posts on the events in the Libby trial have provided far more valuable and accurate predictions of outcome than anything written here

Which of course begs the question of why you think your presence is so demanded here. In fact I can't think of one memorable thing you have ever said on the entire sordid affair, while I can think of volumes that Clarice has written. Surely you would be more comfortable among the like-minded.

Oh and I wouldn't say predicting a travesty of law and justice is something to be terribly proud about. Altho I am certain that you are indeed proud.

[Tom Maguire]

I will say her posts on the events in the Libby trial have provided far more valuable and accurate predictions of outcome than anything written here.

Wow. Not only may you say it, but say it again, and often - I am an advocate of the healing power of laughter.

I can't pick a fave, but here are a few candidates:

(1) Ms Smith predicts that the investigation is ongoing days before Rove is cleared and demonstrates her reading impairment with flat misquotes of a Luskin;

(2) Ms. HS pens a mash note explaining that Fitzgerald's supercomputer mind, X-ray vision, and general debonair manner make him invincible; the facts, when revealed are that his breakthrough clue came when he asked Libby, who told him to check Libby's calendar. Her notion that Judy Miller was at risk for perjury worked out how?

(3) Speaking of perjury, MS. HS thought that Congress would indict for perjury an expert witness who told Congress the same thing she had written, and submitted as amicus to a Federal Court.

Ms. Smith repeated that insinuation, but when challenged seemed to say she was kidding. Ahh.

Oh, that was fun. Maybe next you can tell me how knowledgeable the Angry Bear is. Where *is* that darn Fitzgerald filing?

[clarice]

Here's EW on her reading of Fitz's response on the Mitchell argument:
"Mrs. Greenspan Doesn't Help

Most of the treatment of the Andrea Mitchell complaint is uninteresting in the sense that it shows, again, that the Defense was trying to introduce Mitchell's testimony improperly. But it does make two good points.

The defense requested and was granted an opportunity to question Ms. Mitchell; however, defense counsel declined the court's offer to allow questioning under oath and outside the presence of the jury.

That is--Libby could have gotten to Mitchell's testimony, but only wanted it under circumstances where they could beat her up. More interesting is this, from the courts rulings on Libby's attempts to subpoena Mitchell.

These inferences [the whole Mitchell argument] would have been powerfully rebutted by, among other things, evidence indicating a search of NBC News' files revealed no document reflecting any information regarding Ms. Wilson prior to publication of Novak's column.

In the context of Libby's attempt to introduce Mitchell the first time, this served simply to eliminate Libby's claim that subpoenaing Mitchell was necessary. But in the scope of Ted Wells' repeated claims in the trial that, if any of these journalists had this story, they would have shared it, it is even more powerful. How could Wells argue that Mitchell necessarily repeated this news to Russert, when there is no evidence of it? (And apparently, David Gregory was just as uninterested in Ari's tidbit as Mitchell was in the news that Libby didn't leak to her.)"

LOL

[clarice]

TM I just gave you a cite to the pdf file of the Fitz response.

[Semanticleo]

"2) Ms. HS pens a mash note explaining that Fitzgerald's supercomputer mind, X-ray vision, and general debonair manner make him invincible;"

And this makes him comparable to Nifong, how?

You need some air for that inner tube you ride over Niagra Falls.

[Maybeex]

What? No harassing Rabinowitz about wearing clam-diggers? No calling her sandpaper sn*tch?
No saying she "teetered through the crowd on a pair of spindly legs shown to ill-effect in a set of shorts I’d seen on the markdown rack at Barneys (others wisely having steered clear)"

They are classing up at FDL.

[Semanticleo]

From PDF filing;

footnote 6, pg 6.

"It is telling that Justice Scalia, the lone dissenter in MORRISON, stated if the independent counsel at issue had been removable at will, "the she would be subordinate to the [AG]and thus properly
designated 'an inferior'"

I guess Scalia isn't omniscient. Pity.

[JM Hanes]

Per Ms. CHS:

"And, truly, I hope that Dorothy doesn’t read Judge Walton’s most recent memorandum opinion, because it will make her head explode."

Sounds like CHS has been doing some reading herself.

[Elliott]

Some familiar tactics in the opening paragraphs. From Fitzgerald's first paragraph:

On June 14, 2007, the district court...denied defendant's motion for release pending appeal on the ground that the issues defendant planned to raise on appeal were not "substantial" and would not likely result in reversal or a new trial.

From his second paragraph:

Because [defendant] has failed to show that any issues he will raise on appeal present a substantial question the resolution of which in his favor would likely lead to reversal or a new trial, the application should be denied.

Note the absence of "resolution of which in defendant's favor" from the first paragraph.

Fitzgerald's logic is accurate as far as it goes. Since the court did not think any of the issues were close, it found reversal or a new trial unlikely. However, this formulation glosses over the fact that Walton said in the hearing that he didn't believe the appointment question would be subject to harmless error analysis.

[clarice]

Semantic--Here are a few differences about the IP (Morrison). The IP was created by Statute. The IP's funds could be cut off by Congress. The IP was supervised by a three judge panel of appellate court judges. (I ask again how it is possible to fire someone for cause when you have no way to know what he's doing?)

[lurker9876]

I did not find anything in Fitz's filing addressing the unlimited power and authority granted to him by Comey.

But he did mention some Section 14 where he claims that AG having the right to delegate to anyone or something like that. Page 16 or Page 17 in a footnote. Can anyone enlighten us on that part?

[lurker9876]

Fitz kept saying, "the defendant's argument lack merit." blah, blah, blah.

Interesting that we're seeing more and more articles written of late against Fitz. They're complaining about how Fitz took away their "freedom of speech".

[clarice]

lurker, we've discussed that several times. Comey used a statute allowing him to delegate functions in appointing Fitz as opposed to the statute covering appointments of special counsel. I think if you scroll thru yesterday's thread on the case you will see what this is about.

[lurker9876]

Sorry, wrong page, try page 12.

[lurker9876]

Got it. Fitz' argument was based on delegation but the Team Libby's argument is based on authority and power.

[Josh E]

The first part was a bit over my non-lawyerly head, but I was struck by how little he actually addressed the memory expert in the second part, despite the heading. He spent 2/3 of his time talking about the evidence of Libby's work during those times, and rather brushed off the memory expert exclusion. I also think his contention that Libby's 5th amendment right not to testify wasn't pressured is hurt a bit by Walton going into a snit when Libby opted out. From that day forward Walton has been fairly openly hostile to the defense, from pouting about the amicus brief to denying admission of evidence.

On the third point, I have to agree with previous posters. How can you hold defense arguments to the same standard as prosecution arguments when the standard of proof is so different? All Defense has to show is a reasonable doubt. Sure, the jury thought Russert might have been wrong in his testimony, but with another witness to reinforce that, the balance might have tipped.

In summary, Mitchell to cast doubt on Russert, and a memory expert to give an explanation for why Libby may honestly have believed that this was surprising news about the Wilson-Plame connection could very easily have tipped the balance, at least to a hung jury.

Josh

[JJ]

Got to love these paragraphs from the article:

The obligation to truth, the prosecutor argued, was of the highest importance, and one in which Mr. Libby had failed by perjuring himself. It would be hard to dispute the first contention. It is no less hard to avoid the memory of Mr. Fitzgerald's own dubious relation to truth and honesty--as, for example, in his failure to disclose that he had known all along the identity of the person who had leaked the Valerie Plame story.

...Why the prosecutor sought this secrecy can be no mystery--it was the way to keep the grand jury proceedings going, on a fishing expedition, that could yield witnesses who stumbled, or were entrapped, into "obstruction" or "lying" violations. It was its own testament to the nature of this prosecution--and the prosecutor.

Too high can't go over it, too low you can't go under it, too wide...

[OnTheThirdRail]

Read this howler From Fitz's filing (pg 7):

"The AAG's decision not to appoint an outsider under Part 600 was made for sound reasons, including avoiding unecessary delay of the investigation"

I'm sorry how long did it take Fitz to actually indict someone. Especially comical since he knew who the original leaker was before the investigation even started. What the filing should have read if he wanted to be truthful was:

"The AAG's decision not to appoint an outsider under Part 600 was made for sound reasons, including making sure his buddy investigated Cheney and buried the state departments role in the leak"

[Ralph]

Rick, Clarice,

I just got back (9:45PM my time) from an evening social event and found out that the PDF was available.

I did a quick conversion to html and have forwarded it to both of you.

Hope this is of some value.

Let me know if you need anything else.

All the Best,

Ralph

[clarice]

Even funnier--As I recall the statutory scheme provides that a special counsel that is properly appointed from outside the Dept and overssen by the AG ) must devote full time to the matter..whereas Fitz never gave up his fulltime position in Chicago.

ROFL

[clarice]

Thank you Ralph. Thank you very much.

[Sue]

We have picked apart Fitzgerald's filings in the past and each and everyone of them have done what he wanted them to do.

[Carol_Herman]

Fitzgerald took his powers from the "Alexander Haig" rule.

"By the seat of your pants." With it, you can act like the president any day of the week. As long as the president offered you a cabinet chair. Oh, yeah. Haig lost that job.

On the other hand, here, Sentelle's worked in the supervising role of IC's. Will he be fooled by Fitz? Isn't Morrison MOOT because Congress let the Statute run out, after reading Morrison?

And, Tatel. The man who signed the order jailing Judith Miller. Just because Judith Miller remains silent, doesn't mean that any book she'd write, ahead, would talk about jail being a weight loss experience.

And, for what it's worth. The press, who had given Nifong the arena to accuse innocent folk, in a criminal set up; once the tide turned,the press didn't come to Nifong's aid. Why assume Fitzgerald's behind is better covered?

I'd give the odds to Libby being granted bail, at better than 50/50. If only because,now, this case has 12-Amigos also following it. Each one capable of writing a book.

But if the 3-judge panel rules against Libby, it will be "by a nose." And, the headlines will read that our courts are not just a gamble, but a horse race. A hardly likely outcome for judges. They'd have to turn in their robes, for silks.

[MikeS]

Nifong’s job was to find out whether a crime had been committed, and if so discover and prosecute the perpetrators. God only knows why he decided to do something else.

Similarly Fitz’s job was to investigate the matters related to the release and publishing of the name and occupation of Valerie Plame.

Fitz didn’t do that. He quit investigating before he found out that Armitage had first leaked to Woodward. Fitz quit before he found out who told Pincus about Plame. He apparently quit before he found out if David Gregory knew. He doesn’t seem to have investigated the circumstances of several people including Andrea Mitchell and General Paul Valely who publicly claimed to have known about Plame.

Why? He had something else in mind.

[JM Hanes]

Lost in the wrangling over whether Morrision applies, is something that has bothered me from the start. As Fitzgerald summarizes the Morrison factors, an inferior officer is characterized by:

1) Removability
2) Limited authority, compliance with policy "to the extent possible"
3) Limited jurisdiction
4) Limited tenure

Isn't this list equally applicable to principal officers appointed by the President & confirmed by Congress as well? The President can simlarly remove a Secretary of Education, for example, whose authority, jurisdiction and tenure are clearly limited as well. If this is an accurate representation of Morrison, then the Morrison "test" is entirely insufficient to distinguish between principals and inferiors, is it not?

Clearly something else is required in order to make such a determination possible. That's where Edmond logically comes in. Differences in the factual circumstances between Morrison & Edmond would seem to be irrelevant, if, as the defendant asserts;:

The unanimous Court [in Edmond] explained that "'inferior officers' are officers whose work is directed and supervised at some level by others who were appointed by Presidential nomination with the advice and consent of the Senate."

Oddly enough, this is where the Fitzgerald/Walton enthusiam for "plain readings" expires. The idea that removabiity can constitute "supervision" at virtually any remove, so to speak, is, in its own way, an offense to plain language too. If, however, the supervision stipulated in Edmond can be used to overcome the insufficiency in Morrison, then removability cannot logically be held sufficient to establish supervision. If it were, we would simply have to continue our search for a a definitive standard elsewhere -- a search which Walton himself observed was unavailing.

The Defense brief doesn't argue, as Fitzgerald would persuade the Court, that the Supremes diluted, disavowed, or overruled Morrison, because the defense doesn't actually need to make that argument. Anyway, that's where I end up even before I get to the "factual findings" Walton used, and the complicating factors he ignored, to fit the square peg here into the circular argument he advanced.

[JM Hanes]

BTW, I've pretty much given up trying to distinguish between Walton's arguments and Fitzgerald's. They mostly quote each other anyway.

[OnTheThirdRail]

A couple of statements in the filing just strike me as plain odd - I am not exactly sure why but...

In any event, the power to remove at will carries with it the power to demand information if the AAG deemed it necessary. (page 7)

Seems somewhat circular... the AAG already said he didn't need to provide info now they are saying its inherent in the power of removal? Are they coming around to the defenses point of view now? Thats their whole point isn't it - if he isn't provided info then how can the AAG remove Fitz?

These inferences would have been powerfully rebutted by, among other things, evidence indicating a search of NBC News' files revealed no document reflecting any information regarding Ms. Wilson prior to publication of Novak's column. (Footnote 23 pg. 19)

First off, does the fact that nothing was found prove something? I know from personal experience at work there is tons of gossip that goes around but you will never find it by searching official company records or even all of the records. Secondly, knowing how Fitz and NBC are always parsing words to their advantage for all we know there could have been a thousand hits on Valerie Plame but none on Valerie Wilson. Third and most importantly, what are the circumstances surrounding Fitz doing a search of NBC news files. Is this another one of those instances where they rolled over like Russert did and just let him waltz in and search the records or did he have to get a court order to do that? He probably searched on

'Valerie Wilson AND (Rove OR Cheney)'

0 records found... darn it!

[clarice]

Reovability is a silly test, I think,, especially since (unlike the Morrison IP) Fitz reported to no one, his case dealt with classified material and involved gj proceedings none of which was public information and Walton originally rejected Libby's motion to dismiss on the bone stupid notion that Fitz could be supervised by reading newspaper accounts.
As the Nixon era fades , Congress and the courts are taking a more sober look at whether such investigative devices are necessary and, if they are, how to control them.
The law is at its worst in political matters. Each time this issue arouse it was in a hot political context. That may explain why the Morrison majority opinion is so lame. Edmonds was not a hot issue matter and the opinion was somewhat better. Factually Fitz is in a far worse situation that Morrison. And I'm not even getting to the question of the extra-statutory nature of his appointment and the fact that there is no limit to his authority, no tenure and no way for Congress to cut off his funds.

[clarice]

Third Rail--There was something in Andrea's notes--the judge said there was. He saw these notes--Libby did not.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/01/the_mitchell_mystery_at_the_li.html

[vnjagvet]

Sue says:

We have picked apart Fitzgerald's filings in the past and each and everyone of them have done what he wanted them to do.

Very true. But for the most part, Fitzgerald's briefs have been submitted to an audience of one. One who was inclined to side with him in most instances. The appointments issue, for example, is generally difficult to persuade a District Court Judge to grant. It takes some "neck sticking" to rule in favor of a defendant on such an issue in a politically charged case as Libby's is/was.

[Tom Maguire]

You need some air for that inner tube you ride over Niagra Falls.

Bring your head a little closer and I'll have all anyone could need.

From EW and the prosecution:

These inferences [the whole Mitchell argument] would have been powerfully rebutted by, among other things, evidence indicating a search of NBC News' files revealed no document reflecting any information regarding Ms. Wilson prior to publication of Novak's column.

Too funny. Let's see, if the defense can persuade the court of the existence of telephones and water coolers, then they are back in business even if neither Mithcell nor Russert noted (and saved) any record of their chat.

Or, if the new EW position is that a conversation could not have happened unless there is a record of it, then are we safe in concluding that Libby and Cheney never discussed Ms. Plame in the week after the Wilson op-ed? Odd view for her to take; maybe her real view is that conversations favorable to Libby can only happen with documentation, but we can speculate forever about conversations unfavorable to him. Just a guess.

[Looking_For_a_Way_out]

"First off, does the fact that nothing was found prove something?"

Look at it this way. Mitchell's testimony could only help the defense if, she admitted she knew about Mrs. Wilson working for the CIA before Novak published it, or if the defense was able to prove she knew and then lied when she said she didn't. The defense didn't even bother to question Mitchell which implies they didn't expect her to admit knowledge prior to Novak. Knowing this Fitzgerald addresses the second option by noting that there is no evidence in the NBC files to impeach her testimony either. Fitzgerald is arguing that calling Mitchell, who made admittedly contradictory public statements, is a baseless attempt to confuse the jury, nothing more. Walton agreed at the time. The defense had their chance to examine Mitchell and declined. They could have hit her with all of the "evidence" they had about what she knew and when at that point, but chose not to. Now they're appealing because they, changed their mind, and want a do over.

[Sue]

Very true. But for the most part, Fitzgerald's briefs have been submitted to an audience of one.

Not exactly true. He has already been in front of these judges and got what he wanted.

maybe her real view is that conversations favorable to Libby can only happen with documentation, but we can speculate forever about conversations unfavorable to him. Just a guess.

Pretty good guess.

[Sue]

The defense had their chance to examine Mitchell and declined.

So did Fitzgerald. I think it's a draw in that regard. Neither knew exactly what Ms. Mitchell would say, under oath and not drunk.

[Sue]

The whole comparison between Nifong and Fitzgerald is neither wanted the truth, they merely wanted the scalp. That isn't justice. Had Fitzgerald wanted the truth he would have questioned Mitchell himself. She was out there telling God and anyone who would listen that she knew about it before the Novak article. But the incurious Fitzgerald never bothered to question her under oath. Nor did he question Gregory or Dickerson. Very odd behavior for a man seeking justice.

[clarice]

NBC fought hard publicly at least to avoid disclosing anything except upon court order. Are you suggesting Looking that Libby could have informally questioned her outside the courtroom? That is preposterous. NBC would never have agreed to that.
He sought to question her in court and we know where that went.
Because the prosecution did not call her to the stand in its case, he could ONLY call her as his witness and as we know the Judge ruled that he could not call her as his witness because it was only to impeach Russert.

[JJ]

I know Clarice has written on this at American Thinker but it's a wonder to recap the quotes:

From Fitz’s original press conference:

But Mr. Novak was not the first reporter to be told that Wilson's wife, Valerie Wilson, Ambassador Wilson's wife Valerie, worked at the CIA. Several other reporters were told.

In fact, Mr. Libby was the first official known to have told a reporter when he talked to Judith Miller in June of 2003 about Valerie Wilson.

From Judy Miller’s interview with WSJ:

Ms. Miller's article suggests that Mr. Libby discussed aspects of Ms. Plame's identity with Ms. Miller repeatedly, and that he likely revealed other classified information. The first of their three conversations occurred on June 23, 2003.

From AP’s Freedom of Information request on Armitage’s calendar:

Official State Department calendars, provided to The Associated Press under the Freedom of Information Act, show then-Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage held a one-hour meeting marked "private appointment" with Woodward on June 13, 2003.

From the transcript of Woodard’s interview with Armitage:

ARMITAGE: No, she isn't the chief, no.
WOODWARD: But high enough up that she can say, "Oh, yeah, hubby will go."

From Sept. 2006 NYT:

WASHINGTON, Sept. 1 — An enduring mystery of the C.I.A. leak case has been solved in recent days, but with a new twist: Patrick J. Fitzgerald, the prosecutor, knew the identity of the leaker from his very first day in the special counsel’s chair.

The oversight from Fitz's superiors?

[Looking_For_a_Way_out]

"NBC fought hard publicly at least to avoid disclosing anything except upon court order. Are you suggesting Looking that Libby could have informally questioned her outside the courtroom? That is preposterous. NBC would never have agreed to that."

Walton gave the defense the opportunity to question her in the courtroom under oath and outside the presence of the jury. I don't know how much more they could have wanted if they expected her to provide testimony helpful to Scooter. The fact that they declined this opportunity implies that their real intent in calling Mitchell was to put her on the stand in front of the jury, confront her with the contradictory statements, make her look bad as she stammered out a response, any response, and hope that the jury inferred something not proven. If they had anything stronger than Mitchell's own "corrected" statement the defense would have jumped at the chance to get her on the stand, even if it were only in front of the judge. They didn't.

[JM Hanes]

Looking:

"The defense didn't even bother to question Mitchell which implies they didn't expect her to admit knowledge prior to Novak."

Try looking at it this way: the only thing worse than not knowing what your witness is going to say, is having to preview your questions & her potential testimony for the prosecution. Then, if the judge permits an official rerun -- which he's already telegraphed he's not inclined to do -- you have to get where you wanted to go with a witness who's been practicing her answers and consulting with her lawyers and and where the only surprises are going to be the rabbits the prosecutor has had plenty of time to figure out to pull out of his hat on cross. When you already know this witness doesn't want to help you in the first place, I'd say preserving the issue for appeal might be the safe bet.

Implications are kind of variable that way.

[JM Hanes]

Looking:

"The fact that they declined this opportunity implies that their real intent in calling Mitchell was to put her on the stand in front of the jury, confront her with the contradictory statements, make her look bad as she stammered out a response, any response, and hope that the jury inferred something not proven"

Do you have any clue how hilarious this statement is? What exactly do you think trial attorneys are trained to do? When did the burden of proving anything shift to the defense? Unless you're suggesting that defendants shouldn't bother calling witnesses at all, defense attorneys basically get paid by the inference, because that's The American Way.

[Looking_For_a_Way_out]

"I'd say preserving the issue for appeal might be the safe bet."

I wont argue that. It is always best to preserve some avenues for appeal.

I also agree that I'd prefer the court to err toward the defense in all rulings like the Mitchell one, but damn does that Fitzgerald make a good argument. He not only conviced Walton to rule his way, he convinced him it wasn't even close. Libby needs a better defense team.

[MJW]

Here's what Fitz says regarding Mitchell's statement that she knew about Plame prior to Novak:

As the district court found, however, the prior statement was at best ambiguous, and the interpretation the defendant was pressing had been publicly refuted by Ms. Mitchell on numerous occasions.

To characterize Mitchell's statement as "ambiguous" (much less, "at best ambiguous") is nearly a lie. I hate to trot out the quote again, but I can't help myself.

Alan Murray: Do we have any idea how widely known it was in Washington that Joe Wilson's wife worked for the CIA?

Mitchell: It was widely known among those of us who cover the intelligence community and who were actively engaged in trying to track down who among the foreign service community was the envoy to Niger. So a number of us began to pick up on that. But frankly I wasn't aware of her actual role at the CIA and the fact that she had a covert role involving weapons of mass destruction, not until Bob Novak wrote it.

What possible meaning is there other than that Mitchell knew Wilson's wife worked for the CIA, but didn't know exactly what she did there? If I were Libby's lawyers, in my rebuttal, I'd include the Mitchell quote, and Fitz's characterization of it.

[MJW]

In Fitz's discussion of the appointment challenge, he doesn't offer a single example of any supervision he received or any report he made to a supervisor about the progress of his investigation. The closest he comes is saying, "In a letter dated February 6, 2006, the AAG clarified several aspects of the delegation." However, Comey's choice of the term "clarify," makes apparent that he wasn't asked for permission to expand the investigation, but was rather asked to publicly confirm the authority Fitz had already be granted.

[MJW]

In his recent brief opinion, Walton says,

"As the Court explained in its April 27, 2006 Memorandum Opinion, 'the Attorney General himself is obligated to comply with Department of Justice rules and regulations'"

Yet Comey, as the acting attorney general, disregarded 28 C.F.R. 600., which provides the options for dealing with a conflict of interest. Granted, the regulation specifies that it doesn't create any substantive legal rights, but then, I believe all the regulations constraining the actions of prosecutors have a similar disclaimer.

[JM Hanes]

MJW:

I initially wondered about the disclaimer myself. It seems to me, though, that the explicit repudiation of the controlling regulations wouldn't be argued as a violation of Libby's rights but would be framed as an element of a defective appointment.

[JM Hanes]

Looking:

"He not only conviced Walton to rule his way, he convinced him it wasn't even close."

Well it does help when your ambitions have been dramatically pruned before you walk through the courtroom doors. I'm sure all his fans must share your admiration for the attention to the little things that has allowed him to accomplish so much in just a few short years.

[Sue]

Why did Comey have to recuse himself from this investigation? The only reason Ashcroft felt he had to was because of Rove. What connection did Comey have?

[Sue]

Fitzgerald jumps from using the term "idependent counsel" to "special counsel" with ease. Are they the same?

[Sue]

I see Fitzgerald is still using the old "it's in the public record" argument. To me, that is the lamest argument I have ever seen, but it seems to be swallowed whole by those wanting to swallow a guppie.

[Jane]

The oversight from Fitz's superiors

Isn't the proof that there was no oversight, the fact that Fitz knew who the leaker was and still went forward? Certainly if the case had been solved this administration would have stopped the rogue prosecutor, had they known?

So who does Fitz say was providing oversight?

[Rick Ballard]

"He has already been in front of these judges and got what he wanted."

The fact that he fibbed to them a little in his nonfidavit in order to get what he wanted may not help him this time. A journo went to jail on their say so, based upon their accepting Fitz's lies.

Elliot cited a piece by Orin Kerr which implied that Tatel is running for a higher office from the bench. If you read his Miller opinion in that light, then it would be absolutely unsurprising if he dropped an anvil on Fitz's head right about now. He left himself the perfect rationale within his Miller opinion.

Lying prosecutors aren't in particularly good odor at the moment so I don't think that Fitz would be wise to count on Tatel's vote.

[Sue]

Isn't the proof that there was no oversight, the fact that Fitz knew who the leaker was and still went forward?

Didn't Ashcroft and Comey know who the leaker was too?

Fitzgerald knew after reviewing the file he was not going to be prosecuting anyone for "outing" Plame. His "clarifying" letter and the course his investigation took is all you need to look at to see where his "investigation" was going.

[clarice]

The only person in the chain of command who could fire him until Comey left was the President and he certainly was not aware that the leaker was known before Fitz was appointed.

Rick, Maybe. Especially as jailing reporters does not win the hearts and minds of his friends in the media .

[clarice]

***I meant the only person in the chain until Comey left who didn't know was the President. Comey knew before he appointed Fitzgerald.*********

[Maybeex]

Why did Comey have to recuse himself from this investigation? The only reason Ashcroft felt he had to was because of Rove. What connection did Comey have?

Isn't that weird? And why did Gonzales, when he took on the AG, have to remain recused?

and clarice:
I meant the only person in the chain until Comey left who didn't know was the President. Comey knew before he appointed Fitzgerald.

Right. And then Gonzales, who came into the office pre-recused, also didn't know.

There is all the talk from Comey and Fitzgerald about having to do this fast- so fast they didn't have time to use someone outside the government. What was the hurry?

It seems to me the hurry was to get Fitzgerald approved before Ashcroft resigned and someone realized there was no need for a special investigator with no supervisor.

[lurker9876]

We see all kinds of predictions with here favoring Libby and EW favoring Fitz.

I'd hate to be surprised like we were with the heavily democratic-biased jury that believed Fitz, the newspaper articles, and discredited reporters over Libby.

Still, the trend of journalists writing against Fitz (and Nifong) just might help Libby, especially with the details revealed during the trial.

[Sue]

The thing is, Fitzgerald argued one way when it suited him and another when it didn't. He was all powerful. No he wasn't. He didn't need permission. Yes he did. No need to check what he is doing because it would appear to be interference. AG could have checked anytime he wanted.

And I still wonder about the difference between an independent counsel and special counsel. Aren't they two separate birds?

[Rick Ballard]

"Especially as jailing reporters does not win the hearts and minds of his friends in the media."

Clarice,

Even beyond that - Tatel will only be elevated by a Dem, do any Dems really want to promote the concept of the DoJ actually searching for the "truth" by using unsupervised shady tactics? Loose cannon are always dangerous.

This affair has been 100% pure politics from day one and the only item that still puzzles me (on a political basis) is the fog generated by Fitz (and Walton) to cover Brave Sir Dick's mad gallop to safety. I understand the coverup of Barlett's participation and the sacrifice of Libby. That's pretty much SOP in power politics.

Why cover for Brave Sir Dick?

[clarice]

If it was so important to get this resolves quickly, they should have followed the Statute and appointed full-time outside counsel instead of a DoJ employee stationed in Chiacgo who worked on it part-time. It (speed)is one of Fitz' weakest arguments.

From Don Surber's weekly review of the news:"NORTH CAROLINA STORY OF THE WEEK: The State Bar took steps to strip Prosecutor Mike Nifong of his law license for pursuing criminal charges even though no crime occurred. Impersonating Patrick Fitzgerald is against the law in North Carolina."

[clarice]

Why cover for Dick? (a) If you watch Fitz' MO, he gets someone to turn and be immunized and testify against others. His unerringly bad instinct for the truth means he immunizes the person most responsible and goes after the innocent. (See Radler in the Black case) or the Cowles case as examples.

(b) Despite his peridy , now rather well-established on the public record--getting Powell or anyone close to him was not popular;
(c) And I'm sure this is where you are heading--Comey appointed him not to get the leaker who was already known but to get the OVP with whom he was in a number of big fights.

[clarice]

***perFidy**(I have to get my morning coffee..)

[Tom Maguire]

From Ms. Mitchell:

Mitchell: It was widely known among those of us who cover the intelligence community and who were actively engaged in trying to track down who among the foreign service community was the envoy to Niger. So a number of us began to pick up on that.

With a gun to my head I could admit that *maybe* she is referring to David Gregory, not herself. Maybe this is a bit of self-puffery, and it is odd because just a few days earlier Tom Brokaw had informed us that Ms. Mitchell had not discussed "the matter" with any Admin official.

So why is she on both sides of this?

That said - does Fitzgerald even address the defense point that David Gregory's knowledge, based on Ari's testimony, is not contested anywhere in the record? Which means that maybe she heard from Gregory.

[Sue]

Tom,

You left out the money quote from the swampette...

just like today’s attempted hit piece against Patrick Fitzgerald? Convienent to have a fact-free pulpit at your disposal, isn’t it?

Only liberals are allowed fact-free pulpits, doncha know?

Well, sort of like this...

and repeatedly lies to FBI agents in order to cover the behinds of his prior boss

[clarice]

TM is there ANY answer to the Gregory was told conundrum? I expect he'd just skip it and hope the Ct missed that bit.

I expect that is why the defense never called Gregory.

[MikeS]

Suppose Andrea Mitchell’s remark that Plame’s identity was “widely known” is true. Suppose it became widely known because Valerie’s husband was a braggart and she was often as careless about her identity as she was at the meeting described in the INR memo. Why is that important?

It’s important because it would mean at least two people, Mr. and Mrs. Wilson, conspired, planned, and executed a DISHONEST propaganda campaign (not whistle blowing) against the White House. With that revelation, whether the other people involved were part of the conspiracy or just useful idiots is a question that gains import. Obviously, we can’t have the CIA conspiring against the President or Vice President.

That’s why Fitz was wrong to, almost immediately, divert the main thrust of his investigation toward an insignificant process crime.

[Jane]

Lying prosecutors aren't in particularly good odor at the moment so I don't think that Fitz would be wise to count on Tatel's vote.

I dunno. Everytime I think somoene is going to stand up and say "enough" they disappoint me. The whole thing feels like a coup to me. And frankly they are getting away with it. My guess is that they will decide to protect the republic when a democrat gets back into office. We can only pray that is not too late.

I guess I once knew that Comey knew. That sort of screws a bit with the supervision argument, at least factually.

[clarice]

Why? COmey knew when he appointed him and therefore was not going to stop the fishing expedition--in fact, that IS what he wanted. Above him was the President who didn't know and who Fitz made sure wouldn't know (with Comey's complicity).
Compare how quickly the referral letter was leaked to how closely held the Armitage info was kept for three years.

[PatrickR]

'To characterize Mitchell's statement as "ambiguous" (much less, "at best ambiguous") is nearly a lie.'

Oh, it's more than 'nearly'. When Walton tried it out, the defense pointed out to him that Andrea herself admitted to Don Imus that it was a statement that she did know about Wilson's wife being CIA.

Just another example of the Apostle of Truth lecturing us one way, and acting the opposite.

[BobS]

Clarice said up thread:

As the Nixon era fades , Congress and the courts are taking a more sober look at whether such investigative devices are necessary and, if they are, how to control them.

Forgive me for assuming a role as resident grassyknollist, but there is an element in this trial that senate dem were right in the middle of the Fitz appointment. Their cozziness with Wilson/Plame is well documented as well.

At any rate, it seems like some dems as evidenced from this episode desire to use this tool for political gain-no matter how dishonest.

When coupled with the efforts many of those same dems are putting up with respect to the dismissed US Attorneys it would seem to me their efforts are to control the judiciary for their own ends.

[topsecretk9]

Sue says:
---I see Fitzgerald is still using the old "it's in the public record" argument. To me, that is the lamest argument I have ever seen, but it seems to be swallowed whole by those wanting to swallow a guppie.---

No doubt. The whole argument is the stupidest thing since we know the "public record" is continually wrong and/or false and I am just waiting for someone with sense to call him out on it.

[topsecretk9]

Start a list of the things Fitz didn't care about or care to find out about

• Armitage's calendar
• Armitage setting up 3rd parties to witness tamper
• Armitage's withholding relevant information from him
• Judy Miller's other sources
• Joseph Wilson info in Judy Miller's notebook
• No interest in Mitchell and Gregory

anyways I am sure someone can construct it better - but I think it would be helpful to have a chronological list from start to finish to illustrate this was anything but an honest investigation.

[Jane]

Why? COmey knew when he appointed him and therefore was not going to stop the fishing expedition-

Because it is supervision, albeit bad, dishonest, agenda driven supervision. While Comey was there, that argument is moot I think. Once he left it's a different story.

I mean really, the meat of this case is that it was politically motivated, politically driven and politically decided. Squeezing that into reversable error is not that easy particularly because the politics go on.

[clarice]

Reporters--like Corn and Kristof who were never questioned.

People who said Wilson told them about Plame never questioned.

Never asking Pincus about Fleischer.

Never questioning reporters who Libby spoke to like Sanger and Pincus to see if he told them.

Never asking Woodward who he told or Ben Bradley how he found out.

[topsecretk9]

That's it Clarice -- list updated

• Armitage's calendar
• Armitage setting up 3rd parties to witness tamper
• Armitage's withholding relevant information from him
• Judy Miller's other sources
• Joseph Wilson info in Judy Miller's notebook
• No interest in Mitchell and Gregory
• Reporters--like Corn and Kristof who were never questioned.
• People who said Wilson told them about Plame never questioned.
• Never asking Pincus about Fleischer.
• Never questioning reporters who Libby spoke to like Sanger and Pincus to see if he told them.
• Never asking Woodward who he told or Ben Bradley how he found out.

[clarice]

Well, he was gone for a great deal of the time, wasn't he, Jane, and there is no evidence that his successors knew.
I'd like the Ct of Appeals--when it gets there on the merits--to ask him about his tenure and the breadth of his mandate.. Short of removing him, is he done? Will he ever be done?

[RichatUF]

tsk9

...but I think it would be helpful to have a chronological list from start to finish to illustrate this was anything but an honest investigation...

I would toss in the contacts that Wilson had with Pincus and Kristof [and the probable media contact that Plame-Wilson had]. I am sort of curious why the Miller affidavit hasn't been released in full.

The Newsday reporters Phelps and Royce [what ever happened to them] and Massimo Calabresi , who also had contact with Wilson before and after Cooper had contact with Libby

RichatUF

[danking]

"It's in the public record..."

I wonder if the agreed upon declassified intelligence that Walton would not allow into trial debunks Fitz's public record.

[RichatUF]

I'm so slow...

clarice and tsk9 are not drinking decafe

RichatUF

[Jane]

Well, he was gone for a great deal of the time, wasn't he, Jane, and there is no evidence that his successors knew.

Oh I agree with all that. I'm just disheartened by what has gone on, and how many people revel in it. We get people here every day who are thrilled that this has happened to Libby, and completely content with the Nifong-like prosecution. I keep wondering what I am missing, and no one who supports this travesty ever comes up with a thing.

And I'm not convinced that the Appeals Court will make this right. Hopeful, but not convinced. And as an aside, I've seen lately examples in my own practice of "good" lawyers putting what is "right" aside to win at any cost. And I can honestly say, up until recently, that was a rarity. A part of me thinks the whole system is coming apart at the seams.

[topsecretk9]

when it gets there on the merits--to ask him about his tenure and the breadth of his mandate.. Short of removing him, is he done? Will he ever be done?

Is an excellent question(s). And since Fitzgerald does not report to him but it is the President who removes him - it will be on Fitz's recommendation only to be removed! That doesn't sound inferior to me.

---or a President is forced to remove a politically charged prosecutor with no independent knowledge what he is doing to make the judgement - inherently politically charged shitstorm by proxy

[clarice]

Jane, that coarsening started in D.C. about 20 years ago when big firms from elsewhere merged with local operations. Suddenly, opposing counsel's oral agreements meant nothing. And when that happens, the whole thing does fall apart.

Clients felt that needed those lawyers if only to avoid being on the other end of their shennanigans and had to look the other way when bills were grossly padded (10 lawyers at each conference; everything under the sun creatively expensed to the max.)
Before that, with very few known exceptions, a lawyer's word was his bond; people would willingly talk and exchange ideas on similar cases; everyone shared their libraries; clients were fairly billed.(People did not expect to become multimillionaires practicing law.)
PHEH!

[Carol_Herman]

Eventually, the record books will show that the Executive, here, Dubya, was a dunce. Who surrounded himself with other dunces.

In other words? Where did the "talent" that went to work for this president, all come from?

While Bush stayed silent.

I'd guess that Bush, as a tool of the Saud's, was terrified of a Nixon take-out. So, he "played ball" with the old media. Forgetting that the Internet would give rise to new voices.

Up next? Well, IF, Ruth Bader Ginsberg doesn't pull a Rehnquist; where she sits to her dying day up on the Supreme's bench; then, we'll know soon enough IF Bush gets to pick another justice, who he'd pick, and what's left to his shredded presidency, anyway.

He did go along with the "amnesty deal." And, this seems to have taken Lindsay Graham's South Caroline reputation into the toilet. Trent Lott does not have the 60 votes. And, by moving the cloture voting to Tuesday, it seems like all the old politicians keep on thinking there really are "slow news days." Without ramifications.

Now, what was it that terrified Bush so much, that when it became apparent to the world that Armitage started the leaking; he didn't call anyone up on the Oval Office carpet? Does the carpet just still belong to Monica? And, other photo-ops?

How do people like Comey get to work for a republican president, anyway? Sure seems like an odd resume process to me. Perhaps, it's the DC location? No one else lives close enough? Everybody local is a Comey?

As if picking staff isn't an important consideration when you win the highest office in the land. News to me.

[topsecretk9]

Also - I am wondering if Fitzgerald's official report exemption is an argument to be made too.

I'm assuming that the President can't even ask him for an official report - so the Pres of the US only power over him as a superior is to remove him!

- a removal based on no information from which to determine if a removal is warranted

It's insane.

[clarice]

Schumer loved Comey. Both Comey and Fitz made their reps prosecuting the WTC bombings so on paper they looked good. Too bad, until the SSCI looked at it and noticed the Administration didn't realize that the WTC bombings cases weren't very well handled at all.

[Rick Ballard]

"And I'm not convinced that the Appeals Court will make this right."

Why should the Appeals Court write the final act to a very hokey "no one is above the law" political farce dreamed up (and very poorly directed) by an Executive unwilling to grasp the nettle? For Libby's sake (and only for Libby's sake) I hope that they do but I also understand that it's not Judiciary's function to pull the Executive's chestnuts from the fire.

You stated above: "I mean really, the meat of this case is that it was politically motivated, politically driven and politically decided." and that is a 100% true statement. Schumer and Conyer's attempted to use the "law" as a political club and the Executive played right along by picking Mr. Unscrupulous Puritan Dork to not only direct the play but to take the lead part.

I'm not sure that this farce really fits into the ""good" lawyers putting what is "right" aside to win at any cost." mold. If I take SDNYers like Comey, Fitz and McNulty and try to apply the adjective "good" to them I keep losing my breath from laughing.

Damned efficient at railroading but that's not really "lawyering" to me. Not with the weight of the state driving the hammer.