Congress? Libby's lawyers want Congress to supervise Fitzgerald?

[peacetalksforall]

Or the Attorney General?

Any lawyers here today?

Does a Special Counsel need to be supervised by the Attorney General or Congress?

From Truthout - Libby's lawyers want Fitzgerald out. And then this:

"Fitzgerald's appointment violates federal law, the defense attorneys say, because his investigation was not supervised by the attorney general. They say only Congress can approve such an arrangement."

http://webmail.atl.earthlink.net/wam/msg.jsp?msgid=213755&folder=INBOX&x=-16392878


By Pete Yost
The Associated Press

Friday 31 March 2006

Washington - "Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald is narrowing the description of his powers in an effort to counter calls for dismissal of the criminal case he brought against Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff, defense lawyers said Friday."

[kiteinthewind]

1. OMG! How can he be "Independent" with the AG hanging over him?

Un-fucking-believable!!
:wtf:

[unblock]

2. i don't think he IS independent. didn't they let that statute expire?

so they could better control any investigations?

[misternormal]

3. I thought special prosecuters had carte blanche???

[MasonJar]

4. And I want Congress to supervise GWB, which, by the way, is

their job.

[Peace Patriot]

5. Oh, dear. You-all need to look up H2O Man's posts here at DU.

1. Fitz is not operating under the Special Prosecutor law, never was. Ashcroft had to recuse himself. The law provides for Special Counsel powers in that circumstance. The law for it already exists, and was used by Fitz's boss. (It's quite separate from the Spec Pros law which was rescinded.)*

2. Libby's lawyers are grasping at straws. But then, so is Bush on many fronts--making up the law as he goes along--and has now packed the Supreme Court with his toadies. So who knows what will fly with THEM?

3. AP is just as bad as all the other war profiteering corporate news monopolies. They shill for Bushites and war-mongers. This is not so much a legal case as a 'talking point' for the lapdog news media, for when Rove and Hadley get indicted (soon), and possibly Cheney. (Fitz is the tortoise in the "Tortoise and the Hare" fable--slow, steady, dogged, relentless, incorruptible, brilliant prosecutor.) When the new indictments come down, they will all start babbling about the 'doubts' cast on Fitz's 'authority.' It might also be a prelim newsbite--dropping newsturds into the newsstream--for some planned attempted "Saturday Night Massacre" via the Supreme Court, maybe? Possible. But I suspect it's the former--'spin' for the pending new indictments.

There is another DU thread about this at
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2201359

H2O Man didn't join that thread, and I'd have to do a lot of work to assemble his various posts for you on this and other Fitz/Traitorgate topics. The Libby legal argument is not new--it's about a month old. There has already been a lot of discussion about it. That AP would feature it now is the most interesting part of this newsbit.

-------

*A note on Gonzales (current AG): While Gonzales hasn't recused himself (no immediate reason to), he (before he was AG) was the White House operative who alerted the White House gang that Fitz was going to subpoena their emails, etc., and gave them 12-18 hours to purge docs. Fitz has mentioned this doc purge is several filings. So, if it is somehow engineered to have Gonzales be Fitz's boss on this case, I believe Fitz will go public and blow the whistle on this junta, big time. Gonzales may well be a prosecution TARGET. And if they try to put Congress in charge of Fitz, all hell is going to break loose as well. It will rip Congress and the Republican Party to shreds.

A related note: You likely noticed the recent resignation of WH chief of staff Andrew Card, who was very likely in the middle of the conspiracy to out CIA agent Plame and her entire counter-proliferation network. Card may be singing to Fitz, or is also in Fitz's sights (in addition to Rove, Hadley and Cheney). American political life is about to get ve-e-ery interesting. Who knows what will happen, with this criminal gang in charge--but Fitz has a lot of cards in his hand (..ahem).

[peacetalksforall]

6. I think you are right on all levels. My source? My gut. I haven't been

following it all, but your point about why it's coming up again now is the heart of this message.

Thanks.

[Missy Vixen]

7. Here's the explanation linked to by firedoglake

I think it's the best one yet.

http://citizenspook.blogspot.com/2005/08/treasongate-us-attorney-generals.html

>Monday, August 08, 2005
TREASONGATE: The US Attorney General's Office AND President Bush Have NO LEGAL AUTHORITY To Remove Patrick Fitzgerald As Special Counsel


The Attorney General, Acting Attorney General or any other officer of the Department of Justice has NO LEGAL AUTHORITY to remove Special Counsel Fitzgerald from the Treasongate investigation or prosecution-- AND -- President Bush does NOT have the legal authority to fire Patrick Fitzgerald in his capacity as "Special Counsel".

Analysis of federal law (involved with both the appointment of -- and authority granted to -- Special Counsel Fitzgerald), Comey's press conference of December 30th, 2003, and Decision B-302582 (September 30, 2004) issued by the Government Accountability Office, leads to the following legal conclusions:

1. James Comey, in his capacity as Acting Attorney General, with respect to the Justice Department's investigation into "the alleged unauthorized disclosure of a CIA employee's identity" (hereinafter "Treasongate" delegated his plenary authority to Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 508, 509, 510, and 515, conferring upon him "all of the authority of the Attorney General" thereby transferring his status as Acting Attorney General, in this matter, to Fitzgerald.

2. Special Counsel Fitzgerald is not serving as an "outside Special Counsel" pursuant to 28 USA § 600, so the provisions of that code are not applicable in this matter nor do they have any legal effect over Fitzgerald's investigation and/or prosecution.

3. While President Bush may fire or replace Fitzgerald as the "US Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois", the President has NO AUTHORITY to fire him as the "Special Counsel" in the Treasongate investigation.<

There's a lot more at the above blog. Suffice it to say that there's a reason why this was drawn the way it was.

Libby's attorneys are barking up the wrong tree. I also think they're doing this in an attempt to get under Patrick Fitzgerald's skin. Personal to Libby's attorneys: Be careful what you wish for.

Julie