Posted on 02/23/2006 11:52:35 AM PST by STARWISE
Lawyers for Vice President Cheney's former top aide asked a federal judge Thursday to dismiss his indictment because the special prosecutor in the case lacked authority to bring the charges.
In a court filing, lawyers for I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby said the indictment violates the Constitution because Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald was not appointed by the president with the consent of the Senate.
The defense attorneys also said Fitzgerald's appointment violates federal law because he was not supervised by the attorney general or approved by Congress.
"Those constitutional and statutory provisions have been violated in this case," Libby's lawyers wrote.
(snip)
Defense attorneys and Fitzgerald will appear in U.S. District Court Friday to argue over defense requests for classified records and evidence gathered by the prosecution about reporters who learned about Plame from government officials other than Libby.
Libby's trial is set for January 2007.
If the case goes to trial, defense attorneys have signaled that Libby likely will testify that he was so busy with national security issues that he forgot or incorrectly recalled conversations he had with reporters about "less important topics," such as Plame.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
Ding
Indeed. And particularly when the case is so weak on it's merits that it should be thrown out anyway. Seems like they are wasting some judicial good will with this ploy that is sure to fail.
Hubba hubba...may not have a snowballs chance in hell, but I like their grit. Libby's lawyers are hammering Fitz till he falls down lifeless and exhausted. He he he he...
How come the first leaker to Novak isn't being prosecuted?
"The Scooter". What a ballplayer.
Because no crime was committed in revealing her name.
My curious side notes that Novak always said he wouldn't talk until the investigation is over, and when it was, it wasn't. Fitzgerald extended it. For how long?
They're trying to create a constitutional issue for appeal.
Boo hoo hahahaha Now that is funny.
I pinged you to another one; Fitzgerald refuses to show evidence that Plame was covert.
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1584120/posts
Running out the clock so that he gets a pardon before he ever sees the inside of the pokey...
I don't think so. A Federal Judge knows a good criminal defense attorney must make every technical argument possible, so long as it is good faith. You cannot bring up issues on appeal that were not brought up in trial court (for the most part) - and noone never knows which issue on appeal will hit pay dirt. Thus, a good attorney makes a record on every concievable issue thay can argue in good faith.
I don't think so. A Federal Judge knows a good criminal defense attorney must make every technical argument possible, so long as it is good faith. You cannot bring up issues on appeal that were not brought up in trial court (for the most part) - and noone never knows which issue on appeal will hit pay dirt. Thus, a good attorney makes a record on every concievable issue thay can argue in good faith.
My view is because no crime was commited in disclosing the information about Valerie and Wilson.
Press hysterics about the story aside.
The government will either have to turn over the records and other evidence or dismiss the charges. The judge has no other option in this situation.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.