Posted on 03/31/2006 6:18:56 PM PST by Cboldt
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.
In a 24-page filing in federal court, the legal team for I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby said Fitzgerald and the former Justice Department official who appointed him, James Comey, are changing the broad mandate the prosecutor was handed to probe the leak in the Valerie Plame affair. ...
The defense attorneys say assignment of unsupervised and undirected power to Fitzgerald requires that he be relieved of his duties in the investigation and that all actions he has taken be voided.
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.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
JustOneMinute: Libby's Side - Response On Motion To Dismiss
http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2006/03/libbys_side_res.html
Libby's Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss [Doc 75]
http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/files/Libby_030331.pdf
Additional Links ...
Feb 23, 2006: Libby files Motion to Dismiss Based on Defective Appointment [Doc 45]
http://www.nationalreview.com/pdf/scooter.pdf
JustOneMinute: Waiting For St. Patrick (re: Defective appointment) - 03/17/06
http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2006/03/waiting_for_st_.html
Thanks cboldt! Ping to Howlin!!!
Well, I've read what Fitz says twice, and I still don't understand it.
Bite him in the ankles, Scooter!
As I said on the other thread, I think an interesting revelation is that Fitzy learned in February of 04, that Libby WAS NOT THE LEAKER. Fitzy was tasked to find out who leaked; if he knew in February that Libby was NOT THE LEAKER, why did he continue on with his "investigation"? I didn't notice if a time has been set for oral arguments on this or when a decision by the judge to dismiss has been requested. Any insights into that?
Here's the latest pleading in html form..It's very good.http://amerivic.blogspot.com/2006/03/case-105-cr-00394-rbw-document-75.html
A: It must be coming from Fitzgerald's furious backpedaling...
None. The docket has some dates for Responses and Replies, but there are several issues running simultaneously (defective appointment; various motions to produce) and the dates aren't paired with issues.
I'm looking at a docket entry of 3/10, that calls for defendant response by April 7 and government replies by April 14, that could refer to the defective appointment issue.
There was a CIPA hearing set for April 10 (docket entry March 13), reset to April 17 in a docket entry of March 16 ... a motion Hearing was scheduled for April 21, following the February 24 conference (about PDBs and "actual damage" due to disclosure of Plame's employment by the CIA), but I don't see anything between Libby's Motion to Dismiss, filed on February 23, and today, that reflects a schedule for disposing of the defective appointment issue.
The PDB production stuff, or assertion of executive privilege on PDB, has new deadlines of May 17 and June 13 (a href=http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1602634/posts>Order Here).
I think the bigger issues hanging out there are the defective appointments one, and the Court's eventual ruling as to "materiality" or something resembling that, as regards Plame's status within the CIA. Fitz said some interesting things in the February 24 transcript - as does the judge - and a determination of the issue is tied into CIPA rulings. It'll be all downhill once those are settled; and I've been on record for some time with a prediction that no matter which way Walton rules, the losing party will appeal his decision.
Well, I'm convinced.
Put me on the jury. It won't take very long to conclude this one.
And thanks to all of you responsible for the references. This is the first time I've actually set down and read the material filed with the court. Why is this thing still going on?
His work likely was branched in several directions by then - and even if he figured Libby to be a liar (which is ostensibly why he compelled Miller's testimony - to the point of jailing Miller), that doesn't stop investigating where the leak came from, or the possibility that other witnesses were liars.
You question sort of answers itself - if he's charged with looking for the leaker, and he finds out Libby isn't the leaker, why does he keep looking? Answer, "To find the leaker, it isn't Libby."
I sense that Fitz in in the trap of "first leaker" too - which is a natural but logically too limited. There can be multiple leakers, each unaware of the other, and more than one "guilty" party (as if Plame was covert!). In that case, a finding of "first" is interesting, but not determinative. And likewise to the matter of lying to investigators, it's easy ( I did it for a long tome) to fall into a trap of "if he's not the first to leak, he can't be a leaker," or even worse, "if he's not the first to leak, he can't be a liar."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The Special Counsel denies that his press conference was not in compliance, pointing out that he "reminded the audience of the presumption of innocence on several occasions." Govt's Resp. to Mot. to Dismiss (hereinafter "Resp.") at 26. But nothing in the policy suggests that a passing reference to the presumption of innocence gives a prosecutor license to say whatever he wants in the remainder of his remarks.
Mr. Fitzgerald also insists that he "stay[ed] within the four corners of the indictment in describing the charges." Id. Yet, he does not deny that he claimed the case involved disclosure of classified information or that at one point he incorrectly asserted that Mr. Libby was "the first official to disclose Flame's employment." See id at 26 n.9. Neither of those allegations appears anywhere in the indictment, and both seem wholly irrelevant to what Mr. Fitzgerald has elsewhere characterized as a simple perjury case. Moreover, it is hard to see, as the Special Counsel now claims, how flatly asserting the defendant's guilt or accusing him of uncharged crimes furthers any legitimate law enforcement goal. See id. at 27."
Can't win the game? Change the rules.
I can't wait for all these officials of all stripes who came to their majority in the Clinton Administration to be usurped by the upcoming generation. It shouldn't take much doing.
bttt
BUMP!
Bump
I have a question for one of you lawyers who are following this story:
The way I read the latest filing, Libby wants dismissal and if no dismissal is given, he wants an evidentiary hearing about the appointment of Fitzy. Does this mean he will get the evidentiary hearing? or can the court simply ignore this filing all together?
I think the MSM would like to see this case go away. They achieved their objective. They don't want to confront the consequences.
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.