Posted on 04/27/2006 1:26:48 PM PDT by STARWISE
A federal judge on Thursday refused to throw out the criminal charges against former White House aide Lewis “Scooter” Libby stemming from an investigation into the leak of a CIA operative’s identity.
U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton rejected Libby’s argument that the appointment of special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald to lead the probe violated federal law and the U.S. Constitution.
The Justice Department’s delegation of authority to Fitzgerald not only was lawful, but also was needed to create the perception of fairness, Walton said in his opinion.
“The integrity of the rule of law ... is challenged to the greatest degree when high-level government officials come under suspicion for violating the law,” Walton wrote. “And a criminal investigation of any individual, prominent or not, for suspected violations of law must be above reproach to preserve respect for the fairness our system of justice.”
Libby, the former chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, was charged with perjury, lying and obstruction of justice in connection with the investigation. He has pleaded not guilty and his trial is scheduled to begin in January.
(snip)
The judge rejected the argument by Libby’s lawyers that Fitzgerald has unlimited authority and that his appointment required his nomination by President George W Bush and approval by the Senate.
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...
Ding
and the fact that Fitzgerald is obviously on a witch hunt - took what, 6 tries before he found a Grand Jury that would hear his "case?"
Is persecution part of the 'fairness' of our system?
I believe you're thinking of the prosecuter in the DeLay case.
None of which makes it legal. Congress passed a law to handle this, and declined to keep it in force. Maybe they did so for a reason?
Bzzzzt. Wrong answer. The integrity of the rule of law is challenged to the greatest degree when judges such as U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton substitute their "feelings" in place of the law as it is written. If Fitzgerald has any meaningful supervision, who is that supervisor, what supervision has been given do date, if any, and what powers does he have to rein in an out-of-control prosecutor? This must be appealed to a higher court that has judges who are able to read and apply the Constitution rather than inventing the law as they go along.
Such high-minded writing is a definite red flag warning of blatant travesties to follow and hollow reasoning before.
Later read
The Potemkin Prosecution (Part One)
The argument is simple—it is inconsistent with the Constitution to create, by fiat of the Deputy Attorney General, an office that supplants the authority of the Attorney General. Secondly, the power granted to Fitzgerald violates the statutory requirement that the Attorney General supervise all litigation to which the US is a party.
After having read the opinion (which was done pretty fast, so maybe I missed something), I think he has been listening to Fitz's circular arguments. He argues in parts of it the the rules that applied to an Independent Prosecutor don't apply here, yet in the last section, he uses the case that concerned the Independent Prosecutor to back up his ruling.
Thanks for the analysis of the opinion. I'll check out the original text and see what I get out of it--I was going by the article's summary here.
bttt
ping
Who appointed this judge ... is he Clinton era?
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000087&sid=aiAZnz8gavJM&refer=top_world_news
To contact the reporter on this story:
Richard Keil in Washington at dkeil@bloomberg.net
Interesting choice of words "witch hunt" one main witch comes to mind the "formidable" top donkey. That CIA referral kept hidden by the prosecutor and NOT leaked, hmmmmm.
Thanks!
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.