| | TREASONGATE: The US Attorney General´s Office AND President Bush Have NO LEGAL AUTHORITY To Remove Patrick Fitzgerald As Special Counsel
| UPDATED August 8, 2005 10:35 p
8/9/2005 12:21 AM
Report abusive post | TREASONGATE: The US Attorney General´s Office AND President Bush Have NO LEGAL AUTHORITY To Remove Patrick Fitzgerald As Special Counsel
| Quote |
Monday, August 08, 2005
TREASONGATE: The US Attorney Generalīs Office AND President Bush Have NO LEGAL AUTHORITY To Remove Patrick Fitzgerald As Special Counsel
[UPDATED August 8, 2005 10:35 p.m. Typos have been corrected. New substantive additions have been added in red type.]
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), Comeyīs 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 Departmentīs investigation into "the alleged unauthorized disclosure of a CIA employeeīs 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 Fitzgeraldīs 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.
Fitzgerald wears the following two hats:
1. US Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois.
2. Special Counsel in the Treasongate investigation "Acting" with the full authority of the US Attorney General.
We aspire to be a nation of laws. The Constitution was our protection from tyranny, but the dying document now faces its greatest challenge fighting off a disease so insidious its sickness threatens a global plague of bloodshed and repression.
From the draconian provisions of the Patriot Act, which allows federal agents to sneak into our homes without a warrant or probable cause, to the expanding psy ops of horrific murder and torture of men, women and children who havenīt been given a scintilla of due process in their own sovereign land which we invaded based upon fake evidence, our laws are riddled with a malignant cancer.
Who will stand up for the law when the law is beaten and abused? Who will stand up for the guardians of the law when the guardians are beaten and abused?
As you will soon see, Fitzgeraldīs appointment as Special Counsel, the first of its kind in the history of the United States, was meticulously crafted to withstand the coming onslaught.
Speculation is running rampant as to whether Patrick Fitzgerald and his grand jury investigation will be shut down by Bush administration operatives. You may believe that Bush cannot risk the political fallout associated with removing Fitzgerald, but his team of fascist criminals will shoot first and ask questions...never.
These are the same people who carefully calculated they could openly commit Treason by outing Valerie Plame and her CIA network. They werenīt worried about the fall out then, and they wonīt be worried about it now.
Itīs not political fall out that will prevent the Bush death squad from removing Fitzgerald; their obstacle is the law. It doesnīt matter whether they put all of Skull and Bones in the Justice Department and relocate the DOJ to a tomb in New Haven, the law protects Patrick Fitzgeraldīs mandate from all intervention. Neither Bush nor his Justice Department cronies have the legal authority to remove Fitzgerald as Special Counsel or to prematurely end his grand jury. You can thank James Comey for this.
Comeyīs brilliant nuances involved with US Attorney Patrick Fitzgeraldīs appointment as "Special Counsel" are nothing short of genius. The foresight of Acting Attorney General Comeyīs "delegation of authority" to Fitzgerald will go down in history as one of the most stunning and brilliant acts of non-partisan patriotism this nation has ever seen.
I do not throw these words out lightly.
Federal regulations and decisions, germane to Fitzgeraldīs unique appointment, legally protect the integrity of the Special Counselīs unrestricted mandate from interference by political operatives in this investigation, an investigation to which Acting Attorney General James Comey (empowered as such by Attorney General John Ashcroftīs recusal) provided unprecedented patriotic and non-partisan foresight.
Furthermore, Fitzgerald was empowered by Comey with unilateral authority to "expand" his jurisdiction and "pursue it wherever he wants to pursue it". Let your imagination run wild because itīs all legally in play.
THE APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL COUNSEL PATRICK FITZGERALD
On December 30th, 2003, Deputy Attorney General James Comey held a press conference wherein he announced that Attorney General John Ashcroft had recused himself, on that day, from all involvement with the Treasongate investigation. Comey stated that the recusal included all of Ashcroftīs "staff" and that "a document was created ...that memorialized the recusal."
Comey announced:
"By that act, I automatically become the acting attorney general for purposes of this case with authority to determine how the case is investigated, and if warranted by the evidence, prosecuted."
Comey went on to say:
"[P]rior to his recusal, the attorney general and I agreed that it was appropriate to appoint a special counsel [read: special prosecutor] from outside our normal chain of command to oversee this investigation.
By his recusal, of course, the attorney general left to me the decision about how to choose a counsel, who that person should be and what that personīs mandate should be...effective immediately, the United States attorney for the Northern District of Illinois, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, will serve as special counsel in charge of this matter."
Fitzgeraldīs authority was conferred from Comey to him via two official Justice Department notification letters. The first letter was issued on December 30, 2003. It stated:
"By the authority vested in the Attorney General by law, including 28 U.S.C. 509, 510, and 515, and in my capacity as Acting Attorney General pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 508, I hereby delegate to you all the authority of the Attorney General with respect to the Departmentīs investigation into the alleged unauthorized disclosure of a CIA employeeīs identity, and I direct you to exercise that authority as Special Counsel independent of the supervision or control of any officer of the Department."
At the December 30 press conference, Comey further stated:
"Fitzgerald...does not have to come back to me for anything...Iīve told him, our instructions are: You have this authority; Iīve delegated to you all the approval authority that I as attorney general have. You can exercise it as you see fit.
And a U.S. attorney or a normal outside counsel would have to go through the approval process to get permission to appeal something. Fitzgerald would not because of the broad grant of authority Iīve given him.
So, in short, I have essentially given him -- not essentially -- I have given him all the approval authorities that rest -- that are inherent in the attorney general; something that does not happen with an outside special counsel."
Before we analyze the provisions of the law which enables this transfer of power, please note that Comey removed all "supervision or control of any officer of the Department" while also conferring "all the approval authority" that Comey, "as Attorney General" had.
From the December 30th press conference:
"Q: You mentioned that the -- you felt that Fitzgerald will have a broader -- actually a broader mandate, broader abilities than an outside counsel. Can you expand on that a little bit? In what respect will he have a --
MR. COMEY: Yes. An outside counsel has a -- the regulations prescribe a number of ways in which theyīre very similar to a U.S. attorney. For example, they have to follow all Department of Justice policies regarding approvals. So that means if they want to subpoena a member of the media, if they want to grant immunity, if they want to subpoena a lawyer -- all the things that we as U.S. attorneys have to get approval for, an outside counsel has to come back to the Department of Justice. An outside counsel also only gets the jurisdiction that is assigned to him and no other. The regulations provide that if he or she wants to expand that jurisdiction, they have to come back to the attorney general and get permission.
Fitzgerald has been told, as I said to you: Follow the facts; do the right thing. He can pursue it wherever he wants to pursue it."
On February 6, 2004, a second official letter was sent to Fitzgerald by Comey. This second letter (as well as the first) was discussed in Decision B-302582 issued by the Government Accountability Office (hereinafter GAO) on September 30, 2004. (The GAO Decision paper was drafted in relation to oversight of appropriations granted to Fitzgeraldīs office for the investigation. This is discussed in detail below).
The GAO quoted Comeyīs second letter to Fitzgerald as follows:
"In February 2004, Acting Attorney General Comey clarified Special Counsel Fitzgeraldīs delegation of authority to state that the authority previously delegated to him is plenary. It also states, īFurther, my conferral on you of the title of Special Counselī in this matter should not be misunderstood to suggest that your position and authorities are defined and limited by 28 CFR Part 600.ī [4]"
Comey went to great lengths to shield Fitzgerald from the restrictions of 28 CFR Part 600. These regulations, enacted by former Attorney General Janet Reno, demand that an "outside Special Counsel" submit his investigation to various oversight by others in the Justice Department.
Please note, because itīs a major point of confusion, that Patrick Fitzgerald is not an "outside Special Counsel". To many it has appeared that way, but such an assumption is completely erroneous. Comey nullified the Part 600 regulations by delegating all of his authority using "other law", and the GAO unconditionally agreed such a delegation of authority was legal and proper:
"The parameters of his authority and independence are defined in the appointment letters which delegate to Special Counsel Fitzgerald all (plenary) the authority of the Attorney General with respect to the Departmentīs investigation into the alleged unauthorized disclosure of a CIA employeeīs identity with the direction that he exercise such authority independent of the supervision or control of any officer of the Department. [13]. In addition, Department officials informed us that the express exclusion of Special Counsel Fitzgerald from the application of 28 C.F.R. Part 600, which contains provisions that might conflict with the notion that the Special Counsel in this investigation possesses all the power of the Attorney General, contributes to the Special Counselīs independence. [14] Thus, Special Counsel Fitzgerald need not follow the Departmentīs practices and procedures if they would subject him to the approval of an officer or employee of the Department. For example, 28 C.F.R. 600.7 requires that a Special Counsel consult with the Attorney General before taking particular actions." [15]
The next paragraph graphically illustrates the recognition by the GAO that Fitzgerald has all of the power of the Attorney General for purposes of this investigation:
"The consulting requirement would seem to be inconsistent with the notion that Special Counsel Fitzgerald possesses the plenary authority of the Attorney General".[15]
The key word is "plenary"; as in unlimited or complete authority.
The GAO then went on to discuss the legality of the Part 600 waver:
"The remaining issue is whether Part 600 can be waived by the Attorney General or acting Attorney General. We examined Part 600 and found it was issued in 1999 to replace the procedures of the expired Independent Counsel Reauthorization Act of 1994. In our view, Part 600 is not a substantive (legal) limitation on the authority of the Acting Attorney General to delegate departmental functions to Special Counsel Fitzgerald. First, 28 C.F.R. 600.10 states that the regulations are "not intended to, do not, and may not be relied upon to create any rights, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or equity, by any person or entity, in any matter, civil, criminal, or administrative." Further, in the supplemental information accompanying the issuance of Part 600, the Department explained that the effective date of the rule did not have to be delayed 30 days after publication because it was not a substantive rule, citing 5 U.S.C. 553(d), 552(a)(1)(D). 64 Fed. Reg. 37038, at 37041 (July 9, 1999).
Finally, the only statute cited as authority for 28 C.F.R. Part 600 that expressly authorizes the Department to issue regulations is 5 U.S.C. 301 (2000)...The power conferred by 5 U.S.C. 301 is administrative and not legislative...It follows that such regulations governing internal procedures issued under this statute do not have the force and effect of law... Thus, 28 C.F.R Part 600 does not act as a substantive limitation on the Attorney Generalīs (or Acting Attorney Generalīs) authority to delegate authority to a U.S. Attorney to serve as a Special Counsel to investigate high ranking government officials and it may be waived..."
28 U.S.C. 510 states:
"The Attorney General may from time to time make such provisions as he considers appropriate authorizing the performance by any other officer, employee, or agency of the Department of Justice of any function of the Attorney General."
The GAO decision discusses this and other provisions of United States Code which allowed Comey to transfer his full authority as Acting Attorney General for this matter:
"The Department was not limited by 28 C.F.R. Part 600 when it exercised its authority under 28 U.S.C. 508, 509, 510 and 515 and appointed Special Counsel Fitzgerald from within the Department to investigate the alleged unauthorized leak of a CIA employeeīs identity..."
And:
"Acting Attorney General Comey appointed Special Counsel Fitzgerald under 28 U.S.C. 509, 510 and 515. [16]... We agree with the Department that the same statutory authorities that authorize the Attorney General (or Acting Attorney General) to delegate authority to a U.S. Attorney to investigate and prosecute high ranking government officials are "other law" for the purposes of authorizing the Department to finance the investigation and prosecution...[17]
WHY CANīT FITZGERALD BE FIRED AS SPECIAL COUNSEL?
First, let me make it clear that Patrick Fitzgerald, while wearing the hat of US Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois, can indeed be fired or replaced by President Bush. Thereīs no doubt about that.
But Fitzgerald wears a different hat pertaining to Treasongate where he is the "Special Counsel" "Acting" and vested with the "full authority" of the "US Attorney General" to prosecute Treasongate. And as such, nobody in the Department of Justice can touch him.
The main stream media mantra announcing that Fitzgeraldīs term as US Attorney expires in October is completely irrelevant to the ongoing, plenary mandate he has while wearing the hat of "Special Counsel" for purposes of prosecuting Treasongate matters.
Not only was it Comeyīs intention to prepare Fitzgerald for the coming assault on his legally mandated plenary authority by vesting him with complete autonomous rule, but the GAO, through their approval of "permanent indefinite appropriations" to perpetually fund Fitzgeraldīs office, at the request of the Justice Department, has made a strong legal argument, in Decision B-302582, that Fitzgerald has all of the protections and authority normally granted to an independent prosecutor under the expired independent counsel law.
The following passages are taken directly from GAO Decision B-302582:
"Subject: Special Counsel and Permanent Indefinite Appropriation
The Government Accountability Office (GAO) is required to audit twice a year the expenditures by independent counsels and certain special counsels paid from the permanent indefinite appropriation. [1] In the course of auditing independent counsel expenditures for the period ending March 31, 2004, we learned that the Department of Justice was using the permanent indefinite appropriation to pay the expenses of the investigation by Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald. Mr. Fitzgerald continued to perform his duties as a U.S. Attorney after his appointment as Special Counsel. This is the first time that the expenses of an investigation by a United States Attorney appointed to serve as Special Counsel who continues to serve as a United States Attorney have been paid from the permanent indefinite appropriation. In addition, Department of Justice regulations at 28 C.F.R. Part 600 (2003) provide that Special Counsels shall be selected from outside the government.
Given our responsibility to audit the fund, the use of the account to finance Special Counsel Fitzgeraldīs activities, and the provisions of 28 C.F.R. Part 600 (2003), we initiated inquiries with the Department of Justice to assure ourselves of the availability of this account to defray his expenses. [2] In considering this matter, we requested and received the written views of the Department of Justice. We also met with officials of the Department to discuss their views and obtained additional comments and information. Finally, we reviewed the laws and their legislative histories, regulations, court decisions, and past practices of the Department of Justice, as they relate to this matter.
For the reasons discussed below, we do not object to the use of the permanent indefinite appropriation to fund Special Counsel Fitzgeraldīs expenses. Unlike the expired independent counsel law, the permanent indefinite appropriation does not require that a Special Counsel be appointed from outside the government. The Department, in appointing Special Counsel Fitzgerald under "other law", has afforded him independence by delegating all of the Attorney Generalīs authority with respect to the investigation and instructing him to exercise that authority independent of the control of any officer of the Department..."
Thereīs no doubt, at least as far as the GAO is concerned, that Fitzgerald has been vested with "all of the authority of the Attorney General" and that he is also "independent of the control of any officer of the Department".
McAllum canīt touch him. Flanigan canīt touch him. Gonzales certainly canīt touch him.
And the President canīt touch him because the conflict of interest which caused DOJ to appoint him in the first place has expanded exponentially.
Should President Bush try to fire Fitzgerald anyway, not only will the political fall out be much greater than if an underling did the dirty deed, but Fitzgerald could fight back on very solid legal ground using the arguments set forth below from the GAO which analyzes Fitzgeraldīs "Special Counsel" mandate as being similar to the mandate conveyed by the expired Independent Counsel law. That law, Iīm sure you will recall, prohibited the President from wriggling out of an impeachment and possible conviction by firing the Independent Counsel investigating him.
Letīs hear from the GAO again:
"Following his appointment as Special Counsel, Mr. Fitzgerald continued to perform his duties as United States Attorney. As a result of our activities in connection with the audit of the Independent Counsel expenditures for the six-month period ending March 31, 2004, we learned that the Department of Justice was charging the expenses of Special Counsel Fitzgerald to the permanent indefinite appropriation established ī . . . to pay all necessary expenses of investigations and prosecutions by independent counsels appointed pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. 591 et seq . or other law . . .ī [5] In the following section we discuss two issues: whether the permanent indefinite appropriation is available to fund Special Counsel Fitzgeraldīs expenses and whether the Part 600 regulations, which among other things require the appointment of Special Counsel from outside the government, can be waived.
Discussion
As you are aware, the authority to appoint independent counsels pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. 591 et seq . expired on June 30, 1999. However, the permanent indefinite appropriation remains available to pay the expenses of an independent counsel (1) who was appointed by the Special Division of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia pursuant to the provisions of 28U.S.C. 591 et seq. whose investigation was underway when the law expired[6] or
(2) who was appointed under "other law."[7] Under the expired law, a person appointed as an independent counsel could not hold "any office of profit or trust under the United States, 28 U.S.C. 593(b)(2) (2000)." [8] The purpose of the qualification was to avoid the public perception of an actual or apparent conflict of interest existing between the investigator and those being investigated for alleged violations of law. [9]
The permanent indefinite appropriation is available to pay all necessary expenses of investigations of independent counsels appointed under other law. However, the term "independent counsel" is not defined in the permanent indefinite appropriation. About the time the independent counsel law was being considered for reauthorization in 1987, legal challenges were underway regarding the constitutionality of the procedure followed to appoint independent counsels. Consequently, to avoid interruption of ongoing investigations should the law be ruled unconstitutional by a court, the Attorney General appointed the same persons to serve as independent counsels under the statutory authority that was relied upon to appoint Special Counsel Fitzgerald. [10] Thus, the independent counsels appointed under "other law" around the time that the Congress was considering the Department of Justice appropriation act for fiscal year 1988 (which enacted the permanent indefinite appropriation into law) were the independent counsels that also had been appointed in conformity with the requirements of the independent counsel law. [11]
Thatīs big, really big.
Why?
Because it elaborates on precedent. And precedent is the backbone of our legal system.
The expired independent counsel law barred the President from firing an independent prosecutor. And here we have the GAO, citing legal precedent in their approval of permanent indefinite appropriation to fund Special Counsel Fitzgeraldīs investigation, and comparing him to the "independent counsels that also had been appointed in conformity with the requirements of the independent counsel law." They were all shielded from being fired by the President until their work was done.
This isnīt Citizen Spook creating the argument to sway people, itīs the GAO citing legal precedent to support a DOJ request for funds to finance Fitzgeraldīs investigation. It was the Department of Justice who convinced the GAO to recognize such precedent:
"In a meeting with Department of Justice officials, [12] the Department explained its view that use of the permanent indefinite appropriation to pay expenses of a U.S. Attorney appointed to serve as Special Counsel who continues to perform his duty as a U.S. Attorney is appropriate. The alleged violation that Special Counsel Fitzgerald is investigating involves the rank and level of government official that clearly would have been within the scope of the expired independent counsel law and the investigation of which could have been funded by the permanent indefinite appropriation. Additionally, the Department views the use of the permanent indefinite appropriation as important to facilitate Special Counsel Fitzgeraldīs investigation by freeing him from possible budget constraints that potentially might serve to limit his activities."
Holy crap batman. I can hear Ashcroft singing, let the eagle soar. How the hell are they going to spin their way out of that? DOJ convinced the GAO that Special Counsel Fitzgeraldīs investigation was so important that itīs own DOJ regulations were not sufficient to guarantee the necessary independence to guarantee the proper integrity:
"Since the permanent indefinite appropriation is available for independent counsels, we looked for indicia of independence of Special Counsel Fitzgerald...In addition, Department officials informed us that the express exclusion of Special Counsel Fitzgerald from the application of 28 C.F.R. Part 600, which contains provisions that might conflict with the notion that the Special Counsel in this investigation possesses all the power of the Attorney General, contributes to the Special Counselīs independence." [14]
And finally, the GAOīs conclusion:
"Conclusion
Upon review and consideration, we do not object to the Departmentīs determination that the permanent indefinite appropriation is available to pay the expenses of Special Counsel Fitzgeraldīs investigation. Admittedly one might infer from events occurring around the time that the Congress was considering establishing the permanent indefinite appropriation that it was within the Congressī contemplation that the appropriation would be used to pay the expenses of an independent counsel possessing the degree of independence similar to that possessed by an independent counsel appointed under 28 U.S.C. 591 et seq. However, such an inference is insufficient to support our reading into the law a limitation on the use of the permanent indefinite appropriation to pay for investigations solely by Special Counsels appointed from outside the government. The independence conferred by the delegation of authority to Special Counsel Fitzgerald from the Department of Justice is consistent with a fair reading of the independence required of an "independent counsel" appointed under "other law." Finally, Part 600 regulations do not have the force and effect of law and may be waived by the Department. Thus we do not view the payment of the expenses associated with Special Counsel Fitzgeraldīs investigation from the permanent indefinite appropriation to be improper or unauthorized simply because he was not appointed from outside the government and continues to serve as a United States Attorney."
Yeah, what he said. Thatīs what Iīm talkinī about.
The GAO was presented with a concept for precedent by the Department of Justice. DOJ requested Special Counsel Fitzgeraldīs office receive funding by the GAO based upon an argument, made by DOJ, that Fitzgerald, because of the independence and plenary authority mandated to him, should be treated just like an independent counsel with all the protection of the expired independent counsel act. DOJ supported their position with legal precedent which was further accepted and reinforced by the decision of the GAO.
How can they come back now, after making the argument that Fitzgerald should have all of the independence and financing of independent counsels appointed under the expired independent counsel law, to argue that Special Counsel Fitzgerald should not have that same independence as to the issue of whether the President or anybody at DOJ can fire him or even limit his jurisdiction and plenary authority?
They canīt.
But should they try anyway, Fitzgerald can destroy them in court by entering into evidence the documentation clarifying the DOJ mindset with regards to their lobbying of the GAO for permanent indefinite appropriation to fund Special Counsel Fitzgeraldīs investigations.
Simply put, DOJ cannot reverse themselves on the issue of Fitzgeraldīs plenary authority and independence just because heīs getting too close to possible indictments/convictions of the people he was specifically empowered by DOJ to investigate.
And just in case you were wondering, check out the results of the GAOīs audit of Fitzgeraldīs investigation:
"We audited the statement of expenditures for the Office of Special Counsel Fitzgerald and found that (1) the statement of expenditures was presented fairly, in all material respects, in conformity with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles, (2) the Special Counsel had effective internal control over financial reporting and compliance with laws and regulations, and (3) there was no reportable noncompliance with laws and regulations we tested." [15]
BACK TO THE COMEY PRESS CONFERENCE
Comey was asked at the December 30, 2003, press conference, two questions regarding whether Fitzgerald could be removed. His answers are very interesting:
Q: Could you fire Fitzgerald?
MR. COMEY: Thatīs a great question. (Laughter.) Now I believe that I could revoke the delegation of authority that Iīve given to him. I donīt believe that I could --
He appears to believe he could revoke the delegation of authority, but that he couldnīt outright fire him. The answer is clearly nebulous. Comey even says, "Thatīs a great question". He never says equivocally whether he could remove Fitzgerald. He appears to be waffling.
But this press conference took place on December 30, 2003. Decision B-302582 was dated September 30, 2004. Comey wasnīt sure back on December 30, 2003, whether or not he could remove Fitzgerald or even limit his authority. But since that time, DOJ created a very convincing argument for their presentation to the GAO. The GAO bought that argument hook, line and sinker agreeing that Fitzgerald has all of the protection and authority granted by the expired independent counsel law. This means his office of the Special Counsel is legally protected from interference by anybody at DOJ, President Bush or anybody else that breathes air on planet Earth.
One last comment from Comeyīs press conference:
Q: If you donīt like what heīs doing, you can end it.
MR. COMEY: Well, in theory, if I know what heīs doing, in theory I could, yeah. And Iīd better have a darn good reason for doing it, because youīd have your hands in the air.
Itīs a fair answer. Iīm sure if Fitzgerald was up to something illegal, he could be fired, just as an independent counsel acting under the expired independent counsel law could have been fired were they to engage in criminal behavior. Comey says, "in theory", but no such theory has been tested by Fitzgerald. According to the Government Office of Accountability, Fitzgerald is totally clean.
Comeyīs final words on this issue are very interesting. What does he mean by "youīd have your hands in the air"? Thatīs spooky. And itīs something DOJ and President Bush really ought to think about.
[link to citizenspook.blogspot.com] |
| Anonymous Coward
12/8/2005 10:08 AM | | Re: TREASONGATE: The US Attorney General´s Office AND President Bush Have NO LEGAL AUTHORITY To Remove Patrick Fitzgerald As Special Counsel | Quote |
Futhermore, Bush DARES NOT harm Patrick Fitzgerald the way he has harmed others, the way Tony Blair has harmed Dr. David Kelly, more recently Robin Cook. |
| Anonymous Coward
12/8/2005 10:08 AM | | Re: TREASONGATE: The US Attorney General´s Office AND President Bush Have NO LEGAL AUTHORITY To Remove Patrick Fitzgerald As Special Counsel | Quote |
WOW! Look at the shit threads trying to make this one disappear. |
| Anonymous Coward
12/8/2005 10:08 AM | | Re: TREASONGATE: The US Attorney General´s Office AND President Bush Have NO LEGAL AUTHORITY To Remove Patrick Fitzgerald As Special Counsel | Quote |
Oh, heīd dare. That crew would take out the whole city of Chicago to get rid of the prosecutor and the evidence and they wouldnīt think twice about it. Whether theyīll be able to, I donīt know.
How many of you know what was in WTC7, who the tenants were and what was stored there? |
| Anonymous Coward
12/8/2005 10:08 AM | | Re: TREASONGATE: The US Attorney General´s Office AND President Bush Have NO LEGAL AUTHORITY To Remove Patrick Fitzgerald As Special Counsel | Quote |
awsome, thanks OP, Comeyīs the man and a smartone at that..this could really, really be it..
The Bush crime family are going down, along with all the ass sucking leaches that support them. |
| Dr. B
12/8/2005 10:08 AM | | Re: TREASONGATE: The US Attorney General´s Office AND President Bush Have NO LEGAL AUTHORITY To Remove Patrick Fitzgerald As Special Counsel | Quote |
Iīm wondering if Fitzgerald and the Plame affair arenīt false flags that serve to give us false hope for justice against the Neocons. If we put all of our eggs in this basket, then perhaps weīre missing any real opportunity to bring Bush down before his term runs out.
I may just be the devilīs advocate here, but I canīt help feeling that things wonīt unravel quite so easily for this gang. Karl Rove hasnīt gotten this far, only to clumsily fall on his own sword.
Now that Fitzgerald will be answering to a Bonesmen, the results should be easy to predict. Heīll either roll over like a good boy, be fired, or die in some unfortunate mishap. |
| Anonymous Coward
12/8/2005 10:08 AM | | Re: TREASONGATE: The US Attorney General´s Office AND President Bush Have NO LEGAL AUTHORITY To Remove Patrick Fitzgerald As Special Counsel | Quote |
WHAT about the revelation above donīt you get?
Fitzgerald answers to NO ONE. Not even a planted bonesman. |
| Anonymous Coward
12/8/2005 10:08 AM | | Re: TREASONGATE: The US Attorney General´s Office AND President Bush Have NO LEGAL AUTHORITY To Remove Patrick Fitzgerald As Special Counsel | Quote |
so does this update supercede the other thread, the one that was a sticky and had like 9 pages?
I canīt seem to find it anywhere. |
| Anonymous Coward
12/8/2005 10:08 AM | | Re: TREASONGATE: The US Attorney General´s Office AND President Bush Have NO LEGAL AUTHORITY To Remove Patrick Fitzgerald As Special Counsel | Quote |
YES |
| Anonymous Coward
12/8/2005 10:08 AM | | Re: TREASONGATE: The US Attorney General´s Office AND President Bush Have NO LEGAL AUTHORITY To Remove Patrick Fitzgerald As Special Counsel | Quote |
Look at all the stupid threads posted since this came on the board. The nazis are trying to bury this info. |
| Anonymous Coward
12/8/2005 10:08 AM | | Re: TREASONGATE: The US Attorney General´s Office AND President Bush Have NO LEGAL AUTHORITY To Remove Patrick Fitzgerald As Special Counsel | Quote |
 |
| Anonymous Coward
12/8/2005 10:08 AM | | Re: TREASONGATE: The US Attorney General´s Office AND President Bush Have NO LEGAL AUTHORITY To Remove Patrick Fitzgerald As Special Counsel | Quote |
It is strange....most of the true republicans do not even support Bush anymore because they know they he does not represent their party any longer.
They just like him for his ideology ( thug).....
It will happen and when it does this country is going to go for a spin for awhile. I think that is what is taking this case so long to churn out.....This includes alot of people and they need to know what to do if People get out of hand.....be prepared ...for another terra..terra..alert...or something even worse.
distraction.....Bush loves it when he can smell fear. Moron! |
| Anonymous Coward
12/8/2005 10:08 AM | | Re: TREASONGATE: The US Attorney General´s Office AND President Bush Have NO LEGAL AUTHORITY To Remove Patrick Fitzgerald As Special Counsel | Quote |
The SIMPLE fact that there has EVEN been ANY talk of firing Fitzpatrick under the circumstances sends out quite a message. |
| Anonymous Coward
12/8/2005 10:08 AM | | Re: TREASONGATE: The US Attorney General´s Office AND President Bush Have NO LEGAL AUTHORITY To Remove Patrick Fitzgerald As Special Counsel | Quote |
Fitzgerald is THE hero already.
Hope he gets through with that. |
| Anonymous Coward
12/8/2005 10:08 AM | | Re: TREASONGATE: The US Attorney General´s Office AND President Bush Have NO LEGAL AUTHORITY To Remove Patrick Fitzgerald As Special Counsel | Quote |
Sure hope he doesnīt get "suicidal" and shoot himself twice in the back of the head.
Bush enemies tend to do that. |
| ANON
12/8/2005 10:08 AM | | Re: TREASONGATE: The US Attorney General´s Office AND President Bush Have NO LEGAL AUTHORITY To Remove Patrick Fitzgerald As Special Counsel | Quote |
So Gonzalezī comment on his expectation that Fitzgerald would be reappointed by the President in October...I read all you included above, but still need clarification about this point.
If he were no longer within the Justice Department, he would still be the Special Prosecutor and funded by GAO, right? |
| Anonymous Coward
12/8/2005 10:08 AM | | Re: TREASONGATE: The US Attorney General´s Office AND President Bush Have NO LEGAL AUTHORITY To Remove Patrick Fitzgerald As Special Counsel | Quote |
Yes, thatīs correct. Short of murdering Fitzgerald like Tony Blair just did Robin Cook, they canīt touch him. |
| Anonymous Coward
12/8/2005 10:08 AM | | Re: TREASONGATE: The US Attorney General´s Office AND President Bush Have NO LEGAL AUTHORITY To Remove Patrick Fitzgerald As Special Counsel | Quote |
Bump for content. |
| Anonymous Coward
12/8/2005 10:08 AM | | Re: TREASONGATE: The US Attorney General´s Office AND President Bush Have NO LEGAL AUTHORITY To Remove Patrick Fitzgerald As Special Counsel | Quote |
Back to the front page |
| Anonymous Coward
12/8/2005 10:08 AM | | Re: TREASONGATE: The US Attorney General´s Office AND President Bush Have NO LEGAL AUTHORITY To Remove Patrick Fitzgerald As Special Counsel | Quote |
"WOW! Look at the shit threads trying to make this one disappear"
Yes it must be a conspiracy. If this were even remotely true the all the left wing extremist sites would be jumping on this to include the likes of moveon.org, the liberal left media, the durbins, kennedyīs and boxers of this world would be all over it.
In other words, itīs all crap.
 |
| Anonymous Coward
12/8/2005 10:08 AM | | Re: TREASONGATE: The US Attorney General´s Office AND President Bush Have NO LEGAL AUTHORITY To Remove Patrick Fitzgerald As Special Counsel | Quote |
13009, how do you dare to disturb the dreams of the losers? |
| Anonymous Coward
12/8/2005 10:08 AM | | Re: TREASONGATE: The US Attorney General´s Office AND President Bush Have NO LEGAL AUTHORITY To Remove Patrick Fitzgerald As Special Counsel | Quote |
Why AIPAC Indictment Is Bad News for Rove
David Corn Mon Aug 8, 1:20 PM ET
The Nation -- Iīm on vacation, but I couldnīt resist posting the below on my davidcorn.com site, where I routinely obsess over the Karl Rove scandal.
Last week, the Justice Department issued a new indictment of Lawrence Franklin, the
Pentagon official accused of passing secrets to officials of AIPAC, the pro-
Israel lobbying outfit. The indictment is bad news for the Bush White House and Karl Rove.
Thatīs not only because the Franklin case is embarrassing for the administration, the Pentagon, and their neocon allies. (Franklin worked with Douglas Feith, who until recently was a senior Pentagon official close to the neocons.) The Franklin indictment is a sign that Rove and any other White House aide involved in the Plame/
CIA leak might be vulnerable to prosecution under the Espionage Act.
Special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald--who is not involved in the Franklin prosecution--has not had to state publicly what sort of case he is trying to build in the Plame/CIA leak matter. The most obvious one would be based on the charge that the leaker violated the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. But that law was narrowly drawn, and to win a conviction Fitzgerald would have to prove that Rove or any other leaker knew that Valerie Wilson was working under cover at the CIA. There are, however, other laws under which Fitzgerald might charge the CIA/Plame leakers. The Franklin indictment points the way. (And criminal law aside, by sharing classified information with at least two reporters--Valerie Wilsonīs employment at the CIA was classified--Rove committed an offense that violated various rules and would get most government workers seriously punished or dismissed.)
The Franklin indictments notes:
On or about December 8, 1999, FRANKLIN signed a Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement, a Standard Form 312 (SF-312). In that document FRANKLIN acknowledged that he was aware that the unauthorized disclosure of classified information by him could cause irreparable injury to the United States or could be used to advantage by a foreign nation and that he would never divulge classified information to an unauthorized person. He further acknowledged that he would never divulge classified information unless he had officially verified that the recipient was authorized by the United States to receive it. Additionally, he agreed that if he was uncertain about the classification status of information, he was required to confirm from an authorized official that the information is unclassified before he could disclose it.
Yet, the indictment alleges, Franklin passed classified information to Steven Rosen and Keith Weissman, two senior AIPAC officials. And the indictment claims Rosen and Weissman shared this information with Israel. Consequently, the indictment charges Franklin, Rosen and Weissman with "conspiracy to communicate National Defense Information under sections 793(d) and 793(e) of Title 18, United States Code. And Franklin was charged with three counts of "communication of National Defense Information"--not conspiracy--under section 793(d). He was also charged with one count of "conspiracy to communicate classified information" to a foreign government.
Letīs look at sections 793(d) and (e). The first generally applies to government officials, the second to nongovernment officials. Both sections make it a crime to transmit national defense information--and the identity of an undercover CIA officer would probably count as national defense information--to a person unauthorized to receive it (such as a reporter). These sections define violators as
(d) Whoever, lawfully having possession of, access to, control over, or being entrusted with any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it on demand to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it.
(e) Whoever having unauthorized possession of, access to, or control over any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted, or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it. [Emphasis added.]
Rove, like Franklin, had to sign SF-312. As Rep. Henry Waxman (news, bio, voting record) noted in a short report he released on the Rove leak, this nondisclosure agreement states, "I will never divulge classified information to anyone" unauthorized to receive such information. Rove broke that vow. And Executive Order 12958--which Bush updated on March 25, 2003-- says that "officers and employees of the United States Government...shall be subject to appropriate sanctions if they knowingly, willfully, or negligently...disclose to unauthorized persons information properly classified." The sanctions include "reprimand, suspension without pay, removal, termination of classification authority, loss or denial of access to classified information, or other sanctions." So Rove ought to be slapped with one of those punishments.
But worse for Rove--from a legal perspective--is section 793. Rove did communicate classified information which could be used "to the injury of the United States" to a person "not entitled to receive it." The information was the identity of an undercover intelligence official working on anti-WMD operations. Such information could be used to thwart or undermine past or present CIA operations and assets connected to Valerie Wilson. The persons "not entitled" to received this info were Robert Novak and Matt Cooper (and perhaps there were more).
I am--as Iīve said before--no lawyer. But given the letter of the law in section 793, it seems to me there is a case to be made that Rove essentially did what Franklin did. There may be a difference in intent or awareness. Perhaps Rove did not know he was passing on classified information that could be used to the detriment of the United States (though he should have realized that had he given the matter a moment or two of thought), and it seems that Franklin had to know he was sharing classified material with outsiders. But section 793 does not say a violator must be aware he or she is passing on information that could cause harm to the United States if exposed. It only sets as a criterion that the violator "willfully" communicates this information. I assume that means a purely accidental slip of the lip would not be a crime. But Rove--who told at least two reporters about Valerie Wilsonīs CIA position--cannot argue he was not "willfully" communicating this information to others.
So might Fitzgerald have a case under section 793? Journalists donīt like these sorts of prosecutions, for it brings us close to an official secrets act (like the one that exists in Britain). If prosecutors chased after government leakers--say those who leaked intelligence showing that the White Houseīs case for war in
Iraq was weak--the public would suffer. And the Justice Departmentīs indictment of Rosen and Weissman--nongovernment officials--for passing along classified information is also worrisome for reporters who pass along classified information by publishing and airing stories that contain secret information. But Fitzgerald has certainly demonstrated heīs not too concerned about pursuing legal cases and setting legal precedents that are bad for journalism. And thatīs why Rove ought to be sweating the Franklin indictment.
[link to news.yahoo.com] |
| Anonymous Coward
12/8/2005 10:08 AM | | Re: TREASONGATE: The US Attorney General´s Office AND President Bush Have NO LEGAL AUTHORITY To Remove Patrick Fitzgerald As Special Counsel | Quote |
I wonder, the Patriot act has a very ill defined designation for terrorism, something like: Any person or group of persons that uses terror against the public, in public, effects the mind of the public with the goal of intimidation or to change political actions.
Can Fitzgerald be arrested for terrorism, if his job requires him to act against the Whitehouse?
Yes, this is a stretch, but I could see him being "disappeared" if Bush and Co. dont like what he is saying.
"If you try to take US down, you hurt the country and will make people less safe, that is an act of terrorism
ETC."
More likely, he will just have his family threatened
.
Look for him to suddenly resign, rather than be fired. |
| Anonymous Coward
12/8/2005 10:08 AM | | Re: TREASONGATE: The US Attorney General´s Office AND President Bush Have NO LEGAL AUTHORITY To Remove Patrick Fitzgerald As Special Counsel | Quote |
|
| Anonymous Coward
12/8/2005 10:08 AM | | Re: TREASONGATE: The US Attorney General´s Office AND President Bush Have NO LEGAL AUTHORITY To Remove Patrick Fitzgerald As Special Counsel | Quote |
Bush and his asses of evil are all going to hang for TREASON. |
| Anonymous Coward
12/8/2005 10:08 AM | | Re: TREASONGATE: The US Attorney General´s Office AND President Bush Have NO LEGAL AUTHORITY To Remove Patrick Fitzgerald As Special Counsel | Quote |
If Patrick Fitztgerald can pull this off and bring those bushterds to justice then he is truely a "Saint".... and weīll have another really good reason to celebrate "St. Patricks" DAY. |
| Anonymous Coward
12/8/2005 10:08 AM | | Re: TREASONGATE: The US Attorney General´s Office AND President Bush Have NO LEGAL AUTHORITY To Remove Patrick Fitzgerald As Special Counsel | Quote |
May Patrick have the luck of the Irish with him all the way!!! |
| ANON
12/8/2005 10:08 AM | | Re: TREASONGATE: The US Attorney General´s Office AND President Bush Have NO LEGAL AUTHORITY To Remove Patrick Fitzgerald As Special Counsel | Quote |
 |
| Anonymous Coward
12/8/2005 10:08 AM | | Re: TREASONGATE: The US Attorney General´s Office AND President Bush Have NO LEGAL AUTHORITY To Remove Patrick Fitzgerald As Special Counsel | Quote |
for PATRICK |
| Anonymous Coward
12/8/2005 10:08 AM | | Re: TREASONGATE: The US Attorney General´s Office AND President Bush Have NO LEGAL AUTHORITY To Remove Patrick Fitzgerald As Special Counsel | Quote |
|
| |
|
