Law professors question prosecutor's authority in prison sentence for Cheney's ex-top aide

[sabra]

Source: AP

WASHINGTON: A dozen prominent law professors are questioning whether Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald had been constitutionally appointed for the CIA leak trial that this week sentenced Vice President Dick Cheney's former top aide to prison.

The push comes as I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby's lawyers, who are making the same argument, prepare to appeal his 2 1/2-year sentence.

"The constitutional issue to be raised on appeal is substantial," conservative Robert Bork, liberal Alan Dershowitz and 10 other professors wrote in their nine-page brief, filed Thursday at U.S. District Court in the District of Columbia.

"To our knowledge, the special counsel appears to occupy virtually a 'class of one' in the history of special prosecutors," the professors wrote.

...

But U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton last year rejected the same argument, saying then that Fitzgerald's powers are limited because he could be dismissed by the Justice Department.

Read more: http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/06/08/america/NA-GEN-US-CIA-Leak-Trial.php

[PSPS]

1. They're right

Fitzgerald's appointment was extra-legal in that he was an employee of the Justice Department when he was appointed. By law, a special counsel must not be serving within the government at the time of their appointment.

They tried to paper over this glaring illegality when he was appointed, but I always thought this was their game plan all along. Now they can tie up the matter on this point and run out the clock so scooter can get his pardon at the end of next year.

[Kagemusha]

3. Excuse me?

You're not confusing this with the long expired independent counsel statute?

Why the hell wasn't your argument made at trial? This wasn't the grounds I saw reported for challenging the appointment.

Edit: And why the hell isn't your argument being made in the appeal instead of this far weaker 'unconstitutionality' claim?

[youngdem]

7. Yup. Several lawyer blogs talked about it.

It really doesn't matter in the end what the court says. Scooter will never spend real time in the slammer because his quid pro quo with Cheney and Bush was that he would take the fall for covering for their orders to expose him in return for a pardon.

Libby is the ultimate boot licker. He did what he was told. I have thought since they appointed a prosecutor the Left loves there was an angle they were playing.

[lovuian]

24. Bingo

its the escape clause

except that there was the admittance that a crime was committed and coverup done

[BootinUp]

2. Nonsense. n/t

[bemildred]

4. Oh goody, I see an appeal to the USSC.

So they want to avoid having to pardon him.

[The Stranger]

5. When did Alan Dershowitz lose his fucking mind?

And become a fucking imbecile?

[depakid]

6. Sounds like an interpretation of the the law

that may have merit.

If so, that makes him ANYTHING but an imbecile- indeed, it would set him apart from the far right, which has NO respect for the rule of law.

[The Stranger]

8. He has also been "interpreting the law" in such a way to legalize torture.

Here he is signing on with Robert Bork.

[depakid]

11. THAT was imbecilic

Whether this position is or isn't, I don't know enough about the relevant law to say....

[bemildred]

9. It's been a while now ... nt

[badgervan]

15. Derschowitz

Al, like Lieberman, is an Israel-Firster. Whatever the bushies do regarding a permanent U.S. military presence in the middle east justifies all consequences to these guys. Thus, Scooter really is a "soldier" to the Israel-Firsters, and his covering up and lying were patriotic actions - not crimes. If you haven't noticed, we have quite a number of like minded officials running our government at present. No one likes to point this out because they'll get flamed, but I see this as fact; as being equal to oil as a basis for our illegal occupation of Iraq - and the coming invasion of Iran.

[Lord Balto]

10. Now can we break out the guillotine?

By the time the bleeding heart neocons get around to making up an excuse to let him out of prison, he's already missing his head. Now that's justice.

[LastLiberal in PalmSprings]

12. Law professors question if any law applies to the Bush administration

or Paris Hilton.

[grasswire]

13. shakespeare was right (eom)

[shanti]

16. how so?

?

[EFerrari]

19. Merchant of Venice

"let's kill all the lawyers"

This is not an endorsement.

[shanti]

21. thanks...

some thing never change, do they?

[EFerrari]

23. People like lawyer jobkes still.

:)

[karlrschneider]

22. sorry dupe

;-)

[Gman]

14. Dershowitz and Bork

I was ready to see if someone was making some kind of rational argument that might be a real test. And then I read it's Dershowitz and Bork. Hope Libby has a good bunk mate.

[nolabels]

17. So?

Like we were listening anyway :shrug:



:rant:
I just pray to all there is, that some how, some way, the establishment gets more disjointed and caught in it's own trap and then the next day i read about how it happens, here at DU.

Thank you all there is, it has been a time to remember :-)

[EFerrari]

18. Criminals and whores. n/t

[dailykoff]

20. move over Jerry Lewis

we've got 19 nuttier professors.

[UTUSN]

25. & here's the judge SMACKING DOWN the wingnut a-holes:

*******QUOTE*******

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1073265

Judge smacks ‘luminaries’ defending Libby.
A dozen mostly libertarian and conservative legal scholars, including rejected Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork, submitted an amicus brief to Scooter Libby trial Judge Reggie Walton today “arguing that that there are serious constitutional questions about the legal authority” of Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald. Emptywheel highlights this bitingly sarcastic response from Judge Walton:


It is an impressive show of public service when twelve prominent and distinguished current and former law professors of well-respected schools are able to amass their collective wisdom in the course of only several days to provide their legal expertise to the Court on behalf of a criminal defendant. The Court trusts that this is a reflection of these eminent academics’ willingness in the future to step to the plate and provide like assistance in cases involving any of the numerous litigants, both in this Court and throughout the courts of our nation, who lack the financial means to fully and properly articulate the merits of their legal positions even in instances where failure to do so could result in monetary penalties, incarceration, or worse. The Court will certainly not hesitate to call for such assistance from these luminaries, as necessary in the interests of justice and equity, whenever similar questions arise in the cases that come before it.



********UNQUOTE*******