If this WH-CIA scandal crap hits the fan.I have a question.

[southern democrat]

Does anyone here know how assigning a special prosecuter works,and if there's a snowballs chance in hell of getting one form a GOP adminstrative,legislative,and judical lock on all three branches of fedreal govt.?

[Capn Sunshine]

1. Well , it doesnt have to be a repug asking for one

And politicians no matter their stripe are deathly afraid of opposing things that might later bite them hard in the ass.

[JasonBerry]

13. JFK learned the hard way - don't mess with the CIA N/T

~

[Cappurr]

2. This is how I think it works....

Warning: I'm not a hundred percent sure and the independent counsel law itself has expired. The Attorney General must ask for one and a three judge panel selects one. Thats how that stuck the Clintons with Ken Star. Robert Frist (a good guy) was initially selected, but the the repugs made up some shit about a conflict and the three-judge (conservative) panel appointed Starr (who had a million conflicts himself).

But now that the law has expired I don't know how it would work. Probably simililarly. I think Congress could ask for an Independent Counsel too, If Ashcroft fails to.

[Dudley_DUright]

4. Nope, 3 judge panel went out with the independent council law

My understanding (and I just spend some time googling this exact question) is that the power to appoint a special prosecutor lies with the Attorney General (which means its not going to happen unless there is immense political pressure to do so). My reading of the WP story is that the whitehouse has already decided to cut these guys loose (which means that can't be that senior). However, I doubt if they were acting as freelancers and this has Rove's fingerprints all over it.

[ronzo]

5. Yeah, somebody (karl, I'm looking in your general direction)...

Somebody pulled the trigger on this one, probably rove. Given the state of omerta I expect we'll see, his name probably won't come up.

[Dan]

7. Question begs

It would appear to me that under certain circumstances if there was truly a need for an Investigation and the Attorney General (for whatever reason had to recluse (is that the correct word?) self, then and what party would perform the investigation (given that the Independent Counsel provision has expired)?

Having said that - then during the Clinton Administration the lady Attorney General for forced to call for an Independent Counsel. Question - if there is a desire for an investigation where the Attorney General has too close a tie to the Administration, isn't the Attorney General forced to call for an Independent Counsel or face some type of action up-and-to include impeachment?

That's really a question,...

There is a second part to your question ("My reading of the WP story is that the whitehouse has already decided to cut these guys loose (which means that can't be that senior). However, I doubt if they were acting as freelancers and this has Rove's fingerprints all over it.")... I think that we can look at the Nixon white house for an answer to that., there is no such thing as cutting those guys lose. If someone in the WH authorized such an act - given the nature of this WH, I would agree that KR was involved. Unfortunately, it can and probably would take a couple of years before an investigation would get to that level.

Finally if DingDong is not elected in 2004 - and there were some criminal acts (such as this one and that can be tied to high level officials in this WH, including KR and DingDong) which are identified after the 2004 election - can they be indicted and charged with Treason after leaving office? Personally, I would enjoy that beyond belief.

[unblock]

10. frist? you mean fisk, no?

[bluestateguy]

3. I don't want the Independent Counsel back

We almost had a 4th branch of government in the 1990's, and the potential for an IG to get out of control is huge. Like any bureaucracy, the Office of Independent Counsel, egged on by a president's political opponents has an institutional interest in expanding its jurisdiction and protecting its turf. In other words, these investigations never, ever end. These things have a tendency to come around and go around, so bringing back the IG just to harass the Bush Administration seems like a bad long-term strategy, as someday our people will be back in power.

P.S. What would stop a lame duck GOP Congress in 2004 from passing a new independent counsel law which would be signed by the just defeated George Bush? They could do it just for the sake of creating an institution that would exist for no other reason than to act as a clearing house for every allegation, accusation and investigation thrown at the new Democratic president--paid for with our tax dollars.

[grasswire]

6. If Ashcroft picks one...

....he'll pick one of the usual Bush family fixers.

[bluestateguy]

9. James Baker

Who will probably write a final report blaming the CLinton Administration.

[Mari333]

12. Remember! Kissinger was picked to investigate 9/11

Putting the Fox In to Guard the Henhouse! If this was Clinton we would see 70 million dollars spent per day to investigate.

[lanlady]

8. I don't think a special prosecutor will be necessary

A lot of folks already know the names of the WH leakers, they just haven't appeared in print yet. It'll probably be out in the open by next week. Then the only question is, did they violate the Intelligence Protection Act of 1982....

[unblock]

11. more importantly,

do they have any intelligence to protect? bush sure doesn't.