John Dean/Interesting thoughts on Patrick Fitzgerald/Plame "Poor Choice"

[KoKo]

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20050211.html

Bush's Justice Department Is Not Playing By Its Own Rules

Those Justice Department regulations had a purpose, and it was to avoid conflicts of interest and divided loyalties. Now, we are stuck with both.

An ambitious Republican U.S. Attorney like Patrick Fitzgerald was an especially poor choice for this position. As the regulations stated, an acceptable choice would have been someone truly outside the federal government.

While some local U.S. Attorney's Offices may be somewhat independent of the Department of Justice, they are hardly outside it; indeed, they typically consult the DOJ's own manual on policy questions. As a Justice Department employee, Fitzgerald had a conflict of interest - just as Ashcroft did. Yet unlike Ashcroft, he failed to recuse himself.

In addition, it disserves both the American public in general, and the citizens of the Northern District of Illinois in particular, for Patrick Fitzgerald to moonlight in both of these jobs. There's a reason the regulations anticipated that some special counsel positions might be full-time employment - and this ought to be one of them.

Few matters are more serious than the exposure of a CIA agent's identity - a revelation that puts both the agent and, potentially, many others in jeopardy of life and limb. When the exposure seems to be an act of political revenge, the matter is even more grave. And when the revenge is reportedly taken by two (or more) senior Administration officials, the issue is even weightier. This matter deserves Fitzgerald's full attention.

[BOSSHOG]

1. How long does it take to find out who made a phone call?

We are pushing the two year mark on the commission of the crime and novak continues to spout his hate and Fitzgerald obviously has his thumbs up his ass. If he is being obstructed by white house interference and if he had an testicles, he'd hold a press conference in order to complete his job.

[burythehatchet]

2. Everyone - Please write to the parole board and oppose

Martha Stewart's early release.

[blondeatlast]

7. Indeed. We can't let something like treasonous behavior

overshadow small-time fraud.

:eyes:

[KoKo]

3. Dean is calling for and "Independent Counsel" he concludes "Fitz" can't

handle a job as important as finding out WHO outed Plame and the tentacles back to the WMD which are why the American People were told we
Invaded Iraq!

He's trying to get some interest....but with the Repugs owning everything...where can Dean hope to find "the interest?" That's the question. Would he write this if he didn't think there "might be a way?"
:shrug: I also remember at the beginning of this Dean suggested in a column on "Find Law" that Wilson/Plame should institute a "Civil Suit" to find out who outed Valerie Plame. He suggested that there would be suboena's that could be served by going the "Civil Route." Wilson chose not to do that. I wonder if that avenue is still open to Wilson/Plame?

I wonder if that avenue is still open to any of us, since Clinton was declared (as a "sitting President") open to the Paula Jones "Civil Suit?"

[blondeatlast]

9. I think he's a regular columnist for FindLaw, but this is a shrewd guy

who cares deeply about the law, and I think he is laying out the scent hoping some intrepid reporters (hah!) or bloggers will pick it up.

I believe he really wants to see this dealt with. He has absolutely no respect or admiration for this administration ("Worse Than Watergate;" who would know better?) and a deep respect for the law as a tool of justice.

Here's hoping some sharp legal beagles wiht a blog pick up on this.

Even so, it will never be covered if they do.

[disillusioned1]

4. And let's not forget

The Judge was appointed by *.

[KoKo]

5. You said it! Plamegate and Enron both bogged down for years...I think

Enron has to be a record...HOW LONG CAN IT TAKE? Answer as long as it takes the Bushies...to wait to get Ken Lay a "PARDON." :puke:

[cascadiance]

11. Let's not forget whistleblower Sibel Edmond's being "bogged down" too...

I continue to be amazed at how much people keep saying that she "was right", but don't want to do anything constructive about it and just try to have her "go away"...

[KoKo]

6. Kick....it's a long article about Independent Counsels/Special Prosecutors

and lots of legaleze at the beginning. Dean is trying to tell us something, but I'm not quite sure what about investigations in the future. It's a little disheartening what he says about Fitzgerald, but I'm not quite sure I get what he thinks needs to be done except for Congress to get involved. :shrug:

[blondeatlast]

8. So much in these two paragraphs to think about:

Unfortunately, the Bush Administration is ignoring those (special counsel) regulations. It is entitled to repeal them - but it ought not simply to pretend they do not exist. (all emphasis mine)

What a loaded sentence, but like you, Koko01, I'm not quite sure what he's saying. Reading on, obviously Bush is flouting the regulations.

Oh my, oh, my, my:

The result of all this is that, as a result of a breach of regulations, Patrick Fitzgerald serves in an unsupervised position with authority equal to that of the Attorney General himself - yet he is not subject to the restraints that fall upon an Attorney General. (Presumably, Alberto Gonzales will recuse himself from this matter, just as John Ashcroft did - for reasons I discussed in a prior column.)

This is VERY interesting. I have tremendous respect for John Dean; I'd love to hear more discussion on this.

This is a dense read, but I'm nominating for the "Greatest" page.

Imagine if the Plame case had been pursued (as it should be) of the Clinton activities.

[KoKo]

12. And.....here's a little more where he's pointing in a direction that's

a little hard to figure out parsing through the legalize. :shrug:

Meanwhile, it's not clear if Fitzgerald's funding is proper, either. On September 30, 2004, the General Accounting Office (GAO), in the course of a routine audit, discovered that he is being funded by the same appropriation used to fund IC's. (There is still one IC in existence, who has been in business since 1995, and seems unable to complete his final report). The GAO Report claims that it is all right for Fitzgerald to draw on the IC law funds, for he was selected under "other law" which was within that appropriation - but this seems like fancy legal footwork.

(I assume he's saying the "GAO" is operating as an Independent Counsel because it's given funding to Fitzgerald (although Dean says the funding is "fancy footwork?") I read his linked report from GAO and couldn't make any sense of it in the context he's talking about in the article. :eyes:

(Snip)

But, then he concludes the article with this statement:

So why isn't the case solved? Could it be because Fitzgerald - burdened with ambition and reluctant to bite the hand that still feeds him - doesn't want to solve it?

It almost makes you nostalgic for the old IC law, doesn't it?

[blondeatlast]

10. Pre-work kick; this is very interesting.

:kick: