Shorter Fitz: Send Libby to Jail
by emptywheel
Fitzgerald submitted his response to Libby's request for bond pending appeal today.
http://thenexthurrah.typepad.com/the_next_hurrah/files/070622_govt_reply.pdf Basically, it reiterates the points he made in last week's hearing on the issue, though in the written form that allows some snark.
.................
Congress Doesn't Need New Laws
The filing starts by undercutting Libby's Appointments Clause complaint with a simple reading of the law.
Remarkably, defendant's application, while suggesting that the AAG might have addressed the urgent conflict-of-interest issue by opting to seek new legislation from Congress ... contains no mention of the statutory provisions under which AAG
acted. In fact, the delegation was made pursuant to the AAG's statutory authority under 28 USC 510 to delegate any of the functions of the Attorney General to any other officer of the DOJ.
This is where Team USA adopts the same dismissive attitude that Libby's new Appeals lawyer uses.
Defendant's argument so lacks merit that it does not present a substantial issue.
While that's not so persuasive, this bit of snarky logic is:
Defendant interprets the sentence stating that the Special Counsel's position was not "defined and limited by 28 CFR Part 600, the regulations providing for appointment of a Special Counsel from outside the Department, as freeing the Special Counsel from obeying any and all Department regulations. Defendant's logic runs like this: under 600.7(a), an outsider appointed as a Special Counsel must comply with all Department rules and regulations, so if a Department insider is appointed with the proviso that he is not "defined and limited" by Part 600, then the Department insider does not have to follow Department rules and regulations. That bit of sophistry was roundly rejected by the district court, and rightly so.
more at:
http://thenexthurrah.typepad.com/the_next_hurrah/2007/06/shorter-fitz-se.html#more