ADMINISTRATION SETTING TABLE FOR DISMISSAL OF PATRICK FITGERALD !!!

[Tin Man]

The real news from the testimony at the Libby trial has been the public revelation that PlameGate is far more extensive than the actions of Scooter Libby alone. Even the Corporate Media has finally begun to question the actions of (shadow president) Dick Cheney in conjunction with the soon-to-be convicted Libby.

And Cheney, recognizing the legal jeopardy now confronting him, has begun to take mitigating action.

You see, if it comes down to it, you can bet your bottom dollar that BushCo is gonna do whatever is necessary to ensure that Fitz doesn't take-down DeadEyeDick too, because then the whole house will come down around this Adminstration. So that means, if necessary, dismissing Fitz and replacing him with a lacky. Beware, a modern day version of the Watergate "Saturday night massacre" may be unfolding - only more craftily planned and executed.

The Set-Up, Part I
The recent, unwarranted dismissal of 6 US Attorneys by Alberto Gonzales under a little-noticed provision of the Patriot Act - was only to open the door for the future dismissal of Fitzgerald. Establishing the precedent, so to speak. And in the event they need to dump Fitz to protect Cheney, Tony Snow can say, "Oh, but we've done this kind of thing before - nothing to see here, move along everybody"

The Set-Up, Part II
What's that? You say they'd never get away with it? Well, it's all about the packaging - the "salesmanship" as they say. So the WH will need to establish some plausible explanation for terminating Fitz... In that regard, consider the latest meme from the RW Noise Machine regarding Fitzgerald, as vocalized by Sen. Fred Thompson today: "When you put too much power in the hands of unelected, unaccountable people who have every incentive to focus massive resources onto one particular person - who gets the plaudits in the media for doing so - it's a bad thing," he told ABC News. And FWIW, I heard Joe Scarborough expressing the same meme on his program last night. Yep, they're setting the table for dumping Fitz right this moment: "He's running rampant, he's outside the scope of the Leak Investigation. etc..."

The Payoff
And in the wake of the impending Libby conviction, and should Fitz continue to pursue the PlameGate investigation, Attorney General Gonzales will have both the precedent, and the justification, for dropping the axe on US District Attorney Fitzgerald. Saturday Night Massacre, Redux. Only much better planned and executed, courtesy of Karl Rove.

Don't try to tell me that Cheney, Bush, and Gonzales aren't above doing this. And besides, what have they got to fear? Impeachment? From this Congress? Stop it, you're killing me!!!

Somebody prove me wrong. Please.

[htuttle]

1. Wasn't the so-called 'Saturday Night Massacre' the last straw for Nixon's presidency?

Seems to me that when Nixon finally did the same thing (firing Archibald Cox), that that was the moment when the Republicans in Congress turned on him. Don't remember, though -- I wasn't that old at the time.

:shrug:

[itsmesgd]

7. yes, but we are a dumber public now and will just let it happen

There are not even murmurs (that I have heard of) to get the shrub to step down. His power has not been checked by anyone or even spoken out against. If Fitz gets the axe, the media will report the contents of Anna Nicole Smith's fridge for another week or two and no one will pay any attention.

[LonelyLRLiberal]

109. Kind of off-topic, but I'd say we are less educated on purpose.

Education has been getting dumbed down for years. Teachers are getting blamed for students' poor performance. The famously mis-named "No Child Left Behind Act" is producing people who simply are unable to think logically because schools are financially forced to spend most of their time teaching standardized tests that don't test anything worthwhile.

[femrap]

113. You have to remember that back in the mid '70's,

if you had the TV on at 6:30 pm, you were watching the national news with either Walter Cronkite, Harry Smith, or Huntley & Brinkley. There was no flipping to 'The Simpsons.'

[Tin Man]

8. The difference is the timing. Cox had just begun investigation. Fitz has now "completed" his.

...Fitz has now "completed" his investigation, or at least, that's what the Pukes will insist. After all, Libby will be convicted - what more is there? Any further investigation into PlameGate by Fitz will be evidence that he is running amok, and will justify termination.

[cui bono]

148. I don't doubt what you're saying but he did ask if the leak was part of what he was

allowed to investigate at the beginning of all this right? And he was told yes. So at least that could be used to argue against that "reasoning".

[Jackpine Radical]

9. Well, yeah, that was the beginning of th end for Crafty Richard.

Might be the beginning of the end for Richard II (AKA Darth Sneer) as well. My main reservation would lie in my fear that the current bunch in Congress don't have the courage to pull the pin.

[Cameron27]

16. That was back in the days

when a few key Republicans could be counted on to a certain extent.

The firing of Cox was the end for Nixon.

"In October 1973, Cox precipitated what would become known as the "Saturday night massacre." He did this by insisting on unrestricted access to tape recordings of presidential conversations in the Oval Office during the period immediately after five men with links to Nixon's Committee to Re-elect the President had been arrested in the June 1972 break-in at the Watergate headquarters of the Democratic National Committee.

An angry Nixon demanded Cox's firing. But Attorney General Elliot Richardson, who had recruited Cox as the Watergate special prosecutor, refused to carry out the president's order. He resigned, as did his deputy, William D. Ruckelshaus. Robert H. Bork, who as solicitor general was the third-ranking officer of the Justice Department, dismissed Cox.
Almost overnight, from Capitol Hill and in the national media, came the sounds of protest and dismay. Sen. Barry M. Goldwater (Ariz.), one of the most influential Republicans in Congress, declared that Nixon's credibility "has reached an all-time low from which he may not be able to recover."

In the House of Representatives, members introduced 22 bills calling for the impeachment of the president or an investigation into impeachment proceedings. More than a million telegrams demanding impeachment poured into congressional offices."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A1755-2004May29.html

I doubt we'd be as lucky this time around.

[robinlynne]

26. Yes, the attorney general refused to do Nixon's bidding. HUGE historical

difference!

[hootinholler]

87. Absolutely! How many people did tricky dick go through before he found someone who would? n/t

[femrap]

114. Didn't Bork finally do the firing? nt

[Tin Man]

129. Yes, Nixon went through two AG, before settling on Bork to do his dirty work.

[NewJeffCT]

43. The mainstream media is much more compliant now

and, they have a whole RW noise machine to throw up smokescreeens.

"Look! Pelosi is flying a military plane non-stop!"

"Look! Anna Nicole died!"

"Look! Astronaut Love Triangle!"

And, if they do discuss the firing of Fitzgerald, it will be with a Democrat and a Republic talking head and it will go something like this:

HOST: "Would you care to comment on the firing of special prosecutor Fitzgerald"

RW HEAD: "It's about time they ran this out of control partisan Democrat out of town. We need to start investigating him now to see if those rumors about him being a vicious human brain-eating space alien intent on conquering America are true, or if he only only eats animal brains while plotting his conquest of America."

HOST: "How do you respond to Mr. RW"

LW HEAD: "Well, I don't know where to begin to respond, but Mr. Fitzgerald did manage to get a conviction of Lewis Libby, and the facts that came out in the trial were pretty damning of Vice President Cheney. I think that means we should question the motives of those who fired him."

HOST: "There you have it folks, while LW HEAD says we should look into whether or not Mr. Fitzgerald was fired for political reasons, he is also not denying that Fitzgerald is a human brain-eating space alien bent on conquering America."

[Richard Steele]

47. It won't even go -that- well, because the "LW HEAD" will be Joe Lieberman. nm

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

159. I think I saw that interview on Hannity & Colmes last night (eom)

[malaise]

59. Bingo

History is repeating itself. IMPEACH!

[blm]

62. Except the GOP didn't control most broadcast media back then.

.

[Jacobin]

104. I remember that like it was yesterday

Broke into regular programming and the journalist was trembling and could barely talk

[femrap]

116. I remember it very clearly as well....

I was in college and my friend and I were just turning off the TV and heading uptown for a beer when 'our regular programming is interrupted with this BULLETIN....' And I can still see the look on my friend's face. Our eyes got as big as saucers!

People still had shame in those days...a sense of right and wrong. These neocons have NO morals whatsoever. All they know is Fear & Greed....oh, and Hate.

[Jackpine Radical]

2. Interesting speculation.

Very interesting. K&R

[Kagemusha]

Um, they could fire Fitz any time they wanted to.

That's always been the case. Always always always.

The only thing thee Spector rule change altered is that the executive branch can appoint a successor without going through the Senate confirmation process, ever.

That's all.

[Tin Man]

13. Timing is everything. Once Libby is convicted, "there's no longer any need" for Fitz to continue

...it's already in the RW talking points. "But Plame wasn't even covert! Libby's being convicted of a crime outside the authorized scope of the investigation!"

They're opening the door to remove Fitz, should he continue the PlameGate investigation...

[Kagemusha]

18. I'm just saying that was never not in the talking points.

It's been a constant complaint since the first days of the investigation.

[Qutzupalotl]

106. To counter that point,

we need only remind the speaker that Fitzgerald was never confined to investigating only the leak, but has free rein to investigate any other crimes he comes across. This one virtually landed in his lap.

Makes you wonder WHY Libby would lie...?

[Missy Vixen]

3. I wish I could

I have to believe that Patrick Fitzgerald went into this case knowing that it would most likely spell the end of his career as a public servant.

He stood up to Goliath with a slingshot and a pebble. He has shown that they can be felled by nothing more than the truth. We'll see if Congress will actually stand with him as he attempts to secure justice for Valerie Plame, her network, and the American people.

Julie
still president for life of the PFEB

[H2O Man]

4. Nope. n/t

[Horse with no Name]

10. I scrolled down for your name to see your "take"

Thanks! This is what I will believe.

[LSK]

17. why?

[H2O Man]

37. Because

the OP is based upon a lack of understanding of both history and current events.

[LSK]

42. the Bush admin has the same problem

"lack of understanding of both history and current events"

[robinlynne]

27. boy, you sure have a lot of valentines!

[Catherine Vincent]

54. He sure does!

H2O Man rocks! :)

[Crabby Appleton]

78. I agree, nope nt

[Morgana LaFey]

118. You can do better than that.

And frankly it's real annoying that you have to be ASKED why you think that.

[saltpoint]

5. I'm on htuttle's wavelength on this one. Dismissing prosecutors

didn't work very well for Nixon.

I have a feeling it won't do Dubya much good either.

[Tin Man]

15. See my #8 or #13 replies - it's all about the timing of the dismissal

[saltpoint]

21. Intended my response to be in support of your info...

but didn't do a very good job of it.

My fault. Sorry.

[SharonRB]

6. I wish what you say didn't make sense, but it does.

We'll miss you, Fitz.
:hug:

[KoKo]

11. BINGO! When I read Fred Thompson's statement I thought

....:wtf: is going on here. He's not even in Congress anymore! But, he's a darling of the RW...and what better way to get there message out.

Yep...what you say makes perfect sense. Can they get away with it? With MSNBC/CNN and the WaPo/NYT's plus the RW RAGS on their side....You Bet! BUT...let's see how Congress handles it. This will be a huge shot across the New Dem Congresses bow. It might be the final straw....:shrug:

[lonestarnot]

12. I'm going to consult w an old experienced prosecutor for a reasoned opinion.

I think they would be freakin' more nuts than I believe them all to be.

[Tin Man]

20. Nothing they do can shock me anymore.

Watching Cheney, or Gonzales, lie through their fucking teeth without blinking an eye... There's nothing that's beneath them, nothing that they wouldn't stoop to doing.

[lonestarnot]

48. Old prosecutor says no. Special provisions for special prosecutors.

[Tin Man]

66. But at Fitz's appointment, Deputy Attorney General Comey suggested otherwise

Thanks to seasonedblue for this... From the introductory press conference for Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald. Speaking is Assistant US Attorney General James Comey.

Q: Could you fire Fitzgerald?

MR. COMEY: That's a great question. (Laughter.) Now I believe that I could revoke the delegation of authority that I've given to him. I don't believe that I could --

Q: So how does that move it outside the traditional chain of command, as you put it?

MR. COMEY: Well, because what I've done with Fitzgerald is -- the normal outside counsel, appointed outside, or the ordinary U.S. attorney, if he needs to issue a subpoena involving the media, for example, or if he wants to grant immunity to somebody or if he wants to take an appeal, has to come for approval to the Department of Justice. Pat Fitzgerald will not, for these purposes.
He is a --

Q: If you don't like what he's doing, you can end it.

MR. COMEY: Well, in theory, if I know what he's doing, in theory I could, yeah.

[lonestarnot]

127. That is just blah blah blah. Ain't happening.

[SemperEadem]

161. "in practicum" is what matters

I highly doubt he'd try. They'd have to overcome Ken Starr and that whole debacle first to justify making that move against Fitz.

[femrap]

117. Gonzales has a snittier smirk than W....

true pond scum.

[Spazito]

14. The clarifying letter from Comey to Fitzgerald, spelling out

what authority Fitzgerald has is quite clear:

At your request, I am writing to clarify that my December 30, 2003, delegation to you of "all the authority of the Attorney General with respect to the Department's investigation into the alleged unauthorized disclosure of a CIA employee's identity" is plenary and includes the authority to investigate and prosecute violations of any federal criminal laws related to the underlying alleged unauthorized disclosure, as well as federal crimes committed in the course of, and with intent to interfere with, your investigation, such as perjury, obstruction of justice, destruction of evidence, and intimidation of witnesses; to conduct appeals arising out of the matter being investigated and/or prosecuted; and to pursue administrative remedies and civil sanctions (such as civil contempt) that are within the Attorney General's authority to impose or pursue. Further, my conferral on you of the title of "Special Counsel" in this matter should not be misunderstood to suggest that your position and authorities are defined and limited by 28 CFR Part 600.

http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/osc/documents/ag_letter_feburary_06_2004.pdf

I would put nothing past the bush/cheney cabal but I would not underestimate the power and authority Fitzgerald has and could use in fighting any attempt to remove him.

[Tin Man]

22. but the precedent is established. US Attorney General Gonzales only need wave his hand..

Attorney General Gonzales only need wave his hand, and his subordinate, US District Attorney Fitzgerald, is gone.

No legal procedings needed. Poof!

[H2O Man]

23. way wrong. n/t

[Tin Man]

30. How is Fitz any different from the recently terminated Gonzo Six?

In regards to the termination of the Gonzo Six, a Justice Department speaking on behalf of the administration said:

"Performance-related can mean many things," said the official, who asked to remain anonymous because the Privacy Act bars officials from discussing personnel decisions. "Policy is set at a national level. Individual U.S. attorneys around the country can't just make up their policy agenda."

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines07/0213-07.htm

[Marie26]

96. He's acting as "special counsel" here,

not a normal US Attorney. Special counsels can't be removed on a whim. This is really an alarmist post w/almost nothing to justify it.

[tiptoe]

154. Gonzales recused himself from the CIA Leak Case: He has no legal interest in Fitzgerald (!) ...

by virtue of his own, self-acknowledged prejudice and consequent, requisite, legal dis-involvement.

If the Administration were to attempt to have Fitzgerald dismissed, I suspect Gonzales could not be a *legitimate* initiator of such action...for the very reasons and conditions of his original recusal:

...
Second, Gonzales, like his predecessor John Ashcroft, has recused himself from the CIA leak investigation. Gonzales, as White House counsel, had taken part in the White House's response to the Justice Department in the early days of the probe. When he became attorney general, there was no doubt that he would have to recuse himself from the matter. He was asked about it during a press conference in October 2005, when there was great anticipation that indictments were coming in the CIA leak affair, and this is what he had to say:

QUESTION: And does Patrick Fitzgerald — will he notify you if he's about to indict anyone? And lastly, is he under any obligation a public report?

ATTY GEN. GONZALES: I am recused from this investigation. I have been since coming to the Department of Justice. That means that not only am I recused from making decisions or participating in decisions regarding this investigation, I am recused from receiving information about the investigation. Quite frankly, you probably know more about this case than I do. I do not receive briefings. I do not receive any information about this particular case.

And in terms of what will happen going forward, you — you have as much information about that as I do. That's — that'll be a decision made by Pat Fitzgerald.

Finally, it simply defies common sense to think that Fitzgerald and the grand jury would give the attorney general a preview of an indictment in the CIA leak matter. "Gonzales would not be given that kind of information," says one insider. "The reason one is recused from the case is so that one cannot make decisions that would affect the case — like he might tell the White House."

*********
Source: THE ROVE INDICTMENT WATCH, CONT'D Byron York, Thursday, May 18, 2006

(This doesn't mean some other DOJ assistant could not take on the role...nor might it preclude a whimsical 'change of disposition' regarding Mr. G. "These people" -- after all -- are complicit in war-fraud and the murders of 100s of thousands of...innocents.)

[Spazito]

155. Excellent find!

I had totally forgotten he had to recuse himself wrt the Fitzgerald investigation, thank you for posting this!

[tiptoe]

157. Gonzales already distinguished Pat Fitzgerald as THE determiner of "what will happen going forward"

...rather than the Dept of Justice...the latter being the case (perhaps) with the six Attorneys asked to resign.

Gonzales has instructed his recognition that Fitzgerald is "different" in his capacities and roles relative to other US Attorneys...that, indeed, he is someone who has authority to "make up their policy agenda."

See above, #154: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=201658&mesg_id=218367

Would the Supreme Court -- if matters came down to a challenge -- disagree with Gonzales' own prior STATED understanding of Fitzgerald's autonomy and Gonzales' reasons for recusal from anything having to do with the case?

Gonzales appears IRRELEVANT -- BY HIS OWN WORDS AND UNDERSTANDING -- to any- and every-thing regarding the CIA Leak Case and the "behavior" of Fitzgerald.

[ClayZ]

41. I hope you are WAY RIGHT about it being Way Wrong!

:kick:

[H2O Man]

73. I am. n/t

[Spazito]

29. No, in this case, Fitzgerald is NOT serving as US District

Attorney Fitzgerald, he IS serving as Special Counsel with "all the authority of the Attorney General with respect to the Department's investigation into the alleged unauthorized disclosure of a CIA employee's identity".

[Tin Man]

32. But in that capacity, Fitz is still under Gonzales. And if Alberto says:

And if Alberto says the "Libby Investigation" is done - well, it's done!

[H2O Man]

34. Wrong.

Absolutely wrong.

[Tin Man]

36. I believe in my OP, I requested that somebody *show me* I'm wrong

...your one word responses don't do much towards that end.

[H2O Man]

39. Read.

Start with the information on Mr. Fitzgerald's web site.

Or find out what the grounds were for the Nixon era Saturday Night Massacre.

[Tin Man]

68. Wrong.

Thanks to seasonedblue for this... From the introductory press conference for Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald. Speaking is Deputy US Attorney General James Comey.

Q: Could you fire Fitzgerald?

MR. COMEY: That's a great question. (Laughter.) Now I believe that I could revoke the delegation of authority that I've given to him. I don't believe that I could --

Q: So how does that move it outside the traditional chain of command, as you put it?

MR. COMEY: Well, because what I've done with Fitzgerald is -- the normal outside counsel, appointed outside, or the ordinary U.S. attorney, if he needs to issue a subpoena involving the media, for example, or if he wants to grant immunity to somebody or if he wants to take an appeal, has to come for approval to the Department of Justice. Pat Fitzgerald will not, for these purposes.
He is a --

Q: If you don't like what he's doing, you can end it.

MR. COMEY: Well, in theory, if I know what he's doing, in theory I could, yeah.

[H2O Man]

70. Read further. n/t

[Seldona]

88. I hope you are right.

I really, really, do.

[flyarm]

93. Fitz's boss atthe time he was assigned this case set it up so Fitz can not be removed!

Ashcroft was in the hospital ..and dang i can't remember the man's name but the acting AG set Fitz up so he basically can not be removed..

i believe i am right on this..but i don't have time to go through my files...
fly

[Missy Vixen]

31. He can fire him as US Attorney

but he can't touch him as Special Counsel. If you read the letter from James Comey, you'll note he granted Patrick Fitzgerald "plenary" powers. He has the same powers as the Attorney General. The only person that could fire him from that post is George W. Bush.

Julie

[Tin Man]

40. Thanks Julie. Now we're getting somewhere.

[onenote]

44. actually, I think only the pres can fire a us attorney

The US Attorneys that were forced out by the administration didn't resist the request that they step down, thus shielding the president from the formality of firing them. But I doubt that Fitz, even if requested by the president, would agree to step down. And I doubt chimpy would put his signature on a piece of paper firing him.

[Missy Vixen]

57. We just went through this in Seattle

John McKay, our US Attorney, was removed by Gonzales for no apparent reason. I'm still waiting to hear who his appointed replacement will be. I'll bet you a latte it's a BushBot. Then again, maybe I should make that a donation to DU, because it's a damn sure thing.

When James Comey appointed Patrick Fitzgerald to the Special Counsel post, I'm sure there must have been the mother of all discussions re: making him bulletproof. He was appointed in the first place because Ashcroft had to recuse himself from the investigation. This is exactly why there are "plenary powers" involved, why the only person that could remove him is Bush, etcetera. There was no way in hell he would have even gotten this far if Gonzales could have removed him; there's a photo of Patrick Fitzgerald announcing indictments in an online live sex ring several months ago. Gonzales is standing behind him at the time. The look on Gonzales' face as he glares at PJF is chilling.

Patrick Fitzgerald is a necklace of garlic and a wooden stake to these folks. He's the bright light that makes the cockroaches scatter. There is nothing more frightening to any of them than someone who can't be bought, who won't compromise himself and what he believes in for their twisted vision, who will continue and continue until he finds the truth.

Julie

[Tin Man]

64. Regarding authority of Gonzo to remove Special Council, see seasonedblue's post #49 below.

[Missy Vixen]

77. TinMan, I've read James Comey's comments on the appointment of Mr. Fitzgerald previously

I realize that Mr. Comey stated at the press conference that if need be, he could remove Patrick Fitzgerald from his appointment as Special Counsel. At the same time, I wonder if this is the case. If Patrick Fitzgerald truly has the powers of the acting Attorney General, how could he be fired by a peer?

Let's hope it doesn't come to this, but the explanations I've previously read state that no, Gonzales can't fire him because of the delineation of his responsibilities. I believe that Mr. Gonzales also had to recuse himself, if I recall correctly.

I'm pasting most of the statement of the University of Chicago Law School's professors' blog in here. I think it's pretty interesting reading.

Julie

p.s. I was looking for the photo I mentioned in my previous post; I can't find it as of yet, but I still think it's chilling.

>28 CFR 600 defines the powers of a special prosecutor. Section 600.4 states that: "The jurisdiction of a Special Counsel shall also include the authority to investigate and prosecute federal crimes committed in the course of, and with intent to interfere with, the Special Counsel’s investigation, such as perjury, obstruction of justice, destruction of evidence, and intimidation of witnesses." See http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_03/28cfr600_03.html.

Interestingly, however, Comey did not give Fitzgerald the ordinary powers of a Special Counsel. As he explained at the press conference: "n many ways the mandate that I am giving to Mr. Fitzgerald is significantly broader than that that would go to an outside special counsel." Comey was referring to the fact that by letter of that same day, he expressly delegated to Fitzgerald "all the authority of the Attorney General with respect to" the Plame investigation. See http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/osc/. Because Ashcroft had recused himself from the Plame investigation, Comey possessed all the authority of the Attorney General for that matter and it was that authority that he delegated to Fitzgerald.

Notwithstanding this unusually broad delegation, Fitzgerald apparently asked for more explicit indications of his authority and on Feb. 6, 2004, Comey wrote to Fitzgerald that his authority is "plenary and includes the authority to investigate and prosecute violations of any federal criminal laws related to the underlying alleged unauthorized disclosure, as well as federal crimes committed in the course of, and with intent to interfere with your investigation, such as perjury, obstruction of justice, destruction of evidence, and intimidation of witnesses" (emphasis added). Indeed, Comey indicted that Fitzgerald’s title of "Special Counsel" "should not be misunderstood to suggest that your position and authorities are defined and limited by 28 CFR Part 600."<

[Spazito]

94. Just to add to your comments, the press conference

where Comey made those comments occurred in Dec/03 BEFORE he sent his letter to Fitzgerald clarifying the plenary powers and authority delegated to Fitzgerald which is dated Feb/04.

[onenote]

100. McKay resigned

Yes he was forced to resign...ordered to, in fact. But the reality of the law is that while Gonzales could ask, demand, even order McKay to resign, if McKay had refused, Gonzales himself couldn't fire McKay. By law, only the President can remove a USDA (while the AG, by law, has the authority to remove an assistant USDA).

I have serious doubts as to whether chimpy would dare to sign the papers firing Fitz if Fitz refused a request from Gonzales that he resign.

[onenote]

35. Don't think you are right

The AG has the authority to remove an assistant united states attorney. Only the president can remove a us attorney. Fitz is a US attorney, not an assistant us attorney. The likelihood that chimpy would put his name on a piece of paper removing Fitz is pretty slim imho.

[Tin Man]

45. Gonzales just did *exactly that* to six other USDAs - under powers "derived" from the Patriot Act

[Cameron27]

49. Tin Man,

This was the press conference where Fitz was introduced:

Q: Could you fire Fitzgerald?

MR. COMEY: That's a great question. (Laughter.) Now I believe that I could revoke the delegation of authority that I've given to him. I don't believe that I could --

Q: So how does that move it outside the traditional chain of command, as you put it?

MR. COMEY: Well, because what I've done with Fitzgerald is -- the normal outside counsel, appointed outside, or the ordinary U.S. attorney, if he needs to issue a subpoena involving the media, for example, or if he wants to grant immunity to somebody or if he wants to take an appeal, has to come for approval to the Department of Justice. Pat Fitzgerald will not, for these purposes.
He is a --

Q: If you don't like what he's doing, you can end it.

MR. COMEY: Well, in theory, if I know what he's doing, in theory I could, yeah. And I'd better have a darn good reason for doing it, because you'd have your hands in the air.

http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/doj/comey123003doj-pconf.html

I'll defer to the lawyers, but sounds like Fitzgerald could be fired by the AG.

More:

http://uchicagolaw.typepad.com/faculty/2005/10/the_special_pro.html

[Tin Man]

55. Thanks for that info. If Comey figured he had the authority, then by extension, Gonzales has it too.

Now I'm even more worried the scenario I laid out here is possible.

[Spazito]

89. This press conference took place Dec/2003 before....

Comey clarified the plenary authority and powers given to Fitzgerald. The letter clarifying Fitzgerald's authority is dated Feb/2004.

[Cameron27]

126. Thank you,

I hope you're right, that press conference raised a lot of doubts in my mind.

[Tin Man]

132. Good work, Spaz - a gold star for your succint explanation

...even if it disputes my premise. Nice job.

[Spazito]

137. Thanks, Tin Man! Posting theories, opinions are the best

way to collect hard data, etc, and DU is the best place to do that, imo. Your OP made me put some thought and homework into trying to find the answer to what you were positing and, with that, the best way to tie it in to the great info already provided by others!

We are in it together for the right reasons, to make sure all bases are covered and with the bush cabal that means a heck of a lot of bases, lol.

[Cameron27]

158. Yes, and it's always good

knowing that DU has you and H2O man to set things right. Sorry that I didn't have the information that put the press conference to rest, and it was never my intention to spread false rumors. It's all good though, because the dismissal of Fitz was always in the back of my mind. Now I know better.

Thanks again :)

[Spazito]

160. I think your posting the press conference was a GOOD thing!

I was glad you did, it offered more info to chew on and your post was factual. It is only when we all put into a debate the info we have that solid conclusions can be made, imo. I think your post was very much of value to the debate re the OP. We all have bits and pieces of data that, in isolation, can lead us to an incorrect conclusion but when we, without fear, add what we have to the debate it is ALL good.

[lonestarnot]

50. special protections for special prosecutors regardless of patriot cow paddy.

[onenote]

97. wrong. Gonzales did not fire the other USDAs under powers from the Patriot Act

You are mistaken.

Acting on behalf of the president, Gonzales requested that they step down and they agreed to submit their resignations. If they had refused, Gonzales himself would have not been able to do anything. It would've taken action by the president himself to remove them.

The only part of this that the Patriot Act played is that interim appointments made by the Attorney General to fill a vacancy previously were limited in time to 120 days (after which either the president had to nominate someone or the district court judge would name someone to fill the vacancy). Under the Patriot Act amendments, someone appointed by the AG to fill a vacancy could serve indefinitely. In other words, the Patriot Act didn't give Gonzales any additional powers to remove a US Attorney -- that power remains where it was -- in the hands of the President, not the AG. What the Patiro Act changed was the terms under which someone appointed by the AG to fill a vacancy could continue to serve.


While Gonzales can't himself fire Fitz as USDA, there is a separate question as to whether he could remove Fitz as "special counsel", meaning that Fitz would just have the duties of a USDA,not the additional duties etc of a Special Counsel. The better view of this, despite Comey's initial statements when Fitz was appointed, was that it would take action by the President to remove Fitz as special counsel. This is because Fitz as Special Counsel is standing in the shoes of the AG and only the President can remove the AG.

So it comes down to the same result: Gonzales alone can't force Fitz out as either USDA or Special COunsel. That blood would have to be on chimpy's own hands, and he's not gonna do that.

[Tin Man]

99. "Stepping down" is defacto firing. People don't volunteer to resign without credible threat

People don't volunteer to resign without credible threat of employer-initiated termination. "Resignation" looks much better on the resume.

Otherwise, why would the Six (well, actually five that had good performance reviews) agree to resign? They would have just stayed put...

[onenote]

102. right. but I don't think Fitz is susceptible to that sort of intimidation

Its silly to compare the other USDAs to Fitz. Fitz isn't going to worry about what is on his resume. If Gonzales came to him and told him that the president wanted him to resign, my guess is that he'd say no, daring the president to fire him. And the question is would chimpy take that dare.

[proud patriot]

103. Bingo

:think:

[Hubert Flottz]

19. The cat is out of the bag...

Too late to plug the story up now IMHO.

[file83]

140. You're right - we need Keith Olbermann to mention this - put it on the record

so to speak. That way, if they try and pull this shit, we'll already have the case against BushCo moving...

[lutefisk]

24. It will be on a Friday with other events dominating the news

It will be a non-story for most people because the corporate media will be completely focused on other events: a terrorist attack, bombing of Iran, Iran blamed for attacking a US ship off its shores, anthrax attacks (hey, it worked before), a Bush "peace plan" :rofl:, dead or dying celebrities (Poppy?), a major California earthquake, or...???????

Once they do it, if they do, they will just charge ahead with bold, criminal act after bold, criminal act until we are worn out and give up on trying to hold them accountable for subverting justice once again. I mean, who is going to stop them?

[meldroc]

25. This is discouraging...

I thought the whole point behind the ritual of the Independent Counsel like Fitzgerald or Starr or Cox was so they could do their jobs and investigate without being fired by the people they're investigating.

[Garbo 2004]

147. Fitz is not an Independent Counsel. Independent Counsel law expired in 1999 & was not renewed. n/t

[Missy Vixen]

156. Actually, it was the independent prosecutor law that expired

If you'll check Patrick Fitzgerald's website, you'll note he's called a special counsel.

http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/osc/

Julie

[The Backlash Cometh]

28. I wonder what took them so long?

Sheesh. After all they've done, do you think a Saturday night massacre is going to make any difference to their supporters?

[C_U_L8R]

33. It sounds like Fitz is on the right track

as soon as you hear that screetchy republican whine
you know you are on to something big.

Keep digging Fitz !!!!

[aquart]

38. Well, good luck with that.

Now I'm not saying hysterical paranoia isn't exactly the right tone to take with this administration, of course it is.

But you really aren't accepting the ongoing reality: Bush is a disaster. But he is a disaster on so many levels that it doesn't fit into a 15-second soundbite. So frustrating. Fitzgerald Axed, does.

Fitzgerald Axed has all the sex appeal we need for impeachment.

You know, when you read about Watergate in the history books, you probably think the press was all for outing Nixon and his band of criminals. Not exactly true. That's why Woodward and Bernstein were lauded as heroes and got a movie deal. Because they were mostly alone out there.

You are also negating the importance of honest men. And women. You are conceding the field as the battle is merely beginning. How silly.

And, above all, you are forgetting that this nation loathes George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. You really are.

On edit: But thank you for concern. Of course we should just give up now because nobody ever wins against stupid, arrogant criminals.

[WilliamPitt]

46. Never in hell

The Saturday Night Massacre was the symbolic end to the Nixon administration, and Cheney was there to see it. They would never do something so assinine. Your idea that the people are too distracted and wouldn't care is moot, as well as somewhat cavalier in its dismissal of the body politic. It is moot because Congress would see it, Conyers would see it, and seventeen kinds of fresh hell would break loose.

You think these guys want to make a martyr out of Fitzgerald? You think they want to see his upright, forthright countenance holding forth on theories of justice, the rule of law, as well as the kernels of damning info he is sure to have in his hip pocket, on every television in the land?

No way.

[lonestarnot]

52. Thank you.

[Dems Will Win]

53. Altho Fitz cannot be removed, the US Attorneys recently were, hamstringing

the Duke Cunningham investigation, among others.

Yet our side never gave those cover-up dismissals a catchy name like Saturday Night Massacre.

I think we need one WP.

[H2O Man]

60. It's also important

to remember that Cox gave Nixon a cause for firing him. No one believed that Nixon did it for cause, and hence that part has been largely forgotten. In this case, Mr. Fitzgerald has not given anything close to cause.

[Tin Man]

69. What cause did Nixon have for firing Cox????

Cox got canned because he had subpeonaed Nixon's Oval Office tapes, and Nixon knew he couldn't allow that to happen. No "justification" beyond self-preservation.

[H2O Man]

71. Nope.

What reason did Nixon give? This isn't a mystery.

[Tin Man]

74. Gonzo and Bush are free to invent reasons, too.

Inventing plausible explanations for agregious actions are a specialty...

[H2O Man]

76. You are silly.

Cox did not deny doing what Nixon fired him for.

[Tin Man]

80. If you need a refresher: Time Magazine. Oct. 29, 1973

http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,910839,00.html

[Tin Man]

63. Iraq.

More than 4 years of deception and outrageous lies, recycled and some just repeated verbatim, and this Administration continues to run roughshod over everything and everyone. Even a new Congress has yet to take any meaningful action. For all practical purposes, this Administration has learned that they can do whatever they want.

They're a unary executive. Armed with signing statements and the Patriot Act. Fuck everyone, we'll do what we like.

And if Fitz were to go public with info not presented publicly, they'd nd have him disbarred and swiftboat his ass for good measure (he's single, right? Gotta be a homo, or maybe a pedaphile...)

[Missy Vixen]

If you don't think they've already been over his background

and personal life with every weapon at their arsenal, you're mistaken. I'd bet just about anything on it. They can't find anything.

>(he's single, right? Gotta be a homo, or maybe a pedaphile...)<

The attempted swiftboating late last year failed to garner traction. Those who work with him must think a lot of him, because they've closed ranks around him. There is almost silence on his personal life, save a few good-natured jokes by colleagues about burning lasagna in the oven and the fact that he wanted to get a cat, but couldn't keep the kitty due to his work schedule.

They're out of options. The right-wing Libby apologists' sniping and swiftboating isn't working with anyone but the Kool-Aid drinkers.

Julie

[glitch]

108. He wanted to get a cat? Off-topic but

:loveya:

[Missy Vixen]

120. It's time for some off-topic Patrick Fitzgerald love!

Just in time for Valentine's Day:

Fitzgerald's Long Work Hours Made Him Ineligible To Adopt A Cat

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=2178935



Let's face it. He had me at "adopt".

:loveya:
Julie
president for life of the PFEB

[Arkansas Granny]

67. In their arrogance, however, I have heard several supporters of

this administration proclaim that most people aren't paying any attention to the Libby trial anyway. They don't figure that it's very important to the American public in general and that only those in the beltway are watching and know what's going on.

[Tin Man]

72. You're right. "Plame wasn't undercover. It's a witch hunt by the Bush haters..." yadda yadda yadda

[sellitman]

123. Seeing "seventeen kinds of fresh hell" set loose amoung the cabal

would do my heart well.

[Missy Vixen]

124. Am I the only one in the world

>You think they want to see his upright, forthright countenance holding forth on theories of justice, the rule of law, as well as the kernels of damning info he is sure to have in his hip pocket, on every television in the land?<

that prays the aforementioned man has the information he knows not only inside his beautiful mind, that it's safely offshore somewhere as well?

Have the Bushes forgotten what happened October 28th, 2005? He appeared on live television for an hour and a half and -- let's face it -- made a convoluted, little-known case accessible and interesting to the average American.

This is not the man Bush, Cheney and their cronies want to play poker with. He's holding the royal flush, and their tells are so poorly concealed those who aren't at the table can see them by now. They've underestimated him until he's won.

Julie

[WilliamPitt]

128. Someone upthread made a good point about this.

I'm sure Fitz has been privy to all sorts of scurvy details about the manner in which the war was sold. Two problems:

1. None of that pertains to the charges in question;

2. If he revealed them, he'd be far outside his bailiwick and would get snapped back in a hot minute.

Maybe he'll write a book someday.

[conscious evolution]

130. Or maybe someone in Congress will ask him to testify.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

51. I'm sure our courageous risk-taking media has lots of runaway brides, diapered astronauts,

and Britney Spears relationship dramas in reserve just in case they need an excuse to blot out any coverage of a cowardly and dastardly action undertaken by Bush such as that you suggest might occur.

[La_Fourmi_Rouge]

56. Why is it that all-caps titles always lead to a lousy post?

Tin Man, I respectfully suggest that you should put in a lot more time reading and a lot less time speculating upon alarmist theories. Thing is, we have gone over this subject ad infinitem for 3+ years on the Plame threads here, at dKos, FDL and about 10,000 other blogs and discussion groups, not to mention credible news and information sources.

We have done our homework and schooled ourselves and vetted every statement made by every single principle involved. Do yourselve a favor by following suit.

"It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt."

[Laurab]

121. If I could recommend a post in this thread it would be yours

"speculating on alarmist theories", indeed. We're DOOMED, I tell you! The OP's theory is taken almost as fact, is high up on the greatest page, and has nothing but speculation behind it.

I'm glad both H20Man and Will Pitt checked into this thread, as well. I trust their judgement pretty much more than anyone else's.

Thanks for posting!

[many a good man]

58. I double dog dare 'em !

[Cobalt Violet]

61. K& R.

[HuffleClaw]

65. kinda late for that if you ask me

the time for that has long since passed. ok, they might, but gonzales isn't stupid. he knows its HIS head that would be in the basket for such a thing, not cheney or bush.

[gulfcoastliberal]

75. I think they hired Fitz cause he's a repuke, and figured that HE would be their patsy nt

[SquireJons]

79. That's what I thought when I read Thompson's remarks

As for weather it would work...it would be a gamble for them. I think the only way they would do it is if they thought there was a really good chance of Cheney being indited. In that case, I think anything is possible. Try to remove Cheney and there will be tanks on the street corners... or would if they weren't all in the Middle East.

Could they get away with it? Sure. After stealing two presidential elections, this would be easy. The big difference between now and the Saturday Night Massacre is that back then, there were people with integrity within the republican party, and some of them were in the Justice Department. Can anyone imagine Gonzales resigning in protest? Don't make me laugh. Another big difference is the media. After Watergate, the republicans made a serious effort to buy and control all of the main stream media outlets. Who's going to tell the American people that their democracy was just lost? Might have to be the Guardian.

[Tin Man]

82. Agree wholeheartedly, 100% - nt

[Frustratedlady]

81. So, God forbid, suppose no one beyond Libby is convicted...

We still have the trial by the Wilsons. (I just received a letter from them this week, expressing their intention of moving forward.) If we can't have a pound of flesh from this administration, we can at least see them brought down financially, can't we? Please don't infer there is no hope when we so dearly need it.

Fitz was our pure, wise, guiding light and I would be devastated if his career was harmed by this cabal. Keep the faith.

[Peace Patriot]

83. I would defer to H20 Man's judgment (and crystal ball) on anything to do with

this case. And there are many things that mitigate against any move against Fitzgerald--among them, the broad sweep of the powers that were conferred on him, the fact that Gonzales himself is guilty of obstruction (when he was WH counsel, he gave the perps extra time for shredding and making up cover stories--gave them a 12 hour heads up--I'm thinking this may be the Sealed vs. Sealed indictment, Fitz v. Gonzales), and the magnitude of the Bush Junta's crimes (compared to Nixon) as well as the magnitude of opposition to the Bush/Cheney's war(s), including Bush's own father, with 74% of the American people absolutely disgusted with his son. All of this (and more) tells us that, if they touch Fitzgerald, they are seriously risking having nice, profitable old ages, ensconced in luxury in Paraguay, or wherever they think they can hide.

However, a couple of things worry me. The other day Zbigniew Brzezinski as much as said that the Bush Junta is capable of manufacturing a terrorist incident on our own soil. He's a way-way insider. Totally startling testimony to Senate committee. Why would he imply such a thing IN PUBLIC? Then there are Putin's statements, basically US/Bush a rogue state threatening world peace. People like this DO NOT make statements like this, if things are going well behind the scenes in the US and world establishments. Things are NOT going well, re the Bush Junta and its rogue plan to destroy Iran.

So-o-o, IN A CONTEXT of a Bush/Cheney order to bomb or nuke Iran, and perhaps an attempt at martial law here, I would most definitely expect that Patrick Fitzgerald would be the first to be axed. And a lot of US military brass as well (dissenters on an attack on Iran). Bush/Cheney are desperate, isolated men. Who knows what they would do?

Second, Fred Thompson's participation in this set-up (if that's what it is). He was the Republican side's attorney in the Senate Watergate Hearings, if y'all will recall. So, despite his RW associations since then, he has some weight in saying that a prosecutor is out of control, and weight in Repug circles as a straight-shooter. He may be a very crooked shooter now, but some may go along with him, thinking of who he was.

Thirdly, there is a psychological component to Cheney/Rumsfeld and associated NeoCons re: UNDOING all the progressive leftist things that happened in the 1960s/early 1970s, including Americans' disgust for war because of Vietnam, and Nixon's downfall (which was both materially and emotionally related to his continuance of the Vietnam war--one of the burglars' jobs was to get dirt on Pentagon whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg, and their main job--so far as we know--was to plant bugs in the DNC's office during the campaign of a major antiwar Presidential candidate, Geo. McGovern). The fascists don't just want to pursue their own program--they want to UNDO the damage to the cause of war profiteers, corporate rulers and the super-rich, that was done by the social, civil rights and antiwar movements of the '60s.

They are replaying those events, in their minds--one of them being the "Saturday Night Massacre." They want to make it come out DIFFERENTLY. "This time, 'we' win!" is how they're thinking.

Their ability to start a completely unjust, illegal heinous war on Iraq, with 56% of the American people opposed to it (Feb. '03), and then to manufacture an endorsement of that terrible act, via their rightwing Bushite buds at Diebold and ES&S, a year later, was the REVERSE of what happened in the '60s, when the country, at first asleep on Vietnam, eventually came to be revolted by it, and tossed out two presidents in a row--LBJ, then Nixon--because of it.

I therefore think they might try a "Saturday Night Massacre" that saves, rather than destroys, a rightwing president, because they NEED to do it--they want that replay--not based on a sober assessment of its potential impacts, but rather on a hubristic, emotion-driven need to replay the drama and have it come out in their favor. And if you think about the utter disaster in Iraq, it, too, has that irrational, emotion-driven, ego-driven component, aside from all other motives--greed, oil. A replay of Vietnam. "This time, 'we' win!"

And, frankly, I don't know what would happen, if they were nuking Iran and Fitzgerald at the same time. This could be one of the reasons they are replacing US attorneys, and moving to put Bush Politburo operatives in charge of every US government agency--and all their other moves to consolidate all power in the White House (powers of suspension of habeas corpus, indefinite detention, executive "signing statements," spying, well-funded police state mechanisms of every kind, secret use of billions of dollars (no accountability), and so on and so forth). The Democratic Congress' lapdog attitude to all these developments is extremely worrisome. We are well on our way to being the "boiled frogs" of a fascist coup.

If you assess this situation RATIONALLY--in the belief that the rule of law will prevail, and that there are sufficient SANE forces at work, both visible and behind the scenes--you might think that a 2nd "Saturday Night Massacre" is impossible. But the premise of that belief doesn't take into account how irrational Bush and Cheney may be, and what they MIGHT do, to play out their inner dramas, and/or to save their own skins.

I'm not saying they would succeed. They haven't in Iraq (--except for boffo war profiteering). And they haven't at home either--74% of the American people immune to their propaganda! I'm just saying they may well play out their fantasies of nuking Vietnam into submission, and drawing and quartering anti-Nixon leftists and peaceniks on the home front--and could do quite a bit more harm--way more harm--before anyone stops them, including dismantling our country's legal system starting with Fitzgerald.

[tiptoe]

162. Sealed vs Sealed: Fitz' automatic "Doomsday Machine" response to any "dismissal attack"?

I agree with all you posted above, and have resisted earlier speculating about Sealed vs Sealed. IIRC a previous post by someone with experience, such documents typically remained sealed only about a month. The current Sealed vs Sealed has remained so far, far longer than that. I can't imagine the legal community -- academic and applied -- having not reflected long and hard over the years about Nixon's Saturday Night Massacre and having not come up with a "plan" on how to best/better deal with future SNM-attempts by the PTB, prior to appeals to the SCOTUS.

I have no qualifications/experience to consider what legal processes/consequences/arrangements might/could/would be desirable (and/or possible) by use of a Sealed-vs-Sealed document for automatic response (i.e. as one element, perhaps, of the document*) to the contingency of an attempt by the President (or other High Officer under investigation) to baselessly remove the Special Counsel. Gonzales has already identified himself (see #154) as recused from receiving information about Fitzgerald's investigation in addition to making or participating in decisions regarding the investigation, unlike his relationships, presumably, with the six USDAs whose resignations he sought and got...voluntarily. "Without information about the investigation"** Gonzales and, by extension, the White House lack even the theoretical grounds under which Mr Comey said he, himself, could "end it" theoretically for Fitzgerald: "Well, in theory, if I know what he's doing, in theory I could, yeah." Since neither Gonzales nor the White House (nor even Comey!) has legitimate information base to "know what [Fitzgerald's] doing [investigating]"...none has the theoretical background-basis for legally seeking Fitzgerald's removal.

**Comey (in his capacity of acting-Attorney General wrt to the investigative area AG-Gonzales was obliged to recuse) defined and passed along authorities to another -- i.e. perpetuated his AG-role wrt Plame in Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald -- before subsequently (strategically?) resigning himself from same. By resigning, Comey removed himself as the only legitimate recipient of investigation-information from the Special Counsel, and the Special Counsel no longer would report to anyone regarding the Plame investigation and any other matters of federal law violations extending from that limited-arena investigation. Presumably, Fitzgarald, with all the authority of the AG granted him by subsequently-resigned Comey wrt to the Plame investigation and any other areas of Fedral law violation that investigation may lead, has the capacity to perform what Comey did, i.e. to perpetuate the Special Counsel role in another, IF Fitzgerald ever should, like Comey, resign voluntarily, or otherwise leave office (including death***). (The six USDAs who reported to Gonzales and who "resigned" did not have such recourse.) But Fitzgerald might never have the opportunity to exercise the perpetuation of the Special Counsel role ex post officio (?), i.e. after either leaving his office or, possibly, during any period of legal challenge limbo. One element of Sealed vs Sealed may be preparations by the Special Counsel in the event of a "dismissal attack" by parties being investigated, as but one of the contingencies -- an automatic one -- "triggering" the unsealing of at least some aspects of the document by parties other than Fitzgerald.

***If Fitz' should die -- perish the thought -- AG-Gonzales still would be recused from appointing a successor, which role presumably would pass to the party now in the office Comey once occupied (Deputy AG...see, too, Newsweek- Fitzgerald Could [Be] Thwarted by Comey's Replacement ...Does Fitzgerald report on the investigation to the Deputy Attorney General who replaced Comey?? I wouldn't think so, since the replacement Deputy AG -- a possible Bush crony? -- is not at the same level Comey was (acting-AG for Plame) at the time AG-authority wrt Plame was passed to Fitzgerald...but I'm not sure.)...unless Fitzgerald has somehow prepared for the contingency of his leaving office, one way or another, already. (an element and/or contingency of the unsealing, in some part, of Sealed vs Sealed??)

*I suspect there's more to Sealed vs Sealed than issues with Rove and Gonzales.

[tiptoe]

163. And in answer to my premature question: "Does Fitz' report...to anyone in AG Office?"...from #110:

The US Attorney General's Office AND President Bush Have NO LEGAL AUTHORITY To Remove Patrick Fitzgerald As Special Counsel

...
At the December 30 press conference, Comey further stated:

"Fitzgerald...does not have to come back to me for anything...I've told him, our instructions are: You have this authority; I've 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 I've 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.
...
There's 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 can't touch him. Flanigan can't touch him. Gonzales certainly can't touch him.

And the President can't 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 Fitzgerald's "Special Counsel" mandate as being similar to the mandate conveyed by the expired Independent Counsel law. That law, I'm sure you will recall, prohibited the President from wriggling out of an impeachment and possible conviction by firing the Independent Counsel investigating him.

If Fitzgerald isn't required by law to "come back to Comey for anything", he legally can't be held to have to report to Comey's replacement (or anyone within the DOJ). The Special Counsel doesn't even have to go through the Dept of Justice for approval to APPEAL: His actions can't be quashed by the usual intermediaries within the DOJ (who may have conflicting interests).

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

84. Wait, So That Melodramatic All Caps Header And Rambling Body All Came Down To "Cause I Think So"???

You have almost a complete void of supporting evidence for your dramatic claim. I find it hilarious that after the glaringly over-dramatic title and rambling OP, the only real message was "I think they're gonna fire Fitz cuz they don't like him". :rofl:

[Tin Man]

86. Read it again.

They're preparing to fire Fitz if they must.

And yes, the evidence is circumstantial. I am not a member of the Administration, nor do I have hidden camera video or communication intercepts...

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

91. No Thanks. I Wasted Enough Time Already Reading It The First Time.

With all due respect, your arguments were amazingly thin.

[Jim Sagle]

139. Yours, by contrast, are non-existent. Same as it ever was.

[Patsy Stone]

125. Perhaps the handle of the OP

should more properly be Straw Man?

Just sayin'...

[JackRiddler]

85. I see but...

Isn't this still going to be very, very obvious?

Seems to me that engineering a crisis so dire it drowns out everything else is easier and more "productive" or "forward looking" for these people. A bold move solves all problems at once. They're in the middle of this right now (paving the way into a strike on Iran) and even Brzezinski copped to the idea they can have a terrorist attack in the US and blame it on Iran this time. In the middle of such a crisis, they can have Cheney resign for health reasons, be pardoned just as quickly, and replaced by some designated successor to Bush. (If the crisis is big enough, the Congress won't even debate it.)

[Tin Man]

90. Or alternatively, attack Iraq, then shitcan Fitz - and Cheney stays put.

I think Cheney is too important, too powerful, to be dismissed.

[Marie26]

92. Why bother?

Maybe I'm missing something, but why would they bother getting rid of Fitz now? The trial is almost over, the jury has heard the evidence, Scooter's going to jail. Even if they did replace Fitz, the trial continues regardless - and in fact, Fitz can't be replaced this far into the trial proceedings w/o judicial approval. So Scooter's done. There's really no evidence right now that Fitz is even planning to indict Cheney, so there's no immediate danger there. The one danger is if Libby later flips on Cheney - but so far there's no indication that he will. They could fire Fitz if they want to, but they could always do that. But the publicity backlash would be incredible - and w/a new Democratic congress, Bush doesn't want to give them any new reasons to begin impeachment proceedings.

[Tin Man]

98. The action would *NOT* happen now. Libby's trial will conclude, with Fitz in charge.

Libby is toast, he's expendable. For that matter, he's already been replaced without a hiccup. The Bush Administration rumbles on.

But if the Administration has a sense of continuing exposure due to fallout from the Libby trial - like maybe, Fitz decides NOT to release his grand jury - well, they've got themselves a contingency plan to fall back upon: Alberto and the Right Wing Noise Machine.

[Marie26]

101. There's no indication they're planning to do that

The time to fire Fitz was a year ago, before all the damaging info about Cheney's cabal came out, before the Democrats took over Congress. If they try to fire Fitz now, the whole crew will be hauled in front of the Senate Judicial Committee immediately for abuse of power, and Patrick Leahy will start his own investigations of Cheney & co - armed w/subpoenas, nationally televised hearings & public outrage. Nixon was destroyed when he fired the special prosecutor; they're not going to make the same mistake. I just don't see the reason for the panic here.

[Tin Man]

105. Yes, they won't fire Fitz in the middle. But once Libby is convicted, no "need" for Fitz to remain

Once Libby has been convicted, the Noise Machine can say: "There it is. It's done. Scooter Libby was the guy who leaked Plame's identity. Show over - go home"

At that point, if Fitz feels he has reason to continue the investigation, as indicated by the GJ remaining seated - the Admin has "cause" to terminate the inquiry by claiming that Fitz is operating outside his authority. Not that any of it's true; but it's plausible, and the public would buy it.

Libby was made the sacrificial lamb by the Administration. And they've got a contingency plan to ensure that the investigation ends with Libby, and only Libby.

[Marie26]

107. Nah

Many people have explained why that's an extremely implausible scenario, but I guess you can believe what you want to. A Libby conviction is not "good cause" to remove Fitzgerald, and if they try to fire him, it will raise a total outcry from Congress, at least, and probably the public as well. No one really listens to the Noise Machine anymore - Cheney's at 12% approval! Plus, you didn't address my main point - any dismissal of Fitz at this point would result in immediate Congressional investigations, hearings, and possible censure/impeachment. There's just no way they'll risk that.

[Garbo 2004]

146. It's not Fitz's grand jury. It's not a special grand jury dedicated solely to Fitz's investigation.

It's a regular federal grand jury that sits for a term of 18 months and is available to other prosecutors in the district for other cases. At most its term can be extended for 6 months. Fitz can't just release the grand jury. It's seated until its term expires.

[Tin Man]

150. GJ term expires this April

From Fitz's news conference, Oct 2005

"This grand jury's term has expired by statute; it could not be extended. But it's in ordinary course to keep a grand jury open to consider other matters, and that's what we will be doing."

Fitz strongly suggested he would use a second GJ to provide coverage for any further charges that might arise as a direct result of the Libby trial. The term of the first GJ expired the day of the news conference, meaning that 18 months later - April 2007 - marks the end of the second GJ.

Cheney et al will be watching Fitz (and his interactions with GJ) like a hawk until then.

[Spazito]

151. Fitzgerald can always use a regular Federal grand jury....

he is not bound to the time frame of one:

Federal grand juries meet regularly, but the frequency of their meetings varies from one federal judicial district to another. Several grand juries may be meeting at the same time in large urban areas, while grand juries convened in less populous districts may only meet once a week or once a month. Generally, federal grand juries tend to meet when prosecutors need them to consider proposed indictments or to investigate possible criminal activity.

http://campus.udayton.edu/~grandjur/fedj/fedj.htm

Fitzgerald was not using a Special federal grand jury, he was using a regular grand jury and when it's term ends, he can make use of another that is sitting as he did after he announced Libby's indictment.

[MilesColtrane]

95. No need to fire Fitzgerald....

The crime has been compartmentalized. Libby's perjury made it impossible for Fitz to prove where the trail leads, the idea for the leak, and the orders for execution. Cheney and Bush have been insulated.

The main danger was Cheney taking the stand.
Once under oath, some interesting questions could have been asked by the prosecution. But, Libby's lawyer has stated that he would not call Cheney to testify.

Thus Libby takes the fall and goes to a country club jail until Bush pardons him.

[Tin Man]

112. Yes, "Plan A" is to sacrifice Libby. What I have described is "Plan B"

Plan B is what happens in the event the investigation were to expand beyond Libby (despite the carefully manipulation of the Admin to ensure that it concludes with Libby alone).

[Independent_Liberal]

110. Fitz can't be removed as Special Counsel.

This explains it:

http://www.the7thfire.com/treason/AG_and_Pres_cannot_remove_Fitzgerald.html

[ChairmanAgnostic]

111. I remember the outrage when Nixon's people fucked with the justice system

I would expect that americans would probably stand up and take notice about this time. Hell, I think that it would be enough for chimpeachment.

[NMDemDist2]

115. yeah, then Conyers will appoint him special prosecuter

:loveya:

[Peace Patriot]

119. Just want to add a comment on the Comey letter, and any reliance on a

mere piece of paper as a bar against Bush-Cheney lawlessness. Consider the U.S. Constitution. That quaint document, which says that Congress makes the laws of this land, not the President, that Congress and only Congress has the power to declare war, not the President, and that Congress and only Congress has the power to fund war, not the President. It also has a few things to say about search and seizure, detention without public trial, and separation of church and state. How respectful of THAT piece of paper have Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Gonzales been?

True, to this point, they've often twisted things, to stay just barely this side of the law--and they've used bludgeon power on Congress to extract what is needed. But in several cases--most notably, torture, spying, lying to Congress and starting an unnecessary war--they have committed blatant, terrible crimes, with impunity. And NO ONE has made the slightest move to stop them. Our system of laws and the people who are supposed to uphold them, has utterly failed in all these respects. What IS THERE to stop them from ripping up Comey's letter just as blithely as they have ripped up the U.S. Constitution?

Congress? They can't even seem to get a half-assed, non-binding resolution passed stating an opinion about the escalation of the Iraq war.

The U.S. Supreme Court? Whatever happened to their ruling that the prisoners in Guantanamo Bay are entitled to a real trial? And if the Comey letter ever gets to them, what will they say? They will say that Bush can do whatever he damn pleases. End of story.

I don't mean to be negative or frightening. I actually feel optimistic. I think the trend in the world is toward world peace and cooperation, and the trend in the western hemisphere is overwhelmingly toward democracy and social justice. We live in a bubble of Bush fascism, that is hard to see out of. Also, I have always had great faith in the American people, who have resisted the most intense propaganda campaign ever to be inflicted on any people. I think they are still bewildered as to how they lost their sovereignty, but even that is changing. Knowledge of the rigged electronic voting system is spreading quickly. And I have faith that there are still a lot of good, honest and courageous people in our country's political establishment and in our military. I don't think Bush/Cheney will get much further. But I don't see how anyone can flatly predict that they won't try something outrageous--firing Fitzgerald, bombing Iran, or who knows what else--before it's over.

[agincourt]

141. "We live in a bubble of Bush facism"

Best way to describe these past 6 years I've heard yet. Spot on.

[sendero]

122. I love it..

.... they are SCARED. If they do this, there WILL BE A BACKLASH.

Make my day, idiots.

[peacetalksforall]

131. The most important thing on their agenda is to make a last gasp

push to take the Middle East.

Given that they always come up with a bucket of side benefits and a shipload of propaganda for all their actions, they could wipe Plame off the screen until the civil suit comes up by just shutting down all media.

I don't really think that it makes much difference to this country if Cheney is in or out of office. He works for others. He can do the same outside. There is a political loss to Republicans in the long term if he is forced to leave the office, but his work will go on.

We need to make borderline Rpeublicans understand that no one in the WH or WHIG had authority to authorize the Plame and Brewster-Jenning coup other than G & D. People have to see the heirarchy and authority chain clearly. That's our work. We can't let it drop, it has to be woven into the entire untruth of war and repeated matter of factly to show the lie that is this war. They cooked up a war, plain and simple. That has to be the message. Just as they guide their followers in never letting go of blaiming Clinton for lying about sex, we cannot let them go for bringing us death and debt.

Law or legacy. They can abuse law, but they can's escape their legacy. We have the power. It will be 'hard work' to expose them, but we must adapt their strategies when not unlawful.

The world cannot be left thinking that we rolled over on these criminals.

Additionally, their plan for Iran (and they may throw in Syria) is so diabolically pathetic that the death and repercussions may ruin them (and maybe ruin us).

So how do I tie it to Fitz. Not to worry. He appears to have entered in to the job with a reputation considered solidly ethical - nothing he has done here appears to have changed that. Since it wouldn't matter to Cheney whether he's in or out for what he wants to do, he'll just be freer to commit worse crimes if his proteges stay in power.

The two most important issue today are the phony reasons for bombing Iran and the firing of the Attorneys. (ies?) and the media participation in the war. To repeat what the media did to kick off the Iraq War within four years - unheard of.

We need to know exactly how that clause got written into the Patriot Act and find out if any Dems knew when they voted that it was there. They are getting a free ticket from the media with all the emphasis on Libby who will be forgotten until his pardon if it comes.

Here's a nice warm heart thought for the future - that there will be enough sane people who will understand and acknowledge the crime of the leak and how it all fit into the farce presented to us to go in and kill and rob.

AND - think of Fitzgerald and laywers like him being around for as many decades as Baker and Bork - doing good for the country instead of evil.

[BuyingThyme]

133. Did you go with TIN MAN just so that people would give you

hearts?

[Tin Man]

134. ROTFLMAO !!!

I swear, there was no alterior motives, no secret agenda, in the selection of my handle. Karl Rove - I ain't.

:rofl:

[derby378]

135. Tin Man, you are scaring me big time...

:scared:

[jwirr]

136. That is what I have been afraid of. They will not let anyone do the

kind of damage he is doing to them without striking back.

[Vinnie From Indy]

138. I would imagine that the Congress wouldn't roll over for that.

I believe they could create all sorts of problems for Bush/Cheney in regard to a Fitzgerald dismissal.

[Stephanie]

142. this IS the most corrupt administration in history, right?

I can't imagine there've been any worse than this.

[autorank]

143. "The Man" speaks the truth as to the intentions of the "evil doers"

Prove you wrong. First I have to say damn good. We need to play chess not checkers and this is some serious chess.

They're seeding alright but with what...a played out, jowly Hollywood ex Senator and Scarborough. OK, fine, but these are light weights. Nobody in the government will sign off on the "Iran did it" evidence, they won't sign their names. And their favorite telegenic General, Pace, has just thrown * over, in a serious way.

When I saw this, I thought...

http://tinyurl.com/2t59rx
America’s top general appeared to contradict claims made by the White House and other US military commanders yesterday that Iran was arming Shia militants in Iraq. General Peter Pace, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said he did not know if Iranian-made material used to assemble roadside bombs in Iraq had been supplied on Tehran’s orders.

“That does not translate that the Iranian Government, for sure, is directly involved in doing this,” he said on a visit to Jakarta, the Indonesian capital. “What it does say is that things made in Iran are being used in Iraq to kill coalition soldiers.”

...it's the last scenes of Richard III...Richard's commanders lost or deserted him, he was alone and he cried out, "My Kingdom, etc." Will there's no horse for Bush. He's got Alberto but Alberto is a chump who will do anything. Doesn't count. The military just dissed the Commander in Chief. Don't know if that pertains to this scenario but * is reeling.

One point, even if this isn't stopped, guess what, this would be the END of *, the absolute END.

Having said that, everything you said makes sense and I'm sure this is exactly what they'd like to do.

[ProudDad]

144. Hmm, sounds complicated

I think the fix is in --

Libby will be pardoned by bush on the way out of office in return for his silence and for keeping cheney off the stand.

[Edweird]

145. Totally vile, and completely logical.

I think you are dead on. And there will be little to zero outrage in the complicit press, so the general population won't really know what's going on.

[GreenEyedLefty]

149. Looks like people need to actually read legislation...

...before passing it. Idiots.

[bobbie]

152. Great post Tin Man

It's upsetting, but reality is.

[leveymg]

153. So, do they dismiss him now, during the Libby trial, or afterwards?

I can't see an attempt at the former, not even this crew of bandits and rogue spooks would try it. But, afterwards, once the spotlight is off - that's a possibility.

If there were really a hint of such a thing, Fitz would really have no other choice than to convene another GJ or unseal any indictments he already has hidden in his desk.

Now, firing him at that point would start a real shit-storm.