Saturday Night Massacre? BRING IT ON! Why Fitzgerald is UNTOUCHABLE.

[robertpaulsen]

For those of you still worried that Gonzales, Congress, the Chimp, or that new guy from Skull and Bones replacing Comey can stop Fitzgerald's Special Counsel investigation, please read this. It's a long entry, but well worth understanding the legal precedent for why Fitzgerald CANNOT be removed from the Plame investigation.


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

The Attorney General, Acting Attorney General or any other officer of the Department of Justice has NO LEGAL AUTHORITY to remove Special Counsel Fitzgerald from the Treasongate investigation or prosecution-- AND -- President Bush does NOT have the legal authority to fire Patrick Fitzgerald in his capacity as "Special Counsel".

Analysis of federal law (involved with both the appointment of -- and authority granted to -- Special Counsel Fitzgerald), Comey's press conference of December 30th, 2003, and Decision B-302582 (September 30, 2004) issued by the Government Accountability Office, leads to the following legal conclusions:

1. James Comey, in his capacity as Acting Attorney General, with respect to the Justice Department's investigation into "the alleged unauthorized disclosure of a CIA employee's identity" (hereinafter "Treasongate"), delegated his plenary authority to Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 508, 509, 510, and 515, conferring upon him "all of the authority of the Attorney General" thereby transferring his status as Acting Attorney General, in this matter, to Fitzgerald.

2. Special Counsel Fitzgerald is not serving as an "outside Special Counsel" pursuant to 28 USA § 600, so the provisions of that code are not applicable in this matter nor do they have any legal effect over Fitzgerald's investigation and/or prosecution.

3. While President Bush may fire or replace Fitzgerald as the "US Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois", the President has NO AUTHORITY to fire him as the "Special Counsel" in the Treasongate investigation.

much more good stuff...

http://citizenspook.blogspot.com/

[lildreamer316]

1. This is awesome thanks n/t

[NorCalDem]

2. Just like others have said

no legal authority has never stopped these guys before...

[gratuitous]

3. So what happens when his mandate expires?

I mean, Fitzgerald can't be appointed in perpetuity. His appointment has to expire at some point. What's to stop the corrupt Bush administration from simply running out the clock?

[robertpaulsen]

7. His mandate expires when the case is solved.

From the article:

The next paragraph graphically illustrates the recognition by the GAO that Fitzgerald has all of the power of the Attorney General for purposes of this investigation:


"The consulting requirement would seem to be inconsistent with the notion that Special Counsel Fitzgerald possesses the plenary authority of the Attorney General".<15>

The key word is "plenary"; as in unlimited or complete authority.

I think the article is pretty clear that legal precedent won't stop Dumbya from doing everything short of martial law (then again, he has that option ) to stop Fitzgerald. That's why Roberts is investigating Fitzgerald's investigation rather than the outing, the neocons are grasping at straws looking for a loophole or any dirt on Fitzgerald to preempt his investigation. The good news is that there are no loopholes and lacking legal precedent, this will just make the misadministration's grave that much deeper.

Be sure to read the whole article, it makes the wide scope of Fitzgerald's investigation that much clearer.

[seemslikeadream]

9. Global Struggle Against Violent Extremism-Treason-Death Penality

citizenspook.blogspot.com/....

THE MYSTERY OF "GSAVE" IN "A TIME OF WAR"

And finally we come to the statement from 794(b), "in a time of war." 794(b) only kicks in if we are in "a time of war." According to the vote by Congress authorizing the war in Iraq, and the Bush administration's words and actions in projecting that war, we are certainly in a time of war at least as far back as March 19, 2003, when we invaded Iraq, but according to the President, war was declared by the enemy on September 11, 2001.

In light of this, "in a time of war" requirement from 794(b), it's extremely interesting to note the strange public relations circus emanating from Washington regarding the proposed acronym "GSAVE" which has apparently taken over for "GWOT".

GSAVE = Global Struggle Against Violent Extremism

GWOT = Global War Against Terror

Could it be that the Bush administration will start spinning that we were not in a time of war when Rove and others in the Bush administration outed Plame and her team so as to prepare a defense to coming indictments under 794(b) by Patrick Fitzgerald's grand jury?

If we are in a time of war, those involved with outing Valerie Plame and her network are eligible to be prosecuted under 794(b) and therefore are subject to the death penalty.

It's no wonder our plight has shifted from a "war on terror" to a "struggle against violent extremism."

Look for the Bush administration to make the argument that the Iraq war ended on or about May 1, 2003, the day Bush landed on the USS Lincoln and declared victory over the enemy.

[robertpaulsen]

16. Your post shows how seriously the BFEE takes this investigation.

I was wondering why all the hoo-hah over a cosmetic name change that seemed so unnecessary. Now it all makes sense. This is potentially a matter of life and death for them. This spin helps insure that that base is covered.

Ah, that's right, the war is over. Just dead-enders pissing around in Iraq, nothing to see there, move along to Iran.

I say, To The Hague!

[On the Road]

4. Didn't Nixon Fire His Attorney General, Eliott Richarson?

So why wouldn't Bush be able to fire someone who was delegated the authority of the Attorney General?

Just curious. This would be great news, but with my limited legal knowledge it doesn't make sense to me.

[DefenseLawyer]

51. Actually Richardson resigned

When Archibald Cox, the independent special prosecutor investigating watergate refused to compromise with nixon over his subpoena of the tapes, Nixon told Richardson to fire him. Richardson resigned rather than carry it out, as did his deputy Ruckelshaus. Fortunately Robert Bork, the acting solicitor general, and a fascist, was more than happy to do the deed, aka the Saturday Night Massacre.

[JHB]

5. I don't think you understand: that's all so reality-based...

Bushco has no compuntions against simply taking an action and simply brazening out unfocused and short-lived opposition, to get its way in the end.

Mere laws won't stop him. It'll take people willing to challenge him and enforce the law to do it.

[robertpaulsen]

32. Scary thing is, you're right.

That reminds me of a scene in the movie Nixon the day before his resignation going over his options with Alexander Haig. It was, roughly:

1. Resign

2. Stay, get impeached.

3. Use power as Commander in Chief to declare martial law.

Nixon wouldn't go with option 3 on principle. I consider * to have less principles than Nixon, which makes me

[AndyTiedye]

53. They Had Already Taken The Football Away From Nixon By Then

and taken other measures to guard against option #3.

[robertpaulsen]

55. But who will take the football away from the Chimp?

It's really scary how this misadministration tosses the word "nuclear" around like it's some game. We hear about mini-nukes as a tactical option in the WOT. We hear about the "nuclear option", taking away the Congressional right to filibuster. And of course the everpresent fear of nuclear terrorism filtered through the Corporate Media to keep us in line. The word is used so casually, like the eventuality that nukes will be used is a fait accompli.

I know Nixon had no nuclear capability (thank God) in his last days as President, but he did still retain the capability to declare martial law. He knew though that it would tear the country apart for him to employ that option for his personal political protection. He chose the higher road. I doubt Dumbya would do the same.

[AndyTiedye]

60. Nobody. That Is The Problem.

[rateyes]

6. If Bush ends up trying to get rid of Fitzgerald...

it, IMO, will be the biggest mistake of his political career, next to having Cindy Sheehand arrested.

This is deja vu all over again. I feel like I'm living 1972, 1973 all over again, and praying for the same result. Only, we need Cheney to get caught like Agnew did before the resignation.

[robertpaulsen]

10. Remember who Scooter Libby works for!

I'm praying for both the Chimp and Cheney to be named as unindicted co-conspirators by Fitzgerald. I think at that point Cheney would have another "heart attack" and Bush would replace him before resigning.

My worst fear as a replacement: old BFEE friend James Baker. Seriously, we're all in for a wild ride here.

[seemslikeadream]

12. Wild Ride on the Techtonic Plates

Are Josh Marshall's TECHTONIC PLATES finally starting to move?

A few points before signing off, though. You may have noticed a slight down-tick in the frequency of posts of late. And that’s for a few different reasons. But a principal one is that I and several colleagues have been working on a story that, if and when it comes to fruition — and I’m confident it shall — should shuffle the tectonic plates under that capital city where I normally hang my hat. So that’s something to look forward to in the not too distant future. And that’s taken some of my time away from TPM and prevented me from sharing with you some delectable tidbits which otherwise I would have loved to have done.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

[robertpaulsen]

17. Plame + AIPAC = TECTONIC PLATES

From September 30:

Is Justice Being Delayed by Bush Administration Politics?

snip

We now know that the Niger story involved the forgery of documents by a man with ties to Italian military intelligence, and that moreover Italian military intelligence has ties to Michael Ledeen, Harold Rhode and Lawrence Franklin, pro-Likud Neoconservatives, two of whom had high-level positions in the Pentagon and all three of whom were tightly networked with the American Enterprise Institute. Franklin (a Neoconservative Catholic) is being investigated for spying on the US for Israel. The nexus of Italian military intelligence, the office of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, and the Neoconservatives in the Pentagon suggests a network of conspiracy aimed at dragging the US into wars against Iraq and Iran. The Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq after the war was in some significant part staffed by young people who had initially applied to work at the American Enterprise Institute as interns.

Joe Wilson was sent to Niger by the CIA in response to a request by Dick Cheney that they investigate the story of the Iraq uranium purchases, and he came to the (correct) conclusion that the whole idea was implausible given the structure of the industry in Niger, which was heavily under the control of European companies. The Neoconservatives around Dick Cheney, including Scooter Libby and John Hannah, were highly commited to the Niger uranium story as a casus belli against Iraq, and were furious when Wilson revealed that he had shown it false in spring of 2002. They were convinced that the CIA was behind this strike at their credibility, and that Valerie Plame had been the one who managed to get Wilson sent. That is, in their paranoid world, Wilson's honest reportage of the facts was a CIA plot against the Iraq War and perhaps against the Neoconservatives around Cheney and in the Pentagon.


It has been being leaked for many months now that the FBI believes the leak came from persons in Cheney's circle, possibly John Hannah and/or Scooter Libby. The FBI could well be ready to move in the case. But I have been told that it has orders from the White House to back off until later this fall.

There has likewise been no arrest of Franklin, though one was expected by now. This is not, as the Neoconservatives and their supporters in the press are beginning to allege, because the case against Franklin is weak. Rumors are flying in Washington that the FBI found a whole cache of classified documents in his house. If this is true, it was illegal for him to keep them there. We know that the evidence against Franklin was so air tight that Franklin was turned by the FBI, and was attempting to gather incriminating evidence against other Neoconservatives on their behalf. At some point the FBI as a courtesy let Franklin's boss, Douglas Feith, know of their investigation, and apparently soon after the story was leaked to the press.

Is it possible that Franklin hasn't been charged yet not because the case is weak, but because the White House does not want to anger the powerful AIPAC lobbying organization just before an election, and does not want to risk alienating Neoconservative voters in swing states like Florida? Indeed, isn't it likely that the Franklin investigation was leaked to the press by persons in the Pentagon who feared they were under investigation, and who knew very well that such a story leaked in late August before the election would get the investigation squelched or much delayed?

more...

http://www.juancole.com/2004_09_01_juancole_archive.htm...

[hootinholler]

50. I think those are more like the forces under the plates...

The plates are the Executive branch, DOJ, DOD, CIA, DHS, and perhaps Congress.

Add to the Plame and AIPAC forces: Sibel Edmunds and the Turkish Connections, the holes in the 911 committee Report. That's the pressure that will move the plates.

-Hoot

[robertpaulsen]

56. Don't forget the State Department.

There was a great dailykos article I'll try to find exploring the possibility that the reason the White House wouldn't give Congress the papers on who Bolton was spying on is that one of those names might have been Valerie Plame. Then there's that State Dept memo that made its way onto Air Force One. Also the current head of State, CondoLIESa, might be connected with the WHIG "workup" on Wilson, which would hopefully get her indicted on a conspiracy charge.

I guess the question is: who isn't going to have their name dragged through the mud with this multiplicity of scandals? I say let the plates move, the sooner the better!

[rateyes]

26. Would a replacement VP have to be confirmed

by the Senate? Seems like Ford had to. Can't remember.

[robertpaulsen]

33. Good question!

It would make sense, but I'll try researching to see if I can find the correct answer. The Senate, as it currently exists, would put a confirmation on whoever he selects no problem. Unless it's Roy Moore, or someone that ridiculous.

[robertpaulsen]

37. I found the answer: yes.

At least, that was the case with Gerald Ford:

Ford's nomination was subject to confirmation in both the Senate and House, where Democrats held commanding majorities. Because of the Watergate scandal, congressional Democrats were concerned that the individual they confirmed as vice president might well become president before Nixon's term was completed. Liberals expressed displeasure with Ford's conservative voting record on social welfare and other domestic issues and his undeviating loyalty to President Nixon's foreign policies but did not believe they could withhold confirmation merely because of policy disagreements. A few liberals, led by New York Representative Bella Abzug, tried to block action on Ford's nomination, anticipating that Nixon's eventual removal would make House Speaker Albert president. Albert, however, pushed for Ford's speedy confirmation. Then, on October 20, Nixon fired Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox in defiance of his attempts to subpoena the White House tape recordings, an event the press dubbed the "Saturday Night Massacre." Both Democrats and Republicans now felt it legitimate to ask what position Ford would take as president on such questions as executive privilege and the independent jurisdictions of the legislative and judicial branches. Congress appeared to hold Ford's nomination hostage until Nixon complied with the subpoenas of his tapes.

White House chief of staff Alexander Haig worried that, if Nixon were impeached before Ford became vice president, Democrats might delay his confirmation in order to make Speaker Albert president. Haig therefore helped break the logjam by pressing Nixon to move on the appointment of a new special prosecutor and a new attorney general (since Elliot Richardson had resigned rather than fire Cox), as well as to guarantee some compliance on the matter of the tapes. On November 27 the Senate voted 92 to 3 to confirm Ford, and on December 6, the House agreed, 387 to 35 (with Ford voting "present"). President Nixon wanted Ford to take the oath of office in the East Room of the White House, but Ford thought it more appropriate to hold the ceremony in the Capitol, where he had served for a quarter of a century. Nixon had little desire to appear in a House chamber where impeachment motions were being filed against him, and where he might be booed, but at last he relented. Addressing his enthusiastic former colleagues, the new vice president modestly identified himself as "a Ford, not a Lincoln." General Haig complained about the atmosphere in the House chamber: "Ford was treated throughout the ceremony and afterwards as a President-in-waiting, especially by Republicans, and there can be little question that Richard Nixon's presidency was over, in their minds, from the moment his successor took the oath."

http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/gene...

[rateyes]

39. Good find!

We can always filibuster!!

[AndyTiedye]

54. Wanna Bet He Tries For 2 in the Same Week?

There is no limit to his hubris.

But it's not like 1973 at all. We lost Congress, so there can be no impeachment no matter what.

[mtnester]

8. Special Counsel is just that

if a president could remove him, I would think Clinton maybe would have thought about doing just that, or even a majority Dem congress.

Now, since Clinton did not remove that small piece of shit (what WAS his name??? Starr??), I agree that he COULD not do it, even though I don't have the legalese like the OP stated.

That being said, I fully believe that Mr. Skull and Bones can make Fitz's life miserable, even to possibly compromising the case (leaks that "appear" to come from Fitz, etc). But no firing of Special Counsel.

I just think Fitz better hurry it up is all.

[Sgent]

11. Fitzgerald

is not the same legally as Ken Star. Congress never renewed the special council law when it expired. Fitz is in the same place as far as I can tell as the Nixon special prosecutor.

The Sp. Pros. law had the AG ask the DC Court of Appeals to appoint a special prosecutor. The Court of Appeals was then the supervising authority. This process was specifically outlined in law.

With Fitz, Bush asked the AG to appoint an investigator. The AG went through a different procedure, and delegated his authority to Fitz. IMHO, there is a real quesiton about whether the AG can do that or not, which may never be answered -- but at a minimum could be used to pressure Fitz.

[robertpaulsen]

14. I hope he hurries too because I can't wait to see the FROGMARCH!

You're right, the neocons will do their damndest to throw the kitchen sink at Fitzgerald in a desperate attempt to slow the bleeding.

BTW, I thought Mr. Skull and Bones wasn't coming in until October, but the recent Newsweek article made it sound like he was taking over Comey's job right now. Do you know which is correct?

[Just Me]

24. The reason I hope he hurries,...to prevent the incitement of a world war.

These f*ckers are quite serious about their "crusade" to gain global control. That's why I am on edge, every freakin' day.

[Me.]

34. What Concerns Me

Is that they haven't followed or respected the law up to now, so why do we think they will begin doing so? And if they try, where are the lawmakers who will stand up for Fitz? So far they are a fairly lily livered bunch. Where is his support?

[robertpaulsen]

40. It is scary to consider how far outside the law they're willing to go.

We've already experience a New Pearl Harbor. I'm not sure what you think about their involvement in that, but I don't think anyone really knows to what extent they are willing to go to hang on to their power. I'm too scared to think of the possibilities.

JHB basically pointed out in a post above that I was posting reality based information without taking into account that the reins of power are held by CRIMINALS! People who have no respect for the law.

I remember last year on the Plame threads, H2O Man said this would create the greatest Constitutional crisis this nation has ever faced. (Am I quoting you right H2O Man?) I'm afraid he's right. But I also believe we will win in the end.

[Me.]

44. One Solution

is to keep our voices raised, it is up to all of us to lead because clearly those we entrusted with the job are not up to the task. We have to educate ourselves on what the facts are and not leave them any breathing room. We cannot let up on this. As for 9/11 I believe in the possibilities of LIHOP, more evidence is needed for me to go further than that. So if they will disregard the lives of thousands of Americans directly and indirectly, if they will send this nation's sons and daughters off to a faked war, determinedly bankrupt the country and turn our quality of life over to the corporations why should they believe they won't do everything they can to stop those, Fitzgerald & McNulty, that would expose their treason and duplicity?

[Just Me]

46. Well, "they" (the coup) already imposed a constitutional crisis,...

,..and "they" completely misdiagnosed the reaction *LOL*.

"They" also "misunderestimated" their own power,...the freakin' bastards!!!

EW!!!! "They" so deserve being tanked in every political and personal way.

I can't friggin' wait until they get precisely what they deserve,...precisely what they have delivered unto themselves.

[lovuian]

13. Guess they already were expecting Bush to pull a fast one

glad they were prepared!!!

[AnnInLa]

15. I had heard that it expires in October

but that was MSM. I think the main concern from the lefty bloggers that I read was that Fitz will have to report to this new "boss" who will then have no compunction about reporting all info to the WH, allowing for....who knows?

[H2O Man]

18. That isn't a problem.

The judge can grant extensions for Fitzgerald as he sees fit. Last year, in mid-July, he gave Fitzgerald his first extension. The administration has no say in that.

[robertpaulsen]

19. Fitz reports to NO ONE. That's the beauty of his job.

Be sure to read the whole article, it explains it better than I could. Basically, his job as US Attorney for the northern district of Illinois expires in October. His job as Special Counsel investigating Plamegate does not. As for who he reports to, read this snip:

As you will soon see, Fitzgerald's appointment as Special Counsel, the first of its kind in the history of the United States, was meticulously crafted to withstand the coming onslaught.

Speculation is running rampant as to whether Patrick Fitzgerald and his grand jury investigation will be shut down by Bush administration operatives. You may believe that Bush cannot risk the political fallout associated with removing Fitzgerald, but his team of fascist criminals will shoot first and ask questions...never.

These are the same people who carefully calculated they could openly commit Treason by outing Valerie Plame and her CIA network. They weren't worried about the fall out then, and they won't be worried about it now.

It's not political fall out that will prevent the Bush death squad from removing Fitzgerald; their obstacle is the law. It doesn't matter whether they put all of Skull and Bones in the Justice Department and relocate the DOJ to a tomb in New Haven, the law protects Patrick Fitzgerald's mandate from all intervention. Neither Bush nor his Justice Department cronies have the legal authority to remove Fitzgerald as Special Counsel or to prematurely end his grand jury. You can thank James Comey for this.

This is GREAT news!

[sattahipdeep]

57. Birds of a feather flock together

Doves dont fly with Buzzards....

Patrick J. Fitzgerald began serving as the United States Attorney for the
Northern District of Illinois on September 1, 2001. Mr. Fitzgerald was initially
appointed on an interim basis by Attorney General John Ashcroft before being
nominated by President George W. Bush. The United States Senate confirmed his
nomination by unanimous consent on October 23, 2001, and President Bush signed
his commission on October 29, 2001.

http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/aboutus/patrickjfizgerald...

Who does Fitzgerald report to?

[robertpaulsen]

59. Apples and oranges.

Read the whole article, it explains the difference between his position as United States Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois and his position as Special Prosecutor. It's not the same. Or are you trying to suggest something else that I'm not getting?

[sattahipdeep]

61. Have a good day robertpaulsen thank you

I see this one way and you see it another.
We can only hope that Mr. Fitzgerald is on our side.

Only time will tell.

We have caught the government lying to us. What will Mr. Fitzgerald do about it?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/08/images/...

[kohodog]

21. I read somewhere today that Gonzalez said that Fitzgerald's appointment

will be extended. He said there wouldn't be a move to axe him (maybe because they can't). I'll try to find the story.

Here is one from ABC:

http://abclocal.go.com/wls/news/080805_ns_fitzgerald.ht...

US attorney general gives Fitzgerald vote of confidence

By Andy Shaw
August 8, 2005 — US Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald got a vote of confidence from his boss Monday. There had been speculation Fitzgerald's aggressive investigations in Chicago and Washington might have angered important people and that Fitzgerald might not get reappointed.
ABC7 Video
Patrick Fitzgerald makes a lot of powerful people squirm by aggressively prosecuting high-level political corruption in both parties and by forcing reporters to either reveal their sources in the CIA leak case or go to jail. So, there has been speculation that President Bush might be under pressure to replace Fitzgerald when his term expires in October. But if Monday is any indication, Fitzgerald is a lot safer than the people he is going after.

The US attorney general, Alberto Gonzalez made it clear in Chicago Monday that a controversial and high-visibility justice department subordinate, US Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald, will probably be reappointed by President Bush when his four-year term expires in October.

more

[robertpaulsen]

35. Well, they're acting nice now...

But we'll see what happens when indictments are issued.

Actually that article is referring to his position as US Attorney for the post 4 years in Chicago. It's not referring to his position as Special Prosecutor on the Plame case that Comey appointed him to. But you're right, there wouldn't be a move to axe him because they can't.

Good find. Funny to see them brownnose, hoping against hope there won't be indictments.

[H2O Man]

20. When Comey delegated

that authority, the DoJ did not confirm it. More, Comey expressly reserved the right to revoke Fitzgerald's authority. I've read the information you link to, and agree that there wold be a legal conflict if the administration tried to fire Fitzgerald. However, the stance that Fitzgerald is untouchable is not correct.

That said: he would have to make an error, similar to what Cox did in Watergate, which would create the opportunity to fire him. Of course, we all know that Tricky Dick didn't fire Archibald for overstepping his mandate, and reviewing Nixon's properties, or for letting an aide speak to the press abour Bebe Rebozo. But Cox made a few small errors that gave Nixon room to strike.

Most important in this discussion, I believe, is that the federal court maintains a high degree of control here. This is reaching the area of the constitutionally mandated balance of powers. The executive branch would not be wise to step into the jurisdiction of the courts.

[robertpaulsen]

27. Good points, but I'm confused about one.

You said, "When Comey delegated that authority, the DoJ did not confirm it".

I don't get it. Comey was acting as the Attorney General (head of DoJ) when he appointed Fitzgerald because Ashcroft recused himself. Who else at DoJ did Comey have to get confirmation from? And what does that mean as far as Fitzgerald potentially not being untouchable in regard to the security of his position as Special Prosecutor?

[shraby]

31. I believe the article said the DoJ did

confirm it in 2004...not sure though.

[H2O Man]

41. I'm basing that on Dean

in "Worse Than Watergate" (page 173), which reads, "Comey said that he has delegated his authority to investigate (which is the authority of the attorney general, since Ashcroft's withdrawal) to Fitzgerald, but the Justice Department is unwilling to release the formal delegation of authority."

Also of interest is this week's Newsweek (8-15-05) page 6, in "An Oversight Issue?": "One question: how much authority Comey's successor will have over Fitzgerald. When Comey appointed Fitzgerald in 2003, the deputy granted him extraordinary powers to act however he saw fit -- but noted he still had the right to revoke Fitzgerald's authority."

[robertpaulsen]

58. I think it would take Fitz himself committing a crime to justify removal.

More from the article:

Not only was it Comey's intention to prepare Fitzgerald for the coming assault on his legally mandated plenary authority by vesting him with complete autonomous rule, but the GAO, through their approval of "permanent indefinite appropriations" to perpetually fund Fitzgerald's office, at the request of the Justice Department, has made a strong legal argument, in Decision B-302582, that Fitzgerald has all of the protections and authority normally granted to an independent prosecutor under the expired independent counsel law.

snip

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 --

He appears to believe he could revoke the delegation of authority, but that he couldn't outright fire him. The answer is clearly nebulous. Comey even says, "That's a great question". He never says equivocally whether he could remove Fitzgerald. He appears to be waffling.

But this press conference took place on December 30, 2003. Decision B-302582 was dated September 30, 2004. Comey wasn't sure back on December 30, 2003, whether or not he could remove Fitzgerald or even limit his authority. But since that time, DOJ created a very convincing argument for their presentation to the GAO. The GAO bought that argument hook, line and sinker agreeing that Fitzgerald has all of the protection and authority granted by the expired independent counsel law. This means his office of the Special Counsel is legally protected from interference by anybody at DOJ, President Bush or anybody else that breathes air on planet Earth.


I think this means that the only person who could remove Fitzgerald is Fitzgerald, by abusing the law. Everything I've read on Fitzgerald is that he is like Caesar's wife, above reproach. Which means the only way the misadministration can get rid of Fitzgerald is by resorting to illegal methods.

The question then is what methods might they be willing to resort to?

[Just Me]

22. I'm kinda' bracing myself for whatever unfolds over the next few,...

,...incredibly critical months. I suppose I just cannot help but worry about just how far these bastards will push for their dysfunctional aims. Are they willing to destroy their own nation for an ideological and profitable agenda?

Although I have a fairly healthy confidence in the ingenuity of the patriots for our country, I must confess my serious concerns (fear) that this cabal, which has turned into domestic enemies of the United States of America, will take extreme measures to fulfill their ambitions.

What can I say,...I am genuinely afraid of just how far this cabal will go to get what they want. I heard fear of one's own government is proof of living under tyranny/dictatorship.

[Imagevision]

23. Ashcroft after recuesing himself appoints Fitzgerald - now wonder

Bush replaced him. (Ashcroft didn't want to investigate Rove so he handed it off to Fitz)

[H2O Man]

25. Ashcroft granted authority to Comey,

and then recused himself. Then Comey appointed Fitzgerald.

[shraby]

29. Comey is the one who appointed Fitz.

Ashcroft HAD to recuse himself apparently.

[wishlist]

28. Other concern has been Sen. Roberts announced hearings on Fitzgerald

Is it definite that Sen. Pat Roberts will NOT hold hearings on Fitzgerald's case?. We were afraid that Fitzgerald's case would be compromised if Plame leakers were given immunity for their testimony to Congress:

Joe Conason had written:

"Evidently Senator Pat Roberts, the Kansas Republican who chairs the Senate Intelligence Committee, will lead the next foray against the special prosecutor. This week the Senator's press office announced his plan to hold hearings on the Fitzgerald probe. That means interfering with an "ongoing investigation," as the White House press secretary might say, but such considerations won't deter the highly partisan Kansan."

http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?itemid=1941...

[Twist_U_Up]

30. Let us not forget though

that Fitz is a lifelong repub

no telling what will come of this

[sattahipdeep]

47. See no evil Speak No Evil, Hear No Evil

News the establishment doesn’t want you to hear.

Patrick J. Fitzgerald began serving as the United States Attorney for the
Northern District of Illinois on September 1, 2001. Mr. Fitzgerald was initially
appointed on an interim basis by Attorney General John Ashcroft before being
nominated by President George W. Bush. The United States Senate confirmed his
nomination by unanimous consent on October 23, 2001, and President Bush signed
his commission on October 29, 2001.

Mr. Fitzgerald served on the Attorney General's Advisory Committee
from 2001-2005, and he remains Chair of that Committee's sub-committee on terrorism.
He is also a member of the President's Corporate Fraud Task Force.
In December 2003, he was named Special Counsel to investigate the alleged disclosure
of the identity of a purported employee of the Central Intelligence Agency.

http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/aboutus/patrickjfizgerald...

[NJCher]

49. not true

He's independent.

Wish I could quote you my source and if it comes back to me, I will. But it was credible.


Cher

[mom cat]

36. Thanks for those encouraging words!

[Swamp Rat]

38. Get ready for martial law.

My opinion and gut feeling: Bush is not going to resign or be impeached. He'd rather let a nuke go off in an American city and institute martial law, IMO.



I hope real Americans, that happen to work for this corrupt administration, thwart the sinister plans that are likely in motion at this very moment.

If we don't stop them soon, say goodbye to Tehran, et al.

[Donailin]

42. Speaking of Sat Night massacre, Elliot Richardson's bio

http://www.excelgov.org/usermedia/images/uploads/PDFs/r...


is worth downloading and printing. I read it the other night and then I wept. We don't have anyone like this in the administration. Not a one.

[H2O Man]

43. Not one.

He took a brave stand at the toughest time in the crisis.

[MADem]

64. AND...he had a little drinking problem, so he coulda been weak, but wasn't

He stood up when it counted.

[Swamp Rat]

45. THANK YOU!

OMG! ... just getting to "Foggy Bottom." I pray we DO have folks like him, somewhere in the lower ranks of this criminal administration.

[Just Me]

48. 'kay,...now you've drawn my tears,...

Geez.

[loudsue]

52. Kickin' 'cause this is too important to sink.

[Independent_Liberal]

62. HAHA! No way Bush or Gonzales can Saturday Night Massacre this prosecutor!

Go for it Fitz! I want you to have Georgie Porgie and Gonzo running scared!

[MADem]

63. A firing of a SPECPRO was Nixon's undoing

Robert Bork did the deed for Dick, firing Archibald Cox. It gave rise to one of the finest bumperstickers ever created: IMPEACH THE COX SACKER!