You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login

Reply #162: Sealed vs Sealed: Fitz' automatic "Doomsday Machine" response to any "dismissal attack"? [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
tiptoe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-17-07 04:07 AM
Response to Reply #83
162. Sealed vs Sealed: Fitz' automatic "Doomsday Machine" response to any "dismissal attack"?
Edited on Sat Feb-17-07 05:07 AM by tiptoe
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC