ULTRA-fITZ!

(damn caps-lock, sorry)

Ah Fitz I love ya!

Stephen Parrish CPA – thanks for the text-box explanation(s) yesterday.

Cranky 3-yr-old day…I have these all the time, and the kids already left for college :)

Kazuza (I’m gonna get it in first one of these days).

I said the motion was all bullshit a while ago, and the esteemable judge agreed with me (although I have to admit I wasn’t really going out on a limb with the bullshit angle).

Not that everything that lawyers do is bullshit, but so much of motion practice in criminal defense work is just going through the motions (no pun intended).

Punaise – I didn’t know you were around, or I would have been more careful.

From Tom Maguire:

http://justoneminute.typepad.c…..tional.pdf

So very true, EPU. But even motions which need to be filed for record-preservation purposes for appeal or for covering-the-bases purposes for client representation have to have some truly meritorious basis. This particular motion was way, way over by that frivolous line.

egregious, lol. And a big “nyah, nyah” to Babs and crew.

From fromkin today…

(And here’s a little unattributed mini-bombshell in — I kid you not — the very last sentence of Kornblut’s article. It refers to Robert D. Novak, the syndicated columnist who first published Plame’s name, but has been sphinxlike on the subject ever since: “Mr. Novak has testified to the grand jury since Mr. Rove’s last appearance in October 2005.”)

thoughts? What did Fitz need from Novak after 10/05?

Well, when you’re a Republican defendant in the D.C. Circuit, even the frivolous arguments need to be preserved, in case you somehow luck into a panel of a certain composition on appeal…

Spew alert!!! Christy, the picture has done me in.

The Team Irving version odf Saturday Night Massacre bites the dust.

Now it’s really about emtlwheel’s analysis of timing.

If Fitz waits until after Nov. and the republicans manage to hold onto both houses, He is SOOOO shitcanned outta there. Remember he is an expired holdover in NDLI as well. The guy’s living on borrowed time all over the place.

Also remember, he said during the Judy Miller litigation that his investigation was for the most part complete in OCTOBER 2004 before the re election. That caught my eye at the time b/c why bring that to the WH’s attention and piss them off for no good reason?

Unless he has ome other trick up his sleeve that none of us has even speculated about, I don’t see how he can wait until after the midterms to indict some more folks, if he intends to do so at all. His window is closing.

Not only that, but I agree with whoever posted that he probably would want to avoid an October surprise to avoid looking partisan.

Coupled with the recent freeing up of workload capacity due to the Ryan verdict, I think whatever he is going to do he is going to try to do soon.

Rover’s job is to through out ANYTHING he can to slow Fitz down to try to get past the window of vulnerability.

This is, kinda, one of those immovable object (or Rove hopes he is) vs. irresitable force scenarios..

May the force be with you, and with us all.

just to add to andy:
Froomkiny goodness:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..00879.html

Reddhedd, can’t judges get punitive on lawyers asses for filing frivolous motions? My extensive law experience, mainly watching Law & Order reruns on TNT, says that that can happen.
Good luck on the 3yo day. My wife, a saint, is a stay at home mom with a 4.5yo boy and 1yo crawler.
Tonight is her girl’s night out…well deserved.

So, what’s Elmo up to today in the Smith house?

Re: The Kornblut “bombshell”: There’s speculation that it’s a typo. We know that MS Novak testified after Rover. I suspect that MR Novak did not, and Kornblut just got her Novaks mixed up.

Zennurse, thanks for the words from the “Spin that won’t die” thread. The threads sure pop up quickly around here.

And I’ll ask again: When’s the judge supposed to rule on the gag order? As much as I like watching Jane smack down Babs, it’d be even more fun to see a judge do it.

IIRC, didn’t VivNovak’s humband get a plumb assignment right after all the nonsense about her tipping off Luskin first appeared? On the FEC if I remember correctly.

I think it’s important to remember that. She may play an important role here, and her background is hardly spotless. From the beginning I have thought this smelled just a “little too convenient”.

EPU 7 – open source pun code / punk ode

Did I mention that I can’t type worth spit? I just looked at my last comment and….

Blushing

punaise says:
April 27th, 2006 at 10:17 am

You’re very welcome.

lhp, your typos are endearing. It’s how we know for sure it’s you and not some imposter.

Besides new words have to be invented somehow. I kinda like irresitable but it might need a second ‘t’. For use describing double jeopardy? Cue music.

Christy -

Here’s one link to Judge Walton’s order: http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/op…..-2006.html

Shortcut for his memorandum opinion: http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/op…..2006-a.pdf

Shortcut for his order: http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/op…..2006-b.pdf

I had cranky 5-year-old-day yesterday, so I can empathize.
I had a question and some thoughts on the pardon issue that got EPU’d, so I’m throwing it back out there:

Question-Bush can’t issue a generic pardon, right? It has to be for specific individuals, doesn’t it? I mean, he couldn’t wave his magic pardon wand and end the investigation as a whole, though he could specifically pardon Rove and Libby or other individuals. So, my first thought–this is diferent than the Watergate or Iran-Contra pardons. Bush has a real risk in pardoning in this instance, because he doesn’t know what other indictments could be coming down the pike. He could end up having to go the pardon route more than once, taking political hits again and again.
Pardon Libby and Rove. Take the hit. Then Fitz indicts somebody else–Hadley, Card, anybody. Does Bush immediately pardon them? Bush can’t pardon til its over, and he won’t know its’ over til it’s over.
Second thought-Pardons make it all about Bush. The Nixon and Weinberger pardons were surgical, one-time events. Bush can’t pardon people in the midst of the thing, because then it turns into an drawn-out process, which becomes more and more about Bush. Bush will be reluctant to go too ga-ga with the pardons, because then he gets irretrievably mired in the criminal goo. Ford was untainted by Watergate until the pardon. Ford’s pardon covered him in scandal stink. I don’t see Bush wanting to take on any more stink. Loyalty isn’t a two-way street for this guy. Look at Katherine Harris’s desparate flailing in Florida. She’s dead to him, and she ain’t even indicted. I don’t see him racing to the side of foul-smelling indictees.
Finally, pardons are something losers do, in the case of Iran-Contra and Watergate. Pardons are what you do at the end game, a last desparate hail mary kind of play. I don’t think Bush likes to think of himself as a cornered, desparate loser, so I think he’d be reluctant to execute a kind of loser’s play.

It’s been my experience that judges are loathe to impose sanctions unless there has been a pattern of egregious behavior. They know that advocates will resort to all sorts of behavior and will skirt Rule 11, the rule that allows sanctions, but remain savvy enough to stay within the line so as not to trigger the rule.

We may consider this motion frivolous but they would have a compelling argument that they were preserving their appellate rights and zealously protecting their client. They were probably also trying to see what Walton is made of. He’s responded by letting them know that, at least at this point, he’s keeping them on a short leash and is hip to their tricks…that may be (but probably won’t be) sufficient sanctions.

I once worked a case with a well-known radical lawyer. He worked the line with such ingenuity and charm that he had the judge eating out of his hands and smiling while reprimanding him. It also had the effect of making the prosecutors look shrill and whiny. It was brilliant, efficacious and just this side of ethical.

“The Gaping Hole In Rove’s Defense” – from thinkprogress. Good read:

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/04/27/roves-defense

I’ll say it for ya, Redd “FUCK EM!”

Now some levity:

“An Observant Policeman”

An honest man was being tailgated by a stressed out woman on a busy boulevard. Suddenly, the light turned yellow, just in front of him. He did the right thing, stopping at the crosswalk, even though he could have beaten the red light by accelerating through the intersection.

The tailgating woman hit the roof, and the horn, screaming in frustration as she missed her chance to get through the intersection, dropping her cell phone and makeup.

As she was still in mid-rant, she heard a tap on her window and looked up into the face of a very serious police officer.

The officer ordered her to exit her car with her hands up. He took her to the police station where she was searched, finger printed, photographed, and placed in a holding cell. After a couple of hours, a policeman approached the cell and opened the door. She was escorted back to the booking desk where the arresting officer was waiting with her personal effects.

He said, “I’m very sorry for this mistake. You see, I pulled up behind your car while you were blowing your horn, flipping off the guy in front of you, and cussing a blue streak at him.

“I noticed the ‘Choose Life’ license plate holder, the ‘What Would Jesus Do’ bumper sticker, the ‘Follow Me to Sunday-School’ bumper sticker, and the chrome-plated Christian Fish emblem on the trunk.

Naturally… I assumed you had stolen the car.”

Will tomorrow be Black Friday for KKKarl at the Fitzgerald Corral?
Will our new hooker/limo/hotel sex scandal stick on the sanctimonious hypocrites aka Rethuglicans?
Will a Talking Head reporter have a Walter Kronkite moment?
Tune in tomorrow for another exciting episode of “As The World Gags”.

The Walton decision is at

http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/op…..2006-a.pdf

And you were completely on point with your view of the clarity of the statutory language as being entirely sufficient to dismiss the motion. That’s exactly the point that Walton made very clearly in his ruling.

Sorry for the cross-posting — in my overly quick run-through of the prior postings, I missed Steven Parrish’s #26.

haven’t been watching or listening to the teevee today, how much coverageis the Wilkes/Hooker story getting ?

EXTRA-EXTRA- READ ALL ABOUT IT!
$100. REBATE FOR GAS

snip:
A vote is possible as early as this week on the Senate GOP approach, which calls for $100 rebate checks for taxpayers to cushion the impact of higher gasoline prices. The measure seems unlikely to prevail, at least initially, since it includes a highly controversial proposal to open a portion of Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling.
SNIP
Amid consumer outcry in the U.S. about soaring gasoline prices, Exxon Mobil Corp., the world’s largest oil company, said Thursday that higher oil prices drove first-quarter profits up 7 percent from the prior year. Net income rose to $8.4 billion, or $1.37 per share, for the January-March period from $7.86 billion, or $1.22 per share, a year ago.
SNIP
It’s highly unusual for the Senate committee to seek corporate tax records. The last time it made such a request to the IRS it involved the tax records of the bankrupt Enron Corp. But increasing profits from the oil corporations are raising questions of corporate greed, Solorzano reports.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories…..cs_1550059

Who knows when some slight shock, disturbing the delicate balance between the social order and thirsty aspiration, shall send the skyscrapers in our cities toppling?
- Richard Wright, Native Son

Frivolous motions – Yes, judges can penalize lawyers for filing frivolous motions (as well as many other things), but it is pretty rare. So long as there is some quasi legitimacy to the legal arguments being made it won’t be considered serious. Waste of time – yeah, but that is a different. In theory, these motions, although bullshit, are there to pretend that all of the defendants rights are being protected, so any judge is going to take it quasi-seriously, even though it is, in reality, bullshit. They’ll never win on any motions, which is really what is important in this case.

Law & Order – About half the law on the various shows is good. I think the prosecution suffers too many setbacks by judges vs. reality, but it is drama after all. Real life greatly favors the prosecution. In real life, prosecutors don’t have so much trouble getting evidence admitted. I would go on, but that would really OT. (One thing though, why do they always portray wealthy people as dilatantish and effete? Inquiring minds want to know).

While this is getting close to suck-up territory, in this case Christy has earned it when she wrote:

And the rule of thumb in legal arguments is, where the statute and regulations are clear on their face, you go with the common meaning of the statutes and regs.

Which could have been the inspiration for Judge Walton’s cites of:

“The primary and general rule of statutory construction is that the intent of the lawmaker is to be found in the language that he has used.†United States v. Goldenberg, 168 U.S. 95, 102-03 (1897). Where the statute’s language is plain, and clearly evinces the intent of Congress, “the sole function of the courts—at least where the disposition required by the text is not absurd—is to enforce it according to its terms.†Lamie v. United States Tr., 540 U.S. 526, 534 (2004)(citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Thus, where no absurd result attends, “resort to legislative history is not appropriate in construing plain statutory language.†United States ex rel. Totten v. Bombardier Corp., 380 F.3d 488, 494 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (applying Lamie, 540 U.S. at 534). Although “literal interpretation [of the statute] need not rise to the level of ‘absurdity’ before recourse is taken to the legislative history . . .[,] there must be evidence that Congress meant something other than what it literally said before a court can depart from plain meaning.â€

A little off topic but:

ROBERT NOVAK HAS TESTIFIED TO NEW GRAND JURY???

“No one has been charged with the underlying crime of revealing classified material. Mr. Fitzgerald is seeking to establish whether any crimes were committed with the disclosure of Mrs. Wilson’s identity, which first appeared in a column by Robert D. Novak — no relation to Ms. Novak — in July 2003. The identity of Mr. Novak’s original source for the column that triggered the entire case is still unknown, at least to the public. Mr. Novak has testified to the grand jury since Mr. Rove’s last appearance in October 2005.“

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04…..r=homepage

http://www.dubyaD40.com

CBL – no scandal coverage – or at least no hookers and limos. It’s gas prices across the board with a little abolish fema thrown in.

Reddhedd # 9 – I agree that the lawyers “had to do it.” You are right, simply cya and the proper vetting of the defendant’s right. And I don’t mean to be dismissive of those issues, the defendant’s rights at least are very important.

My “bullshit” theme is more focused on the fact that the CM and others seem to give credence to the idea that the question of how the judge will rule on this (and other motions) is in question, and that Scooter may walk b/c of it, and its all, oh so exciting, edge of your seat kind of stuff.

Per Frank’s reply #18. Interesting thought. Kornblut should be more careful. But, do we know if MS Novak has testified at all? Since 10/05?

Dookie #38- Yes indeedy, that is quite the fascinating little bombshell. I don’t even know what to speculate about that. Has Novak said Rove wasn’t his source? Has he said anything about Rove?

Hopefully, they’re pissing through the Legal Defense Trust Fund money so fast that Babs will have to start giving lap dances to the big contributors.

thanks siun ! spring in central texas – the drag queen birds, butterflies and even some groovy dragonflies in the yard

congrats on your daughter’s college acceptance btw !

Remember, Novak’s article had THREE sources: one for the name “Plame”; one for sending Wilson to Africa; the last for saying she was a covert operative. I believe that’s how it parses—anyway, Swopa is the expert on this.

Thanks CBL – great excitement here and mega-relief.

We’re enjoying warm sunny wondrousweather mostly in Chitown but on Tuesday we suddenly (as I was walking to the office suddenly) got hail and then snow! mighty confusing!

So long as there is some quasi legitimacy to the legal arguments being made it won’t be considered serious frivolous

Sure there were other typos, but that one irked me.

OT
Franken has a stem-cell researcher on the show today and used the hypothetical case of “saving” a freezer full of blastocysts or a 1 year old child from a fire . . . . sounds familiar. Whenever he as asked people to choose he said that “fewer than one” chose the freezer.

OT- in case someone missed this:

http://www.wimp.com/bushcomedy/

weird film on msnbc about the bunker buster bomb test celebrating ykos … showing the underground tunnel they are seeing if the bomb can destroy…. worries about the test itself sending radioactive stuff into the air … al presented as a reasonable activity.

Just skimmed, and I mean scrolled through the judge’s decision. Couldn’t even call it reading. I did notive the backhanded slap at Comey and Fitz for the Post Hoc Affidavits.

Looks like ole’ Reggie (that’s Judge Walton to me) thinks Fitz has a nice case. He is actively looking for and seizing upon opportunties to demonstrate that he is NOT favoring the prosecution.

Look for lot’s of little nit picking of the prosecution by the judge in ways that look like a slap, but don’t hurt the outcome at all.

Everybody is thinking many moves ahead. This is good lawyering! I’m enjoying this.

OT: Mick has no ‘Sympathy for the Devil’

Attention: N.H.

New Hamsher

new thread – new filibuster

Here is the link for Judge Walton’s biography. I think it is important to note that he was appointed to his present position by W’s daddy in 2001.

Walton biography

Somewhat OT, but this may be mildly interesting: Yesterday when I was flying back from DC to Chicago, I was sitting in the waiting area at National Airport, reading Jane’s recap of Rove’s history with the GJ on my Blackberry. It was late afternoon, the usual intercity shuttle crowd was gathering, when I glanced up from Jane’s disquisition to see none other than the tall man in the rumpled suit himself walking in my direction. I had no doubt who this was, flying home after a hard day on the road. If you’ve seen his picture as often as any FDLer has, there is no mistaking Patrick Fitzgerald in person. Fitz parked himself in front of the TV and watched VERY intently as CNN explained to him what he’d done with Karl that day. A rather surreally fractured moment, my reading Jane explaining Fitz to me while Fitz watched CNN explaining Fitz to Fitz. And in his attaché case were probably the documents that would set all of these stories straight — oh to have had Xray eyes!

I wanted to but didn’t go over and tell him how much I appreciate the service he is doing for the country (I’m more than a bit shy). One man in the waiting room did recognize him and spoke and shook his hand. I just sat and beamed somewhat involuntarily in his direction. I’m kind of an old lady so I can indulge in that kind of dottiness.

The thing that struck me about Fitz was his seeming to be completely un-self-conscious. I fly in and out of DC fairly often and when I do I play “Count the Congressmen.†They are easy to pick out in the crowd – middle aged men in expensive suits who clearly have their who’s-watching-me-now radar turned way up high. Even just waiting for a plane these guys are completely on stage. There was none of that about Fitz. He watched CNN, checked his messages, sat in what appeared to be contemplation of his day. It seemed that no more than two people in the crowd knew that this was the man who had just slow cooked the Rovester over a smoky fire for four hours on our behalf, and in doing so may very well have saved our system of lawful democracy.

This is a tiny story, just the “wow†reaction of someone who’s spotted a celebrity and not a whole lot more: Fitz travels in coach like a good government employee, he carries his own bags and apparently takes the El home. He sat in the emergency exit row, undoubtedly ready to render assistance to any and all should the plane have to bail. He’s quite boyish looking, and you might guess he was younger than his mid-forties except for the bald spot in back which gives him something of a monk’s tonsure, appropriately enough for someone with his reputation for devotion to his life’s work.

I was amazed again while at the baggage claim in Chicago seeing this whole passel of travelers standing around attending to their small businesses completely unaware that a key actor in the fate of our country was standing there as well, retrerieving his CTA fare card, getting a piece of gum, checking his messages again, and most likely revisiting the lies told to him all afternoon by the Rasputin of American politics. Don’t know if he noticed the aging groupie beaming at him across the baggage carousel, but I hope some of the good vibes reached him and helped speed him on his way.

What are the chances Gonzo will fire Fitz? At 32%, it would be a good time to drop this bomb, take the hit, and keep on ticking. Put another way, minimal downside–and the sooner this is stopped, the less likely someone will flip and spill all the beans.

I just posted this on View From Above, but wanted to post it here so Christy could see it and reply:

It turns out there are various methods of setting a federal impeachment in motion: 1) By charges made on the floor by a member of the House; 2) By charges preferred by a memorial filed by a House member; 3) By charges contained in a Resolution introduced by a House member; 4) By a message from the President; 5) By charges transmitted by a State legislature, or a grand jury; 6) By facts developed and reported by an investigating committee of the House. (You can find the rules in question here, it’s on page three of the PDF.)

In other words, it’s not just members of the house than can introduce motions of impeachment. So various state legislators have introduced impeachment proceedings against Bush in their own state legislatures. Illinois has, California has, Vermont’s going to, and I have a sneaking suspicion that Louisiana just might want to. Call it a hunch.

Now, here’s the part that’s interesting, and that I haven’t seen mentioned anywhere else: There is one other landmine that Bush has no control over, one other avenue to impeachment– Patrick Fitzgerald and his federal grand jury, currently investigating the Plame/CIA leak case.

Let’s say, just for the sake of argument, that either Cheney or Bush lied under oath, or worked to conceal or hide facts of the case. That’s perjury and/or obstruction of justice. If Fitzgerald can make the case, he can not only indict them for perjury, he can start impeachment proceedings against them immediately. He even has precedent to point to with the Clinton impeachment, which was brought for perjury and obstruction of justice in a civil suit. Perjury in a criminal case could be much worse.

As always, I’m not a lawyer– but this seems pretty solid to me. I defer to Christy Hardin Smith to tell me if I’m wrong. But I think Fitz could get Bush and Cheney impeached, if the facts lean that way. And if that’s true, the Administration could be in for a world of hurt.

I’ll be the the unpopular kid in class and say I don’t think it was frivolous at all, at least with respect to the Appointments Clause argument. The statutory claim was “stretchy†and that is the one where Walton says he doesn’t have to search far to find his statutory grounds. While Walton dismisses the statutory claim with a flea flick, he goes on for pages with quite a bit more struggle on the Appointments Clause claims.

When the judge is saying that he’s not finding any case law, that neither party briefed some of the central issues well, that there is sparseness in the granting documents, and that he is having to rely on Circuit Court cases (which I don’t think either party cited) that attempt to reconcile recent S. Ct. decisions that appear to be in conflict, and going to the underlying maxims found in the Restatement of Agency, then, IMO – it is not only “not frivolous†to make the Appointments Clause argument, but almost any lawyer would feel pretty much compelled to make it.

On the Appointments Clause claims, a large part of Walton’s decision relies on findings that very much put a chain on the Prosecutor for going too far afield in his investigations.
So some of the spec that comes up from time to time on how far Fitzgerald’s prosecution might reach is getting limits, not choke chain limits, but definitely limits. He’s not going to be investigating the “lies that took us to war†or who forged the Niger docs, etc. under a Walton compliant analysis. Fitzgerald seem to have already acquiesced in those limits with his responses to Congresscritters about the things he won’t take on, so I don’t think it is a big surprise on any front, but it is a clarification.

Walton discusses that earlier Appointments challenges involved statues or regulations and this one does not. “Actually, the factual record detailing his authority is quite sparse.†p 20. Judge pretty much tosses all the Exhibits from both parties except the two Comey letters. The paucity of information in the grants leaves the Court to, “not only determine whether the Special Counsel’s authority is so great he should be deemed to be a principal officer for Appointments Clause purposes, but must also examine the more basic question of authority the Special Counsel does, in fact, possess.†20-21

To do that, Walton has to go delving into the Restatement of Agency to get from A to Z on the Appointments issue (I didn’t see how it could be avoided) and he lets both sides know they did a very “skimpy†job on what was such an important issue (I agree and its one reason why I thought Gov would do a sur-reply, but it doesn’t really matter bc Walton put flesh on the bones).
“Neither party provides the Court with much guidance on what principles it should employ when interpreting these letters. In fact, the parties’ pleadings do not even discuss why the Court should adopt one interpretation of the facts over the other. . . . Because the delegation of authority here most closely resembles a delegation of authority under the law of agency, and because the law of agency has established maxims for interpreting the scope of delegation of authority, these principles provide guidance here. †p21

I agree that Gov has the best side of the arguments and Statutory was a slam dunk, but I don’t think it was frivolous on appointments at all. The prosecutors seem unanimous that this won’t be severed for appeal, which was my big concern, bc esp with the Circuit Courts struggling to reconcile Edmonds and Morrison and with the underlying issues, I could see that causing a lengthy delay. But sufficient unto the day. *g*

Still, you walk away from this opinion with some limits on Fitzgerald that, while they may not greatly benefit Libby in this specific case, do take some edges of heat off of others who may be involved in things that his investigation touched upon.

“His authority is therefore confined to the narrow objective of accomplishing the specific mandate he was given. p 27

and

First, because he is given only limited jurisdiction – to investigate and prosecute only certain alleged violations of federal criminal law arising out of the alleged unauthorized disclosure of specific classified information and violations of federal law committed during the course of this investigation – it is implicit that once this assigned mission is complete his tenure as Special Counsel will end. (emphasis mine)

Gives a bit more insight on the NIE too, doesn’t it?

Nothing could be less OT than an actual Fitz-sighting!

From Poolboy Via Froomkin:

“White House aides said there is now broad agreement that the first-term strategy of largely ignoring the mainstream Washington media was a mistake.”

Actually, what they agree on is that Snotty can’t do it for them anymore. They have no intention of opening up to the media. The BS will escalate, rolling right off of Snow’s tongue. At least he will be able to tap dance faster than Scotty and dazzle ‘em with his version of the BS. Peeps (but not the reporters) will believe they’re getting the straight scoop now from Snow, but it’s just a continuation of the catapulting.

They’ve already told us this.

Mamyaga #56 – very very interesting.

Argh – all the italics must be my fault.

test

Someone left the italics on!

Mamyaga #56 — No bodyguards or protection of any kind? Apparently not too aware of his surroundings? Makes me a little uneasy…

Well, I just read the whole opinion (and looseheadprop is right about the little slap at Fitz and Comey) and it seems “over-argued” — basically, Walton appears to have wanted to shut down any chance that the motion would be granted cert by the Fed Appeals Court or SCOTUS, because such an occurrence would have meant a delay in his trial. So he wrote what is basically a “bulletproof” response to Libby’s motion to dismiss….

oxide,

He was apparently traveling alone, but I suppose there could have been an escort that’s not apparent to a civilian like me. These flights, as I said, are often full of Congresscriiters, so I have always assumed a high likelihood of air marshalls as well.

Also, I wouldn’t say not aware of his surroundings, just not showing off the way the Congressmen do.

Mea culpa
I am pretty sure on the italics.

Paul – I think Walton had to argue it in his opinion bc the briefing really did skip and gloss. He tried to put the meat on the table, but I wouldn’t say he bulletproofed it (on the appointments issue, statutory was dead on arrival). I think it is a Gov winner, but I think they could have put more in the record on the support and argument front and Walton added some suspenders to the loose belt, but there’s still the same underlying issue there any way you go. It will get an appeal, IMO, Gov wins on appeal, but the timing of the appeal is what I originally worried about. The other S. Ct. Indep. Counsel and Spec. Prosec. cases came up in connection with subpoena responses and went up then – not so much after indictments were already filed. So, do they get a shot at interlocutory? I thought so – but better versed opinions seem to be no. I’m also wondering why they didn’t get the argument they requested ?

This whole motion is just a prelude to “activist judge” bullshit that they are about to catapult through the stratosphere.

The headlines on CNN will be about Judge Walton having gone too far.

We welcome you to our free advertising website – Over 80,000 advertisements have been placed since the launch of http://www.barnsley-freeads.co.uk.
Feel free to try it out – No limits to the numebr of advertisements you submit and no charges ever.

Check out the resources available