Not necessarily mutually exclusive.

“Mr. Fitzgerald’s services are no longer necessary, and they interfere with the prosecution of the war on Iran by the unitary executive.”

Or some such nonsense.

Serves to tie up any loose ends.

You are describing one of my nightmare scenarios. The other involves a Saturday Night MAssacre. Similar analisys, just different method

Are you a lawyer? In NY under the rules of professionla responsibilty, a lawyer has to let his client take the stand to testify even if it is over the lawyer’s objections. Even if he kbows the client’s going to lie (he just can’t particiapte, he must sit mute and let the client tell narrative) b/c to withdraw at that point would alert the jury and prejudice the client’s situation

this from the today’s WIRED blog (longish quote, but important):

“…One, there’s something mighty humorous about a bill legalizing a secret executive action and creating a path for judicial challenges to that secret action, given that the Administration has justified its spying by saying Congress and the courts have no say so in the matter. Actually, on second thought, it’s rather more pathetic than humorous.

Two, I’m not sure I understand the secret court of review. This isn’t the secret court, this is the appeals court for the secret court and its only ever met once. The court hardly even knows how to operate. Nobody knows how to appeal a ruling by that court? Does it go to the Fourth circuit or to the Supreme Court or is the secret court of appeals its own supreme court or is there a secret supreme court?

Under the Specter-Kyl bill, it doesn’t matter though. The court will never get to review the program, since the only way to launch an appeal is to prove you have been affected by the program, and since the evidence from the program is either never used against persons in a court of law or is used in secret, how can you prove you have standing (e.g. the right to contest a rule)?

For a more full explanation, this great German (rather Austrian-Hungarian) blogger has the scoop.

“Our authorities as far as I know, and I only know the lowest grades, don’t go out looking for guilt among the public; it’s the guilt that draws them out, like it says in the law, and they have to send us police officers out. That’s the law. Where d’you think there¿d be any mistake there?” “I don’t know this law,” said K.

“So much the worse for you, then,” said the policeman. “It’s probably exists only in your heads,” said K., he wanted, in some way, to insinuate his way into the thoughts of the policemen, to re-shape those thoughts to his benefit or to make himself at home there.

But the policeman just said dismissively, “You’ll find out when it affects you.” Franz joined in, and said, “Look at this, Willem, he admits he doesn’t know the law and at the same time insists he’s innocent.”

With all of the stuff Scooter knows (not to mention other potential indictees in this case), can this organized criminal enterprise REALLY accept Scooter (or, say, Rove) sitting around in a federal prison with nothing standing between him and freedom but him telling even half of the things he knows about this administration’s criminality? No way.

So they gotta pardon him.

Low poll numbers? That’s just like love – something else that means nothing left to lose. They’re going to risk exposure of the wide range of their criminality to keep their poll numbers from dropping down to eighteen per cent from twenty-five? No way.

Investigation after Democrats take over Congress? Investigate what? The Constitution gives unfettered pardon power to the Executive. No questions asked, no reasons needed. Besides, these criminals are going to be investigated over LEGITIMATE matters one way or the other by a Democratic house of Congress, and they’ve already decided how to handle that – not respond to subpoenas, fight them in the federal courts, utter some nonsense about the unitary executive, and stall for two years, until they get out of office or until Roberts, Alito, Thomas, Scalia, and one more give them a pass. No prob.

So the only question is when.

Before the November elections? No way?

The trial is in January. If you’re going to pardon Scooter anyway, why wait until after the trial, and risk damaging evidence coming out during the course of the trial? Discovery is already killing them. Go ahead and get the pardon over with, as far in advance of the ‘08 elections as possible. Give voters time to forget. Besides, people like Scooter have a sense of entitlement – they not only feel like they shouldn’t have to go to jail for their crimes, they feel like they shouldn’t even have to stand trial for their crimes. If he had to go to trial, he might get offended, and figure he should get his own ass out of jeopardy (by rolling over) rather than wait for the Oval Office to ride to the rescue.

So Bush pardons him – and everyone else (Cheney, Rove, Bush, Hadley, Rice, everyone else you can name, leaving no one for Fitzgerald to investigate, thus requiring no more testimony from anyone) between Christmas and New Year’s, when everyone is out of town and not paying attention to news. And when they have a lot more to worry about – like the war in Iran (that Iranian war gives good cover in any number of ways – e. g., “I can’t have my national security staff tied up testifying in a political trial during a time of war.”)

I agree with you, Ghostman – Libby has the “high sign” – just hang in there until after the elections, until after Christmas, find out as much as you can about what Fitzgerald knows, and by January, we’ll have you off all possible charges, set you up with some nice corporate welfare job, and get all of your legal bills paid to boot.

Oh, and that civil trial stuff – it’ll have to be dismissed due to national security concerns – see for examples of how this is done

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05…..ref=slogin

http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..08_pf.html

They’ll try to use this “state secrets privilege” in the lawsuit against A T & T over the illegal wiretapping, too. And probably get away with it.

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but it’s just the truth.