A real motorcycle is a wild thing that is for leaving sparks on the corners. Those guys have probably never been past 45 degrees.

It’s American Idol for motorcycles folks and you know most of em’ are just fat lawyers that are about as dangerous as a kittens.

Let’s start at the bottom of things. That meant, if you wanted just to subpoena documents, you had to first write a memo to the Commission requesting such authority.

But you did not send your memo directly to the Commission. You sent it in to the Regional Division Office in D.C. The Regional Division Office reviewed the memo and if it didn’t meet with their standards, whether factual or legal, it was sent back for additional editing. This could go on for quite some time depending on who was in power in the Regional Office back in D.C. All just for subpoena authority to begin with, but each time you wanted to move up the chain, eg enforcement of the subpoena to filing a civil lawsuit, a new memo full of facts and replete with impressive legal analysis, had to be prepared and submitted to DC, always going first to the Regional Office before ever being sent to the Commission. You often times had to fly into the Commission to be present when the Commissioners debated your memo.

And when you were requesting authority to file a civil lawsuit, you were required to provide the potential defendants with notice that you were doing just that and they had a right to file a written response to the Commission contesting your view of the case. These are/were called ‘Wells submissions.’

Any idea what a drag on SEC investigations in the regional offices this caused? I would bet that this centralization wrt investigations/prosecutions in the US Attorney’s Offices around the country has occurred in this administration. And there are 93 of those offices to review, not just the 10 or 12 SEC regional offices that I remember from my tenure there. The opportunity for byzantine procedures wreaking havoc on our justice system is enormous.

Truthout article by William Fisher about an interview with Bruce Fein:

The Right Seeks to Rein In Presidential Power

Leading voices in the conservative movement are demanding that the Democrat-controlled Congress restore checks and balances within the government and rein in the power of President George W. Bush.

(snip)

This is the view expressed by Bruce Fein in an exclusive Truthout interview. Fein served as associate deputy attorney general under President Ronald Reagan and is a founder of a conservative movement known as the Liberty Coalition. The Coalition has launched a new initiative, known as the American Freedom Agenda. The AFA’s ten-point action program calls on Congress to:

End the use of military commissions to prosecute crimes.

Prohibit the use of secret evidence or evidence obtained by torture.

Prohibit the detention of American citizens as enemy combatants without proof.

Restore habeas corpus for alleged alien combatants.

End National Security Agency warrantless wiretapping.

Challenge presidential signing statements.

Bar executive use of the state-secret privilege to deny justice.

Prohibit the president from collaborating with foreign governments to kidnap, detain or torture persons abroad.

Amend the Espionage Act to permit journalists to report on classified national security matters without threat of persecution.

Prohibit of the labeling of groups or individuals in the US as global terrorists based on secret evidence.

The AFA plans to draft legislation to achieve these goals and to lobby Congress to put the proposed measures on the House and Senate calendars.

(snip)

Notice that they are calling for this now that the political winds have shifted? The Wingnutters are scared. Look at all the scandals and corruption that has been uncovered while they have been playing with a loaded deck. They can foresee a Democratic president asserting the same type of executive power weilding and are petrified.

I’m not sure something like that couldn’t have happened. When Fitzgerald’s filings and Walton’s rulings made it very clear that Fitzgerald served at will, it was only about a month or so after that determination that the Rove matter was dropped and that was done pursuant to a letter that has still not been made public in any fashion.

I know that several of the litigators here thought that no one would “take away” the case from Fitzgerald, but it would be a nice thing to get cleared up and clarified in connection with the rest of the purge, i.e., a confirmation that there were no modifications, retractions, amendments, clarifications, etc. of the delegation of authority to the Spec Pros. Just to clarify.

If you look at just how intrusive DOJ has been about high profile matters involving people with less of a reputation for maintaining secrecy and confidentiality than Fitzgerald, you wonder. Who re-writes a lead atty’s closing for them, they way they did in the Tob. case? Pretty incredible.

And with respect to Lam’s super high profile invstigation of Foggo and Wilkes,

… Lam was meeting resistance from bosses in the Justice Department, who had rejected drafts of indictments against Wilkes and former CIA official Kyle “Dusty” Foggo, saying they needed revisions.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/…..ilkes.html

Rejecting her indictments and shoving her out of office and it really is a fluke that much was done about this (and Kudos to Feinstein, who I haven’t always had warm fuzzies for, in pressing this and in having some of the best questioning).

I still remember Fitzgerald’s assertions that no one needed to have any concerns about the NSL (and other) provisions in the Pat Act bc, of course, there would always be some brave FBI whistleblower. Well, look what we’ve found out about the NSL abuses – and not from any whistleblower. Look what has happened to the FBI agent who did speak out about the Lam removal.

When and how do you choose, as an employee of the Dept of Justice, to abide by their rules, including chain of command, secrecy and classification and when do you speak out and risk not only your career, but if you are an attorney possible disbarrment and whether atty or FBI agent, possible criminal actions taken against you – all because too many people have fecklessly created an unchecked and destructive power in the Executive?

Oh, OT, but did anyone else interpret shrub’s statement that he’s doing enough on greenhouse emissions already as a statement that he intends to ignore/defy the US Supreme Court ruling? Isn’t that impeachable?

What else did you expect? The nice thing about being a lame duck from W’s POV is that he can gum everything to death.