ouch

and (the government adds a footnote to this effect) she’s not so loving anyway and they’re willing to provide proof of that fact.

really, they put that in the brief ???

call central casting, I think we got the Martha Mitchel role covered

this is getting REALLY fun

As another science geek (my day job), I think I will have to cite these guys for violation of the laws of physics

They did some really fine snarking there!

uhm, is this beginning to sound like â€All The President’s Men†meets â€Brokeback Mountain†to anybody else ???

Numerous individuals have reported statements by Wilkes and Foggo that they “love†each other as “brothers†and as each other’s “best friend in the whole wide world.â€

it’s like we’re watching some Broadway medly come to life

FWIW, Sojourner, I suspect the response was written by one of the AUSAs, But, yes, that’s part of why I’m following this–to see how it gets pursued. The AUSAs on the case were the ones on the original indictment (plus one, plus Hewitt), so I’m sure they want to see this through.

freepatriot

That’s not even the half of the Brokeback material. There’s this quote from the actual indictment, from an email from Foggo to Wilkes:

As you know I do have influence with him [the CIA Contractor] and know I could get him to listen … that said if this issue is beyond repair in your mind–I am now, have been in the past, and will continue to as long as I breath [sic]–be your partner…so what do you want me to do?

Just to add to the snark count, I particularly like this line:

Put more prosaically, Foggo’s gravitational center cannot hold.

I hope the author of that line intended everything I read into it. The antecedent to this line is a matter-of-fact (literally) recounting of the reasons why the case is centered in San Diego. The antecedent is therefore as â€prosaic†as you can imagine, but the line itself is an allusion to a Yeats poem. It’s poetry, not prose. Talk about your double-back flip slam dunk literary device. It gives me hope for the legal profession.

ab initio

One thing the filing references is a deal that would have gone through if FBI had not raided Wilkes’ office in 2005. That is not described in the indictment. So I suspect this case will consist of some slow leaks as to what the rest of that stuff is.

WO

Yes, I saw that too, Yeats. I was torn between making an argument about science or the extended metaphor in this filing and opted for the former. I hope Markinsanfran will forgive the lawyers who authored this their indiscretions of science in favor of the metaphor.

EW is correct; there is little chance Ms. Hewitt personally authored the response pleading, undoubtedly the work of line attorneys. I would hazard a guess that its 50:50 as to whether Hewitt even reviewed it before filing. There is simply an immense amount of written work going out of a USA office that size every day. There sure is a coterie there that has their dander up thought, eh? I said this some time ago in reference to Arizona, I think there is no question but that the career prosecutors (you know, the ones still left that take their real jobs seriously) have been emboldened by the straightjacket put on DOJ Main by the roiling scandal and the fact that in many cases, take SD and AZ for instance, the office is still being run, effectively, by the fired USA’s team. If it were anyone but the Bush crowd, I would say there is no way they would risk screwing with these underlings either; but with this group, I put nothing past them.

sojourner

emptywheel at gmail dot com

Habeas snarkus!

I suspect DOJ has been using its purse strings to stymie inconvenient investigations by USAs around the country. This article from July 2006 includes a link to a letter sent by Henry Waxman and John Conyers to AG Gonzales expressing their concerns that USA offices around the country were suffering severe staffing shortages and a chronic lack of resources that essentially forced them to forgo important prosecutions.

http://lawprofessors.typepad.c…..all_t.html

Waxman and Conyers’ letter is well worth reading in its entirety, but here is the gist of their inquiry:

â€We have multiple questions about these reports of shortages in U.S. Attorney offices.

â€One basic question is where has the money gone. According to budget information from the Department of Justice, appropriations for the U.S. Attorneys account have increased from $1.349 billion in fiscal year 2001 to $1.588 in fiscal year 2006. This is an increase of 15%, representing an increase in real dollars even after inflation is taken into account. The disparity between increased funding for U.S. Attorneys overall and drastic shortages in staff and supplies in individual offices raises questions about Justice Department management.

â€As ranking members of the Government Reform and Judiciary Committees, both of which are responsible for oversight of the Department of Justice, we ask that you provide the following information and documents by August 14,2006:

â€1. The funding levels for each U.S. Attorney office for each year from FY 2001 through FY 2005;

â€2. For each U.S. Attorney office, the number of authorized Assistant U.S. Attorney positions and the number of positions currently unfilled;

â€3. A description of the process used for allocating the total appropriation for the â€United States Attorneys†account among the 93 U.S. Attorneys’ offices;

â€4. An identification of (a) any funds appropriated to the â€United States Attorneys†account that were not allocated to a U.S. Attorney office and (b) any funds allocated to U.S. Attorney offices from sources other than the â€United States Attorneys†account;

â€5. Copies of all directives and guidance issued by the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys or the Criminal Division to U.S. Attorneys since January 2001 regarding budget cuts, hiring freezes, or cost-saving measures.â€

It would be interesting to know what response, if any, Conyers & Waxman received to this request.

It is also interesting to note that â€The List†— the heavily redacted hand-written document released in the first March 2007 document dump (that can be partially deciphered by reversing the back side of the page and reading the bleed-through) — mentions â€USAs financial help,†among other topics that seem to have been considered in fulfilling this year’s Attorney Gate document request. That line was redacted, however, so did they realize it was important/damning and then literally and essentially cover it up?