https://www.emptywheel.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Logo-Web.png00emptywheelhttps://www.emptywheel.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Logo-Web.pngemptywheel2007-06-11 12:55:002007-06-11 12:55:00Alan Dershowitz “Would” Have Done the Same with Clinton’s Prosecutor
Dismayed says:
Well, EW the truth wouldn’t have done him any good.
John B. says:
well, you know he ought to be, but we both know he probably won’t be…ashamed that is.
Shame is an emotion that is significantly lacking in our culture these days, and curiously, the rich and the powerful seem to have the greatest lack of shame but perhaps the greatest need of it…
Anonymous says:
Defending Libby is about defending the Bushie invasion of Iraq, which is about the interests of Israel. From advocating torture to slandering Jimmy Carter to opposing Finkelstein’s tenure, everything Dershowitz does these days is about Israel.
It isn’t considered polite to notice this.
albert fall says:
This is an organized multi-front campaign to keep the firewall in place respecting Cheney and Rove (and possibly the CIA source of the Plame information).
If I were back in my newspaper editor days, I would be assigning the the story to the reporter like this: â€do the story on the forest. We can do sidebars on the individual tress if we need to. But the real story here is the forest.â€
KLynn says:
By the looks of it, Dershowitz and Horowitz are on the same page- again. Which means whatever Libby did, it is viewed as a pro-Israel move. To have Libby convicted and in jail means there is a bigger picture here which also ties in Lieberman’s comments of recent (i.e. Iran). If the â€kingdom of Bush†falls due to Libby, what does it mean for Israel? That’s the question. Dershowitz is hollow in coming forward on this now. Something â€wonderful†is being dictated behind closed doors…something focused on Israel. That is the only issue that brings these two out…together…
If he didn’t come forward for Clinton, it means there was some aspect of Clinton’s/Dem’s Middle East policy he did not agree with and actually hoped to make sure Republicans would end up back in office if Clinton got enough bad press for Dems.
calugg says:
Ah, but the esteemed professeurs who filed that brief are what I call â€banana republicans.†These are â€beltway bandits†who have a lot invested in the political class (regardless of party). Consequently, only other pepole commit prejury–not their peers. â€No harm, no foul.â€
Right–just ask Valerie Plame Wilson.
Anonymous says:
I would like Dershowitz to be asked, in his most esteemed opinion of course, what exactly the proper mechanism should be then. As I said in another comment a few posts ago, â€if not this, then what?†Borkowitz (or is it Dork?) make no challenge, and therefore legally concede, to the proposition that the central leadership of the Department of Justice, the AG and Deputy AG, were impermissably conflicted and that an alternate prosecution path was required. So what was the proper procedure, and if this was not it why was the appropriate process not described to us by great intellectual leaders like the Amici on the front end of this case? I would also like him to answer what specific prejudice was suffered as a result of the â€lack of supervision†he complains of? He cannot point to the existence of the charges because that was not pled, and all the requisite legal elements fot the charges enumerated in the complaint were present without any question.
Sunlight says:
Dershowitz claims to have represented more poor people than any other active lawyer in the United States today? How could he do that while holding down his teaching job at Harvard Law School?
That is a ridiculously boastful claim… clearly not verifiable… and one that makes no sense on its face. Maybe someone who has worked a long career at Legal Aid or as a public defender would at least have some right to talk in that vein.
The man is burning credibility with everything he says.
greenhouse says:
Dershowitz is a plagiarist. Put him next to Finkelstein in a debate and he’ll be exposed for the fraud he really is.
KLynn says:
EW:
Off subject…Thanks for the â€calling list†at FDL. Thanks to Christy too.
On subject: â€They†are very worried about Scooter…and you are finding the reasons why…
*xyz says:
Klynn said: â€On subject: â€They†are very worried about Scooter…and you are finding the reasons why…â€
Isn’t it interesting how we are learning exactly who â€they†are by virtue of the Scooter Libby saga. From Tim Russert to Alan Dershowitz. From Joe Klein to James Carville. From James Broder to Peter Pace.
This reminds me of another watershed moment when we learned a whole hell of a lot about who is part of the progressive movement and who is part of, er, something else – the Lamont/Lieberman race.
It makes me smile to know that Marcy, Jane and many others are making a list of the folks who stood with Lieberman, and of those who now stand with Libby. Know your enemy and all that…
Ishmael says:
I find it exceedingly difficult to believe that Mr. Dershowitz, while ensconced in his Harvard chair, doing book tours, churning out articles, and representing high-profile, media-saturated clients like Leona Helmsley, OJ, Claus von Bulow, Mike Tyson and Michael Milken has, in his own words …â€probably have represented more poor people than any active lawyer in the United States todayâ€. I suspect that in my one year of public defence work I represented more poor people than has Mr. Dershowitz in his entire career (200 days x 15 clients per day, mostly bail and plea applications mixed in with dozens of trials). But don’t take my word for it, here’s the learned Frankfurter Professor of Law on his own website as to how many cases he takes:
â€How do I submit a legal case to Professor Dershowitz?
My primary focus is on teaching and writing. I accept very few legal cases each year and those I do accept are primarily appellate criminal cases. If you have a case you wish to submit for consideration, please go to the contact page. Allow up to eight weeks for the review process.â€
Dershowitz clearly knows the media game well enough to know that there is no rebuttal, and obviously no research by anyone who is allowed to interview him.
Marcy, I love the idea of a talk show for you on the Internets! As a starter, Dershowitz constantly admonishes his opponents, from former Supreme Court of Canada Justice and current UN High Commissioner for Human Rights to Noam Chomsky to Jimmy Carter to debate him, anytime, anywhere. I can’t think of a better person to debate someone like Dershowitz with his polemical, ad hominem style than you with your masterful command of facts and timelines and, of course, snark! I do note that Dershowitz is a member of the Iran is the greatest current threat to world peace club, so I do suspect that his support of Scooter is more connected with his espousal of neocon foreign policy than any contribution to constitutional discourse.
zhiv says:
Some days I’m just amazed by the toobz. It’s fantastic enough to get a steady stream of truly important information, especially just as the earliest buds of the oversight era spring are starting to come up through the earth. But it’s the links, the links I tell you!–going to Anonymous Liberal and then on the recommendation there wading into the comments section of the Big Tent Democrat post. Holy schnikes! Some very serious legal toobz shit… BTD writes a strong legal/blog smackdown, and quickly gets hit with an arrogant brief from the other side, which just fires up BTD. Awesome stuff, highly amusing and recommended, and thanks as always EW.
Seamus says:
OT but possibly relevant-Norman Finkelstein denied tenure by DePaul University. Dershowitz can chalk up another victory over the First Amendment.
In a statement, Father Holtschneider, (president of DePaul University) said the outside attention paid to Mr. Finkelstein’s bid for tenure “was unwelcome and inappropriate and had no impact on either the process or the outcome of this case.†He added: “Some will consider this decision in the context of academic freedom. In fact academic freedom is alive and well at DePaul.â€
Anonymous says:
Ok; I will say this. Some of these clucks do actually perform some pro-bono work. Arguing about the relative amount of it is a waste of time after the initial chuckle and retort. It is also a needless diversion from the point at hand, namely the lack of merits of their legal position and, every bit as important, the outrage that citizens should feel at this full court press by Team Libby and it’s minions. Our side is both legally and morally correct here, don’t lose sight of this. Instead of quibbling, we should be mobilizing in retaliation. Start writing letters to the appellate judges, they are in the same courthouse as Walton. Pound your representatives with your opinions. Tell the media what you think on this. You are right; they are lame. Get Reggie Walton’s back, but on the merits, not the pro-bono footnote (and remember it was just a footnote to him).
Seamus says:
Woops- The quote above is from the NY Times.
Jodi says:
Walton was being â€childish.â€
I see a lot of criticism here about Horowitz â€threatening†people while only praise is lavished upon Walton for his threats.
Walton has undermined his judicial position which will matter in the appeals. Other judges can readily determine that Walton has a personal stake as well as a professional one in the Libby case.
Ishmael says:
Bmaz – I think it’s important to fact-check these guys to death – remember Clinton’s War Room, Dershowitz said this on CNN so he would enhance his credibility, and by extension Libby’s. You’re right, this is a PR war, but in my view exposing hyprocrisy such as this is the best way to demolish the credibility of the PR offensive.
OT but very good news nonetheless from the NY Times & Reuters:
â€President George W. Bush cannot order the military to seize and indefinitely detain a Qatari national and suspected al Qaeda operative, the only person being held in the United States as an â€enemy combatant,†an appeals court ruled on Monday.
In a major setback for Bush’s policies in the war on terrorism adopted after the September 11 attacks, the appellate panel ruled 2-1 the U.S. government had no evidence to treat Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri as an â€enemy combatant.†The court ordered him released from military custody.
â€The government cannot subject al-Marri to indefinite military detention. For in the United States, the military cannot seize and imprison civilians — let alone imprison them indefinitely,†Judge Diana Gribbon Motz wrote.â€
KLynn says:
Ishmael wrote:
â€I do note that Dershowitz is a member of the Iran is the greatest current threat to world peace club, so I do suspect that his support of Scooter is more connected with his espousal of neocon foreign policy than any contribution to constitutional discourse.â€
You are spot on! Especially, when you look at Lieberman’s endorsement list in his last election! It all about being the great healer and bringing the â€left†out of any slight diplomatic view towards Iran or Palestine.
I am glad you like the idea of the talk show!
EW?
eyesonthestreet says:
Yes, where is that talk show,anyway, here I am painting my bedroom and all and I can’t be listening to all the good stuff over at Kos or here?
Anonymous says:
Ismael – I agree, it just seems to me that by far the better hypocrisy to expose is that of their arguments, not how much pro-bono work they have done. Nobody in their right mind believes these clucks are pro-bono titans, not even their followers. Our positions are co-extensive though, so I will leave it at that. We are on the same side, and I am thankful for that, you would make a worthy opponent.
Frank Probst says:
Wow, Team Libby tried to rattle Reggie Walton, and the one who lost it was Alan Dershowitz. Just when you thought this case couldn’t get any weirder.
Ishmael says:
Bmaz – right back at you. BTW, you suggest writing to the judges themselves, do you think that might not be counter-productive? My thoughts on this are from the Canadian-British perspective, where judges are extremely careful to shield themselves from these sort of public campaigns – many if not most judges here will insist that mail be forwarded through their assistants. I know that judges are much more involved in the political rough & tumble in the US than here, with judicial elections, etc. Perhaps open letters to the judges through letters to the editor would be more effective? I Know judges read the paper, and I hope some of them read TNH!
Anonymous says:
Yeah that thought may have been a bit hasty. There should be a court media office, that would be the place. I may have to rethink that portion of my statement altogether thought. My real point is to fight on the issues, they are in our favor, after a point, arguing about who did what pro bono is a distraction from the thought that we are right on the merits.
Frank Probst says:
What I find amusing about all of this is that Walton more or less said, â€Thanks for being a bunch of paid shills for someone who already has more than enough paid shills. I hope you got paid a LOT of money to fuck with me, because you’re not done shillling yet.†Dershowitz and Kmiec are already ruffled. Who’s next?
Neil says:
Dershowitz … invented a whole lot of bogus rationalizations to excuse his actions. On the behalf of those who do nothing but defend the poor, he ought to be ashamed of himself.
I agree EW. Arguments that begin with the phrase â€I probably have…†usually haven’t.
georgia cox says:
I love you, EW
freepatriot says:
well, douchbagowitz proved one thing
no matter how eminent and respected you might be, if you shit on yourself in public, people will notice
and the beautiful part is that there is no way douchbagowitz can wash the shit stain off
ain’t that right shit stain ???
Anonymous says:
Ismael – Thank you for calling me out above; that was indeed a silly suggestion at this stage. I tend to get a little worked up every now and then, and that does not mix well with drive by commenting while doing regular work during business hours. What I should have said is simply that they have worked very hard to give cover to the Circuit Court of Appeals, and Bush, to spring Scooter. We should be matching that effort by removing said cover. It is an interesting juxtposition for the supposed â€Law and Order†party eh?
BearCountry says:
I heard Norman Finklestein debate dershowitz about Israel on DemocracyNow.org. dershowitz kept complaining that he thought he was going to be debating Chomsky. Finklestein took dershowitz down on the facts. Finklestein has written some very incisive critiques of the Israeli rightwing and its US supporters, including dershowitz. The DePaul President’s statement that denying tenure to Finklestein is not political is a real joke. To cap it off, dershowitz had written a letter to DePaul requesting that they deny tenure for Finklestein.
I also saw Chomsky debate dershowitz on C-SPAN. I had told some friends that they should watch to become somewhat informed on the Palestine problems. They knew very little about the ME (I know, it is hard to believe). They did watch and the next time we talked they said that Chomsky clearly was stronger in his presentation. They thought that dershowitz did nothing more than flail around and call names. I obviously felt that Chomsky blew him away.
Neil says:
thanks for the takedown freep. freep 2 odi 0.
Anonymous says:
What I should have said is simply that they have worked very hard to give cover to the Circuit Court of Appeals, and Bush, to spring Scooter. We should be matching that effort by removing said cover. It is an interesting juxtposition for the supposed â€Law and Order†party eh?
ridiculous gibberish…briefs are filed by the left and right every day, there’s absolutely nothing illegal about it, feel free to file one asap
PS Walton is going to regret the snarky footnote when the Court of Appeals cuts him down to size
Mary says:
The issue wasn’t the brief that was filed. I’m sure Walton and everyone expected amicus briefs on the Constitutional issue ONCE the case got into the appellate court.
The low-rent trailerpark trash aspect of the Bork 12 memo was that they filed it in connection with a â€free on bail†motion by Wells and made the ridiculous argument that it is so clear that Walton was wrong in his appointments clause decision that he should let a convicted felon remain free on bond pending the resolution. The Appellate court may smack him for the snark, but in that setting – where they basically showed up and pissed on his porch – I’m not so sure they will.
They make some pretty ridiculous arguments. For example, they go goo-goo over the fact that, after Comey appoints and in-house DOJ employee to handle the case, he tells the DOJ employee that he’s not governed by the â€outside Special Counsel†regulations (which specifically say that they apply to Special Counsels appointed from â€outside the United States governmentâ€).
Not exactly â€and then there were shouts of hosannah from the heavens†kind of arguments.
And I say that as one of the few who, at FDL way back when, said that Wells & Co. were making an argument that it would have been malpractice not to make. The Bork 12 didn’t really put a cherry on the sundae IMO.
albert fall says:
Please correct me if I am mistaken (and I trust everyone on this board will), but the big picture story as I see it is this:
In the run-up to the Iraq war, Cheney/Feith/et. al. cooked the intelligence on the WMD, including specifically the Niger story. Wilson’s challenge to the Niger story showed up first leaked to Kristoff, then directly on the NYT op-ed page. OVP and/or WH leaked Plame’s name (a) to punish Wilson, and (b) as an example to other would-be dissenters or leakers.
CIA leadership—either because it needed to make a show internally for its staff to pretend that it cared for its agents, and sell them that CIA was not part of the OVP/WH punishment scheme, or because it really cared about the damage done to the Jennings Brewster organization—requested the investigation into the leak.
Bush feigned concern (â€no one who leaked information will work in my administrationâ€), with an eye to keeping the problem under wraps until after the 2004 election.
Because DoJ assigned a real prosecutor and not a â€house†prosecutor who buried the investigation, the investigation extended beyond the 2004 election (primary WH objective), but was not dismissed (secondary WH objective). The investigation was obstructed to protect Cheney and others, and Rove avoided indictment (a third WH objective), but Libby was indicted.
Once Libby was in the legal system, BushCo enlisted the neocon community to set up a legal defense fund and undertake a PR campaign setting out WH talking points.
Since the conviction, the effort has expanded to a new front in the PR campaign and the legal campaign (perhaps to convince Scooter that the level of support for him is so high, that he should never think for a moment about flipping and turning state’s evidence).
The only reason so much time and resource is devoted to Scooter is to protect Cheney and/or Rove. They have certainly violated the terms of their agreements to maintain classified information confidential, obstructed justice, and may have violated IAPA.
(Arguably, Gonzales is so deep in helping commit various BushCo crimes, they don’t worry about him flipping, since he has buried so many of the bodies himself, which puts Gonzales on different footing from Libby)
How does that sound as an explanation for why so much effort is being devoted on Scooter’s behalf?
Anonymous says:
Mary
I disagree they are pissing on Walton’s porch, here is the relevant law, and their brief argues that there is indeed a â€close question†that could result in a reversal. This is why they filed it with the ’free on bail†motion. Also, they haven’t really pulled out their guns and full arguments in this â€brief†Fitz’s appointment was unique and may not be supported by the Constitution or precedent, this may possibly go all the way to SCOTUS.
Now the question is whether the accused should be incarcerated pending appeal. That, in turn depends on 18 USC 3143, which provides in pertinent part: (1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), the judicial officer shall order that a person who has been found guilty of an offense and sentenced to a term of imprisonment, and who has filed an appeal or a petition for a writ of certiorari, be detained, unless the judicial officer finds— (A) by clear and convincing evidence that the person is not likely to flee or pose a danger to the safety of any other person or the community if released under section 3142 (b) or (c) of this title; and (B) that the appeal is not for the purpose of delay and raises a substantial question of law or fact likely to result in— (i) reversal, (ii) an order for a new trial,
In the DC Circuit, a defendant who presents a â€close question†of constitutional law which could result in reversal is considered to have raised a â€substantial question of law†within the meaning of this statute.
itz’s appointment was unique and may not be supported by the Constitution or precedent, this may possibly go all the way to SCOTUS.
Ishmael says:
Bmaz- irony is lost on the Law & Order crowd. One of the problems in countering the media spin on this case is that the media itself looked very, very bad throughout the entire Plame process, becoming willing accomplices and enablers, and it would be convenient for them to be able to treat the whole Libby matter as the work of a rogue prosecutor – FWIW, I can’t really understand the â€non-supervision†point when Fitzgerald was on the firing line according to Kyle Sampson, but then again Im not one of the Illuminati.
desertwind says:
Dan Froomkin’s title for the subject; today’s column. Feel free to hum along.
Well, we disagree windansea. In my opinion, there was nothing at all unique about Fitzgerald’s appointment (which is why I was ticked off at the time it happened).
It is a standard â€in-house†DOJ delegation (under 510/515) of a task to an employee. Pretty much the same as the Enron task force designations. Fitzgerald had none of the protections from removal or interference given to outside special counsels, outside special prosecutors, or independent counsel under previous DOJ regulations or Congressional statutes or even the very few protections available to â€outside†Special Counsel under the current regulations (28 CFR 600 et seq).
There is no one who has made any substantial argument of law as to why there could not be an in house 510/515 delegation (and there is no argument to make there – it is cut and dried that the AG can appoint people within DOJ to work on things he wants them to work on). Similarly, there is no argument that the delegation was somehow â€bulletproofed†and made irrevocable or removed from the ability of the Acting AG to amend or modify, as well as revoke, at will.
There is nothing unique about assigning a DOJ employee to work on a public officials case under a 510/515 delegation. Except, that is, for how pathetically narrow the scope of the delegation that Fitzgerald received.
Comey’s a bit of a diva and played it up at the time for all it was worth bc Congress wanted to do more so he had to make it sound good. But flowers and curtain calls aside, it was just another in house delegation. There’s nothing unique there. Fitzgerald did get some pre-clearance on things he could do, like subpoena requests, but any time he screwed up, he could be removed or have his mandate modified. He was and remained an employee of DOJ.
There’s just nothing unusual about an employee of DOJ investigating and prosecuting a case. THe unusual parts have always come in when Congress and DOJ have stepped outside of DOJ to bring in an prosecutor who would be more insulated. The only insulation Fitzgerald had was COmey’s good graces and, subsequently, the good graces of whoever received acting supervision.
I can understand people wanting to jump the bandwagon on appeal, but here in the bail request it is nothing but a slap in the face to Walton to say, â€heh – you moron – you screwed up so badly that you need to let a convicted felon stay out on bond.†It is not an issue that goes to any part of his actual guilt or innocence – it is a collateral order. To throw that in Walton’s face at the bail consideration is, IMO, just trailerparktrashy and the ulitmate issue won’t be decided by him anyway. But different people see things differently.
Tom Maguire says:
Pity this was on CNN, and not my fantasy emptywheel talkshow, because there are a lot of follow-up questions that Dershowitz ought to have been asked. Starting with:
You said you would have filed the same brief against Special Prosecutors in the Clinton case. But you didn’t. Instead, you chose to combat the prosecution on political terms, not legal ones. So why did you file the brief this time, and why didn’t you file the same brief when Ken Starr was going on a rampage?
I agree – it is a pity you don’t have your own show, because that would have made for great television.
After he relocated his dropped jaw, Dershowitz would no doubt have explained (slowly, I bet) that the Independent Counsel law under which Starr operated was quite different from the circumstances under which Fitzgerald was appointed, so filing â€the same brief†would have been, well, ludicrous – any Constitutional objections to Starr would have been on different grounds.
Secondly, Dershowitz is not opining on whether the Fitzgerald appointment will in fact survive this challenge – he and the others are opining that it is a headscratcher of a question the answer to which may vary by court. Consequently I don’t see any obvious Clinton analogy here, although I suppose the issue of freedom during appeal may have come up with one of the lesser defendants.
That said, it appears that Starr’s legitimacy could have been challenged under Emdonds (an opinion written by Scalia, but for Clinton, any port in a storm) – gee, if only Clinton had had some legal resources and a chance to enlist allies.
As to how strong that argument is in the different circumstances of Starr case, and whether Dershowitz believed it applied there, I guess you would have to ask him.
Anonymous says:
Mary, you have it exactly right; and that is expressly I would think why they stayed away from those points as well as a thorough discussion of Morrison. While I don’t consider it determinitive, I do think it telling that they do not even infer or intimate actual prejudice from the lack of supervision they allege. Again, I believe this is because the facts are not on their side; Fitzgerald appears to have exercised remarkable restraint all things considered (in fact, if I was Fitz, right about now I would be thinking â€hell, for all the grief and lack of resect I am getting, I should have indicted Karl tooâ€).
desertwind says:
Could someone explain the legal term â€close questionâ€?
I see it in the Amicus brief (p.3 & elsewhere). And, in today’s Wapo article by Carol Leonig, she paraphrases the footnote as: â€[Walton] said he was delighted to know that such a distinguished group was available to help argue on behalf of criminal defendants on â€close questions†of the law.â€
But, I don’t see the term in Walton’s responding Order (including the footnote). Am I just overlooking it, or is there something about the way his Order is written that implies â€close questionsâ€?
I guess it’s a very broad term?
Mary says:
bmaz I do think it telling that they do not even infer or intimate actual prejudice from the lack of supervision they allege.
Yep – that’s the other big factor. The â€so what†factor even if you buy into the ludicrous assertions. If you are prosecuted by a lawyer who is a prosecutor, is a DOJ employee prosecutor, is properly admitted (even if pro hac vice) in the the court, and never exercises any unconstitutional infringments on the defendant’s rights or on due process considerations – is there a right to any kind of relief based on the fact that maybe the prosecutor had a lot more power (that he didn’t exercise) than he should have had?
Anyway – further to Tom Maguires post. Since Starr was appointed under the statutes upheld in Morrison, and since – far from the clain that Edmond â€sub silentio†overruled Morrison it instead cites it with approval inparts – it would have taken the Democratic equivalent of The Bork 12 to make such an argument. Thankfully – Joe Lieberman notwithstanding – such a boy band does not currently exist.
And in the context of the filing, which is claiming that Libby should remain free on bail because Judge Walton’s ruling is â€likely†to result in reversal or a new trial – yeah, Dershowitz IS opining on whether the Fitzgerald appointment will in fact survive this challenge. He’s saying that it is â€likely†Walton will be reversed and Fitzgerald’s appointment will not survive. That’s the whole point of the brief and it’s introduction at this phase – the opining that Fitzgerald’s appointment won’t survive.
How it can be a headscratcher to have a DOJ employee be assigned a case to work on is beyond me – but hey, I have no problems with the word â€likely†or even the word â€covert†or â€torture†so I’m no doubt just beyond redemption.
TCinLA says:
Alan Deshowitz would defend anyone who does anything in the slightest to defend the country he is really a citizen of and to whom he owes his primary loyalty: Israel.
Past that, he’s been a pinstriped lying pimp for so long most people have forgotten what a worthless piece of shit masquerading as a â€principled defender of law†(as long as you have the bucks to pay him top shekel) this pig-eating slimeball is.
kim says:
I wonder why Larry Tribe didn’t join the little Libby amicus bandwagon (they cited him after all)? Maybe there’s a crowd of academic Constitutional lawyers out there who’d like to keep a goodly distance between themselves and the Libby case.
Anonymous says:
Mary
Thanks for your comments (and DKos diary). They’re very helpful on this.
Anonymous says:
Kim – I have no independent evidence for this, but I having been reading most all things legal for quite a while. It is my belief that the â€Brief†of the Amici is either a retooled law review or legal journal article, or alalgam thereof, adapted for this submission. The form and method of reference to Tribe would be common for a law review or journal discussion, but was awkward for a formal brief of this nature. This is just a somewhat educated guess, but if true, Tribe was never anywhere near this effort.
Jon says:
Well, well, well, the neocon keyboard troops are out in full force today spinning new realities as they torture the law to invent some alternate legal rationale for why Scooter Libby should not go to jail for lying and obstructing justice. I guess if you can’t find an alternate universe in which a convicted felon would go free for his crimes, then you’re left with being a keyboard commmando trying to spin an alternative reality in your own universe to trump the real world.
Judge Walton recognized the Gang of 12’s brief for exactly what it was: legal perfidy. It shouldn’t come as a surprise to see Judge Bork involved in the effort, he’s been spinning alternate legal interpretations of the law that twist and turn the law inside-out, upside-down and all around so often that you’d think this little gem would at least have resembled a quality zircon rather than a lump of coal hailed as a diamond in the rough. It shouldn’t take long for the Appelate Court to grind it into dust. I just hope that the Court has a â€scrubber†installed to catch all that particulate matter. It’s about the only thing of substance they’ll find in that little â€coal lump†of a brief.
Jodi says:
Tom Maquire,
I see you have noticed the ease in which a person that provides both sides of an argument can win every time.
Anonymous says:
Jodi, as Jerry Garcia intoned, you have two good eyes, but still can’t see. In fact, it appears you would not be able to locate a winning argument with a flashlight, roadmap and magnifying glass.
Jodi says:
bmaz,
there is a quote from one of my favorite fantasy films when I was young, Legend with Tom Cruise. Something like:
â€Instruct me oh great Dark Lord.â€
bmaz,
why don’t you try to give me the â€winning argument!†I have my 5 Watt LED flashlight on shining brightly.
Well, EW the truth wouldn’t have done him any good.
well, you know he ought to be, but we both know he probably won’t be…ashamed that is.
Shame is an emotion that is significantly lacking in our culture these days, and curiously, the rich and the powerful seem to have the greatest lack of shame but perhaps the greatest need of it…
Defending Libby is about defending the Bushie invasion of Iraq, which is about the interests of Israel. From advocating torture to slandering Jimmy Carter to opposing Finkelstein’s tenure, everything Dershowitz does these days is about Israel.
It isn’t considered polite to notice this.
This is an organized multi-front campaign to keep the firewall in place respecting Cheney and Rove (and possibly the CIA source of the Plame information).
If I were back in my newspaper editor days, I would be assigning the the story to the reporter like this: â€do the story on the forest. We can do sidebars on the individual tress if we need to. But the real story here is the forest.â€
By the looks of it, Dershowitz and Horowitz are on the same page- again. Which means whatever Libby did, it is viewed as a pro-Israel move. To have Libby convicted and in jail means there is a bigger picture here which also ties in Lieberman’s comments of recent (i.e. Iran). If the â€kingdom of Bush†falls due to Libby, what does it mean for Israel? That’s the question. Dershowitz is hollow in coming forward on this now. Something â€wonderful†is being dictated behind closed doors…something focused on Israel. That is the only issue that brings these two out…together…
If he didn’t come forward for Clinton, it means there was some aspect of Clinton’s/Dem’s Middle East policy he did not agree with and actually hoped to make sure Republicans would end up back in office if Clinton got enough bad press for Dems.
Ah, but the esteemed professeurs who filed that brief are what I call â€banana republicans.†These are â€beltway bandits†who have a lot invested in the political class (regardless of party). Consequently, only other pepole commit prejury–not their peers. â€No harm, no foul.â€
Right–just ask Valerie Plame Wilson.
I would like Dershowitz to be asked, in his most esteemed opinion of course, what exactly the proper mechanism should be then. As I said in another comment a few posts ago, â€if not this, then what?†Borkowitz (or is it Dork?) make no challenge, and therefore legally concede, to the proposition that the central leadership of the Department of Justice, the AG and Deputy AG, were impermissably conflicted and that an alternate prosecution path was required. So what was the proper procedure, and if this was not it why was the appropriate process not described to us by great intellectual leaders like the Amici on the front end of this case? I would also like him to answer what specific prejudice was suffered as a result of the â€lack of supervision†he complains of? He cannot point to the existence of the charges because that was not pled, and all the requisite legal elements fot the charges enumerated in the complaint were present without any question.
Dershowitz claims to have represented more poor people than any other active lawyer in the United States today? How could he do that while holding down his teaching job at Harvard Law School?
That is a ridiculously boastful claim… clearly not verifiable… and one that makes no sense on its face. Maybe someone who has worked a long career at Legal Aid or as a public defender would at least have some right to talk in that vein.
The man is burning credibility with everything he says.
Dershowitz is a plagiarist. Put him next to Finkelstein in a debate and he’ll be exposed for the fraud he really is.
EW:
Off subject…Thanks for the â€calling list†at FDL. Thanks to Christy too.
On subject: â€They†are very worried about Scooter…and you are finding the reasons why…
Klynn said: â€On subject: â€They†are very worried about Scooter…and you are finding the reasons why…â€
Isn’t it interesting how we are learning exactly who â€they†are by virtue of the Scooter Libby saga. From Tim Russert to Alan Dershowitz. From Joe Klein to James Carville. From James Broder to Peter Pace.
This reminds me of another watershed moment when we learned a whole hell of a lot about who is part of the progressive movement and who is part of, er, something else – the Lamont/Lieberman race.
It makes me smile to know that Marcy, Jane and many others are making a list of the folks who stood with Lieberman, and of those who now stand with Libby. Know your enemy and all that…
I find it exceedingly difficult to believe that Mr. Dershowitz, while ensconced in his Harvard chair, doing book tours, churning out articles, and representing high-profile, media-saturated clients like Leona Helmsley, OJ, Claus von Bulow, Mike Tyson and Michael Milken has, in his own words …â€probably have represented more poor people than any active lawyer in the United States todayâ€. I suspect that in my one year of public defence work I represented more poor people than has Mr. Dershowitz in his entire career (200 days x 15 clients per day, mostly bail and plea applications mixed in with dozens of trials). But don’t take my word for it, here’s the learned Frankfurter Professor of Law on his own website as to how many cases he takes:
â€How do I submit a legal case to Professor Dershowitz?
My primary focus is on teaching and writing. I accept very few legal cases each year and those I do accept are primarily appellate criminal cases. If you have a case you wish to submit for consideration, please go to the contact page. Allow up to eight weeks for the review process.â€
Dershowitz clearly knows the media game well enough to know that there is no rebuttal, and obviously no research by anyone who is allowed to interview him.
Marcy, I love the idea of a talk show for you on the Internets! As a starter, Dershowitz constantly admonishes his opponents, from former Supreme Court of Canada Justice and current UN High Commissioner for Human Rights to Noam Chomsky to Jimmy Carter to debate him, anytime, anywhere. I can’t think of a better person to debate someone like Dershowitz with his polemical, ad hominem style than you with your masterful command of facts and timelines and, of course, snark! I do note that Dershowitz is a member of the Iran is the greatest current threat to world peace club, so I do suspect that his support of Scooter is more connected with his espousal of neocon foreign policy than any contribution to constitutional discourse.
Some days I’m just amazed by the toobz. It’s fantastic enough to get a steady stream of truly important information, especially just as the earliest buds of the oversight era spring are starting to come up through the earth. But it’s the links, the links I tell you!–going to Anonymous Liberal and then on the recommendation there wading into the comments section of the Big Tent Democrat post. Holy schnikes! Some very serious legal toobz shit… BTD writes a strong legal/blog smackdown, and quickly gets hit with an arrogant brief from the other side, which just fires up BTD. Awesome stuff, highly amusing and recommended, and thanks as always EW.
OT but possibly relevant-Norman Finkelstein denied tenure by DePaul University. Dershowitz can chalk up another victory over the First Amendment.
In a statement, Father Holtschneider, (president of DePaul University) said the outside attention paid to Mr. Finkelstein’s bid for tenure “was unwelcome and inappropriate and had no impact on either the process or the outcome of this case.†He added: “Some will consider this decision in the context of academic freedom. In fact academic freedom is alive and well at DePaul.â€
Ok; I will say this. Some of these clucks do actually perform some pro-bono work. Arguing about the relative amount of it is a waste of time after the initial chuckle and retort. It is also a needless diversion from the point at hand, namely the lack of merits of their legal position and, every bit as important, the outrage that citizens should feel at this full court press by Team Libby and it’s minions. Our side is both legally and morally correct here, don’t lose sight of this. Instead of quibbling, we should be mobilizing in retaliation. Start writing letters to the appellate judges, they are in the same courthouse as Walton. Pound your representatives with your opinions. Tell the media what you think on this. You are right; they are lame. Get Reggie Walton’s back, but on the merits, not the pro-bono footnote (and remember it was just a footnote to him).
Woops- The quote above is from the NY Times.
Walton was being â€childish.â€
I see a lot of criticism here about Horowitz â€threatening†people while only praise is lavished upon Walton for his threats.
Walton has undermined his judicial position which will matter in the appeals. Other judges can readily determine that Walton has a personal stake as well as a professional one in the Libby case.
Bmaz – I think it’s important to fact-check these guys to death – remember Clinton’s War Room, Dershowitz said this on CNN so he would enhance his credibility, and by extension Libby’s. You’re right, this is a PR war, but in my view exposing hyprocrisy such as this is the best way to demolish the credibility of the PR offensive.
OT but very good news nonetheless from the NY Times & Reuters:
â€President George W. Bush cannot order the military to seize and indefinitely detain a Qatari national and suspected al Qaeda operative, the only person being held in the United States as an â€enemy combatant,†an appeals court ruled on Monday.
In a major setback for Bush’s policies in the war on terrorism adopted after the September 11 attacks, the appellate panel ruled 2-1 the U.S. government had no evidence to treat Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri as an â€enemy combatant.†The court ordered him released from military custody.
â€The government cannot subject al-Marri to indefinite military detention. For in the United States, the military cannot seize and imprison civilians — let alone imprison them indefinitely,†Judge Diana Gribbon Motz wrote.â€
Ishmael wrote:
â€I do note that Dershowitz is a member of the Iran is the greatest current threat to world peace club, so I do suspect that his support of Scooter is more connected with his espousal of neocon foreign policy than any contribution to constitutional discourse.â€
You are spot on! Especially, when you look at Lieberman’s endorsement list in his last election! It all about being the great healer and bringing the â€left†out of any slight diplomatic view towards Iran or Palestine.
I am glad you like the idea of the talk show!
EW?
Yes, where is that talk show,anyway, here I am painting my bedroom and all and I can’t be listening to all the good stuff over at Kos or here?
Ismael – I agree, it just seems to me that by far the better hypocrisy to expose is that of their arguments, not how much pro-bono work they have done. Nobody in their right mind believes these clucks are pro-bono titans, not even their followers. Our positions are co-extensive though, so I will leave it at that. We are on the same side, and I am thankful for that, you would make a worthy opponent.
Wow, Team Libby tried to rattle Reggie Walton, and the one who lost it was Alan Dershowitz. Just when you thought this case couldn’t get any weirder.
Bmaz – right back at you. BTW, you suggest writing to the judges themselves, do you think that might not be counter-productive? My thoughts on this are from the Canadian-British perspective, where judges are extremely careful to shield themselves from these sort of public campaigns – many if not most judges here will insist that mail be forwarded through their assistants. I know that judges are much more involved in the political rough & tumble in the US than here, with judicial elections, etc. Perhaps open letters to the judges through letters to the editor would be more effective? I Know judges read the paper, and I hope some of them read TNH!
Yeah that thought may have been a bit hasty. There should be a court media office, that would be the place. I may have to rethink that portion of my statement altogether thought. My real point is to fight on the issues, they are in our favor, after a point, arguing about who did what pro bono is a distraction from the thought that we are right on the merits.
What I find amusing about all of this is that Walton more or less said, â€Thanks for being a bunch of paid shills for someone who already has more than enough paid shills. I hope you got paid a LOT of money to fuck with me, because you’re not done shillling yet.†Dershowitz and Kmiec are already ruffled. Who’s next?
Dershowitz … invented a whole lot of bogus rationalizations to excuse his actions. On the behalf of those who do nothing but defend the poor, he ought to be ashamed of himself.
I agree EW. Arguments that begin with the phrase â€I probably have…†usually haven’t.
I love you, EW
well, douchbagowitz proved one thing
no matter how eminent and respected you might be, if you shit on yourself in public, people will notice
and the beautiful part is that there is no way douchbagowitz can wash the shit stain off
ain’t that right shit stain ???
Ismael – Thank you for calling me out above; that was indeed a silly suggestion at this stage. I tend to get a little worked up every now and then, and that does not mix well with drive by commenting while doing regular work during business hours. What I should have said is simply that they have worked very hard to give cover to the Circuit Court of Appeals, and Bush, to spring Scooter. We should be matching that effort by removing said cover. It is an interesting juxtposition for the supposed â€Law and Order†party eh?
I heard Norman Finklestein debate dershowitz about Israel on DemocracyNow.org. dershowitz kept complaining that he thought he was going to be debating Chomsky. Finklestein took dershowitz down on the facts. Finklestein has written some very incisive critiques of the Israeli rightwing and its US supporters, including dershowitz. The DePaul President’s statement that denying tenure to Finklestein is not political is a real joke. To cap it off, dershowitz had written a letter to DePaul requesting that they deny tenure for Finklestein.
I also saw Chomsky debate dershowitz on C-SPAN. I had told some friends that they should watch to become somewhat informed on the Palestine problems. They knew very little about the ME (I know, it is hard to believe). They did watch and the next time we talked they said that Chomsky clearly was stronger in his presentation. They thought that dershowitz did nothing more than flail around and call names. I obviously felt that Chomsky blew him away.
thanks for the takedown freep. freep 2 odi 0.
What I should have said is simply that they have worked very hard to give cover to the Circuit Court of Appeals, and Bush, to spring Scooter. We should be matching that effort by removing said cover. It is an interesting juxtposition for the supposed â€Law and Order†party eh?
ridiculous gibberish…briefs are filed by the left and right every day, there’s absolutely nothing illegal about it, feel free to file one asap
PS Walton is going to regret the snarky footnote when the Court of Appeals cuts him down to size
The issue wasn’t the brief that was filed. I’m sure Walton and everyone expected amicus briefs on the Constitutional issue ONCE the case got into the appellate court.
The low-rent trailerpark trash aspect of the Bork 12 memo was that they filed it in connection with a â€free on bail†motion by Wells and made the ridiculous argument that it is so clear that Walton was wrong in his appointments clause decision that he should let a convicted felon remain free on bond pending the resolution. The Appellate court may smack him for the snark, but in that setting – where they basically showed up and pissed on his porch – I’m not so sure they will.
I’ve got a kos diary up http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/6/11/152815/948
about the brief itself (with some context on appointments) but it’s nothing to have framed in gilt.
They make some pretty ridiculous arguments. For example, they go goo-goo over the fact that, after Comey appoints and in-house DOJ employee to handle the case, he tells the DOJ employee that he’s not governed by the â€outside Special Counsel†regulations (which specifically say that they apply to Special Counsels appointed from â€outside the United States governmentâ€).
Not exactly â€and then there were shouts of hosannah from the heavens†kind of arguments.
And I say that as one of the few who, at FDL way back when, said that Wells & Co. were making an argument that it would have been malpractice not to make. The Bork 12 didn’t really put a cherry on the sundae IMO.
Please correct me if I am mistaken (and I trust everyone on this board will), but the big picture story as I see it is this:
In the run-up to the Iraq war, Cheney/Feith/et. al. cooked the intelligence on the WMD, including specifically the Niger story. Wilson’s challenge to the Niger story showed up first leaked to Kristoff, then directly on the NYT op-ed page. OVP and/or WH leaked Plame’s name (a) to punish Wilson, and (b) as an example to other would-be dissenters or leakers.
CIA leadership—either because it needed to make a show internally for its staff to pretend that it cared for its agents, and sell them that CIA was not part of the OVP/WH punishment scheme, or because it really cared about the damage done to the Jennings Brewster organization—requested the investigation into the leak.
Bush feigned concern (â€no one who leaked information will work in my administrationâ€), with an eye to keeping the problem under wraps until after the 2004 election.
Because DoJ assigned a real prosecutor and not a â€house†prosecutor who buried the investigation, the investigation extended beyond the 2004 election (primary WH objective), but was not dismissed (secondary WH objective). The investigation was obstructed to protect Cheney and others, and Rove avoided indictment (a third WH objective), but Libby was indicted.
Once Libby was in the legal system, BushCo enlisted the neocon community to set up a legal defense fund and undertake a PR campaign setting out WH talking points.
Since the conviction, the effort has expanded to a new front in the PR campaign and the legal campaign (perhaps to convince Scooter that the level of support for him is so high, that he should never think for a moment about flipping and turning state’s evidence).
The only reason so much time and resource is devoted to Scooter is to protect Cheney and/or Rove. They have certainly violated the terms of their agreements to maintain classified information confidential, obstructed justice, and may have violated IAPA.
(Arguably, Gonzales is so deep in helping commit various BushCo crimes, they don’t worry about him flipping, since he has buried so many of the bodies himself, which puts Gonzales on different footing from Libby)
How does that sound as an explanation for why so much effort is being devoted on Scooter’s behalf?
Mary
I disagree they are pissing on Walton’s porch, here is the relevant law, and their brief argues that there is indeed a â€close question†that could result in a reversal. This is why they filed it with the ’free on bail†motion. Also, they haven’t really pulled out their guns and full arguments in this â€brief†Fitz’s appointment was unique and may not be supported by the Constitution or precedent, this may possibly go all the way to SCOTUS.
Now the question is whether the accused should be incarcerated pending appeal. That, in turn depends on 18 USC 3143, which provides in pertinent part:
(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), the judicial officer shall order that a person who has been found guilty of an offense and sentenced to a term of imprisonment, and who has filed an appeal or a petition for a writ of certiorari, be detained, unless the judicial officer finds—
(A) by clear and convincing evidence that the person is not likely to flee or pose a danger to the safety of any other person or the community if released under section 3142 (b) or (c) of this title; and
(B) that the appeal is not for the purpose of delay and raises a substantial question of law or fact likely to result in—
(i) reversal,
(ii) an order for a new trial,
In the DC Circuit, a defendant who presents a â€close question†of constitutional law which could result in reversal is considered to have raised a â€substantial question of law†within the meaning of this statute.
itz’s appointment was unique and may not be supported by the Constitution or precedent, this may possibly go all the way to SCOTUS.
Bmaz- irony is lost on the Law & Order crowd. One of the problems in countering the media spin on this case is that the media itself looked very, very bad throughout the entire Plame process, becoming willing accomplices and enablers, and it would be convenient for them to be able to treat the whole Libby matter as the work of a rogue prosecutor – FWIW, I can’t really understand the â€non-supervision†point when Fitzgerald was on the firing line according to Kyle Sampson, but then again Im not one of the Illuminati.
Dan Froomkin’s title for the subject; today’s column. Feel free to hum along.
â€Legal Scholars Rush Inâ€
http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..00879.html
Well, we disagree windansea. In my opinion, there was nothing at all unique about Fitzgerald’s appointment (which is why I was ticked off at the time it happened).
It is a standard â€in-house†DOJ delegation (under 510/515) of a task to an employee. Pretty much the same as the Enron task force designations. Fitzgerald had none of the protections from removal or interference given to outside special counsels, outside special prosecutors, or independent counsel under previous DOJ regulations or Congressional statutes or even the very few protections available to â€outside†Special Counsel under the current regulations (28 CFR 600 et seq).
There is no one who has made any substantial argument of law as to why there could not be an in house 510/515 delegation (and there is no argument to make there – it is cut and dried that the AG can appoint people within DOJ to work on things he wants them to work on). Similarly, there is no argument that the delegation was somehow â€bulletproofed†and made irrevocable or removed from the ability of the Acting AG to amend or modify, as well as revoke, at will.
There is nothing unique about assigning a DOJ employee to work on a public officials case under a 510/515 delegation. Except, that is, for how pathetically narrow the scope of the delegation that Fitzgerald received.
Comey’s a bit of a diva and played it up at the time for all it was worth bc Congress wanted to do more so he had to make it sound good. But flowers and curtain calls aside, it was just another in house delegation. There’s nothing unique there. Fitzgerald did get some pre-clearance on things he could do, like subpoena requests, but any time he screwed up, he could be removed or have his mandate modified. He was and remained an employee of DOJ.
There’s just nothing unusual about an employee of DOJ investigating and prosecuting a case. THe unusual parts have always come in when Congress and DOJ have stepped outside of DOJ to bring in an prosecutor who would be more insulated. The only insulation Fitzgerald had was COmey’s good graces and, subsequently, the good graces of whoever received acting supervision.
I can understand people wanting to jump the bandwagon on appeal, but here in the bail request it is nothing but a slap in the face to Walton to say, â€heh – you moron – you screwed up so badly that you need to let a convicted felon stay out on bond.†It is not an issue that goes to any part of his actual guilt or innocence – it is a collateral order. To throw that in Walton’s face at the bail consideration is, IMO, just trailerparktrashy and the ulitmate issue won’t be decided by him anyway. But different people see things differently.
Pity this was on CNN, and not my fantasy emptywheel talkshow, because there are a lot of follow-up questions that Dershowitz ought to have been asked. Starting with:
You said you would have filed the same brief against Special Prosecutors in the Clinton case. But you didn’t. Instead, you chose to combat the prosecution on political terms, not legal ones. So why did you file the brief this time, and why didn’t you file the same brief when Ken Starr was going on a rampage?
I agree – it is a pity you don’t have your own show, because that would have made for great television.
After he relocated his dropped jaw, Dershowitz would no doubt have explained (slowly, I bet) that the Independent Counsel law under which Starr operated was quite different from the circumstances under which Fitzgerald was appointed, so filing â€the same brief†would have been, well, ludicrous – any Constitutional objections to Starr would have been on different grounds.
Secondly, Dershowitz is not opining on whether the Fitzgerald appointment will in fact survive this challenge – he and the others are opining that it is a headscratcher of a question the answer to which may vary by court. Consequently I don’t see any obvious Clinton analogy here, although I suppose the issue of freedom during appeal may have come up with one of the lesser defendants.
That said, it appears that Starr’s legitimacy could have been challenged under Emdonds (an opinion written by Scalia, but for Clinton, any port in a storm) – gee, if only Clinton had had some legal resources and a chance to enlist allies.
As to how strong that argument is in the different circumstances of Starr case, and whether Dershowitz believed it applied there, I guess you would have to ask him.
Mary, you have it exactly right; and that is expressly I would think why they stayed away from those points as well as a thorough discussion of Morrison. While I don’t consider it determinitive, I do think it telling that they do not even infer or intimate actual prejudice from the lack of supervision they allege. Again, I believe this is because the facts are not on their side; Fitzgerald appears to have exercised remarkable restraint all things considered (in fact, if I was Fitz, right about now I would be thinking â€hell, for all the grief and lack of resect I am getting, I should have indicted Karl tooâ€).
Could someone explain the legal term â€close questionâ€?
I see it in the Amicus brief (p.3 & elsewhere). And, in today’s Wapo article by Carol Leonig, she paraphrases the footnote as: â€[Walton] said he was delighted to know that such a distinguished group was available to help argue on behalf of criminal defendants on â€close questions†of the law.â€
But, I don’t see the term in Walton’s responding Order (including the footnote). Am I just overlooking it, or is there something about the way his Order is written that implies â€close questionsâ€?
I guess it’s a very broad term?
bmaz I do think it telling that they do not even infer or intimate actual prejudice from the lack of supervision they allege.
Yep – that’s the other big factor. The â€so what†factor even if you buy into the ludicrous assertions. If you are prosecuted by a lawyer who is a prosecutor, is a DOJ employee prosecutor, is properly admitted (even if pro hac vice) in the the court, and never exercises any unconstitutional infringments on the defendant’s rights or on due process considerations – is there a right to any kind of relief based on the fact that maybe the prosecutor had a lot more power (that he didn’t exercise) than he should have had?
Anyway – further to Tom Maguires post. Since Starr was appointed under the statutes upheld in Morrison, and since – far from the clain that Edmond â€sub silentio†overruled Morrison it instead cites it with approval inparts – it would have taken the Democratic equivalent of The Bork 12 to make such an argument. Thankfully – Joe Lieberman notwithstanding – such a boy band does not currently exist.
And in the context of the filing, which is claiming that Libby should remain free on bail because Judge Walton’s ruling is â€likely†to result in reversal or a new trial – yeah, Dershowitz IS opining on whether the Fitzgerald appointment will in fact survive this challenge. He’s saying that it is â€likely†Walton will be reversed and Fitzgerald’s appointment will not survive. That’s the whole point of the brief and it’s introduction at this phase – the opining that Fitzgerald’s appointment won’t survive.
How it can be a headscratcher to have a DOJ employee be assigned a case to work on is beyond me – but hey, I have no problems with the word â€likely†or even the word â€covert†or â€torture†so I’m no doubt just beyond redemption.
Alan Deshowitz would defend anyone who does anything in the slightest to defend the country he is really a citizen of and to whom he owes his primary loyalty: Israel.
Past that, he’s been a pinstriped lying pimp for so long most people have forgotten what a worthless piece of shit masquerading as a â€principled defender of law†(as long as you have the bucks to pay him top shekel) this pig-eating slimeball is.
I wonder why Larry Tribe didn’t join the little Libby amicus bandwagon (they cited him after all)? Maybe there’s a crowd of academic Constitutional lawyers out there who’d like to keep a goodly distance between themselves and the Libby case.
Mary
Thanks for your comments (and DKos diary). They’re very helpful on this.
Kim – I have no independent evidence for this, but I having been reading most all things legal for quite a while. It is my belief that the â€Brief†of the Amici is either a retooled law review or legal journal article, or alalgam thereof, adapted for this submission. The form and method of reference to Tribe would be common for a law review or journal discussion, but was awkward for a formal brief of this nature. This is just a somewhat educated guess, but if true, Tribe was never anywhere near this effort.
Well, well, well, the neocon keyboard troops are out in full force today spinning new realities as they torture the law to invent some alternate legal rationale for why Scooter Libby should not go to jail for lying and obstructing justice. I guess if you can’t find an alternate universe in which a convicted felon would go free for his crimes, then you’re left with being a keyboard commmando trying to spin an alternative reality in your own universe to trump the real world.
Judge Walton recognized the Gang of 12’s brief for exactly what it was: legal perfidy. It shouldn’t come as a surprise to see Judge Bork involved in the effort, he’s been spinning alternate legal interpretations of the law that twist and turn the law inside-out, upside-down and all around so often that you’d think this little gem would at least have resembled a quality zircon rather than a lump of coal hailed as a diamond in the rough. It shouldn’t take long for the Appelate Court to grind it into dust. I just hope that the Court has a â€scrubber†installed to catch all that particulate matter. It’s about the only thing of substance they’ll find in that little â€coal lump†of a brief.
Tom Maquire,
I see you have noticed the ease in which a person that provides both sides of an argument can win every time.
Jodi, as Jerry Garcia intoned, you have two good eyes, but still can’t see. In fact, it appears you would not be able to locate a winning argument with a flashlight, roadmap and magnifying glass.
bmaz,
there is a quote from one of my favorite fantasy films when I was young, Legend with Tom Cruise. Something like:
â€Instruct me oh great Dark Lord.â€
bmaz,
why don’t you try to give me the â€winning argument!†I have my 5 Watt LED flashlight on shining brightly.