Archive for category: emptywheel

I’m supposed to be doing something else entirely. But I’m going to raise a point that I’ve raised already–because it sure seems like Democrats are sleeping through the Constitution.

Paul Clement, in his explanation of why BushCo could invoke executive privilege in the USA scandal, claimed
that the President has "nondelegable Presidential power" "to nominate orto remove U.S. Attorneys." It’s a claim repeated (though in more humble form) by Fred Fielding in his invocation of executive privilege.

In the present setting, where the President’s authority to appoint and remove U.S. Attorneys is at stake, the institutional interest of the Executive Branch is very strong.

[snip]

Your letter does not dispute these principles.

[snip]

The letter does not challenge the exclusive character of the President’s appointment and removal power, nor does the letter attempt to establish a constitutional basis for the Committees’ inquiry into this matter.

Now, IANAL. But, particularly given Fielding’s retreat on this issue, I believe BushCo is on shaky ground on this issue and the Democrats really need to start pointing that out. After all, the Constitution itself disputes Clement’s and Fielding’s claims that Bush’s appointment power is non-delegable and exclusive.

but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such Read more →

As a teaser for the post I keep promising, but never delivering (identifying the document from which I think Cheney learned of Plame’s identity), I’m going to make a quick point about Cheney’s request to the CIA on June 10, 2003 for information on Wilson’s trip. This email, written by Robert Grenier’s Executive Assistant (but not seen by Grenier, if we can believe his trial testimony), repeats the story that Cheney gave to John McLaughlin to verify. Here’s the story:

In February 2002, CIA received an initial report of a shipment of uranium from Niger to Chad. Former Ambassador to Cameroon Joe Wilson (an old friend of the Agency and former Charge d’Affaires in Baghdad) was supposedly sent by CIA to Niger to investigate this story. He did so, and he concluded that there was no truth to it. Wilson said that he was debriefed by a CIA case officer who flew in (to where is unclear) [redacted]

Now, I presume that the parenthetical information about Wilson–"an old friend of the Agency and former Charge d’Affaires in Baghdad"–comes from the author of this email or McLaughlin. But I presume the rest comes from Cheney–it’s the story that he told McLaughlin he had heard, and would like verified or refuted.

Notice the false details in the story? Joe Wilson was never Ambassador to Cameroon–he was Ambassador to Gabon and Sao Tome (and I’ve asked him–he was never otherwise stationed in Cameroon). And the February 2002 report, if it included any information about a shipment of uranium from Niger to Iraq, described that shipment as going through Benin, not Chad. The report described a contract being signed, not a shipment. The bit about the debriefing is weird too, with the ambiguity about where the debriefing took place. Cheney told McLaughlin a story that would lead him to find the real story on Wilson (the 2002 intelligence, the reference to Niger, and Wilson’s name should do that by itself), but that included some noise, some incorrect information.

I mentioned in my celebration of Jeralyn my friend whose clients never get the luxury of Presidential commutations. Well, he says this is an accurate quote, so I thought I’d let him have his say on Libby’s commutation.

David Moran, associate dean of the Wayne State University Law School,said Libby’s commutation directly contradicts the Justice Department’sposition in the case of Victor Rita, a highly decorated veteranimprisoned for perjury under circumstances strikingly similar toLibby’s.

U.S. Supreme Court justices recently upheld Rita’s prison sentence, andit’s that decision, not Bush’s commutation rationale, that federalcourt judges are bound to follow.

Still, Moran said, "Defense lawyers would be stupid not to latch onto the contradiction.

"The president made an elaborate argument for leniency, and I’d besurprised if we don’t see judges who want to hand out more lenientsentences citing the president’s statement specifically," he said.

I’ve heard a lot about the folks Dave represents. I suspect he’ll be making those elaborate arguments with little effect. Not that he’s not smart as all get out–and persuasive too (and since we’ve been talking about ultimate frisbee–he’s got a mean lefty huck that I used to be able to put to good use). But his clients, generally, are not protecting the President. Which, Read more →

Let me say straight out. Punishing Bush’s commutation of Libby’s sentence with censure would be like punishing Libby’s obstruction of justice with just 400 hours of community service. It would simply reinforce the notion that Bush’s Administration is above the law. It would be a punishment wholly unfit for the crime that has been committed: Obstruction of Justice. Bush’s obstruction of justice piled up on top of Libby’s obstruction of justice, all to prevent the American justice system from holding this Administration accountable for its actions.

I love Swopa. But I am astounded that he misses this fact: in a post arguing against getting lost in the minutiae, he presents the issue as one of Bush "coddling criminals," and not as one of Bush using his pardon power to hide his own (and Cheney’s) involvement in a crime. It was not Libby who came up with the idea of leaking Valerie Wilson’s identity to Judy Miller, it was Cheney, and he did so with the authorization of Bush.

This is not a mistake Wexler makes. Indeed, his resolution defines in clear terms what Bush’s commutation amounts to:

[Bush’s] decision to reward the perjury of Mr. Libby … effectivelyprotected President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Read more →

Just to put a little perspective to Scooter Libby’s little get out of jail almost-free check today, I remind you of this quote from the government’s filing on Libby’s PSR:

Any suggestion the defendant is entitled to leniency based onthe loss of income he suffered as a result of his decision to work ingovernment rather than in the private sector should be rejected out ofhand, particularly in light of the fact that, in spite of hissacrifice, defendant remains a man of considerable means.

Just in case you were worried that Libby has paid too steep a price for outing Valerie Wilson.