Posted on 02/04/2006 9:22:59 AM PST by Kitten Festival
I'm thoroughly confused. Please clarify.....
Seems to me that Fitz would have to:
1) establish that a crime had been committed, and then
2) investigate to determine who committed the crime.
Somehow, Libby has been charged with obstructing part 2 of this scenario without part 1 ever having been established.
Where have I gone wrong?
Good point, how can there be obstruction of justice when no injustice has been committed ie. a crime.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Finally, consistent with the view of Presidential authority in foreign and military affairs discussed in prior sections of this letter, Dellinger (Bubba's WH counsel), advised that a President's responsibility to decline to execute unconstitutional provisions is:
"......usually true, for example, of provisions limiting the President's authority as Commander in Chief.
Where it is possible to construe such provisions constitutionally, the President has the authority to act on his understanding of the Constitution."
(snip)
Though the title of this opinion diplomatically describes Presidential authority as one "to decline to execute" unconstitutional statutes, it is clear, from this and other OLC opinions, that the intent was to confirm the President's authority to act, in rare cases, in contravention of provisions reasonably believed to unconstitutionally intrude on the President's constitutional responsibilities and authorities.
(snip)
This OLC Opinion prepared for President Clinton's Office of Intelligence Policy and Review by then-Assistant-Attorney-General Randolph d. Moss, advised that the President could disregard statutory restrictions on sharing criminal wiretap information with intelligence, notwithstanding that the statute carried criminal penalties. OLC advised that:
(snip)
"..........The Constitution vests the President with responsibility of all matters with the Executive Branch, including where necessary, the collection and dissemination of national security information. Because it's "obvious and unarguable" that no governmental interest is more compelling than the security of the nation, ...the President has a powerful claim under the Constitution to receive information critical to national security or foreign relations and to authorize its disclosure to the intelligence community.
Where the President's authority concerning national security or foreign relations is in tension with a statutory rather than a constitutional rule, the statute cannot displace the President's constutional authority and should be read to be "subject to an implied exception in deference to such Presidential powers." ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
(had to revert to rarely used stenography skills for that one ;).
New Dim title: CIP - Constitutional Impairment Party
My opponents in a civil suit ran up a bill of over $1,000,000 and had to eat it when they settled.
AliVeritas linked me to it this morning in Freepmail. Trying to figure out how to post a .pdf!
Who the heck knows how to cut and paste from Adobe????
Don't all factual allegations of the complaint have to be argued?
You can save a copy of it, but unless you have the Adobe Acrobat software program .. not just Acrobat Reader .. I don't think you can copy and paste or edit in any way. We'll get an expert answer soon, I'm sure.
"It is growing exceedingly obvious that the Special Counsel made a number of misrepresentations to the press and the court."
Translation: Fitz is a LIAR.
O'Reilly says his defense fund is at $2M. :-)
> Seems to me that Fitz would have to:
> 1) establish that a crime had been committed, and then
No, but he would have at least needed to be investigating
to see if a crime had been committed, rather then just
running a sham investigation to see if anyone could be
indicted for having a faulty memory.
> Only the judge decides what is relevant for the jury
> to hear. If the indictment is narrow and the judge
> declares it is valid, the jury will not be called
> on to second guess that.
Unless at least one of them is familiar with
jury nullification, and detects the kangaroo case;
not to mention the possibilities for appeal.
But I suspect this will never get that far, as the
Libby team will be denied the ability to mount an
adequate defense:
- materials withheld by Fitz
- reporters who refuse to testify
- material the CIA won't de-class
with the case being tossed at some point as a result.
That's what usually happens when you get involved with chuckie schumer and the msm.
Picky...picky! LOL!
mark
> I don't think you can copy and paste or edit in any way.
Unless it's disabled by creator-specified document
security, you can use the Text Select tool to hilight
passages, and then Copy using Edit > Copy, or whatever
means are standard for your OS.
Check security with:
File > Document Security [Display Settings]
Note that PDFs generated with older versions of Acrobat,
Distiller or PDFwriter have no concept of paragraphs
(or document structure generally), so you may have to
copy line-by-line.
“The sum and substance of his case is now clearly seen to be the difference in the recollections of Libby and those of Matt Cooper of Time Magazine, Judith Miller, then of the New York Times, and NBC’s Tim Russert regarding certain conversations. But these conversations do not involve the deliberate “outing” of a covert agent, did not affect national security and at best involve differing recollections of insignificant matters which should never rise to the level of a criminal prosecution. “
Then somebody’s fat head should be nailed to he wall.
A good part of it is already unredacted.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1571203/posts?page=9#9
http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200502/04-3138a.pdf
Not guilty is correct - no trial yet.
He's mounting a vigorous defense. IIRC, Judge Walton said he would conduct the next set of hearings around Feb 23 or so. The evidentiary rulings will set off a minor firestorm - no matter which way the rulings go.
More Democrat failures and coverups to come.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.