Specter Calls For Independent Prosecutor

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/24/AR2007072400207.html?hpid=topnews



Hmmm...what to make of this??

Do we trust the Senator From Scotland? Mr. Magic Bullet Specter? Major boosh con man??

And then is a Prosecutor a good idea? I happen to know of one that just wrapped up two big cases recently who'd be available for the assignment.

Discuss...

or sending bush and the cabal to the hague.

we can't currently reach. Or so we would hope, but hearing it come from Specter I'm very cynical.

It could be used as a stalling tactic as an IP first would have to be named and approved...Gonzo could sit on this for weeks before recusing and then more weeks would pass before one is named. Then comes the question of executive privilidge. If the Senate is getting sandbagged by it, how would an IP succede any better?

That said...here's the upside to an IP...and why maybe we should call Specter's bluff. This takes the pressure off of the House and Senate Judiciary on the investigation front...doing their legwork, while both can focus on pushing contempt charges, using their power, to crack executive privilidge and then the IP can come in and build the case.

Yes...it could lead to Impeachment and to the World Court...and anything that hastens both and hampers the ability of this regime to continue its war for profit are always a good thing.

which means nothing will come of it. :grr:

.. simply using a special prosecutor to run out the clock
and let the weasel AG off the hook.

just as long as it's not him (or any other Repuke) who gets to select the prosecutor.

Time and time again, any faith placed in his words has proven to be misplaced.

I'll believe it when I see it. Fat chance finding a decent Special Prosecutor in this Republicon Justice Department. I wonder if Patrick Fitzgerald is available...

Any IP will have to be approved by the Committee on the whole...and I'm sure that would be the current deal-breaker...but let's say it isn't. Then look what we gain...another investigation of this regime...and someone, in theory, whose sole focus would be to investigate the USA firings (a very good thing) and all but ensure Gonzo's demise. It'd also free up Leahy and Conyers to work on other ends of compelling testimony and pressing for further action (translation: impeachment).

Yep, time and time again Arlen's played both ends...and no one calls him on his shit. Maybe this time we should. Just sayin'...

I dunno.

I keep hoping deep inside that the Dems have a stacked deck, and all the good cards are in their hands waiting to be played when the moment is right.

But I fear that isn't the case. :(

>I wonder if Patrick Fitzgerald is available...<

He was a subject of the US Attorney firings. It's a conflict of interest.

Julie

I don't think this is a good idea. When he said that ...all I could think of was he was giving Gonzo an OPTION to keep the wolves from his door. Have Gonzo appoint some doofus Special Prosecutor (one of his hand picked lackeys) and that will get everything off the Judiciary Committees calendars for the next year until the election. I don't think Gonzo would appoint Fitz but one of the Dem Senators did mention calling Fitz up to the hill to testify.

From Leahy's opening statement...I wonder if he would go along with Specter on this, though. Leahy seems pretty worked up over Gonzo's lies.

I hope Specter doesn't have the power to do this (make the suggestion that Gonzo then obeys)...but then...it seems Repugs get everything they want in the end.

There is a big difference between Special and Independent. And I agree that it's another kick the can tactic...why I put this up and wanted some feedback.

I don't see Fitz's possible testimony...which would be in the Plame leak/Scooter commutation investigation would be able to dovetail into the USA mess (even though we know he was on "the list"). But if this gives Leahy another weapon that can be used to investigate...this is where it could be a benefit. Again...my cynicism drips here.

You know I'm gung-ho on Inherent Contemp and Leahy looks ready (if he isn't Schumer sure is) to push for a contempt charge here...or even a referal to the House of perjury for Mr. Conyers to begin work on.

The one saving grace I have seen from the USA scandal is that there still are many dedicated prosecutors out there who have spoken out strongly against the politicization of the DOJ...here's hoping what comes around goes around and some of these people get a chance to do proper justice.

:hi:

I thought it odd that Gonzo was asked if he or anyone in Justice would have an objection to Fitz testifying since, as you say, Fitz has nothing to do with USAttorney firings. Just to throw that out there seemed off the subject. I wondered if it was a little shot across the bow to Gonzo/Bush from the Dems since Specter was pushing Special Prosecutor. Also...I don't think that the Senate has power to confirm a Special Prosecuter as one poster said. Seems I remember with Nixon that it's only the DOJ who can do that. Plus, I think it was Schumer who kept pressing who in the JD could appoint one since the whole DOJ is involved. Gonzo said the Solicitor General would be responsible for that. Ted Olson has resigned that job...but I have no idea who replaced him.

:hi:

Remember...his name appeared on one of the lists. Plus he is was appointed by James Comey and surely felt pressures on many of the investigations he was undertaking. Not just Scooter, but George Ryan and then Conrad Black. You know that had to have Ms. Goodling and Taylor and Mr. Sampson's tongues a waggin'. Methinks some RNC memos would crack this open like a walnut.

From what I've read, it appears the first step in a contempt citation would be to refer to the DOJ and then onto the First Circuit court...where a Gonzo lakey, i think his name is Taylor, is sure to avoid recusing himself and we move onto higher courts and longer delays. I'm wondering if there's a way to short-circuit what is surely a compromised DOJ. I'm hoping far brighter minds than mine are working on the options.

Yep...we have lots of vacancies in the DOJ these days...and this regime is in no hurry for any replacements that involve a confirmation. This government is truly gridlocked.

:hi:

Fitz being mentioned in the ATTY firings... That makes it even more important that they mentioned it!

BTW: I checked out the Solicitor Generals Name. Paul Clement. According to WIKI he's handled cases for the DOJ for Rummy and Gonzalez when both had lawsuits against them. Not good if it comes down to DOJ handing it to Clement to pick a Special Prosecutor. Clement might have to recuse himself, too!

Foxes are truly in charge of the henhouse.....

:hi:

SO THAT I THINK MIGHT PRECLUDE HIM FROM BEING A SPECIAL PROSCUTOR


FLY

That's the word I've been waiting for. "Independent". Let's turn the lights out. Party's over for this obfuscation of justice.

In my haste to get this thing posted...it was noted the word "Special" as opposed to "Independent". A big difference and by the time it was pointed out to me, the DU edit fairy had taken off. I'm sorry to mislead.

:spank:

So its safe for him to call for one.

It's been pointed out this looks more like a delaying tactic than a useful one. Gonzo first would have to recuse himself, then someone else would make the pick and who would that be? The Assistant AG? Uh, there really is none. So then what? Rove names one?

Howevever, if Leahy can turn this into an Independent investigation...then we may have a very valuable weapon in speeding up the judgements and justice this regime so richly deserves. Maybe Leahy, through majority power, can himself assign such a prosecutor/investigator and blow Arlen's little scheme to pieces.

Let's push Specter's words a little.

I think that is a good idea.

I'm not sure. I think that, as bad as he is, he knows this administration is damaging to the republican party and to the country. I don't think he separates the two -- party and country -- as far too few republicans seem capable of doing that. But I do think that many republicans in the House and Senate view the administration as toxic, and are looking for a way to create distance between them. Rather than ever having the courage to take a stand themselves, they may view a special prosecutor as something they can safely endorse.

Again, I think you are probably right, but there is a chance there is more to this.

Thank you for linking it; sometimes I miss important threads.

I agree 100%. The republicans know that this is an administration that is as brutal as any other group that we call "organized crime" in this country. There are certain "clubs" that, once you join, you don't really decide for yourself what you do in important circumstances. You do what you are told to do, or you get cut off. For republicans in Washington, getting cut off can mean the loss of funds, which is the loss of access to power. You were right on target.

The more I see this, the more I see another effort here to kick the can to next year's primaries. This gives cover to the candidates and incumbents to pander to "the base" to win their nominations and get the cash and then attempt to "run for the middle" (running away from boooosh) as the General election approaches. They're banking on short-term memories and creating the meme of a failed Democratic Congress to make people forget all the enabling they provided to this regime.

The corporate media refuses to call Repugnicans who talk one way and vote another on their bullshit...and the party continues to cater to the 50% of the 25% who still remain "true believers" as they represent most the votes and money in primaries. Long-term planning has never been one of this regime's better qualities.

Now, I ask...can Leahy take control of creating such a Special Proseuctor and have the power, himself, to appoint or approve an investigator?

that the republicans will attempt to make themselves appear to be the voice of reason , leading the effort to reduce the US troop level in Iraq. I think that we are witnessing their attempts to position themselves that way now.

Thus, your question regarding Leahy is very important: we need to have democratic leadership on anything like this. I'll be curious to see what some of the democrats I think are doing a good job of providing leadership think about the possibility of having a special prosecutor.

As always H2Oman, an honor to get your take on this interesting twist. I'm still torn about what to think, thus I really am enjoying the brainstorming going on here.

I think the pressure in the cloakrooms is to "hold firm til the elections"...as you note for the cash and secure any from a surprise primary challenge. If anything the challenge to Hagel appears to be some whip cracking in that direction. I don't see any serious walk from these talker to next March at the earliest and probably even later.

This is more CYA than leading the effort...as they will attempt to cite statements made (but votes that went the other way)...and they've all made them...about how things went bad and attempt to pass the buck. Ironically, the worse the polls get for some of these Senators...like Sununu, the further right they have to play it or lose even more support. I'm hoping Democrats are learning how to wedge...if there is a time to do it...it's now.

Cheers...

:toast:

If I'm not mistaken, Lawrence Walsh from Iran-Contra was a Republican.

And, the ones investigating Clinton were successively more partisan Republicans, culminating with Ken Starr.

I think it's time for a Democrat in there.

Honestly...I can't think of a Democratic prosecutor...almost all the famous and infamous ones...Cox, Jaworski, Walsh, Starr and Fitz were all GOOPers. Even most the scholars like Fein and Dean are (or were).

Now if I were a fatalist, I'd love Geoffrey Feiger in that role. I know he's not a prosecutor, but he'd sure make the investigations interesting.

Cheers...

But, I could be mistaken.

How that guy can keep making so many right turns so fast and stay on his feet amazes me.

If the man has done anything, it's prove that you can pull the same bullshit over and over again and each time somebody will still believe it.