Waas' Latest on the U.S. Attorney Firings

By Jeralyn, Section Misconduct
Posted on Wed Feb 18, 2009 at 01:59:14 PM EST
Tags: U.S. Attorneys firing (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Murray Waas has the latest on the probe into the U.S. Attorney firings. It's partly about the nine Bush officials who refused to cooperate.

Karl Rove (as we noted the other day from the interview his lawyer gave to Raw Story) are cooperating now.

Rove will not rely on (1) a White House claim of immunity for senior advisors to the president, (2) executive privilege or (3) his personal privilege against self-incrimination. He will cooperate with the investigation.

[More...]

Did Rove get immunity in exchange for his cooperation? Luskin won't answer that one. Here's what Luskin wrote the House Judiciary Committee last July (pdf). Note that the White House claim of immunity for senior advisors is not the same as executive privilege and a federal judge in D.C. struck down Rove and Harriet Mier's claim of senior advisor immunity in this 93 page opinion, also last July.

That decision is being appealed and Public Record reports DOJ was due to file its brief today, but instead, it asked for a continuance as negotiations are ongoing. I haven't seen a copy of the motion to continue.

< Wednesday Afternoon Open Thread | Why Obama Is Right (And Feingold Is Wrong) On Afghanistan >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

TalkLeft's DMCA Infringement Notice Policy

Waas' Latest on the U.S. Attorney Firings | 11 comments (11 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Immunity for Rove? Jayzus. The guy needs to (5.00 / 1) (#1)
by Angel on Wed Feb 18, 2009 at 03:42:38 PM EST

be in jail.

Long Shot (5.00 / 2) (#2)
by squeaky on Wed Feb 18, 2009 at 04:15:02 PM EST

I know that it is such a long shot as to almost be absurd, but I would love to see Jason Leopold's story about Rove getting indicted turn out to have been true. The missing link would have been that he got a deal, pardon or immunity but it was and is secret.

Certainly it is hard to imagine that Rove will cooperate in any useful way, but I guess we will see very soon.

We all know that (5.00 / 1) (#8)
by NYShooter on Wed Feb 18, 2009 at 11:55:42 PM EST

the eight U.S. Attorneys were fired for failing to pass the Bush Administration's litmus test for ideological purity and political obedience.

What about the remaining 84? Has there been any investigation as to whether they used their offices to prosecute people for their ideological and/or political positions? How many people are sitting in jail, or had their lives ruined in other ways, for reasons that would never have been addressed under an honest DOJ?

It seems to me that a complete, thorough, top-to-bottom investigation is called for.

Is anyone concerned that criminal laws (none / 0) (#3)
by Green26 on Wed Feb 18, 2009 at 09:35:51 PM EST

are being used too often in gray areas of politics?

I believe in clear laws being enforced. However, I wonder if some of these criminal investigations are operating in primarily political subject matter.

The Valerie Plame matter is an example. From what I read, the conclusion was that there wasn't, or probably wasn't, any violation of the law in the disclosure of her name, etc.

I don't know much about the US Atty firings or political hirings at DOJ, but do these things merit massive criminal investigations? Is this not something better done by Congressional investigators and committees?

That's incorrect (5.00 / 1) (#5)
by Steve M on Wed Feb 18, 2009 at 10:09:53 PM EST

the conclusion in the Plame matter was that there may well have been a violation of the law, but that it was impossible to prove beyond a reasonable doubt due to Scooter Libby's obstruction of justice.

Regardless, the disclosure of a covert CIA operative is hardly a "gray area of politics" even if it was done by political operatives in the course of playing political hardball. There is not some kind of policy difference where one party argues that it's fine to out CIA assets, and the other argues that it isn't. Whether or not the act technically constituted a crime (I guess we'll never know), no one can seriously contend that it was improper to even have a criminal investigation in the first place.

If anything, I'd say people are too gunshy about invoking the criminal laws in cases where someone might argue that politics are involved. The people enact certain criminal laws to ensure the proper functioning of their political system, and they are entitled to see those laws enforced.


I call BS to Fitzgerald's trying to blame Libby (none / 0) (#9)
by Green26 on Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 12:28:56 AM EST

for his inability to charge anyone with the crime in question, i.e. the illegal disclosure of Plame.

From a 9/2/06 NY Times article:

"Patrick J. Fitzgerald, the prosecutor, knew the identity of the leaker from his very first day in the special counsel's chair, but kept the inquiry open for nearly two more years before indicting I. Lewis Libby Jr., Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff, on obstruction charges.

....

Richard L. Armitage, the former deputy secretary of state, first told the authorities in October 2003 that he had been the primary source for the July 14, 2003, column by Robert D. Novak that identified Valerie Wilson as a C.I.A. operative and set off the leak investigation."


: Heh (none / 0) (#10)
by Steve M on Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 12:35:55 AM EST

Call BS all you like, but the obstacle was not the identity of the leakers. The problem with charging a violation of the IIPA was the knowledge requirement, which could not be established beyond a reasonable doubt due to Libby's obstruction.
In any event, now that you've made clear you were merely feigning ignorance in order to troll, I'll bid you a good evening. Seriously, after all these years, no one has come up with a better talking point than "Armitage was the real leaker"? Good god.

n/t. you either have not read (none / 0) (#4)
by sancho on Wed Feb 18, 2009 at 09:50:44 PM EST

enough or not read with sufficient care.


Question? (none / 0) (#6)
by CoralGables on Wed Feb 18, 2009 at 10:47:12 PM EST

Was Karl Rove legally ever in a position to fire a US Attorney? Could he ever be charged at all in this investigation unless he lies under oath?

Seems to me immunity would be meaningless as he couldn't have done anything legally wrong on this issue as either a political adviser or the head of the Office of Political Affairs. He could give bad advice, but someone else would have to pull the trigger.

: It all depends (none / 0) (#7)
by Steve M on Wed Feb 18, 2009 at 11:30:59 PM EST

He could certainly be part of a criminal conspiracy whether or not he was the person who actually carried out the firing. It really all depends on what we find out about the reasons for the firings.

U S Attorney Firings (none / 0) (#11)
by THE PHOENIX on Wed Jun 03, 2009 at 12:51:49 AM EST

To Jeralyn and others, Their is a new twist being added to the U S Attorney firings. I don't believe I can put it into words in this space but go to u-tube and write in ' Impeachment of Orrin Hatch' and watch it. s Fred Mauney...The Phoenix