You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #58: I think it would take Fitz himself committing a crime to justify removal. [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
robertpaulsen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-10-05 02:24 PM
Response to Reply #41
58. I think it would take Fitz himself committing a crime to justify removal.
More from the article:

Not only was it Comey's intention to prepare Fitzgerald for the coming assault on his legally mandated plenary authority by vesting him with complete autonomous rule, but the GAO, through their approval of "permanent indefinite appropriations" to perpetually fund Fitzgerald's office, at the request of the Justice Department, has made a strong legal argument, in Decision B-302582, that Fitzgerald has all of the protections and authority normally granted to an independent prosecutor under the expired independent counsel law.

snip

Q: Could you fire Fitzgerald?

MR. COMEY: That's a great question. (Laughter.) Now I believe that I could revoke the delegation of authority that I've given to him. I don't believe that I could --


He appears to believe he could revoke the delegation of authority, but that he couldn't outright fire him. The answer is clearly nebulous. Comey even says, "That's a great question". He never says equivocally whether he could remove Fitzgerald. He appears to be waffling.

But this press conference took place on December 30, 2003. Decision B-302582 was dated September 30, 2004. Comey wasn't sure back on December 30, 2003, whether or not he could remove Fitzgerald or even limit his authority. But since that time, DOJ created a very convincing argument for their presentation to the GAO. The GAO bought that argument hook, line and sinker agreeing that Fitzgerald has all of the protection and authority granted by the expired independent counsel law. This means his office of the Special Counsel is legally protected from interference by anybody at DOJ, President Bush or anybody else that breathes air on planet Earth.



I think this means that the only person who could remove Fitzgerald is Fitzgerald, by abusing the law. Everything I've read on Fitzgerald is that he is like Caesar's wife, above reproach. Which means the only way the misadministration can get rid of Fitzgerald is by resorting to illegal methods.

The question then is what methods might they be willing to resort to?

























Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC