Fitzgerald Investigation of Leak of Identity of CIA Agent

Advocate wrote:

In my mind, there is little doubt that pardons will ensue following a conviction. However, a conviction would likely help the Wilsons in their civil suit against the traitors in the White House.

Wanna bet?
If LIbby is convicted,I dont think there will be a pardon,at least not by Bush.

Als,the Wilsons cannot file a civil suit against the President or the VP,not while they are still in office.

If LIbby is aquitted,what does that do for the Wilsons civil trial?

We add a final comment on two matters that are discussed at length in the briefs: the risk that our decision will generate a large volume of politically motivated harassing and frivolous litigation, and the danger that national security concerns might prevent the President from explaining a legitimate need for a continuance.

We are not persuaded that either of these risks is serious.

mm, I am not sure that you are correct in stating that Bush and Cheney would be, at least for now, shielded from a civil suit. Wasn't Clinton sued civilly by Paula Jones while in office? In any event, Libby, Rove, and some others can be sued, and a suit is pending.

It is well known that a criminal conviction is helpful in a subsequent civil suit.

Nevertheless, we are persuaded that it was an abuse of discretion for the District Court to defer the trial until after the President leaves office. Such a lengthy and categorical stay takes no account whatever of the respondent's interest in bringing the case to trial.

mysteryman wrote:

Advocate wrote:

In my mind, there is little doubt that pardons will ensue following a conviction. However, a conviction would likely help the Wilsons in their civil suit against the traitors in the White House.

Wanna bet?
If LIbby is convicted,I dont think there will be a pardon,at least not by Bush.

Als,the Wilsons cannot file a civil suit against the President or the VP,not while they are still in office.

If LIbby is aquitted,what does that do for the Wilsons civil trial?

You keep stating that a President and VP can't be sued while in office MM. The Supreme Court has said otherwise. Until you find some ruling that overturns that ruling by them, the President and VP can be sued for their personal actions. They can't be sued for things they did in official capacity. The only way that the suit can be stopped is if the President states he declassified Plame's status so it could be released which would make it an official act. Of course that leads to another legal argument of abuse of power.

The Supreme court ruled 9-0 in Jones v Clinton that the president does not have the right to put suits off until he leaves office.

Quote:

We add a final comment on two matters that are discussed at length in the briefs: the risk that our decision will generate a large volume of politically motivated harassing and frivolous litigation, and the danger that national security concerns might prevent the President from explaining a legitimate need for a continuance.

We are not persuaded that either of these risks is serious.

You are completely misinformed mysteryman on the ability to sue the President or Vice President for acts outside official capacity.

In sum, "t is settled law that the separation of powers doctrine does not bar every exercise of jurisdiction over the President of the United States." Fitzgerald, 457 U.S., at 753 -754. If the Judiciary may severely burden the Executive Branch by reviewing the legality of the President's official conduct, and if it may direct

appropriate process to the President himself, it must follow that the federal courts have power to determine the legality of his unofficial conduct. The burden on the President's time and energy that is a mere by product of such review surely cannot be considered as onerous as the direct burden imposed by judicial review and the occasional invalidation of his official actions. 40 We therefore hold that the doctrine of separation of powers does not require federal courts to stay all private actions against the President until he leaves office.

The reasons for rejecting such a categorical rule apply as well to a rule that would require a stay "in all but the most exceptional cases." Brief for Petitioner i. Indeed, if the Framers of the Constitution had thought it necessary to protect the President from the burdens of private litigation, we think it far more likely that they would have adopted a categorical rule than a rule that required the President to litigate the question whether a specific case belonged in the "exceptional case" subcategory. In all events, the question whether a specific case should receive exceptional treatment is more appropriately the subject of the exercise of judicial discretion than an interpretation of the Constitution.

Public Misconduct
A Call to Investigate All of the President's Men
By Elizabeth de la Vega

Last week, apparently belatedly realizing the obvious -- that the attack on former Ambassador Joseph Wilson and his wife Valerie Plame was a White House family affair -- New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof called for the administration to come clean. Bush and Cheney owe "the American people a candid explanation" of their conduct with regard to the leaking of Plame's identity as a CIA agent, Kristof insisted.

If, after observing this administration for over six years, Nicholas Kristof thinks that the President and Vice President are going to suddenly be overcome by conscience and tell all because he has put his foot down, then Nicholas Kristof is downright adorable.

The trial of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby was merely a snapshot view of this administration in daily action; but incomplete as it was, it nevertheless starkly revealed what many had known all along: that the most powerful officials in the United States government -- including, but not limited to, the Vice President, the Vice President's Chief of Staff, the Deputy Secretary of State, the President's Press Secretary, the President's Chief of Staff, and, yes, the President himself -- had responded to the barrage of criticism being aimed at their fictitious case for war in the spring and summer of 2003 by focusing their sights on a man and woman who had devoted their lives to public service.

Such people -- those who will use the highest offices of the United States government to protect themselves and their prospects for reelection by whatever means they deem necessary, regardless of the damage they leave in their wake -- are not going to confess to anything…ever.

Indeed, in answer to questions from a reporter about this very issue on February 14, President Bush explained helpfully, "I'm not going to talk about any of it." We will surely all expire if we hold our collective breath waiting for the President to change his mind about this (or anything else, for that matter). Fortunately, we do not need to hear what Bush and Cheney have to say about "it" right now.

Nor do we have to wait for the outcome of any further investigation by Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, even though it is entirely possible he and his eminently capable prosecutors Peter Zeidenberg, Debra Bonamici, and the rest of their team will continue to explore possible criminal activity on the part of Vice President Cheney and others. A continued investigation would, in fact, be both appropriate and warranted, given the abundant evidence of Cheney's wrongdoing.

As Fitzgerald implied on the day he announced the charges against Scooter Libby, however, the criminal justice system is not designed to address all the issues raised by the CIA leak affair, perhaps not even the major ones. The Libby case was not, Fitzgerald said, as he announced the indictment, about the validity or honesty of the President's arguments for an invasion of Iraq. In fact, the Libby case was not even about the conduct of other members of the administration; it was solely about I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby and whether he obstructed a grand jury investigation, lied to federal agents, and then lied to a grand jury.

Despite the spin immediately set in motion by Libby's cadre of supporters, Fitzgerald was not suggesting that the charges he was leveling were trivial, nor was he presuming to sanction the conduct of the Bush administration in the run-up to the war. As a seasoned prosecutor, he was merely making a simple, but necessary, point about the nature of criminal charges and the laws that govern them. The laws of perjury and obstruction of justice exist to vindicate an important government interest in the integrity of grand-jury proceedings. Once such charges are brought, however, they raise but a single issue: Is there proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the individual or individuals charged committed the conduct specified in the indictment?

Reasonable doubt kind of doubt that would cause a reasonable person to hesitate to act in graver or more important matters of life. Based on reason. Govt not required to prove doubt to scientific certainty.

Notes from the jury deliberating the fate of former White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby gave a hint there might be one or two holdouts on a conviction.

"We would like clarification of the term 'reasonable doubt,' " the jury wrote to U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton on the eighth day of deliberations. "Is it necessary for the government to present evidence that it is not humanly possible for someone not to recall an event in order to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt?"

Good quoting, Blatham, as usual. The Scooter jury asks, "What does Reasonable Doubt mean, 'zactly?"

I'm sure there will be mention of a tougher standard than the preponderence of evidence, but will they be told of the concept of "residual doubt"?

As a sidelight, the Conservatist's Wikipedia lists this trial with several others as the most influential affecting American history. I wonder.

Quote:

Public Misconduct
A Call to Investigate All of the President's Men
By Elizabeth de la Vega

Last week, apparently belatedly realizing the obvious -- that the attack on former Ambassador Joseph Wilson and his wife Valerie Plame was a White House family affair -- New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof called for the administration to come clean. Bush and Cheney owe "the American people a candid explanation" of their conduct with regard to the leaking of Plame's identity as a CIA agent, Kristof insisted.

.....

I am beginning to be really let down so far about this new congress.