Fitz CANNOT be fired & Treason is the DEATH penalty

by **Fearless** » Mon Aug 08, 2005 7:19 pm

Citizenspook nails it! Monday, August 08, 2005 TREASONGATE: The US Attorney General's Office AND President Bush Have NO LEGAL AUTHORITY To Remove Patrick Fitzgerald As Special Counsel The Attorney General, Acting Attorney General or any other officer of the Department of Justice has NO LEGAL AUTHORITY to remove Special Counsel Fitzgerald from the Treasongate investigation or prosecution-- AND -- President Bush does NOT have the legal authority to fire Patrick Fitzgerald in his capacity as "Special Counsel". Analysis of federal law (involved with both the appointment of -- and authority granted to -- Special Counsel Fitzgerald), Comey's press conference of December 30th, 2003, and Decision B-302582 (September 30, 2004) issued by the Government Accounting Office, leads to the following legal conclusions: 1. James Comey, in his capacity as Acting Attorney General, with respect to the Justice Department's investigation into "the alleged unauthorized disclosure of a CIA employee's identity" (hereinafter "Treasongate"), delegated his plenary authority to Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 508, 509, 510, and 515, conferring upon him "all of the authority of the Attorney General" thereby transferring his status as Acting Attorney General, in this matter, to Fitzgerald. 2. Special Counsel Fitzgerald is not serving as an "outside Special Counsel" pursuant to 28 USA § 600, so the provisions of that code are not applicable in this matter nor do they have any legal effect over Fitzgerald's investigation and/or prosecution. 3. While President Bush may fire or replace Fitzgerald as the "US Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois", the President has NO AUTHORITY to fire him as the "Special Counsel" in the Treasongate investigation. Fitzgerald wears the following two hats: 1. US Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois. 2. Special Counsel in the Treasongate investigation "Acting" with the full authority of the US Attorney General. We aspire to be a nation of laws. The Constitution was our protection from tyranny, but the dying document now faces its greatest challenge fighting off a disease so insidious its sickness threatens a global plague of bloodshed and repression. From the draconian provisions of the Patriot Act, which allows federal agents to sneak into our homes without a warrant or probable cause, to the expanding psy ops of horrific murder and torture of men, women and children who haven't been given a scintilla of due process in their own sovereign land which we invaded based upon fake evidence, our laws are riddled with a malignant cancer. Who will stand up for the law when the law is beaten and abused? Who will stand up for the guardians of the law when the guardians are beaten and abused? As you will soon see, Fitzgerald's appointment as Special Counsel, the first of its kind in the history of the United States, was meticulously crafted to withstand the coming onslaught. Speculation is running rampant as to whether Patrick Fitzgerald and his grand jury investigation will be shut down by Bush administration operatives. You may believe that Bush cannot risk the political fallout associated with removing Fitzgerald, but his team of fascist criminals will shoot first and ask questions...never. These are the same people who carefully calculated they could openly commit Treason by outing Valerie Plame and her CIA network. They weren't worried about the fall out then, and they won't be worried about it now. It's not political fall out that will prevent the Bush death squad from removing Fitzgerald; their obstacle is the law. It doesn't matter whether they put all of Skull and Bones in the Justice Department and relocate the DOJ to a tomb in New Haven, the law protects Patrick Fitzgerald's mandate from all intervention. Neither Bush nor his Justice Department cronies have the legal authority to remove Fitzgerald as Special Counsel or to prematurely end his grand jury. You can thank James Comey for this. Comey's brilliant nuances involved with US Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald's appointment as "Special Counsel" are nothing short of genius. The foresight of Acting Attorney General Comey's "delegation of authority" to Fitzgerald will go down in history as one of the most stunning and brilliant acts of non-partisan patriotism this nation has ever seen. I do not throw these words out lightly. Federal regulations and decisions, germane to Fitzgerald's unique appointment, legally protect the integrity of the Special Counsel's unrestricted mandate from interference by political operatives in this investigation, an investigation to which Acting Attorney General James Comey (empowered as such by Attorney General John Ashcroft's recusal) provided unprecedented patriotic and non-partisan foresight. Furthermore, Fitzgerald was empowered by Comey with unilateral authority to "expand" his jurisdiction and "pursue it wherever he wants to pursue it". Let your imagination run wild because it's all legally in play. THE APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL COUNSEL PATRICK FITZGERALD On December 30th, 2003, Deputy Attorney General James Comey held a press conference wherein he announced that Attorney General John Ashcroft had recused himself, on that day, from all involvement with the Treasongate investigation. Comey stated that the recusal included all of Ashcroft's "staff" and that "a document was created ...that memorialized the recusal." Comey announced: "By that act, I automatically become the acting attorney general for purposes of this case with authority to determine how the case is investigated, and if warranted by the evidence, prosecuted." Comey went on to say: "[P]rior to his recusal, the attorney general and I agreed that it was appropriate to appoint a special counsel [read: special prosecutor] from outside our normal chain of command to oversee this investigation. By his recusal, of course, the attorney general left to me the decision about how to choose a counsel, who that person should be and what that person's mandate should be...effective immediately, the United States attorney for the Northern District of Illinois, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, will serve as special counsel in charge of this matter." Fitzgerald's authority was conferred from Comey to him via two official Justice Department notification letters. The first letter was issued on December 30, 2003. It stated: "By the authority vested in the Attorney General by law, including 28 U.S.C. 509, 510, and 515, and in my capacity as Acting Attorney General pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 508, I hereby delegate to you all the authority of the Attorney General with respect to the Department's investigation into the alleged unauthorized disclosure of a CIA employee's identity, and I direct you to exercise that authority as Special Counsel independent of the supervision or control of any officer of the Department." At the December 30 press conference, Comey further stated: "Fitzgerald...does not have to come back to me for anything...I've told him, our instructions are: You have this authority; I've delegated to you all the approval authority that I as attorney general have. You can exercise it as you see fit. And a U.S. attorney or a normal outside counsel would have to go through the approval process to get permission to appeal something. Fitzgerald would not because of the broad grant of authority I've given him. So, in short, I have essentially given him -- not essentially -- I have given him all the approval authorities that rest -- that are inherent in the attorney general; something that does not happen with an outside special counsel." Before we analyze the provisions of the law which enables this transfer of power, please note that Comey removed all "supervision or control of any officer of the Department" while also conferring "all the approval authority" that Comey, "as Attorney General" had. From the December 30th press conference: "Q: You mentioned that the -- you felt that Fitzgerald will have a broader -- actually a broader mandate, broader abilities than an outside counsel. Can you expand on that a little bit? In what respect will he have a -- MR. COMEY: Yes. An outside counsel has a -- the regulations prescribe a number of ways in which they're very similar to a U.S. attorney. For example, they have to follow all Department of Justice policies regarding approvals. So that means if they want to subpoena a member of the media, if they want to grant immunity, if they want to subpoena a lawyer -- all the things that we as U.S. attorneys have to get approval for, an outside counsel has to come back to the Department of Justice. An outside counsel also only gets the jurisdiction that is assigned to him and no other. The regulations provide that if he or she wants to expand that jurisdiction, they have to come back to the attorney general and get permission. Fitzgerald has been told, as I said to you: Follow the facts; do the right thing. He can pursue it wherever he wants to pursue it." On February 6, 2004, a second official letter was sent to Fitzgerald by Comey. This second letter (as well as the first) was discussed in Decision B-302582 issued by the Government Accountability Office (hereinafter GAO) on September 30, 2004. (The GAO Decision paper was drafted in relation to oversight of appropriations granted to Fitzgerald's office for the investigation. This is discussed in detail below). The GAO quoted Comey's second letter to Fitzgerald as follows: "In February 2004, Acting Attorney General Comey clarified Special Counsel Fitzgerald's delegation of authority to state that the authority previously delegated to him is plenary. It also states, 'Further, my conferral on you of the title of Special Counsel' in this matter should not be misunderstood to suggest that your position and authorities are defined and limited by 28 CFR Part 600.' [4]" Comey went to great lengths to shield Fitzgerald from the restrictions of 28 CFR Part 600. These regulations, enacted by former Attorney General Janet Reno, demand that an "outside Special Counsel" submit his investigation to various oversight by others in the Justice Department. Please note, because it's a major point of confusion, that Patrick Fitzgerald is not an "outside Special Counsel". To many it has appeared that way, but such an assumption is completely erroneous. Comey nullified the Part 600 regulations by delegating all of his authority using "other law", and the GAO unconditionally agreed such a delegation of authority was legal and proper: "The parameters of his authority and independence are defined in the appointment letters which delegate to Special Counsel Fitzgerald all (plenary) the authority of the Attorney General with respect to the Department's investigation into the alleged unauthorized disclosure of a CIA employee's identity with the direction that he exercise such authority independent of the supervision or control of any officer of the Department. [13]. In addition, Department officials informed us that the express exclusion of Special Counsel Fitzgerald from the application of 28 C.F.R. Part 600, which contains provisions that might conflict with the notion that the Special Counsel in this investigation possesses all the power of the Attorney General, contributes to the Special Counsel's independence. [14] Thus, Special Counsel Fitzgerald need not follow the Department's practices and procedures if they would subject him to the approval of an officer or employee of the Department. For example, 28 C.F.R. 600.7 requires that a Special Counsel consult with the Attorney General before taking particular actions." [15] The next paragraph graphically illustrates the recognition by the GAO that Fitzgerald has all of the power of the Attorney General for purposes of this investigation: "The consulting requirement would seem to be inconsistent with the notion that Special Counsel Fitzgerald possesses the plenary authority of the Attorney General".[15] The key word is "plenary"; unlimited or complete authority. The GAO then went on to discuss the legality of the Part 600 waver: "The remaining issue is whether Part 600 can be waived by the Attorney General or acting Attorney General. We examined Part 600 and found it was issued in 1999 to replace the procedures of the expired Independent Counsel Reauthorization Act of 1994. In our view, Part 600 is not a substantive (legal) limitation on the authority of the Acting Attorney General to delegate departmental functions to Special Counsel Fitzgerald. First, 28 C.F.R. 600.10 states that the regulations are "not intended to, do not, and may not be relied upon to create any rights, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or equity, by any person or entity, in any matter, civil, criminal, or administrative." Further, in the supplemental information accompanying the issuance of Part 600, the Department explained that the effective date of the rule did not have to be delayed 30 days after publication because it was not a substantive rule, citing 5 U.S.C. 553(d), 552(a)(1)(D). 64 Fed. Reg. 37038, at 37041 (July 9, 1999). Finally, the only statute cited as authority for 28 C.F.R. Part 600 that expressly authorizes the Department to issue regulations is 5 U.S.C. 301 (2000)...The power conferred by 5 U.S.C. 301 is administrative and not legislative...It follows that such regulations governing internal procedures issued under this statute do not have the force and effect of law... Thus, 28 C.F.R Part 600 does not act as a substantive limitation on the Attorney General's (or Acting Attorney General's) authority to delegate authority to a U.S. Attorney to serve as a Special Counsel to investigate high ranking government officials and it may be waived..." 28 U.S.C. 510 states: "The Attorney General may from time to time make such provisions as he considers appropriate authorizing the performance by any other officer, employee, or agency of the Department of Justice of any function of the Attorney General." The GAO decision discusses this and other provisions of United States Code which allowed Comey to transfer his full authority as Acting Attorney General for this matter: "The Department was not limited by 28 C.F.R. Part 600 when it exercised its authority under 28 U.S.C. 508, 509, 510 and 515 and appointed Special Counsel Fitzgerald from within the Department to investigate the alleged unauthorized leak of a CIA employee's identity..." And: "Acting Attorney General Comey appointed Special Counsel Fitzgerald under 28 U.S.C. 509, 510 and 515. [16]... We agree with the Department that the same statutory authorities that authorize the Attorney General (or Acting Attorney General) to delegate authority to a U.S. Attorney to investigate and prosecute high ranking government officials are "other law" for the purposes of authorizing the Department to finance the investigation and prosecution...[17] WHY CAN'T FITZGERALD BE FIRED AS SPECIAL COUNSEL? First, let me make it clear that Patrick Fitzgerald, while wearing the hat of US Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois, can indeed be fired or replaced by President Bush. There's no doubt about that. But Fitzgerald wears a different hat pertaining to Treasongate where he is the "Special Counsel" "Acting" and vested with the "full authority" of the "US Attorney General" to prosecute Treasongate. And as such, nobody in the Department of Justice can touch him. 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. The following passages are taken directly from GAO Decision B-302582: "Subject: Special Counsel and Permanent Indefinite Appropriation The Government Accountability Office (GAO) is required to audit twice a year the expenditures by independent counsels and certain special counsels paid from the permanent indefinite appropriation. [1] In the course of auditing independent counsel expenditures for the period ending March 31, 2004, we learned that the Department of Justice was using the permanent indefinite appropriation to pay the expenses of the investigation by Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald. Mr. Fitzgerald continued to perform his duties as a U.S. Attorney after his appointment as Special Counsel. This is the first time that the expenses of an investigation by a United States Attorney appointed to serve as Special Counsel who continues to serve as a United States Attorney have been paid from the permanent indefinite appropriation. In addition, Department of Justice regulations at 28 C.F.R. Part 600 (2003) provide that Special Counsels shall be selected from outside the government. Given our responsibility to audit the fund, the use of the account to finance Special Counsel Fitzgerald's activities, and the provisions of 28 C.F.R. Part 600 (2003), we initiated inquiries with the Department of Justice to assure ourselves of the availability of this account to defray his expenses. [2] In considering this matter, we requested and received the written views of the Department of Justice. We also met with officials of the Department to discuss their views and obtained additional comments and information. Finally, we reviewed the laws and their legislative histories, regulations, court decisions, and past practices of the Department of Justice, as they relate to this matter. For the reasons discussed below, we do not object to the use of the permanent indefinite appropriation to fund Special Counsel Fitzgerald's expenses. Unlike the expired independent counsel law, the permanent indefinite appropriation does not require that a Special Counsel be appointed from outside the government. The Department, in appointing Special Counsel Fitzgerald under "other law", has afforded him independence by delegating all of the Attorney General's authority with respect to the investigation and instructing him to exercise that authority independent of the control of any officer of the Department..." There's no doubt, at least as far as the GAO is concerned, that Fitzgerald has been vested with "all of the authority of the Attorney General" and that he is also "independent of the control of any officer of the Department". McAllum can't touch him. Flanigan can't touch him. Gonzales certainly can't touch him. And the President can't touch him because the conflict of interest which caused DOJ to appoint him in the first place has expanded exponentially. Should President Bush try to fire Fitzgerald anyway, not only will the political fall out be much greater than if an underling did the dirty deed, but Fitzgerald could fight back on very solid legal ground using the arguments set forth below from the GAO which analyzes Fitzgerald's "Special Counsel" mandate as being similar to the mandate conveyed by the expired Independent Counsel law. That law, I'm sure you will recall, prohibited the President from wriggling out of an impeachment and possible conviction by firing the Independent Counsel investigating him. Let's hear from the GAO again: "Following his appointment as Special Counsel, Mr. Fitzgerald continued to perform his duties as United States Attorney. As a result of our activities in connection with the audit of the Independent Counsel expenditures for the six-month period ending March 31, 2004, we learned that the Department of Justice was charging the expenses of Special Counsel Fitzgerald to the permanent indefinite appropriation established ' . . . to pay all necessary expenses of investigations and prosecutions by independent counsels appointed pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. 591 et seq . or other law . . .' [5] In the following section we discuss two issues: whether the permanent indefinite appropriation is available to fund Special Counsel Fitzgerald's expenses and whether the Part 600 regulations, which among other things require the appointment of Special Counsel from outside the government, can be waived. Discussion As you are aware, the authority to appoint independent counsels pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. 591 et seq . expired on June 30, 1999. However, the permanent indefinite appropriation remains available to pay the expenses of an independent counsel (1) who was appointed by the Special Division of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia pursuant to the provisions of 28U.S.C. 591 et seq. whose investigation was underway when the law expired[6] or (2) who was appointed under "other law."[7] Under the expired law, a person appointed as an independent counsel could not hold "any office of profit or trust under the United States, 28 U.S.C. 593(b)(2) (2000)." [8] The purpose of the qualification was to avoid the public perception of an actual or apparent conflict of interest existing between the investigator and those being investigated for alleged violations of law. [9] The permanent indefinite appropriation is available to pay all necessary expenses of investigations of independent counsels appointed under other law. However, the term "independent counsel" is not defined in the permanent indefinite appropriation. About the time the independent counsel law was being considered for reauthorization in 1987, legal challenges were underway regarding the constitutionality of the procedure followed to appoint independent counsels. Consequently, to avoid interruption of ongoing investigations should the law be ruled unconstitutional by a court, the Attorney General appointed the same persons to serve as independent counsels under the statutory authority that was relied upon to appoint Special Counsel Fitzgerald. [1<img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/alien.gif ALT="0]"> Thus, the independent counsels appointed under "other law" around the time that the Congress was considering the Department of Justice appropriation act for fiscal year 1988 (which enacted the permanent indefinite appropriation into law) were the independent counsels that also had been appointed in conformity with the requirements of the independent counsel law. [11] That's big, really big. Why? Because it elaborates on precedent. And precedent is the backbone of our legal system. The expired independent counsel law barred the President from firing an independent prosecutor. And here we have the GAO, citing legal precedent in their approval of permanent indefinite appropriation to fund "Special Counsel" Fitzgerald's investigation, and comparing him to the "independent counsels that also had been appointed in conformity with the requirements of the independent counsel law." And they were all shielded from being fired by the President or until their work was done. This isn't Citizen Spook creating the argument to sway people, it's the GAO citing legal precedent to support a DOJ request for funds to finance Fitzgerald's investigation. It was the Department of Justice who convinced the GAO to recognize such precedent: "In a meeting with Department of Justice officials, [12] the Department explained its view that use of the permanent indefinite appropriation to pay expenses of a U.S. Attorney appointed to serve as Special Counsel who continues to perform his duty as a U.S. Attorney is appropriate. The alleged violation that Special Counsel Fitzgerald is investigating involves the rank and level of government official that clearly would have been within the scope of the expired independent counsel law and the investigation of which could have been funded by the permanent indefinite appropriation. Additionally, the Department views the use of the permanent indefinite appropriation as important to facilitate Special Counsel Fitzgerald's investigation by freeing him from possible budget constraints that potentially might serve to limit his activities." Holy crap batman. I can hear Ashcroft singing, let the eagle soar. How the hell are they going to spin their way out of that? DOJ convinced the GAO that Special Counsel Fitzgerald's investigation was so important that it's own DOJ regulations were not sufficient to guarantee the necessary independence to guarantee the proper integrity: "Since the permanent indefinite appropriation is available for independent counsels, we looked for indicia of independence of Special Counsel Fitzgerald...In addition, Department officials informed us that the express exclusion of Special Counsel Fitzgerald from the application of 28 C.F.R. Part 600, which contains provisions that might conflict with the notion that the Special Counsel in this investigation possesses all the power of the Attorney General, contributes to the Special Counsel's independence." [14] And finally, the GAO's conclusion: "Conclusion Upon review and consideration, we do not object to the Department's determination that the permanent indefinite appropriation is available to pay the expenses of Special Counsel Fitzgerald's investigation. Admittedly one might infer from events occurring around the time that the Congress was considering establishing the permanent indefinite appropriation that it was within the Congress' contemplation that the appropriation would be used to pay the expenses of an independent counsel possessing the degree of independence similar to that possessed by an independent counsel appointed under 28 U.S.C. 591 et seq. However, such an inference is insufficient to support our reading into the law a limitation on the use of the permanent indefinite appropriation to pay for investigations solely by Special Counsels appointed from outside the government. The independence conferred by the delegation of authority to Special Counsel Fitzgerald from the Department of Justice is consistent with a fair reading of the independence required of an "independent counsel" appointed under "other law." Finally, Part 600 regulations do not have the force and effect of law and may be waived by the Department. Thus we do not view the payment of the expenses associated with Special Counsel Fitzgerald's investigation from the permanent indefinite appropriation to be improper or unauthorized simply because he was not appointed from outside the government and continues to serve as a United States Attorney." Yeah, what he said. That's what I'm talkin' about. Notice the first line, the GAO was presented with a concept for precedent by the Department of Justice, an argument that in requested Special Counsel Fitzgerald's office receive funding by the GAO based upon an argument, made by DOJ based upon legal precedent and further reinforced by independent analysis by the GAO. How can they come back, after making the argument that Fitzgerald should have all of the independence and financing of the independent counsel's appointed under the expired independent counsel law, and say argue that he should not have that same independence as to the issue of whether the President or anybody at DOJ can fire him? And just in case you were wondering, check out the results of the GAO's audit of Fitzgerald's investigation: "We audited the statement of expenditures for the Office of Special Counsel Fitzgerald and found that (1) the statement of expenditures was presented fairly, in all material respects, in conformity with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles, (2) the Special Counsel had effective internal control over financial reporting and compliance with laws and regulations, and (3) there was no reportable noncompliance with laws and regulations we tested." [15] BACK TO THE COMEY PRESS CONFERENCE Comey was asked at the December 30, 2003, press conference, two questions regarding whether Fitzgerald could be removed. His answers are very interesting: 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. And then: Q: If you don't like what he's doing, you can end it. MR. COMEY: Well, in theory, if I know what he's doing, in theory I could, yeah. And I'd better have a darn good reason for doing it, because you'd have your hands in the air. It's a fair answer. I'm sure if Fitzgerald was up to something illegal, he could be fired, like Comey says, "in theory". But his final words on this issue are very interesting. What does he mean by "you'd have your hands in the air"? That's spooky. And it's something DOJ and President Bush really ought to think about. By Citizen Spook citizenspook@hotmail.com PLEASE REPOST and LINK Friday, August 05, 2005 TREASONGATE: The Controlling Law, Part 2: THE DEATH PENALTY, 18 USC 794 and the shift from GWOT to GSAVE In Part 1 of this report, Citizen Spook analyzed 18 USC 793, the United States Code provision which provides the most direct route to convictions for Patrick Fitzgerald in the Treasongate/Valerie Plame affair. In this follow up, we are going to discuss 18 USC 794 which deals directly with Treason and the death penalty. Before we move on to 794, please take note of the indictments which were unsealed yesterday, August 4th, 2005, by the court overseeing US Attorney Paul McNulty's grand jury in the AIPAC investigation investigation against Larry Franklin, Steve Rosen and Keith Weissman. Counts 1-4 of those indictments were obtained using 18 USC 793(d): Count 1: Conspiracy to communicate national defense information to persons not entitled to receive it. 18 USC 793 §§ (d), (e) and (g) Count 2-4: Communication of national defense information not entitled to receive it, 18 USC § 793(d) No mention of the insignificant Intelligence Identities Protection Act anywhere to be found in these indictments. Have you heard from the main strem media, on the left or the right, about the controlling law, the sections of the US Code these indictments were brought under? Hmm? The Associated Press and other main stream media outlets published stories about the AIPAC indictments today. But those accounts don't mention that the indictments were brought under 18 USC 793. Perhaps this has something to do with the official press release issued by McNulty's office which does not mention 18 USC 793. This is certainly a break for the Bush administration, because a Google news search, as of 11:38 a.m. today, August 5, 2005, using the acronym, "AIPAC", and the number, "793" only returns one Blogosphere hit. Why isn't the main stream media discussing 18 USC 793 and 794? The Title 18 statutes are the most relevant statutes to Patrick Fitzgerald's grand jury investigation. The sheer scope of intentional ignorance on the part of the main stream media warrants a staggering shame upon those dying institutions whose relevance is quickly becoming marginalized to the point of complete irrelevance. They are not "breaking" stories. They are engaged in controlled propaganda which does not stand up to the monolithic power of the Blogosphere. It's disgusting how they operate in a "see no evil" herd of complicity. INTELLIGENCE SPECULATION Before I get to the cold hard facts of the law, I want to engage in some speculation about the Bush administration's motivations for breaking the law. It's important to note that it wasn't just Valerie Plame who was outed by Novak. Plame's entire network was also outed when Novak named Brewster Jennings & Associates, a CIA front company, as the place she worked. The focus of Plame's CIA work was weapons of mass destruction. Her network was responsible for gathering information to help defend our nation against annihilation by such weapons. WMD is the reason Bush took us to war with Iraq, the backbone of his foreign policy, the mantra more than 1800 of the USA's finest soldiers have met their death for. It is that term, "weapons of mass destruction" that might actually be the calling card of the grim reaper, should he come via court order for the men and women of the Bush crime family. Don't buy into the mantra that Plame was outed only as a retaliation upon her husband, Joe Wilson. The Bush crime family wouldn't put their necks on the chopping block for Treason just to smear Wilson, especially in light of the fact that they knew Wilson's Niger report was accurate. The risk reward pay off is ridiculously insufficient. The Bush cabal are not a stupid bunch. You can ridicule Bush, Cheney and the gang all you like, but they're running our country, making billions through Haliburton and the Carlisle group, getting away with torture in open view, and rewriting the Constitution while flipping the middle finger to the main stream media who take that finger, lick it and deposit it in their anatomy on a daily basis...with a smile on their faces. The only logical reason the intelligent Bush administration would expose themselves to prosecution under the controlling laws of the United States Code by outing Valerie Plame, Brewster Jennings and the CIA, is that they probably had no other choice. It was either expose a major CIA operation to the public at large through co-conspirator, Robert Novak, or allow Plame's CIA division to complete their WMD investigations. The Bush syndicate must have come to the conclusion that they had a better chance of spinning the outing of Plame to petty retaliation for Wilson's debunking of the Niger document fraud, than they had of surviving an investigation by the CIA of their crimes against the USA and humanity at large, for the fixing of intelligence to support a preemptive war and possibly the facilitation of future black op patsies. Until recently, the Bush spin machine has flawlessly controlled public attention by concentrating it, as to the law, on the insignificant Intelligence Identities Protection Act, and, as to their motivations, on the Wilson smear campaign. This has been easy spin as their gambit was centered in confidence that the media would play along. What they could not spin, if the CIA was on to them, was mountains of evidence Plame and her network might have uncovered, evidence which may have been implicating the Bush syndicate in Treason. Certainly, the State Department and the White House staff must have considered that outing a CIA agent of any level or status, covert or non covert, who was working on weapons of mass destruction, "in a time of war", might lead to that work being compromised and that such actions on their part might expose them to the provisions of 18 USC 793 and 794, among other laws. And that is exactly what happened. So their motivations must have been more than simple, petty bitch slapping for Wilson debunking their Niger fraud documents. Keep the word "motivation" in your mind from now on. It's the key to the whole scenario. Were Plame's team of CIA agents getting close to some of the things Sibel Edmonds was translating at the FBI, things which might implicate the Bush syndicate in 911 as well as the facilitation of terrorist cells getting their hands on components necessary to develop Nuclear weapons to be used against the USA so that the Bush administration could retaliate by going into Iraq, Iran, then North Korea and wherever else their imperialist buts saw fit? Recall the words used by Wolfowitz just after 911 when he declared that the USA foreign policy would "end terrorist states", a prophetic statement at a time when nobody was suggesting, let alone had any intelligence to implicate any of those countries in 911. Consider this speculation in light of the "eight redacted pages" of evidence presented by Fitzgerald to support his request that Matthew Cooper and Judith Miller be put in jail for contempt. The issue was throughly discussed by Lawrence O'Donnell in his July 7th Huffington Post article, wherein he reported: "Tatel actually found that reason and experience 'support recognition of a privilege for reporters' confidential sources'. But Tatel still ordered Cooper and Miller to testify because he found that the privilege had to give way to 'the gravity of the suspected crime'. " Judge Tatel’s opinion has eight blank pages in the middle of it where he discusses the secret information the prosecutor has supplied only to the judges to convince them that the testimony he is demanding is worth sending reporters to jail to get. The gravity of the suspected crime is presumably very well developed in those redacted pages. Later, Tatel refers to [h]aving carefully scrutinized [the prosecutor’s] voluminous classified filings... Tatel wrote a 41-page opinion in which he seemed eager to make new law -- a federal reporters’ shield law -- but in the end, he couldn’t bring himself to do it in this particular case. In his final paragraph, he says he 'might have' let Cooper and Miller off the hook '[w]ere the leak at issue in this case less harmful to national security.' Tatel’s colleagues are at least as impressed with the prosecutor’s secret filings as he is. One simply said 'Special Counsel’s showing decides the case.' All the judges who have seen the prosecutor’s secret evidence firmly believe he is pursuing a very serious crime, and they have done everything they can to help him get an indictment." So, with that background: ANALYSIS OF 18 USC 794(a) Bush administration officials are very familiar with this law. Each and every one of them signed a non disclosure agreement which says, in part: " In addition, I have been advised that any unauthorized disclosure of classified information by me may constitute a violation, or violations, of United States criminal laws, including the provisions of Sections 641, 793, 794, 798, *952 and 1924, Title 18, United States Code, * the provisions of Section 783(b), Title 50, United States Code, and the provisions of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982. I recognize that nothing in this Agreement constitutes a waiver by the United States of the right to prosecute me for any statutory violation." There it is, in big bad English, "794". We will examine three different sections of 794, (a), (b) and (c), each of which contains unique criteria for conviction. 18 USC 794(a) § 794. Gathering or delivering defense information to aid foreign government "(a) Whoever, with intent or reason to believe that it is to be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of a foreign nation, communicates, delivers, or transmits, or attempts to communicate, deliver, or transmit, to any foreign government, or to any faction or party or military or naval force within a foreign country, whether recognized or unrecognized by the United States, or to any representative, officer, agent, employee, subject, or citizen thereof, either directly or indirectly, any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, note, instrument, appliance, or information relating to the national defense, shall be punished by death or by imprisonment for any term of years or for life, except that the sentence of death shall not be imposed unless the jury or, if there is no jury, the court, further finds that the offense resulted in the identification by a foreign power (as defined in section 101(a) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 197<img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/glasses.gif ALT="8)"> of an individual acting as an agent of the United States and consequently in the death of that individual, or directly concerned nuclear weaponry, military spacecraft or satellites, early warning systems, or other means of defense or retaliation against large-scale attack; war plans; communications intelligence or cryptographic information; or any other major weapons system or major element of defense strategy." Wow, there's a lot going on there so let's break it down. The first requirement for conviction under 794(a) is that the perp must have "intent or reason to believe" that "information" (or any of the other things listed) "is to be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of a foreign nation". The key word within this section equals, "is". Any 794(a) perpetrators must have the requisite intent. "Is to be used" is much different than "might be used". Did Karl Rove and others, intend or have reason to believe that the information communicated to Novak, outing Valerie Plame and her network, would be used to injure the USA or to the advantage of any foreign nation? Even if they thought it "might" be used as such, the standard is not met. The law is clear. Unless the Prosecutor could present sufficient evidence that the perp in question knew, or had reason to believe, the information transmitted was going to be used to injure the USA, the prosecution would fail under 794(a). Perhaps Patrick Fitzgerald has such information, but I can't answer that. All I can tell you is that the law sets a high hurdle. One could argue that the information, once made available, would be used to the "advantage of a foreign nation", and that is not as a high a hurdle. I agree, but the prosecutor still must prove that the perps intended or had reason to believe that the information would be used for that purpose. Once again, "is to be used" is a higher standard than "might be used." And with such a specific legal requirement, the prosecutor would have to bring evidence relating to which "foreign nation" the information would confer an advatage upon. It won't be sufficient to name "Al Qaeda" or " the terrorists" because 794(a) does not recognize them as "a foreign nation" under the statute. The statute does recognize terrorists as a "foreign power", but that is different than a "foreign nation." If Fitzgerald gets by these hurdles, it will be assumend that the information was "indirectly" transmitted to every foreign nation on Earth through Novak, the reporter who published the information to the world. In Part 1 of this report we analyzed the Morison decision, which stated: "[C]ertainly injury to the United States could be inferred from conduct of the sort charged," whether that conduct involves photographing documents by one foreign agent or release of national defense information to the press and public, where many foreign agents and governments can have access to the information." For the death penalty to apply regarding 794(a), the prosecution would also have to prove that the information transmitted by the perpetraitor led to the death of a United States agent. While everything involved with Patrick Fitzgerald's grand jury is generally to be kept secret, it's interesting to note that Rule 6 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, section (3), provides exceptions that empower Fitzgerald to confer with others: "(3) Exceptions. (A) Disclosure of a grand jury matter--other than the grand jury's deliberations or any grand juror's vote--may be made to: (i) an attorney for the government for use in performing that attorney's duty; (ii) any government personnel--including those of a state, state subdivision, Indian tribe, or foreign government'--that an attorney for the government considers necessary to assist in performing that attorney's duty to enforce federal criminal law... (D) An attorney for the government may disclose any grand-jury matter involving foreign intelligence, counterintelligence (as defined in 50 U.S.C. sec. 401a), or foreign intelligence information (as defined in Rule 6(e)(3)(D)(iii)) to any federal law enforcement, intelligence, protective, immigration, national defense, or national security official to assist the official receiving the information in the performance of that official's duties..." ANALYSIS OF 18 USC 794(b) So, we've established that 18 USC 794(a) sets a difficult test for the prosecution, but 794(b) sets forth a much easier test for the prosecution to meet while still providing a maximum sentence of the death penalty when this section is breached "in a time of war": "(b) Whoever, in time of war, with intent that the same shall be communicated to the enemy, collects, records, publishes, or communicates, or attempts to elicit any information with respect to the movement, numbers, description, condition, or disposition of any of the Armed Forces, ships, aircraft, or war materials of the United States, or with respect to the plans or conduct, or supposed plans or conduct of any naval or military operations, or with respect to any works or measures undertaken for or connected with, or intended for the fortification or defense of any place, or any other information relating to the public defense, which might be useful to the enemy, shall be punished by death or by imprisonment for any term of years or for life." Let's simplify that. With respect to the outing of Valerie Plame and her CIA network, 794(b) mandates prosecution of anybody who, in a time of war, intentionally communicates information relating to the public defense which might be useful to the enemy. And the maximum punishment for such a violation of 794(b) is death or life in prison. The Bush Administration most fears 794(b). It simply requires the perpetraitors to be cognizant that the "information" being "communicated" "might be useful to the enemy". Furthermore, "the enemy" is a much broader term than "foreign nation". As the President has said many times, the enemy is the terrorists. I think we can all agree that CIA agents and their investigations involved with weapons of mass destruction are related to "the public defense", so that standard is easily met as well. That just leaves the intent requirement, which is easy to establish under this fact pattern since the statute only requires "intent that the same shall be communicated to the enemy." Please note that the statute does not require the perp to communicate directly to the enemy, 794(b) only requires that the perp intends for the information to be communicated to the enemy. Since Karl Rove and others intended that the information be communicated to Novak and other reporters, the perps will not be able to deny that they had knowledge such information would be published to the world, a world in which the enemy resides, an enemy that has access to Novak's report. To prove the necessary "intent" under 794(b), Fitzgerald only has to present sufficient evidence that Rove and others knew the enemy would have access to the main stream media at the time they communicated information relating to the public defense to Novak and/or other reporters. It's laughable to imagine the perpetraitors will argue that the enemy wouldn't have access to the information reported by Novak to the world. To such a defensive argument the court in Morison stated: "Finally, the danger to the United States is just as great when this information is released to the press as when it is released to an agent of a foreign government. The fear in releasing this type of information is that it gives other nations information concerning the intelligence gathering capabilities of the United States. That fear is realized whether the information is released to the world at large or whether it is released only to specific spies." THE MYSTERY OF "GSAVE" IN "TIME OF WAR" And finally we come to the statement from 794(b), "in time of war." 794(b) only kicks in if we are in "a time of war." According to the vote by Congress authorizing the war in Iraq, and the Bush administration's words and actions in projecting that war, we are certainly in a time of war at least as far back as March 19, 2003, when we invaded Iraq, but according to the President, war was declared by the enemy on September 11, 2001. In light of this, "in time of war" requirement from 794(b), it's extremely interesting to note the strange public relations circus emanating from Washington regarding the proposed acronym "GSAVE" which has apparently taken over for "GWOT". GSAVE = Global Struggle Against Violent Extremism GWOT = Global War Against Terror Could it be that the Bush administration will start spinning that we were not in a time of war when Rove and others in the Bush administration outed Plame and her team so as to prepare a defense to coming indictments under 794(b) by Patrick Fitzgerald's grand jury? If we are in a time of war, those involved with outing Valerie Plame and her network are eligible to be prosecuted under 794(b) and therefore are subject to the death penalty. It's no wonder our plight has shifted from a "war on terror" to a "struggle against violent extremism." Look for the Bush administration to make the argument that the Iraq war ended on or about May 1, 2003, the day Bush landed on the USS Lincoln and declared victory over the enemy. DEAR MR. NOVAK, TAKE A LOOK AT 794(c) Bob Novak is in as much trouble as Rove and others. 794(c) states: "(c) If two or more persons conspire to violate this section, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each of the parties to such conspiracy shall be subject to the punishment provided for the offense which is the object of such conspiracy." Novak wrote the report and had it published "in time of war". I don't see any exception to the Treason he committed. <a href="http://citizenspook.blogspot.com/">citizenspook.blogspot.com/</a>

by **Jerky** » Mon Aug 08, 2005 7:37 pm

For full text like this (which I'm assuming is subject to copyright), please either let a link and summation suffice, or put it in the document dump section.

by **dbeach** » Mon Aug 08, 2005 7:46 pm

FEARLESS "3. While President Bush may fire or replace Fitzgerald as the "US Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois", the President has NO AUTHORITY to fire him as the "Special Counsel" in the Treasongate investigation." This had partial post earlier.Its HUGE and I NEED A REREAD . AWESOME!!! I phoned my congressmans office and asked the rep if she was familiar with the laws of treason which of course she was not ..so I told her that if a pres knowingly lies the US into an unjust war then it is considered treason..in my fastest laymans interpretation ..s the US Constituton could have pevented bushfraud in 2000 but scalia took the dirty money $50 million and a duck hunting trip with the bride of satan richard cheny..

by **dbeach** » Mon Aug 08, 2005 8:09 pm

"PLEASE REPOST EVERYWHERE posted by citizenspook at 11:13 AM " is at the bottom of his opinions so I e-mailed him for clarification regarding copyright.. My bet would be his statement gives permission

by **Fearless** » Mon Aug 08, 2005 8:23 pm

Citizen spook gave permission to post entire articles.

by **antiaristo** » Mon Aug 08, 2005 8:31 pm

fearless, I read from top to bottom. This story is quite marvellous. It lends credence to the speculations we have been discussing. It certainly lends weight to Skolnik's claims about John Paul Stevens efforts at mediation. Up to now the Bush gang has been an irresistable force, sweeping all before it. THIS Special Counsel is an immovable object (other than foul play). It makes me wonder about their state of mind. If the Skull & Bones buddy cannot touch him, WHY did they make such a ham-fisted move for no gain?

by **Fearless** » Mon Aug 08, 2005 8:36 pm

in their entirety to best understand the complexities. I do wish I knew the answer to your question, anti... Now if I could only get rid of that little green man in the middle of the post. I swear I don't know how he got there.

by **dbeach** » Mon Aug 08, 2005 8:43 pm

mccollum is the ruthless S&B hit man whom poppy o sends to bail out jr and get the inside info on the indictments mccoullum will get out some info BUT if Fitzie is on the ball..he can still get the job done.. thus if this hits..poppy wil have the damge control button oops wrong word..poppy will be all over this to protcet his lil monster... "Chicago Chicago toddlin town.."

by **greencrow0** » Mon Aug 08, 2005 8:45 pm

citizenspook says: "As you will soon see, Fitzgerald's appointment as Special Counsel, the first of its kind in the history of the United States, was meticulously crafted to withstand the coming onslaught." Rovian strategy would be not to remove the Special Counsel from his position but to carefully peel away his position from him. Look for some innuendo about his sex life...look at all his past legal cases...look at the sex lives and businesses of all his family and friends. No doubt they're doing that just now and it will be front page in the WaPo and the NYT before the end of the week... Swift Boat Lawyers for Truth! ; ) And who is this legally gifted citizen spook? Sounds like a disgrunted spook...and there are a lot of them working for the CIA methinks. Point being...this is shaping up to be a Clash of the Titans....the Executive Branch against [some segments of] the military/justice/branches. Where's the opposition party? That will be another investigation after this one?

by **Fearless** » Mon Aug 08, 2005 8:46 pm

the bad guys lose this one.

by **Fearless** » Mon Aug 08, 2005 8:49 pm

an attorney licensed to practice in the Federal courts.

by **Dreams End** » Mon Aug 08, 2005 8:53 pm

I'm sorry, but is there any evidence anywhere that Bush is trying to fire Fitzgerald? the original story was based on a Newsweek article which turned out to say that they were putting a Boner in as Fitzgerald's boss. Has some new information turned up showing that Fitzgerald will be fired? If not, I suggest not repeating this story, but if so, please provide a link. This issue keeps confusing me as we keep saying "Flocco was wrong, Fitz isn't getting fired" and then another post comes along and talks about Fitz getting fired. I may simply not be keeping up with developments, but please straighten me out here.

by **Fearless** » Mon Aug 08, 2005 8:58 pm

Citizenspook is attempting to ease fears that Fitz will be fired or somehow stopped from doing his job. However, I can't speak for him/her. Your guess is as good as mine. I am grateful for the insight, whether it's true, well, who knows. It gave me hope.

by **antiaristo** » Mon Aug 08, 2005 9:07 pm

DreamsEnd, This story is MUCH larger than whether or not Fitzgerald can be fired. There has been much speculation that Fitzgerald will not be re-appointed to his job at the DoJ. But that doesn't matter. So far as the Plame case is concerned, Fitzgerald has the power of Attorney General. And he has been empowered to go "wherever the evidence takes him". This blog is well written, well researched and an act of love by one with much to lose by doing it.

by **Col Quisp** » Mon Aug 08, 2005 9:11 pm

This is important information and I appreciate having the full story reproduced here. Thanks for posting this!

Fitz CANNOT be fired & Treason is the DEATH penalty

Fitz CANNOT be fired & Treason is the DEATH penalty

A summary, clip and link will do.

Re: Fitz CANNOT be fired & Treason is the DEATH penalty

Re: Fitz CANNOT be fired & Treason is the DEATH penalty

No copyright

Citizen Spook

I think both articles should be read

Re: I think both articles should be read

Re: Citizen Spook

It would be nice to see

Citizenspook claims to be

Re: Citizenspook claims to be

I think

Citizen Spook

Re: A summary, clip and link will do.

Who is online