Plamegate is slowly turning into a free-for-all, names are being named,
Rove should be packing his bags, and
Fitz's authority is under attack.
The big mystery: why has John Hannah not been shown the door by Dick Cheney?? It seems that Hannah has finally given
Jason Leopold permission to use his name (which we basically all knew anyway) as the main fitzmole in the Big Dick's office:
The official has been identified by attorneys and four current and former White House officials as John Hannah....Hannah was named Cheney's national security adviser the day Libby was indicted.
Libby's crack
obfuscators lawyers, having been largely frustrated in their graymail defense, are now
trying to (effectively) get Fitz fired (su-PRIZE, su-PRIZE), on the grounds that he has overstepped his authority.
MORE
The issue raised by Libby is whether or not Fitzgerald is acting as a
principal officer of the executive branch, arguing that Comey gave him so much independence, possibly independent of the Attorney General. A principal officer, like the AG, must be appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate.
Fitzgerald was tapped by the Department of Justice in December 2003 to investigate whether White House officials violated a 1982 federal law making it a felony to knowingly disclose the identity of an undercover CIA officer.
A month or so after obtaining testimony from Hannah and more than a dozen other senior White House officials who may have been involved in the leak, Fitzgerald sent a letter to his boss, then-acting Attorney General James Comey, seeking confirmation that he had the authority to investigate and prosecute individuals for additional crimes that may have been committed during the probe.
Comey responded to Fitzgerald in writing on February 6, 2004, confirming that the special prosecutor had the authority to prosecute "perjury, obstruction of justice, destruction of evidence, and intimidation of witnesses."
It was the conflicting testimony Fitzgerald obtained from I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby and Karl Rove that prompted Fitzgerald to send a letter to Comey, attorneys and current and former administration officials close to the probe said.
From the moment Fitzgerald received Comey's response, the investigation changed course and moved to an obstruction of justice and perjury probe against Rove and Libby, the sources close to the investigation said.
Libby is arguing that this whole arrangement is illegal:Fitzgerald is investigating the disclosure of Plame's CIA undercover status and is not required to inform anyone at the Department of Justice about the investigation's progress, the prosecutor said.
In a court filing in February, Libby said that only Congress could approve such an arrangement.
Libby's lawyers said, "The attorney general may delegate powers but he may not abdicate responsibility."
The federal prosecutor stated that Congress had indeed given the Attorney General authority and was granted the right "to delegate any of his functions to other offices of the Department of Justice."
The WaPo has additional details of Libby's argument:
"The government attempts to salvage the appointment by submitting two affidavits recently prepared by Mr. Comey and Mr. Fitzgerald, claiming that their previously undisclosed, subjective understanding of the appointment was narrower," Libby's lawyers wrote. "Mr. Comey now asserts that `it was my intention that the special counsel would follow substantive department policies' in exercising that authority."
"Similarly, despite the fact that as recently as August 2004 Mr. Fitzgerald characterized himself as `the functional equivalent of the attorney general in this matter,' he now insists in response to Mr. Libby's challenge that he always `understood' he had no authority to expand his jurisdiction and that he was required to follow certain substantive department policies," the court papers added."
Interestingly, and perhaps of concern, is that, according to the Libby filing, Fitzgerald is also attempting to make the case that he (Fitz) qualifies as an "inferior officer" because
he is subject to "at will" removal. This sounds to me like Fitz is playing a heavyduty game of "chicken"...conceding that he can
actually be fired (something we all have feared from Day 1), in the hopes that this will allow him to continue, taking the calculated risk that Bushco will not have the "political capital" to boot him at this late stage.
Libby's defense is not making any headway by pounding on the law or the facts, and is now pounding the table. We shall see whether Bush cronies on the bench have the stones to try and derail the case against Libby, Rove,
and unknown others who tried to shoot Joe Wilson in the face, figuratively speaking. Particularly if Rove is indicted before Judge Walton rules on the "Fitz authority" question, a dismissal on technical grounds would make huge headlines.
UPDATE: Insight is saying that Libby's attorney's are naming the possible primary leaker of Plame's identity as either Colin Powell, Richard Armitage, or Marc Grossman:
The attorneys have sought to highlight heavy infighting between White House staff and the CIA and State Department amid criticism by Mrs. Plame's husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson.
As if the identity of the leaker matters to a perjury case. I would guess that Libby is making these claims in order to discredit witnesses from State or CIA who are testifying against him.