T-Minus 36 Hours, Give or Take: Waxman's Plame Hearing; Fitzgerald's Response to Waxman

Heads up: Patrick Fitzgerald responded to Chairman Waxman today:

http://oversight.house.gov/Documents/20070314180406-55978.pdf

http://oversight.house.gov/story.asp?ID=1205

So, what did Fitzgerald docket with the U.S. District Court as a special gift for the committee?

; )

- Dave

March 17th

What did he docket?

... I'd say that there is at least one MSM-overlooked document that was docketed, which has led the committee staffers to related documents that have not yet made it into the public view.

That way, Fitzgerald abided by the rules, abided by his legal ethics - and the staffers get to look extra smart.

: )

Just a hunch, though.

- Dave

we will find out?

... Friday, as the anti-news dump.

; )

Here's how I would see it working:

1. A seemingly innocuous or obscure reference, contained in a document overlooked by the MSM leads to

2. The committee staff following up on that reference/lead, producing

3. A sizable cache of related documents (which any enterprising investigative journalist could've found)...

- Dave

be found on Waxman's Oversight website, or Fitzgerald's DOJ website?

Just wondering, :)

... seemed to point to the official record. I'd be very curious to know if the District Court has kept track of who's been in to view the record, and if any Hill staffers are among the names listed, if so.

It's possible that one of the filings on Fitzgerald's site is the "nod and wink," but every time I re-read the letter, I am struck by how pointedly he suggests the official record/docketed materials. I don't think his office posted every piece of paper formally filed with the court.

- Dave

to be attached to Waxman's website? Maybe we will hear about them on Friday!

No, wait. I want to be surprised.

It's like Fitzmas all over again.

... but honestly, I think Fitzgerald pulled a classic nod and wink today.

He officially adhered to his ethics, while leaving a trail of crumbs for the committee staff to follow.

- Dave

I trust your "guesses" more than than other people's "facts".

:rofl:

You, I'd like to meet someday (preferably over a pint).

- Dave

And I'll except that offer, if you're ever here in the wilderness of Canada!



(My house is just off to the left in this pic)

Whereabouts?

I dated a Newfie in college, and was great friends with a Montrealer.

- Dave

Well, not IN Ottawa I just work there. I live in the country.

My uncle was a Newfie, told me all the obscene Newfie jokes.

And as for Montréal, I have few connections. Other than the fact that I spent a week at Expo '67 when I was 9 years old.

I can't say or speculate but here's where to look.

... hope that helps.

- Dave

Every court has a daily docket which the clerk or court coordinator prepares.
It lists the cases to be heard that day. Jones v. Smith.
If it is a trial it lists the "style of the case" (Jones v. Smith), and jury selection, jury trial or bench trial, pretrial hearings on motions, or whatever is going on procedurally.

Busy courts have "docket call" every morning, and the attorneys in each case have to show up and announce whether they are ready for trial, or need a continuance, and tell the judge the status of the case. The judge rules on the continuances. Then the docket is marked up and the cases ready for trial are listed in order, #1, #2 etc. and the attorneys are called and notified when they need to show up == whether they need to hang around or show up later.

any document filed with the court is docketed - meaning it goes on the list of the official record. Fitz or the defense could file a motion, petition, etc. which may have been discussed in chambers with the judge and attorneys but not mentioned during the trial. It is part of the offcial record because it was docuted by the clerk who handles the filing. It is contained in the official record which the appeals court will look at when Libby files his appeal. The appeals court will receive the entire record - every piece of paper filed. It seems Fitz is urging Congress to look at the entire record.

Bingo!

- Dave

when I wake up tomarrow, it'll be 24 hours. Yipee.

Just wondering.

He was already in place by the end of 2003; the heat from firing a special counsel after the election would have been too great.

http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/osc/appointment.htm

- Dave

I always found it curious Rove kept returning to the Grand Jury maybe he finally got it right. Since 2000 I am not a trusting person.

Help me out, if you can? I read and re-read the letter, and it looks like a standard response, albeit a very thorough one. Is there something in there that would not normally be included?

the 2nd to the last paragraph in Fitz's response to Waxman. It looks like a pointer where to look for additional info for super sleuths.

"especially where Libby is concerned" appears - Fitz is VERY thorough in that paragraph.

... Fitzgerald gave up nothing new in this letter, citing his legal and ethical obligations, and asking the committee staff to review the public record.

You're absolutely right: it looks like a standard response, and anyone would be hard-pressed to find fault with how straight Fitzgerald played it.

So, the committee staff - also "playing it straight" - comb through the public record, and "discover" a tidbit that (curiously enough) wasn't really highlighted during the Libby trial. Following up on that leads to the "discovery" of a whole other trove of information.

It could be a name of a person who didn't appear on the witness lists of either side. It could be a document that is mentioned.

Remember: it was a seemingly innocuous revelation during Watergate that led to the public "discovery" of the audio tapes.

- Dave

"(especially as it concerned Mr. Libby in particular)". It IS almost as though he's telling them where to look, or giving a bit of a hint. That was the one thing I found a little unusual.

The Oversight Committee will webcast the hearing live at www.oversight.house.gov.

http://oversight.house.gov/schedule.asp

Damn! Glad I saw this thread. Won't want to miss this hearing!

He's so concerned that Waxman et all will ask him questions about Rove or Cheeney since they have not been charged during this investigation. You would think since Rove tried to oust him, he would love to give the dirt on him. Or all the shit he has on Cheeney.

Is it possible a prosecutor can have too much ethics? :loveya:

He'd be the last guy to "bend" the rules.

I also think he's the first guy to do everything the law provides for in order for the truth to be known.

... seems to be of paramount concern for both Fitz and Waxman.

- Dave

with a bunch of us we can read it all...

... probably.

; )

- Dave

:kick:

Rule 6(e)4 (4) Sealed Indictment.

The magistrate judge to whom an indictment is returned may direct that the indictment be kept secret until the defendant is in custody or has been released pending trial. The clerk must then seal the indictment, and no person may disclose the indictment’s existence except as necessary to issue or execute a warrant or summons.

And how it prevents him from speaking up.Which part of (e) would be preventing him from speaking.

Fwiw-Eric S. Edelman was Cheney's principal deputy national security advisor 2001-2003, I wonder when his name will pop up?
Eric S. Edelman profile from rightweb-irc
http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1143

to overshadow BOTH Gonzo's foulup AND the Plame testimony?


:evilgrin: :evilgrin: :evilgrin: :evilgrin:

Look for someone to confess to the O.J. killings tomorrow morning.. or the father of Anna Nicole Smith's baby to be identified...

:hi:

had to do, but at the same time reminded Waxman that there is a public record that should be consulted, especially as it pertains to Libby.

If that isn't a wink and a nod, I don't know what is. He didn't need to include that at all in his letter, but did.

I was unhappy at first when I heard Fitz didn't accept the invite, but I understand why he didn't. The trial is not really over with an appeal looming on the horizon.

I am expecting blockbuster revelations tomorrow.

Plame is going to surprise a lot of people with what she has to say, given she is no longer employed by the CIA.

Waxman is going to give her wide discretion to fully tell her story.

THis should be a good one, right Dave??

I DEDICATE THIS THREAD TO ANDY STEPHENSON

AND FURTHERMORE...

I NOMINATE DAVE, "CorpGovActivist" AS THE OFFICIAL RECIPIENT OF THE "DU DIAMOND OF DEMOCRACY" AWARD.

BHN:kick:

BHN

psyched for tomorrow. :D

:kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick:

I'm definitely watching this!