gettin' lawyered up

June 5, 2004 8:42 AM

Hiring a private criminal defense lawyer --the legal implications and ramifications of our President's (and veep's) move--by John Dean
posted by amberglow (16 comments total)

Those familiar with Fitzgerald's inquiry tell me that the investigative team of attorneys is principally from his office in Chicago, and that they do not really know their way around the workings of Washington. This has resulted in an investigation that is being handled Chicago-style - not D.C.-style. That's significant because in Washington, there is more of a courtesy and protocol toward power than exists in the Windy City.

This has the makings of a wicked movie.
posted by jeffj at 9:01 AM on June 5, 2004

A divided U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit agreed with Starr. The court held that a grand jury was entitled to the information. It also held that government officials -- even when serving as attorneys -- had a special obligation to provide incriminating information in their possession.

For as much as many people here hate Ken Starr, he did accomplish the above, which opened the government up to further scrutiny. IMHO, this is probably the most important point of the article.

People lawyer up all the time. In this day, liability doesn't have to be obvious anymore. Even a hint of wrongdoing and the jury will convict you, despite the truth. Is he covering something up? Probably. But this article's author even said:

I should stress, however, that I do not have access to grand jury testimony, and that grand jury proceedings are secret.

...which tells you that it's too early to paint Bush as guilty. Further investigation? Sure. Assigning blame? Not so much, yet.
posted by BlueTrain at 9:31 AM on June 5, 2004

This all comes to me as quite a shock.
posted by Keyser Soze at 9:46 AM on June 5, 2004

*wipes up amberglow's drool*
posted by David Dark at 10:06 AM on June 5, 2004

Hopefully they take him down somehow. I'd rather it was as a war criminal along with Rumsfeld et al, but since the odds of that happening are close to zero (if history is any indicator) this would have to do.
posted by The God Complex at 10:16 AM on June 5, 2004

they've already questioned Cheney about the CIA leak
posted by amberglow at 10:43 AM on June 5, 2004

*wipes up amberglow's drool*
posted by David Dark at 10:06 AM PST on June 5

Feel free to come back when you have more to say in your presidents defence, eh?
posted by dash_slot- at 11:08 AM on June 5, 2004

TPM has a good bit about the semantic games the White House is playing with this:

"The president 'consulted' Jim Sharp to advise him on whether or not he needs Sharp's advice. And based on that advice, if the president decides he does need Sharp's advice, he'll probably retain him so he can get the advice."
posted by muckster at 11:38 AM on June 5, 2004

What's really amusing to me about this is that there are seven people who know without a doubt who spilled the beans--the spiller and the (allegedly) six journalists who were called to take the spill--but due to notions about journalistic integrity none of the six will come forward and end the hunt. I say this as someone who earned a degree in journalism from a reasonably respectable J School and who earned a few dollars from it back in the day.

Clearly the five who didn't publish the story understood they were being used in a manner far beyond equitable (shown by said refusal) and I don't see that coming forward now, to help answer the question about treason, would effect their future relationships with sources. At least not with sources who respect America and this planet, because I'd just as soon not have reporting based on crap from politicians or bureaucrats who don't meet that minimal level.
posted by billsaysthis at 11:39 AM on June 5, 2004

i think they're afraid that no one will ever trust them or give them scoops, even if they would be doing the right thing, billsays.

a little more on all this from the WaPo, including this interesting nugget:
Sharp, a low-profile lawyer, was a member of the firm that represented Richard V. Secord in the Iran-contra affair, in which Reagan administration officials were accused of arranging secret arms shipments to Nicaraguan rebels and to Iran.
posted by amberglow at 11:43 AM on June 5, 2004

Maybe Bush is just paranoid?
posted by jopreacher at 1:35 PM on June 5, 2004

jopreacher, I saw that article yesterday, and if it's true, we're in even worse trouble than I thought. Can anybody vouch for Captiol Hill Blue?
posted by muckster at 2:34 PM on June 5, 2004

That's chilling--i hope it's not true. (and, needless to say: if you think that everything you do is God's will, none of it is)
posted by amberglow at 2:58 PM on June 5, 2004

*wipes up amberglow's drool*
posted by David Dark at 10:06 AM PST on June 5

For fuck's sake, David, there's no fucking need for that. This isn't an agenda-based post, and the world can certainly do with one less asinine comment from you. Grow the fuck up.
posted by mkultra at 8:29 AM on June 6, 2004

Can anybody vouch for Captiol Hill Blue?

Not really. As both Atrios and Kevin Drum acckowledged while still posting this for the sheer schadenfreude--albeit with the thought, as Drum wrote, ...it might be best to think of this as something from the Onion: even if it's not true it might be more true than you think.
posted by y2karl at 11:14 AM on June 6, 2004

Oh, I am so embarassed! Wrong thread.
posted by y2karl at 11:46 AM on June 6, 2004