The presse ancien was a willing accomplice (if not instigator) in the propagation of the myth that the existence or non-existence of WMD in Iraq was a 'knowable' fact prior to the Iraqi battle. The fact is, not even Saddam's inner circle knew with any certainty whether WMD were available for use as the Americans began the battle.
Clarice's argument regarding Fitzgerald's response to the TeamLibby Motion to Dismiss will be of interest to those who follow the logic of the law. Fitzgerald's attempt to resuscitate Morrison in order to refute Edmonds is an exercise in hand waving and misdirection of the first order.
I have a minor question for the Flares resident legal staff (or any outside attorney with an opinion) does the phrase in the Edmonds' opinion,
Generally speaking, "inferior officers" are officers whose work is directed and supervised at some level by others who were appointed by presidential nomination with the Senate's advice and consent.rise to the level of dictum or is it simply interpretory in nature?
10 comments:
Thank you, Rick. If you look at this Findlaw recitation of the case, it appears that the phrase is one of the two principal holdings in the case.http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=520&invol=651
BTW. late last night I learned something "as if for the very first time". The prosecutor in the preposterous Martha Stewart case was.....Comey.
rick - the statement appears to be a necessary part of determining the decision in the case. if so, it's not dicta, it's the law.
Thanks, ex-dem, I should probably avoid attempting irony wrt writing about law. I just don't have the background to do it.
Fitz's argument in the response is, IMO, a weak attempt to treat that line in Edmonds as dicta by asserting a claim that Morrison is still "good law".
I believe that the Motion to Dismiss is going to be granted, perhaps not by Judge Walton, but granted nevertheless.
From your mouth to God's ear, Rick.(Of course as AM notes on JOM the meme will then be the Bush Administration cannot investigate itself so I'd better work on Part II immediately to preserve the factual weaknesses of the case before it's over.)LOL
my bad, rick - had my sense of irony (and humor) beaten out of me in law school. ;-)
Nope, I was writing too far above my understanding. I've read too few motions and responses (actually, too many) and Fitz's erection of a strawman and subsequent destruction of same just seemed a bit too blatant to me.
Of course, if the Magnificent Seven get ahold of it they would probably declare it a landmark in jurisprudence.
I really hate law as politics.
I wonder if they really will dismiss? The whole case seems more ridiculous as time goes on. But then again if they dismiss Libby's attorney will not have the oppurtunity to present his case.
A well-written piece! I forwarded it to one of my old friends at Main Justice.
Another tour de force for Clarisse. She is doing yeoman service on JOM, and in the American Thinker.
I do not think anyone has successfully challenged her arguments.
Thanks..Maybe the trick to going unchallenged is to write such long pieces it puts your critics to sleep.
Post a Comment