Letters to the Editor
bvernia
Published Letters: 26 Editor's Choice: 4
-
A coincidence? I think not.
[Read the article: Cheney and Libby, a little vague on the details]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I've mentioned elsewhere on the net the fact that on the same weekend that Bush announced he had consulted a personal lawyer in the CIA leak case, George Tenet announced his resignation from the CIA. Novak has said that he talked to the CIA and that there was no objection to printing Plame's name. Could it be that "the CIA" was Tenet?
-
Criminal Procedure
[Read the article: What comes next for Karl Rove?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Regarding waiving indictment-- although the "update" is correct that this is often done in plea agreements (in which prosecutors sometimes use an "information" that doesn't require grand jury approval), I think it would have been extremely unwise for Karl Rove and Robert Luskin to agree to waive indictment for Fitzgerald's convenience without a solid agreement in place for what would come in an information. Although the odds of a "no bill" are long indeed, you'd give up that roll of the dice only for some valuable concession from the government.
-
Why not name "Official A"
[Read the article: "Official A" and the mystery of Karl Rove]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Although individuals are sometimes mentioned by name in an indictment, it is usually only if they are victims or principal witnesses-- in this case the reporters-- whose testimony is essential to the story, and who are not under legal jeopardy themselves. The principal function of an indictment is to notify the defendant of the charges, and in general other persons are named to the extent necessary to do that.
The Department of Justice also has a longstanding policy against naming unindicted coconspirators in normal circumstances, and if a person remains under investigation, it would be unusual for them to be named in an indictment of a related target.
Fitzgerald is simply following Department policy.
-
Now is the time...
[Read the article: Alito, the nuclear option and the Democrats' thin hopes]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]There are battles you fight even knowing that you will lose, because of their importance in the war. This is such a battle. Democrats really have no choice but to go to the mat against this nominee, whose ideology-- like that of Scalia and Thomas-- would roll back progress made in this country over a century. Democrats who don't face that reality, and opt to preserve an illusion of interparty comity are idiots. Will some conservative (not "moderate") Dems vote against a filibuster? I don't know, but now is the time to find out what they value more: the core values of their party, or their standing in the eyes of the GOP. I think the voters of Connecticut, for example, would be very interested in seeing whether Joe Lieberman will stand with his party or with the GOP.
Tim also fails to mention the main reason the Republicans in the "Gang of 14" were most concerned: Harry Reid's threat to require strict (i.e., slow) parliamentary procedures, which would grind business in the Senate to a halt.
In the words of Margaret Thatcher, now is not the time to get all wobbly, Tim. It's not a question of how much to fight a losing battle, but how best to fight it.