White House Rejects Special Counsel
This morning, I wrote “A special investigation to determine the legality of the NSA intercept is a facade.” That’s still how I feel. Today, though, the White House weighed in on the issue:
The White House on Monday rejected the call by more than a dozen House Democrats for a special counsel to investigate the Bush administration’s eavesdropping program. President Bush’s spokesman Scott McClellan said those Democrats should instead spend their time investigating the source of the unauthorized disclosure of the classified program, which “has given the enemy some of our playbook.” “I really don’t think there’s any basis for a special counsel,” McClellan also said.
I love that last shot because it shows that the White House isn’t taking the WH press corps’ guff anymore. They aren’t just slipping the questions, which is what McClellan did during the Cheney debacle. They’re hitting back and with good reason.
The truth is that the WH press corps is mostly the PR machine for Congressional Democrats, meaning that slapping the WH press corps is essentially the same as slapping the Congressional Democrats.
As I said earlier, the only way to put a final stamp of approval on this issue is when the Supreme Court rules in the President’s favor on this issue, which is precisely what I’d expect the opinion to be. After all, all prior precedents have said exactly that.
The Democrats see “ample precedent” for a special counsel, citing the Justice Department’s appointment of U.S. attorney Patrick Fitzgerald to investigate the leak of the identity of CIA operative Valerie Plame.
Oddly enough, the ‘Fitzgerald Precedent’ is undergoing tight scrutiny on constitutional grounds. There’s a question as to whether his appointment was valid since he wasn’t approved by Congress or appointed by the Executive branch. That’s the threshhold established by the Constitution. I understand that that’s just a motion but it’s got some merit to it. If the defense wins that motion hearing, then the case will be dismissed since the ruling would mean that Fitzgerald wasn’t legally authorized to conduct an investigation.
Cross-post at LetFreedomRing
February 27th, 2006 at 8:08 pm
Maybe Fitzgerald will be charged with a felony for doing so. He needs to be held accountable, ignorance of the law is not an excuse for the average Joe, nor should it be for a fake prosecutor!
February 27th, 2006 at 8:17 pm
Let’s hold off on that idea until the ruling has been made by either this judge or the Supremes. If they rule that he didn’t have the authority, then we can take that next step.
Let’s not get ahead of ourselves.
February 27th, 2006 at 11:29 pm
I’m getting really tired of this whole “wiretapping” thing (Mainly because the whole thing has been presented incorrectly). If the Dems are so hot and bothered that this is illegal then SUE or bring up charges. Forget pussy footing around with a stupid “investigation” which is just an excuse for more grandstanding.
Put up, or shut up!
February 28th, 2006 at 5:01 am
National Digest: National Digest
WASHINGTON — Attorney General Alberto Gonzales should appoint a special counsel to investigate