It looks like the previous speculation about the replacement of the overseer of the Plame investigation was false:
David Margolis, a lawyer at the Justice Department for 40 years, was named Friday to oversee a special prosecutor’s investigation of who in the Bush administration disclosed the name of an undercover CIA officer.
Margolis, whose title is associate deputy attorney general, is taking the place of Deputy Attorney General James Comey, whose last day of work was Friday. Comey will be Lockheed Martin’s new general counsel.
Comey made the designation of Margolis. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has stepped aside from the probe because he was White House counsel when Valerie Plame’s name was leaked in 2003 and he has testified to the grand jury investigating the unauthorized disclosure.
Comey gave broad discretion to U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald of Chicago when he was appointed to investigate the leak in December 2003. Margolis is not expected to alter Fitzgerald’s mandate in what are likely to be the final months of his investigation. The grand jury ends its term in October.
You can read all about the speculation about Bush replacing Comey with a ‘skull and bones crony’ here, courtesy of the ‘reality-based community.’
Since this post uses the word PLAME and also contains a mockingly derisive reference to the ‘reality-based community,’ consider this the flame warfare thread.
DougJ
Fitzgerald serves at the Attorney General’s pleasure. If he goes too far with his investigation, the way the Iran-Contra independent counsel Walsh did, then he can should be removed. That’s part of the reason we got rid of the independent counsel law — every prosecutor needs some check on his authority. So it is only right that the Deputy AG should rein Fitzgerald in at some point if that becomes necessary.
neil
Yeah, John, it would be totally unreasonable to expect another Saturday Night Massacre. After all, Bush has scrupulously avoided hiring anybody who is in any way associated with the Nixon administration.
Pfft.
Mike S
Paranoia, or or knowing that he’s done things like it before?
DougJ
“but President Bush removed the supervising federal prosecutor and the inquiry ended soon after.”
Again, that is his right as president. Elections have consequences and this is just one of them. If you don’t like it, TRY WINNING ELECTIONS.
KC
Wow. Sometimes I do get the feeling that some Republicans are really the oldest traditional conservatives–they want a monarch! Yes, elections do have consequences, but sometimes people have to ask themselves, do they want lawbreakers to go unpunished, especially well-off people who break the law at taxpayers’ expense? I find it just so wild that after the 1990s, certain Republicans are so interested in ensuring that potential wrongdoers get off the hook.
DougJ
Well, during a turbulent time of war like this, maybe a moarchy would be better. But it would certainly set a dangerous precedent, I’ll tell you that.
Mark-NC
DougJ is truly amazing.
My standard for telling if ANY argument is just partisan crap is simple – turn it around and look from the other side. If the conclusion remains the same, it’s not partisan.
For example, can you imagine if Clinton had fired Janet Reno (and in effect removed Ken Starr) that DougJ would be saying saying “that is his right as president. Elections have consequences and this is just one of them. If you don’t like it, TRY WINNING ELECTIONS”.
You can’t? Neither can I.
DougJ
Actually, Mark, I don’t think that the AG can remove an independent counsel. Ken Starr had very different legal standing that Fitzgerald does. So Clinton couldn’t have done what you suggest. I’m sure he would have if he could have.
Bob
I agree with Doug. A monarchy would set a dangerous precedent. Perhaps a junta, with members from the military, the banks and the oil industry to oversee the war.
jg
Would you have supported him doing it. Would you have said ‘ that is his right as president’?
Stormy70
Curses! Foiled again. Hee hee.
Mark-NC
Actually, Reno is the one who allowed Ken Starr to expand his investigation from Whitewater – which, according to the first SP that the Republicans fired, did not involve the Clintons in any unusual way – to more promising ground where it might be possible to “get Clinton” with “something – anything”.
Reno allow Starr to stray to the Vince Foster suicide (was that the third or fourth Republican attempt to get Clinton on murder?), and then let him stray into the Lewinsky matter.
Neither of these had anything to do with his initial mission!
chadwig
DougJ should be ignored. He sees politics like a football match, he roots for his team no matter what the circumstances, period.
Dialogue with him is wasted energy. His mind is about as open as the Queen Mum’s legs. In a Monarchy he would be the Court Jester; but not funny and soon beheaded.
Rome Again
It’s not paranoia when there is already a precedent to make one wonder if a certain something could happen again… nevertheless, I (for the moment) seem to stand corrected, and I surely hope you’re right.
We’ll see. I’ll still lay 10 to 1 odds that Fitzgerald’s case is somehow prematurely put on ice. Maybe I’m wrong, maybe I’m not… one thing is for certain, if the case does not wrap up soon, we’ll know something prevented the case from going forward. If that happens, I will do my best to make sure you eat crow.
Rome Again
So tell me DougJ, what do you think of a family that only two generations ago had a member in the Senate, whose son became CIA director before becoming Vice President after also fathering two sons who became state Governors, and the eldest becoming President himself?
Welcome to the monarchy of Bush. No nepotism there, right?
Incidentally, I hate nepotism so much, I will NEVER vote for Hillary.
Men who become President should do so because their lives are meritorious, not because they had a father and grandfather who were high up in the US power echelon.
Rome Again
Correction:
I apologize for my typo.
Rome Again
Gee, and here all along I thought he was the Jester’s little bird. “Dougie want a cracker?”