No Final Report Seen in Inquiry on C.I.A. Leak

[swag]

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/19/politics/19leak.html?hp&ex=1129694400&en=adcf3adabff56617&ei=5094&partner=homepage

By DAVID JOHNSTON and RICHARD W. STEVENSON
Published: October 19, 2005
WASHINGTON, Oct. 18 - The special counsel in the C.I.A. leak case has told associates he has no plans to issue a final report about the results of the investigation, heightening the expectation that he intends to bring indictments, lawyers in the case and law enforcement officials say.

The prosecutor, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, is not expected to take any action in the case this week, government officials said. A spokesman for Mr. Fitzgerald, Randall Samborn, declined to comment.

A final report had long been considered an option for Mr. Fitzgerald if he decided not to accuse anyone of wrongdoing, although Justice Department officials have been dubious about his legal authority to issue such a report.

By signaling that he had no plans to issue the grand jury's findings in such detail, Mr. Fitzgerald appeared to narrow his options either to indictments or closing his investigation with no public disclosure of his findings, a choice that would set off a political firestorm.

. . .

[pfitz59]

1. Indictments! TREASON in time of War!

Punishable by DEATH! Execute the BASTARDS!

[moc]

2. "not expected to take any action in the case this week"

:banghead:

I think my head is going to explode from anticipation.

:nuke:

[swag]

4. More time for your champagne to chill,

and for you to craft your LTTEs to counter the coming RW punditocracy's smearboating of Fitzgerald.

[journalist3072]

5. I know....I'm so anxious

But maybe he's just dotting his the "I"s and crossing the "T"s.

[grytpype]

12. Looks like Fitzmas is coming late this year...

[Halliburton]

18. I don't mind that much as long as new info keeps coming out

like Hannah flipping and Scooter's lying.

[VegasWolf]

34. Yeah, but just think of the pressure cooker Bush and the WH are under

while waiting. Bush will be a babbling maniac in another week!!!
Wait, what am I saying....

:popcorn:

[Tight_rope]

70. ROTFLMBAO...Now that you put it that way...I guess I can wait!

:rofl::rofl: :rofl: :popcorn:

[tavalon]

56. Fitzgerald holds his cards close

As usual, his spokesman declined to comment. I'm loving this.

[Catherine Vincent]

3. Patrick, you are such a tease.

:smoke:

[OldLeftieLawyer]

6. This is just more bullshit

The special investigator is not entitled to write a report. He legally cannot issue any kind of report.

He'd have to get a special court order, which, my guess is, would not be granted.

Jesus, this twaddle is making people nuts. What a colossal waste of energy.

In a short enough time, Fitzgerald will make his decision known. Until then, no one knows anything.

But, y'all just learned a tiny bit about the special investigator's role. You're welcome.

[Catherine Vincent]

15. Thank you Lefty.

:-)

[swag]

16. Thanks. Code of Federal Regulations certainly seems to agree with you.

and Title 28 of the Code of Federal Regulations:

"CHAPTER VI--OFFICES OF INDEPENDENT COUNSEL, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
PART 600--GENERAL POWERS OF SPECIAL COUNSEL"

http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_03/28cfr600_03.html

"§ 600.8 Notification and reports by the
Special Counsel.
. . .
(c) Closing documentation. At the conclusion
of the Special Counsel’s work,
he or she shall provide the Attorney
General with a confidential report explaining
the prosecution or declination
decisions reached by the Special Counsel."

Interesting that Ken Starr did something else entirely. Maybe that's why everyone has different expectations today.

Former HJC Chair Elizabeth Holtzman discusses Starr's report
in a chat transcript that's interesting to read for perspective and for other reasons:

http://www.time.com/time/community/transcripts/chattr091498.html

"And the original law simply required the special prosecutor to turn over information, and not to write a report."

A brief wikipedia article on the law:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_prosecutor

[hang a left]

40. Would he be compelled to if called by Congress?

And do you think that anyone really knows if it will be this week or next. I suppose if everyone is wheeling and dealing through attorneys, that those attorneys and their clients knows he's not ready yet. You don't mind doing a little pro bono work here at DU do you? :-)

[OldLeftieLawyer]

64. No one knows anything

Keep that in mind.

And quit worrying about something that will never happen.

Yeah, a Republican-controlled Congress will demand a report.

Right.

No one knows anything.

[tavalon]

57. You know what though?

Even if the media gets their information wrong, every time they breathlessly report any little thing about this scandal, it's a good thing. Any publicity around this is good publicity for everyone who isn't in the White House.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

65. I respectfully disagree

It's nothing but the media whacking off, and people who let themselves get carried away by this bullshit are nothing but fools. That's my opinion.

There are deaths taking place in Iraq. Our economy is in tatters. We have people who are hungry, have lost their homes, have no medical insurance, no hope for their futures, and the driving force in some lives right now is what kind of worthless bullshit is coming out of the some idiot "journalist's" mouth about something that - you must keep this in mind - is completely secret. Something about which no one knows anything.

Quit listening and watching that crap, and go out and do something good for someone who'd never expect such a gift. You'll feel better, and you'll make the world a bit nicer for at least one person.

No one knows anything. Keep that in mind.

[tavalon]

74. First off

I only get my news from Buzzflash, Truthout and here. I don't have cable or even tune my TV to regular stations. It is a place where I play DVDs.

If your argument is that we shouldn't be listening to this stuff (DUers and other political junkies) then, yes, I can agree. But the average Joe out there who has their political smarts buried in the back yard needs to hear about this often and if they here a few facts wrong, so what, at least they're hearing about it. That's what I mean about any publicity being good publicity for our side, the patriotic side, the side that wants to wrestle this country back from the Neocons.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

75. Any publicity?

I don't want to hear rumors about anyone or anything. That's not good for anyone, and just confuses and - sometimes - antagonizes people.

There's a sense of competition that rises up online, and it's really powerful, I understand.

But, it's all wasted energy. All of it. Unless the matters being debated are cold hard facts based on real events, then it's nothing but intellectual masturbation - in my world, as waste of time.

There are people who do not share our fascination with the political process. Always were, always will be. And that's their choice and their right. I respect it, and hardly believe that the rabid circulation of groundless rumors will change the way they think.

It's better, I believe, to take care of your own part of the world while awaiting the real news from Fitzgerald. And, while we're at it, we might consider where the spines of Democrats have gone and who will be the definitive voice - not necessarily a Presidential candidate - but who will be the one who will stand up and speak to the needs of our country.

So far, we're not winning a damn thing. The Republicans have, perhaps, gone too far and fucked up, but that hardly translates to the Democrats winning. Except, perhaps, by default, which I'd gladly accept.

But, defaults count only as defaults, and aren't nearly as satisfying as a substantive win.

[tavalon]

76. Really?

You were around during Watergate, yes? Do you think it was the substantive that took down that presidency? Or was it the wildfire that erupted with the public when they kept hearing about this part and that part and yet again, another part of the expanding scandal. Do you really think Nixon stepped down because he was worried about what would happen in the court?

Sorry, I think the tide of public opinion needs to be swayed and therefore, I still think that everything that gets out there helps. I'm not buyig much of the swill I'm seeing but it doesn't mean I'm not pleased to see the media getting it out there. I don't think the media will get much right because they are brain damaged idiots but they've always, with a few notable exceptions been brain damaged idiots.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

77. I was a first-year law student

when the Watergate hearings took place.

Keep in mind that it all hinged on Maximum John Sirica, not rumors. He put the squeeze on the defendants, and that began the process.

The outrage that rose up was in response to the hearings - which were televised - and to the information that came out during those hearings (god bless Alexander Butterfield). There weren't many rumors floating around because we had daily, substantive information via TV, radio, and newspapers.

In so many way, the Internet is a massive waste of time. It's a job to sort out the authoritative-sounding bloggers who know nothing from the authentic sources, who also know nothing because that's how Fitzgerald is conducting his investigation.

If you think that "everything that gets out there helps," you have standards that are different from mine. I'll hold out for reality, truth, and solid facts with real - albeit not necessarily desirable - consequences. That's the only way anything will ever begin to change.

And, yes, Nixon stepped down because he was afraid of being impeached, thrown out of office, and then subject to criminal charges. That is precisely why Nixon resigned. That is precisely why Gerry Ford quickly pardoned him. That's just basic American history.

You don't sway public opinion with groundless and inaccurate rumors. The media reports everything - remember the Swift Boaters? - and they'll just as quickly report trash damaging to our side as to the other.

Never count on a whore. The whore will steal your wallet, lie to you, and leave you naked in the motel room, in a fix because the whore also took your clothes and car keys.

[Walt Starr]

68. The problem is, Patrick Fitzgerald ran this investigation by the book

which is driving the media out of their wits because previously, special Counsels would issue statements, do press conferences, and have enough leaks to sink a battleship.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

69. Leaks are valid

and also part of a well-run investigation. Leaks are a time-honored method of smoking out information or witnesses that might not be available otherwise.

It's a very interesting labyrinth, this sort of Washington puzzle. I'm enjoying it immensely, just watching the dynamics evolve around the central matter.

One never knows what's going to pop up.

But, there's more than one "book," when these investigations are conducted.

[Rose Siding]

7. Without indictments he'd HAVE to make a final report

wouldn't he? A happy...(yet tentatively restrained)...:bounce:

[stepnw1f]

8. meaning? (nt)

[journalist3072]

9. Indictment Day is coming!!!!!!!! eom

[peterh]

21. Not necessarily….

Keep in mind that there’s a certain A.G. that still has authority on a yea or ney on ultimate filings

[journalist3072]

23. But Mr. Torture man...

Doesn't have any control over the Grand Jury handing down indictments. They can hand out indictments, and the Torture Man has nothing to do with that, right?

[OldLeftieLawyer]

27. Right

And even if there are no indictments issued, the special investigator is not entitled to write a report. It would require a special court order, and that probably would not be granted.

So, you have to be prepared - reality bites, yes - for absolutely nothing to come of Fitzgerald's investigation.

Just be patient, and keep in mind that no one - this is another hard reality - knows anything.

Hang in there.

[yodermon]

32. hypothetical question

(hypothetical since the repukes hold power) but what if Congress were to legislate a request for such a report?

[OldLeftieLawyer]

63. It's the court's call -

I honestly cannot imagine the legislative branch attempting to overthrow a judicial decision.

But, hypothetically, it could happen. Not very likely, though.

Don't let what Ken Starr did skew your perception of the law - he was an aberration, a publicity-hungry monster who couldn't take a deep breath without leaking it to the press. The job Fitzgerald is doing is meant to be done discreetly and, if no indictments are returned, the discretion continues, which means there is no report that might - might - do harm to the reputations of witnesses who have done nothing illegal.

[Usrename]

73. They would only overthrow the judicial if a person is brain dead.

Oh wait, what am I saying.

:popcorn:

[peterh]

30. Negative…

At least from what I’ve read from some other blogs….Fitz still has to submit his findings to Gonzales and get approval on the indictments from Gonzales regardless of the findings from the Grand Jury.

Now in saying that, Gonzales would field some heavy flak in not proceeding with what the Grand Jury handed down, but he might get away with a “limited” scope of what was handed down….and that may be the primary reason that the rumor has shifted from tomorrow to next week….on the filings….

[journalist3072]

39. That doesn't make sense to me...

Because if Fitzgerald had to go to Gonzalez for final approval of any indictments, that would allow politics to enter the legal system.

One of the reasons Fitzgerald is investigating this, is because the last AG (Ashcroft) had to recuse himself, b/c of his ties to Karl Rove (who helped run his 2000 campaign).

[peterh]

44. Wrong…

Fitz was nominated to investigate this regardless….the problem was who was he going to report to….ASShole rescued under pressure, thus Fitz reported to whats-his-name…the deputy. But now the rules have changed, Gonzales is not a rescued A.G., thus Fitz now reports directly to him.

[hang a left]

41. I don't know who he has to submit to but it is not Gonzales.

Gonzales has testified and has recused himself. The way the Comey crafted his special counsel, Fitzgerald answers to no one but himself; he is in essence the Attorney General for this matter.

[peterh]

46. If you can show me where that is fact…

I’ll accept it….but I’ve yet to see it from any of the blogs I’ve read

[hang a left]

55. Which part?

If you are talking about Gonzales I will go do a search. If you are talking about Fitz, I search for that. But I have read both of those things, right here at DU.

[peterh]

58. Fitz is a special prosecutor….different from independent…

Fitz reports to the A.G. office, not to himself….now as the dialog has indicated, there is some question just who does he report to….I have not seen where Gonzales has rescued himself, but that doesn’t say he hasn’t…..I’m just saying that from what I’ve read thus far, it looks like Gonzales has the final say on how to proceed on the Grand Jury verdicts…which at this point looks to be upwards of 22….and I say that with a big smile…


Let me clarify that….I’m smiling about a possible 22 indictments….

[hang a left]

59. No he does not, this thread tells you all about it.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=4298833


Also Gonzales was subpoenaed and has testified and has recused himself. He said so himself on Meet the Press a month or so ago.

[peterh]

61. I stand corrected…..

And it seems that while Fitz is just a special prosecutor that reports to the Deputy A.G., he is in fact independent until that post is filled….and me thinks the procedures on the indictments will come well before that….I can go to bed feeling a little better….thx…

Still, if there is a delay into next week….hmmmm…


http://whateveralready.blogspot.com/2005/04/identity-theft-plame-game.html

"Gonzalez, however, knows no specifics as to what Fitzgerald might or might not have uncovered: During his Senate confirmation hearings, Gonzalez agreed to recuse himself from having anything to do with the Plame investigation. While White House counsel, Gonzalez had advised senior Bush administration officials how to respond to initial requests from the Justice Department."

[hang a left]

60. I am happy too.

Just wanted to add that I am not trying to be combative. I have just read everything that I can get my hands on about this case. I forget alot, like I forgot about Hannah turning over a year ago until today. But this I remember because I researched it thoroughly. :hi:

[rodeodance]

45. well, I have heard that the grand jury meets MWF--so a few more days

of gut renching anticipation is in order.

[Donailin]

47. Gonzalez; dejavu all over again??. sat night massacre

The "Saturday night massacre" (October 20, 1973) was the term given by political commentators to U.S. President Richard Nixon's executive dismissal of independent special prosecutor Archibald Cox, and the forced resignations of Attorney General Elliot Richardson and Deputy Attorney General William Ruckelshaus during the controversial and drawn-out Watergate scandal.

Cox, who was appointed by Congress to investigate the events surrounding the Watergate break-in of June 17, 1972, had earlier issued a subpoena to President Nixon, asking for copies of taped conversations which Nixon had made in the Oval Office as evidence. Nixon initially refused to comply with the subpoena, but on October 19, 1973, he offered what was later known as the Stennis Compromise – asking U.S. Senator John C. Stennis to review and summarize the tapes for the special prosecutor's office.

Cox refused the compromise that same evening, and it was believed that there would be a short rest in the legal maneuvering while government offices were closed for the weekend. However, President Nixon acted to dismiss Cox from his office the next night – a Saturday. He contacted Attorney General Richardson and ordered him to fire the special prosecutor. Richardson refused, and instead resigned in protest. Nixon then ordered Deputy Attorney General Ruckelshaus to fire Cox; he, too, refused and resigned.

Nixon then contacted the Solicitor General, Robert Bork, and ordered him as acting head of the Justice Department to fire Cox. Richardson and Ruckelshaus had both personally assured the congressional committee overseeing the special prosecutor investigation that they would not interfere – Bork had made no such assurance to the committee. Bork considered resigning as well, but was persuaded by Richardson that this would leave the Department in chaos. Bork then complied with Nixon's order and fired Cox.

Congress was infuriated by the act, which was seen as a gross abuse of Presidential power. In the days that followed, numerous bills of impeachment against the President were introduced in Congress. Nixon defended his actions in a famous press conference on November 17, 1973, in which he said,

"...in all of my years of public life, I have never obstructed justice. And I think, too, that I can say that in my years of public life that I've welcomed this kind of examination, because people have got to know whether or not their President's a crook. Well, I'm not a crook!"

[peterh]

51. It will be interesting to see what comes out of this….

The A.G. is between a rock and a hard place on this and we all know how loyalty has played a significant role in appointments in this administration….and we’ve also seen where push comes to shove, someone falls on their sword……

My guess is someone will take the hit….Cheney????….and Rove will still be intact to sweep up and move on…..and that’s all you’ll see outta MSM and a majority of the sheeple will move on….

Cynical while pragmatic….

Someone shoot me….please….

[jsamuel]

50. Your wrong: Fitz reports to THE DEPUTY AG who is not Gonz.

It was Comey, then he handed it to someone else. I can't find it.

Anyway, the point is your wrong to think that he has to report to Gonz.

This is because the AG at the time recused himself (Ashcroft) and Comey was appointed acting AG. Comey then appointed special prosecutor Fitz. Fitz has had to report to Comey until recently when Comey handed over the acting AG job to someone new.


Found it: Timothy E. Flanigan --> Fitz reports to him as he is Deputy AG for this case.

[peterh]

53. Uhhh…not likely….Flanigan withdrew…

http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=19229&c=206

But hey…I hope I am still wrong….
I want to say it (though I could be wrong) was from someone that chimed into Josh Marshall awhile back and Josh chose to look for further commentary on it….I didn’t see anyone refute it….the fact is….ASScroft was rescued, Gonzales never did.

Also, think about the circumstances….did ASScroft really want to leave or was there a bigger picture in all this….it makes me go hmmmmm….

[jsamuel]

54. Fitz doesn't report to Gonz. PERIOD

Once the AG recuses himself and assigns a Deputy AG, the Deputy AG then takes over the roll as AG and it never goes back to the AG (whether it is a different AG or not). It may not be Flanigan, but it is someone other than Gonz. It is whoever just released the info saying Miller's charges were dropped.

Again, Fitz does not report to Gonz. and will not.


Ashcroft left because he chose to protect himself (as his lawyers told him to) and recuse himself instead of protecting the administration.

[grytpype]

14. no....

Under the old independent counsel law, the IC was supposed to issue a report. Regular prosecutions don't go that way, there are indictments or a "no bill," but not a report usually.

[Rose Siding]

22. I see. I thought Congress requested a report, but maybe that

request was just made unofficially by dems.

Are the rules the same for "special prosecutors" as for more usual cases?

[grytpype]

28. No, because of grand jury secrecy requirements.

You see, the persons being investigated by a grand jury might be innocent and there may be no probable cause to charge them with a crime. So the rules are designed to protect those possibily innocent persons by imposing a secrecy requirement on the grand jurors and prosecutors. The GJ either indicts or it's a "no bill."

[rodeodance]

38. Democrats had requested a writtened detailed report if no indictments

handed down.

[milkyway]

10. Check out the out-of-nowhere last line of the article:

"Officials who testified or were questioned by investigators also included John Hannah, Mr. Cheney's principal deputy national security adviser."

The Times is being coy, throwing this on at the end completely out of place from the paragraphs that preceded it, saying little, but saying a lot.

[MADem]

13. Why do I think Hannah has gotten a courtesy call

along the "don't take any long trips, get your affairs in order" variety.

[Patsy Stone]

36. I caught that too.

"Here's this, do with it what you will."

[MADem]

11. This bit is interesting

Under Justice Department regulations, it is not clear whether Mr. Fitzgerald has the authority to issue a final report, even if he wanted to, although he has operated under a broad delegation of authority, issued in a pair of letters by James B. Comey, the former deputy attorney general. Those directives gave Mr. Fitzgerald virtually the same power as the attorney general to conduct criminal inquiries.

But even the attorney general is restricted in what information he can release publicly or present to Congress when it has been obtained, as Mr. Fitzgerald has gathered it, through extensive use of a grand jury, whose proceedings are secret. Even so, some lawyers have argued that Mr. Fitzgerald could issue such a report and have said there is general authority to report his findings if they are requested by Congress.

Without a report, it seems likely that questions about the case may remain unanswered and that a complete account of the administration's activities might never be known, including the details of testimony by the scores of administration officials who were interviewed in the inquiry.

The likelihood that crucial details might be kept secret would be increased if Mr. Fitzgerald brings charges that are narrowly focused on perjury, false statement or obstruction of justice counts involving misstatements by officials in their testimony. But he has also examined broader potential violations, among them whether there was an illegal effort, directed by senior officials, to disclose Ms. Wilson's identity.

I think Congress needs to ask Mister Fitz to give them a report, after everything else shakes out.

[goforit]

20. Yes!!!...we the people deserve a full account! even if it includes mihop!

[MADem]

29. We'll have to see how this plays out, and then, if Congress does not

make the request on their own, we will simply have to encourage them.

[goforit]

17. Would if he chooses not to hand out indictments at all?

[WinkyDink]

62. Please.

This decision would have been made long ago, and acted upon.
Fitz, IMO, wouldn't let people twist slowly, slowly in the wind if NOTHING was going to happen to them.
Besides, various WH lawyers sure aren't acting as though no indictments are coming.

[lovuian]

19. Hello Whitehouse Indictments are coming!!!

:bounce: This are the worst of times and the Best of times!!!

[tritsofme]

24. No Final Report Seen in Inquiry on C.I.A. Leak

WASHINGTON, Oct. 18 - The special counsel in the C.I.A. leak case has told associates he has no plans to issue a final report about the results of the investigation, heightening the expectation that he intends to bring indictments, lawyers in the case and law enforcement officials said yesterday.

The prosecutor, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, is not expected to take any action in the case this week, government officials said. A spokesman for Mr. Fitzgerald, Randall Samborn, declined to comment.

A final report had long been considered an option for Mr. Fitzgerald if he decided not to accuse anyone of wrongdoing, although Justice Department officials have been dubious about his legal authority to issue such a report.

By signaling that he had no plans to issue the grand jury's findings in such detail, Mr. Fitzgerald appeared to narrow his options either to indictments or closing his investigation with no public disclosure of his findings, a choice that would set off a political firestorm.

With the term of the grand jury expiring Oct. 28, lawyers in the case said they assumed Mr. Fitzgerald was in the final stages of his inquiry.

<SNIP>
http://nytimes.com/2005/10/19/politics/19leak.html?ei=5094&en=adcf3adabff56617&hp=&ex=1129694400&partner=homepage&pagewanted=print

[IndyOp]

25. Why isn't there an emoticon for ...

feint --

I'll make due with :blush: :crazy:

[Tiggeroshii]

26. Just ten more days and we'll know

...what he wants to do...

finish without indictments, give indictments or extend.

[Stand and Fight]

31. Wow, wow, wow!

I had thought there would be none... Still, I dare not even hope. I've hope and outrage fatigue.

[Gloria]

33. Didn't Conyers and a few other Dems request a report a few days ago?

From what I understand, since Fitz isn't a Special Prosecutor, no report is required, as was required under the defunct Independent Counsel law.

[Demobrat]

37. Yes, that's right, they did.

They asked him to issue a report, even though none is required, if there were no indictments.

[Patsy Stone]

35. And, still, nothing new.

I learned nothing in that article that I didn't know. He's still figuring out what he's gonna do. It might not be this week, say some mysterious "government sources", but his office is silent -- still. So, you know, it could be this week after all. Or not.

The only thing I learned is that he's not entitled to write a report. Thanks, OldLeftieLawyer!

So, as we did ten minutes ago, we wait.

[rodeodance]

42. drats I was looking forward to a report (AND indictments).

[Patsy Stone]

43. Well, if there are indictments you won't need a report

you'll have hearings and trials. If there's no indictments and no reports, that's the worst possible situation. Either way, keep the drinks chilled, we're gonna need 'em either way.

[jamesinca]

67. win or lose, we booze

is that what you are saying? LOL

[Patsy Stone]

71. Absolutely! We're gonna need it no matter what. :) n/t

[electron_blue]

48. hmmmm, well if there are no indictments, I'd be ticked to not get

a final report. I mean - how can you investigate something for years, not get any indictments, and walk away from it?

[kostya]

52. Sorry, but that's the way it works. That's why when I read

WASHINGTON, Oct. 18 - The special counsel in the C.I.A. leak case has told associates he has no plans to issue a final report about the results of the investigation, heightening the expectation that he intends to bring indictments, lawyers in the case and law enforcement officials said yesterday.

I thought "SHIT!", cuz that could mean there will be no indictments.

But, I'd be really, really surprised if that's the case. I think he just meant that no matter which way it goes, there will be no report. Thus, we are left in the lurch still.

[usregimechange]

49. kick

[savemefromdumbya]

66. I hope that you are right

but we are dealing with people who always get their way

[nolabels]

72. Say that twice and then over and over again

Ever since this crap broke out the gate that has been my same assumption and still is. It has always went that way and I don't see any force on the forefront that is going to change it. It's a simple fact that Lawyers and Judges defer to each other so they all can keep being employed indefinitely. Them jokes about lawyers all appear to be true to me, and I guess we will all see.