In yesterday's report I was perhaps guilty of cramming too much information into one essay. After seeing the various arguments floating around discussion forums, I noticed that the trolls are trying to focus attention away from the most important aspects of this report. So I'm putting up two talking points today which, if argued properly, will expose trolls from the wrong side of the tracks.
CS talking point # 1. Fitzgerald and Samborn have done an about face.
In October 2005, after the Libby indictment was announced both Fitz and Samborn unequivocally stated that the investigation would continue. As of June 13, 2006 their official position on whether the investigation is ongoing has shifted to "no comment at this time." This particular "no comment" changes the status of the investigation based upon prior direct answers by Samborn.
The big question you need to get out is why Samborn has shifted the official response from
the investigation wll continue
to
no comment on that at this time
C'mon people, something very starange is happening here with this Luskin fax situation. My theory that a run away grand jury may have taken the reins from Fitz is certainly speculation, but SOMETHING has happened which caused Samborn to change his response to questions regarding the ongoing status of the investigation.
People should be examining the tight lipped Samborn's comments because they indicate that something is going on behind the scenes of this investigation which has now caused Samborn to release a very intriguing "no comment" where there "no comment" did not exist before.
CS Talking Point #2: We the People Have Been granted Constitutional Police Powers Over Tyranical Governmental Abuse As Grand Jurors.
Procedural rules and practice cannot overturn the Constitution. The Fifth Amendment grants the power to indict on their own volition to Constituionally empanelled Grand Juries.
Justice Scalia wrote an opinion for the court in 1994 which insisted that the Grand Jury's historical powers have not changed and remain to this day. (See yesterday's post for links and quotes).
Although the Government has cleverly hidden this power from us to shield itself from the oversight we are mandated with, the power still remains -- albeit unused for decades -- despite procedural rules and practices which require a US Attorney to sign Grand Jury indictments.
The Governement trusts us to indict, and even to convict people to death while we sit as jurors. So there is no reason why we should not be able to exercise our Constituionally mandated police powers over the Government when we sit as grand jurors.
Imagine you are on the Fitz Grand Jury armed with what you know about this power. If I were there, I would have lobbied for an indictment regardless of what the prosecutor was up to. Who knows what kind of pressure might be coming down on this prosecutor or any other? It's our duty, once we are empanneled, to weigh in on the evidence.
Why leave it to politicians who have proved themselves e beholden to Presidential and corporate overlords, when we the people have the Constitutional right and duty to do that which our elected officials have failed to do. Refuse to do.
And if the new common procedures of the grand jury system have deprived us of our power, then it's time to take that power back when we are sitting as grand jurors. This is something we can do without the help of legislation. The legislation already exists in the Constitution. All we have to do is exercise it and then see what SCOTUS does about it. Will Scalia choke on his own words.
The choice is yours America. Pass it on.
Citizenspook
PLEASE COPY LINK AND REPOST
