Plame sues....everyone [Archive]

mactastic

Jul 13, 2006, 07:46 PM

nbs2

Jul 13, 2006, 08:21 PM

And of course, as a result of aggressive GOP tactics during the Paula Jones lawsuit against Bill Clinton, the SCOTUS has already signed off on allowing discovery to proceed against a sitting President. I would assume if the President isn't immune from a civil lawsuit that the Veep would not be either.
That was my first thought reading the OP. But, you have a problem there. The SCOTUS ruled that a current POTUS can be sued civilly for acts committed prior to his presidency (and can be sued while in office), but has complete immunity for civil causes arising from his acts while in office.

But, your last point is intriguing. How far will that immunity be extended. Rove and Libby obviously won't be protected, but I am not sure how the VP will go. My guess? VP cannot be sued for causes arising from exercise of his office - goes to the same need to allow decision-making without fear of civil liability (yes this can be a concern for a lot of reasons...). But, I wouldn't put money on that...

mactastic

Jul 13, 2006, 09:11 PM

That was my first thought reading the OP. But, you have a problem there. The SCOTUS ruled that a current POTUS can be sued civilly for acts committed prior to his presidency (and can be sued while in office), but has complete immunity for civil causes arising from his acts while in office.

But, your last point is intriguing. How far will that immunity be extended. Rove and Libby obviously won't be protected, but I am not sure how the VP will go. My guess? VP cannot be sued for causes arising from exercise of his office - goes to the same need to allow decision-making without fear of civil liability (yes this can be a concern for a lot of reasons...). But, I wouldn't put money on that...
Do you know where the language is that makes the distinction between acts committed that occur prior to taking office? I don't remember the Jones lawsuit being based on the issue of whether the act in question took place before or after the POTUS took office. I thought it was a question of whether or not the POTUS could be bothered by a civil suit at all during his presidency.

I'm not saying it's not there... I just don't remember that part.

And part of this too is that it's ultimately only the SCOTUS that has challenged Bush at all on his administration's actions. They seem, from the Hamdan decision, to have declared that the POTUS does not have unlimited power, and presents the possibility that they will expand that challenge to official conduct while in office. We have to remember that Bush's SCOTUS choices so far have only moved the court a little more to the right than before.

nbs2

Jul 13, 2006, 09:28 PM

Do you know where the language is that makes the distinction between acts committed that occur prior to taking office? I don't remember the Jones lawsuit being based on the issue of whether the act in question took place before or after the POTUS took office. I thought it was a question of whether or not the POTUS could be bothered by a civil suit at all during his presidency.

I'm not saying it's not there... I just don't remember that part.
I don't think it was central, but it was raised.

"Petitioner's principal submission--that "in all but the most exceptional cases," Brief for Petitioner i, the Constitution affords the President temporary immunity from civil damages litigation arising out of events that occurred before he took office--cannot be sustained on the basis of precedent." Jones v. Clinton. 520 US 681, 692.

"Applying the principles of our cases to claims of this kind, we hold that petitioner, as a former President of the United States, is entitled to absolute immunity from damages liability predicated on his official acts. We consider this immunity a functionally mandated incident of the President's unique office, rooted in the constitutional tradition of the separation of powers and supported by our history." Nixon v. Fitzgerald. 457 US 731, 749. cited in part at 520 US at 695 (but was more specifically restricted to "official" acts).

Excuse the poor citations, but they should be good enough to get you what you might need if you want more context.

mactastic

Jul 13, 2006, 09:38 PM

Hmm... I wonder if "official acts" covers leaking classified information to smear a political opponent.

aquajet

Jul 13, 2006, 09:47 PM

She deserves a huge chunk of Cheney's cash. If she doesn't win, we need an armed revolt against this administration.

Wonderful. Now you've got the spooks' attention with your treasonous talk... ;)

nbs2

Jul 13, 2006, 09:54 PM

Hmm... I wonder if "official acts" covers leaking classified information to smear a political opponent.
I guess that is the question. At the same time, I wonder if the Court learned its lesson from the Jones case and will allow a stay on the Cheney suit until 2k9 (I wonder if they would sever the VPOTUS or if they would stay all the cases, if there is a stay).

FFTT

Jul 14, 2006, 12:30 AM

I would just love to see Cheney forced to testify under oath.

If it's a choice between his own butt under threat of perjury or Rove's
he's looking at double jeopary for the administration.

sushi

Jul 14, 2006, 12:33 AM

I would just love to see Cheney forced to testify under oath.

If it's a choice between his own butt under threat of perjury or Rove's
he's looking at double jeopary for the administration.
It will be interesting to see how this unfolds.

Me thinks those who believe that the Wilson's have a "real" case will be sadly disappointed.

But that's just me.

FFTT

Jul 14, 2006, 12:41 AM

I'm reasonably certain that some diversion will pop up to keep the public's
mind off of the case as much as possible.

sushi

Jul 14, 2006, 01:04 AM

I'm reasonably certain that some diversion will pop up to keep the public's
mind off of the case as much as possible.
The possibility that it is not the issue that some would try to have us believe?

"Robert Novak’s column yesterday revealed that, before publishing his now-controversial column in which he “outed” Valerie Plame, he get confirmation of her role from Bill Harlow, the CIA public information officer. That makes it pretty clear that Plame’s status with the CIA was far less “covert” than we’d been led to believe."

solvs

Jul 14, 2006, 01:34 AM

"Robert Novak’s column yesterday revealed that, before publishing his now-controversial column in which he “outed” Valerie Plame, he get confirmation of her role from Bill Harlow, the CIA public information officer. That makes it pretty clear that Plame’s status with the CIA was far less “covert” than we’d been led to believe."
So? The intent was obvious. The implications don't bother you? These same people cry foul when the NYT publishes info on secret and unConstitutional programs claiming it somehow helps the terrorists and hurts national security. Even though the only new information is the lack of oversight. Yet releasing the name of an active CIA operative (at best to smear her) because her husband calls you on a lie is ok? I'm amazed that some people actually don't have a problem with this.

Who cares if she loses, I just want to see them having to explain themselves.

zimv20

Jul 14, 2006, 02:04 AM

mactastic

Jul 14, 2006, 11:16 AM

I guess that is the question. At the same time, I wonder if the Court learned its lesson from the Jones case and will allow a stay on the Cheney suit until 2k9 (I wonder if they would sever the VPOTUS or if they would stay all the cases, if there is a stay).
Learning a lesson would mean overturning recent direct precedent though. Most of those on the bench now decided this themselves, so they would have to argue convincingly in their decision that something occured to change their mind besides just learning their lesson.

But underlying all of it is a GOP-led effort to protect the office of the P and VP from the very thing they (successfully) argued was essential before. The irony of that will not be lost on many people.

sushi

Jul 14, 2006, 11:36 AM

link, please.
http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=16024

sushi

Jul 14, 2006, 11:46 AM

Interesting article:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/09/29/novak.cia/

Some exerpts:

"Nobody in the Bush administration called me to leak this," Novak said on "Crossfire." "There is no great crime here."

"They asked me not to use her name, but never indicated it would endanger her or anybody else. According to a confidential source at the CIA, Mrs. Wilson was an analyst, not a spy, not a covert operative and not in charge of undercover operators," Novak said.

mactastic

Jul 14, 2006, 11:53 AM

"Robert Novak’s column yesterday revealed that, before publishing his now-controversial column in which he “outed” Valerie Plame, he get confirmation of her role from Bill Harlow, the CIA public information officer. That makes it pretty clear that Plame’s status with the CIA was far less “covert” than we’d been led to believe."
What if the confirming conversation went along these lines:
Novak: "I'm writing a story about Valerie Plame being the CIA person who authorized her husband Joe Wilson to make his trip to Niger. Can you comment on that?"

Harlow: "You can't print that!"

Novak: "Thank you for confirming that for me."
Does that make it clear that Plame's status was far less "covert" than we'd been led to believe?

Sayhey

Jul 14, 2006, 02:01 PM

The possibility that it is not the issue that some would try to have us believe?

"Robert Novak’s column yesterday revealed that, before publishing his now-controversial column in which he “outed” Valerie Plame, he get confirmation of her role from Bill Harlow, the CIA public information officer. That makes it pretty clear that Plame’s status with the CIA was far less “covert” than we’d been led to believe."

This has been known for sometime. Harlow's remembrance of the conversation is much different than Novak's. His "confirmation" for Novak seems to be that he told Novak he shouldn't write about agents. If you're relying on Novak as a reliable source in this stuff you might as well just plug your brain into the RNC for their daily talking points.

From the Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/26/AR2005072602069_pf.html):
Harlow, the former CIA spokesman, said in an interview yesterday that he testified last year before a grand jury about conversations he had with Novak at least three days before the column was published. He said he warned Novak, in the strongest terms he was permitted to use without revealing classified information, that Wilson's wife had not authorized the mission and that if he did write about it, her name should not be revealed.

Harlow said that after Novak's call, he checked Plame's status and confirmed that she was an undercover operative. He said he called Novak back to repeat that the story Novak had related to him was wrong and that Plame's name should not be used. But he did not tell Novak directly that she was undercover because that was classified.

In short, Harlow's contact with Novak over this issue has long been known but the content of those conversations are disputed - to say the least.

sushi

Jul 14, 2006, 07:46 PM

Does that make it clear that Plame's status was far less "covert" than we'd been led to believe?
One question that will be interesting to see the answer, is what was her real status:

Was she an analyst?

Or was she a cover operative?

zimv20

Jul 14, 2006, 08:01 PM

One question that will be interesting to see the answer, is what was her real status:

Was she an analyst?

Or was she a cover operative?
is that unclear? i thought it was established that she was an active NOC.

Sayhey

Jul 14, 2006, 08:14 PM

One question that will be interesting to see the answer, is what was her real status:

Was she an analyst?

Or was she a cover operative?

She was a NOC (non-official cover) agent who specialized in work on WMDs. Her exposure also exposed a front company the CIA had in operation and put anyone she had contact with on her foreign trips at risk (yes, she on occasion worked outside the country.) This was a big deal and it was done for political purposes. Whether anyone ever pays for the crime is another question. If you want information on this story, the source to go to is Murray Waas (http://news.nationaljournal.com/articles/0703nj1.htm) over at the National Journal.

Dont Hurt Me

Jul 14, 2006, 08:21 PM

Politics should never play games with our national security, yet here we are courtesey of Draft dodging Cheney,Rove,Libbey. They talk a lot of crap for hiding under desks during Vietnam and these same turds took us into Iraq over dreamed up WMDs. Whats worse is they knew it, and outed her while spinning tales. Treasonous. Our current Govt of spin.:(Republican.

sushi

Jul 14, 2006, 08:50 PM

is that unclear? i thought it was established that she was an active NOC.
At the time this happened, I don't believe that is the case.

Not talking about her past, which is a different story.

Anyhow, it will be interesting to see how this all unfolds.

Sayhey

Jul 14, 2006, 09:20 PM

At the time this happened, I don't believe that is the case.

Not talking about her past, which is a different story.

Anyhow, it will be interesting to see how this all unfolds.

You believe wrongly. It is understandable considering all the flack put up to try to convince people this was of little importance. The CIA asked for this investigation on the basis that a crime could have been committed because she was under non-official cover at the time she was exposed, not because they had somehow forgotten what her status was. The only question was did someone expose her in a way that triggered certain federal laws. If you read the article I linked to above you will find out that this leak took place in the context of a effort, authorized by Bush, to discredit Wilson through the leaking of secret materials to the press. This was done in what in any other nation would be described as a disinformation campaign and while that effort was going on, either by "accident" or through the direction of the Vice-President, Plame's status was leaked to the press. Any talking points to the contrary are just plain false.

sushi

Jul 15, 2006, 03:21 AM

You believe wrongly. It is understandable considering all the flack put up to try to convince people this was of little importance. The CIA asked for this investigation on the basis that a crime could have been committed because she was under non-official cover at the time she was exposed, not because they had somehow forgotten what her status was. The only question was did someone expose her in a way that triggered certain federal laws. If you read the article I linked to above you will find out that this leak took place in the context of a effort, authorized by Bush, to discredit Wilson through the leaking of secret materials to the press. This was done in what in any other nation would be described as a disinformation campaign and while that effort was going on, either by "accident" or through the direction of the Vice-President, Plame's status was leaked to the press. Any talking points to the contrary are just plain false.
The article that you reference is but one article on the subject which I enjoyed reading BTW. However, there are many others that have a different point of view.

All I am saying, is that things may not be as clear cut as some would like to believe -- on both sides.

As I stated earlier, it will be interesting to see how this all unfolds.

Sayhey

Jul 15, 2006, 04:45 AM

The article that you reference is but one article on the subject which I enjoyed reading BTW. However, there are many others that have a different point of view.

All I am saying, is that things may not be as clear cut as some would like to believe -- on both sides.

As I stated earlier, it will be interesting to see how this all unfolds.

There are indeed lots of articles on this case. Some enlighten and some just repeat nonsense. For instance, it has been a talking point from day one from the RNC that this exposure was nothing to be concerned about. They also told us that Karl Rove and I. Lewis Libby had nothing to do with the revelation of Plame CIA status to the press. Both claims are demonstrably false. So it pays to be skeptical of interested parties when they issue claims. Novak should top that list, especially when he gives out very weak renditions of the case that best suit his own purposes. Yes, it will very interesting to see how this develops as Cheney, Rove, Libby, et al. are put under oath and have to explain how they ran a campaign to discredit Wilson with lies, half-truths, and manipulated evidence.

You see, unless we want to miss the broader picture, it is important to remember that it was Wilson who was right about the issue of the supposed Iraq/Niger nuclear weapons program and it was the White House, led by Bush and Cheney, who continued to lie to the American people about it after they had all the evidence to know that it was false. One can't make a simple equation of each side being equal that misses those basic facts.

FFTT

Jul 15, 2006, 08:39 AM

Joseph Wilson is scheduled for an interview on the Diane Rehm show Monday
10:00 A.M. EST

http://www.wamu.org/programs/dr/06/07/17.php#11320

FFTT

Jul 18, 2006, 02:08 AM

Here's the link to the show's podcast taped earlier today.

http://www.wamu.org/audio/dr/06/07/r1060717-11320.ram

http://www.wilsonsupport.org/

Download link to complaint
http://www.wilsonsupport.org/Docs/File_Stamped_Complaint.pdf

Dont Hurt Me

Jan 23, 2007, 01:35 PM

Just thought Id bring up this thread again since it now seems Libbey doesnt want to be the Sacrificial Lamb for Draft dodger Karl Rove. Cheney is going to have to take the stand the only the problem is that he & Rove should be the ones on trial. They were the ones spinning yarn and tales to get us into Iraq, they are the ones who wanted it known that we had a CIA agent investigating yellow cake spin.

Swarmlord

Jan 23, 2007, 01:45 PM

njmac

Jan 23, 2007, 02:13 PM

What branch of the service did Clinton (either Mr. or Mrs.) server in during Vietnam again? They never talk about it, so I never can remember.

If Clinton had led us into a war, I bet that would have been a big issue going against him too.

IJ Reilly

Jan 23, 2007, 02:17 PM

I have no problem with someone avoiding serving in a war they oppose. I do have a problem with someone avoiding serving a war they favor.

Dont Hurt Me

Jan 23, 2007, 03:14 PM

What branch of the service did Clinton (either Mr. or Mrs.) server in during Vietnam again? They never talk about it, so I never can remember.I never mentioned Clinton you did. Sure he was like Bill O'Reilly or Newt Gingrich or Rush Limbaugh all draft dodgers but the difference is he didnt create or get us into a needless war thats killed hundreds of thousands of people. Cheney,Libbey,Rove and war Hero Bush did. Clinton isnt in Office and I never voted for him but what Cheney & the gang did is break the law and they knew it. They twisted the story to sell us this war, they outed one of our own agents who was working for the country. Thats illegal.

mactastic

Jan 23, 2007, 03:53 PM

What branch of the service did Clinton (either Mr. or Mrs.) server in during Vietnam again? They never talk about it, so I never can remember.
Hehe... you're barking up the tree of a former Republican. Not gonna get you far.

Besides, you're looking to use someone else's bad behavior to excuse Bush's. Not exactly the paragon of personal responsibility now, are you?

Swarmlord

Jan 23, 2007, 04:29 PM

I never mentioned Clinton you did. Sure he was like Bill O'Reilly or Newt Gingrich or Rush Limbaugh all draft dodgers but the difference is he didnt create or get us into a needless war thats killed hundreds of thousands of people. Cheney,Libbey,Rove and war Hero Bush did. Clinton isnt in Office and I never voted for him but what Cheney & the gang did is break the law and they knew it. They twisted the story to sell us this war, they outed one of our own agents who was working for the country. Thats illegal.

It's just that when I see an honorific attributed to someone, I assume that the user would like it applied to anyone that qualifies for it.

BTW, no one broke the law. If you'll just peruse the congressional record, you'll see that every Dem that voted for the war stood up and pronounced just how dangerous Saddam was and they based it on the same intel that Bush and his advisors used.

There might be an argument that the CIA and other intel operatives twisted the truth that lead to the war, but neither the executive branch nor the legislative branches did.

If we're picking nits I'm a lot more interested in Sandy Burgler and what documents he stole than I am about whether Mata Hari was a real agent or not. Anyone that thinks that the people in the spy business on both sides didn't know who and what she was all along is fooling themselves.

mactastic

Jan 23, 2007, 04:53 PM

It's just that when I see an honorific attributed to someone, I assume that the user would like it applied to anyone that qualifies for it.
And of course you assumed that DontHurtMe was a Clinton supporter as well...

BTW, no one broke the law. If you'll just peruse the congressional record, you'll see that every Dem that voted for the war stood up and pronounced just how dangerous Saddam was and they based it on the same intel that Bush and his advisors used.
Horse****. You honestly believe that Bush showed every bit of intelligence he was in possession of to Congressional Democrats? Including the bit about Curveball being discredited while Bush was using his claims in a previous SOTU? You believe that Clinton showed Congressional Republicans every bit of intelligence he had WRT Somalia? Wouldn't that make the GOP every bit as guilty for the Somali debacle as Clinton?

There might be an argument that the CIA and other intel operatives twisted the truth that lead to the war, but neither the executive branch nor the legislative branches did.
And you know this how? Because the Phase II report has been secretly completed and handed to you alone?

If we're picking nits I'm a lot more interested in Sandy Burgler and what documents he stole than I am about whether Mata Hari was a real agent or not. Anyone that thinks that the people in the spy business on both sides didn't know who and what she was all along is fooling themselves.Excuses and spin. Let's deal with the here and now, shall we? Or can you not comment on current events without your hatred of everything Clinton on full display?

skunk

Jan 23, 2007, 05:06 PM

BTW, no one broke the law. If you'll just peruse the congressional record, you'll see that every Dem that voted for the war stood up and pronounced just how dangerous Saddam was and they based it on the same intel that Bush and his advisors used.

There might be an argument that the CIA and other intel operatives twisted the truth that lead to the war, but neither the executive branch nor the legislative branches did.You're quite new here, aren't you? Otherwise you'd know that these arguments have already been comprehensively trashed on this forum again and again. To maintain that any Congressperson or Senator of either party was given full and equal access to all the so-called "information" that the President and his gang manipulated to make a case for this treasonous misadventure is manifestly absurd.

mactastic

Jan 23, 2007, 05:20 PM

Did I miss the part where every member of Congress was granted the highest security classification and access to more than just the intelligence the WH chose to show them? Was Congress in contact with the Office of Special Plans?

And are we talking about the same president who complained bitterly that he would have to withhold information from Congress because they couldn't be trusted to keep their mouths shut?

Dont Hurt Me

Jan 23, 2007, 05:26 PM

Swarmlord isnt saying much on the fact that this whitehouse reinserted lies into Powells U.N. Speech on yellowcake? Or spinning all around the fact that a CIA agents ID was leaked out by the office of the V.P.? stop spinning and twisting , Fact IS now pay attention please, we were taken into this war and there just weren't any WMDs or any Al-queda connection. This was an Oil Grab for the corporations that didnt pan out like the draft dodgers hoped it would. But hey as long as your not the one getting your legs blown? Everyone of these pretend hero's Bush/Cheney/Rove/Libbey/Hastert/Lott/O'Reilly/Limbaugh/Delay/Gingrich/ etc pushed as hard as they could for this war. Everyone missing during their chance to serve for a Political war and here we are again brought to us by folks who went the other direction. Republican Leadership.

solvs

Jan 24, 2007, 02:46 AM

What branch of the service did Clinton (either Mr. or Mrs.) server in during Vietnam again? They never talk about it, so I never can remember.

He was against the war, and is against this one. Gore served though, as did Kerry. But on topic, if Clinton had leaked the name of a CIA agent, why do I think you'd suddenly be right here with us decrying him?

mactastic

Jan 24, 2007, 08:55 AM

He was against the war, and is against this one. Gore served though, as did Kerry. But on topic, if Clinton had leaked the name of a CIA agent, why do I think you'd suddenly be right here with us decrying him?
Are you kidding? He'd be leading the charge, pitchfork in one hand and torch in the other.

Sayhey

Jan 24, 2007, 10:29 AM

Just to be clear, it's not that Cheney, Bush, etal. are "draft dodgers" that is the problem. It's that they are Chickenhawks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chickenhawk_(politics)). Not that I really believe swarmlord is interested in the difference.

btw, if anyone is interested in keeping up with the Libby case, this is THE (http://thenexthurrah.typepad.com/the_next_hurrah/contributoremptywheel/index.html) site to get the daily scoop.