Immunity Sought for Cheney, Top Officials

[zimv20]

wash post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/17/AR2007051701400.html?hpid=topnews)


Judge Urged to Dismiss Lawsuit Filed by Former Ambassador Wilson

Attorneys for Vice President Cheney and top White House officials told a federal judge today they cannot be held liable for anything they disclosed to reporters about covert CIA officer Valerie Plame or her husband, former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV.

The officials, who include senior White House adviser Karl Rove and Cheney's former chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, argued that the judge should dismiss a lawsuit filed by Wilson that stemmed from the disclosure of Plame's identity to the media.

The suit claims that Cheney, Libby, Rove and former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage violated the couple's privacy and constitutional rights by publicly revealing Plame's identity in an effort to retaliate against Wilson. Plame's identity was disclosed in a syndicated column in July 2003, days after Wilson publicly accused the Bush administration of twisting intelligence to exaggerate Iraq's nuclear threat and justify an attack on Baghdad.

Libby was convicted in March of lying to a grand jury investigating the leak.

Attorneys for Cheney and the other officials said any conversations they had about Plame with each other and reporters were part of their normal job duties because they were discussing foreign policy and engaging in an appropriate "policy dispute." Cheney's attorney went farther, arguing that Cheney is legally akin to the president because of his unique government role, and has absolute immunity from any lawsuit.

"So you're arguing there is nothing -- absolutely nothing - these officials could have said to reporters that would have been beyond the scope of their employment [whether it was] true or false?," U.S. District Judge John D. Bates asked.

"That's true, your honor. Mr. Wilson was criticizing government policy," said Jeffrey S. Bucholtz, Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Justice Department's civil division. "These officials were responding to that criticism."

(more)


got that? the president and VP are above the law, cheney's attorney argues. sweet deal, i gotta get me one of them. 'cuz there's a whole bunch of SUVs i need to set fire to.

[MACDRIVE]

They may be outside the law but the can't out run a bullet.

[Thomas Veil]

Um...MACDRIVE, while I definitely side with you, I'd watch the comments. This is the second or third such remark you've made lately.

You do know the government can intercept damn near any communication nowadays, don't you?

(And that fact that I can even say that with complete credibility tells you how bad things are in the U.S.)

As to the topic: I hope the judge throws that argument right out the window, and gives Cheney and his lawyers the proper scolding they deserve. Their sheer arrogance is appalling.

[yagran]

You do know the government can intercept damn near any communication nowadays, don't you?


and what? the land of the free my *rse

[miloblithe]

Even the president has no immunity in this case. Presidential immunity only applies to official acts. I'm pretty sure that illegally outing CIA agents is not one of the vice presidents official duties.

[skunk]

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Checks and balances my arse.

[IJ Reilly]

Even the president has no immunity in this case. Presidential immunity only applies to official acts. I'm pretty sure that illegally outing CIA agents is not one of the vice presidents official duties.

Exactly. How soon we forget Bill Clinton defending himself from a lawsuit while he was president, and how it was his testimony in that case which led to the impeachment trial. Cheney's legal council is making a desperate motion for dismissal, which the judge will almost certainly deny.

[obeygiant]

Um...MACDRIVE, while I definitely side with you, I'd watch the comments. This is the second or third such remark you've made lately.

You do know the government can intercept damn near any communication nowadays, don't you?


*cough* ********* *cough*

Macdrive, let us know when the feds knock at your door, mmm-kay?

[FFTT]

Cheney and Rove will make every effort possible to avoid ANY testimony
under oath.

They know damn well that they are incapable of telling the truth under oath
and that poses a serious legal risk to both of them.

One false statement under oath and one conveniently leaked document countering that testimony and they are subject to criminal charges.

[MACDRIVE]

Um...MACDRIVE, while I definitely side with you, I'd watch the comments. This is the second or third such remark you've made lately.


Okay forget about the bullet then since I don't own a gun. How 'bout I throw him in that tree trimming shredder machine that the utility workers use when they're trimming the trees away from the power lines?

[latergator116]

How 'bout I throw him in that tree trimming shredder machine that the utility workers use when they're trimming the trees away from the power lines?

How about you throw him the power line?

[SMM]

I actually studied this at great length during, and after Watergate. I was a poli-sci major, with intentions of going to law school (like many of my friends).

Executive privilege is not granted if it involves criminal activity. Nixon found that out the hard way, when he was forced to surrender all tapes relating to the conspiracy to obstruct justice (the cover-up). The Supreme Court was very clear in its rulings.

The right-wing has been 'stacking' the Federal, and Supreme, courts with their 'fellow Nazis'. Yet, there is a small chance that some sense of morality, and ethical credibility, still exists in our justice system. If there is enough, GeeDub's "Hole In the Wall Gang" will not be innocent simply because they are 'untouchable'.

[mactastic]

Exactly. How soon we forget Bill Clinton defending himself from a lawsuit while he was president, and how it was his testimony in that case which led to the impeachment trial. Cheney's legal council is making a desperate motion for dismissal, which the judge will almost certainly deny.
That's the first thing I thought of when I read this.

And wouldn't it just be poetic justice if the ruling the Clinton-hating right sought so hard to get -- that a sitting president was indeed subject to discovery in the course of a civil lawsuit against him -- was the legal precedent a judge cited in disallowing Cheney's motion?

[solvs]

Where's Swarmlord saying he would be hard against anyone doing this type of thing like he said in the thread about that former Clinton official? That's what I thought. In both cases, I want them prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law because they're both guilty. Same with Rove, Delay, and William Jefferson. But I'm just a partisan hack, so what do I know. :rolleyes:

BTW, even if he wins, Cheney's rep has been destroyed forever in the reality based community... er, even worse than before.

[FFTT]

Someone needs to remind Bush, Cheney and Rove that they are public servants.

If we get Rove up there on that stand under oath and he sings to avoid prison,
we can pretty much count on impeachment procedings.

[mactastic]

Where's Swarmlord saying he would be hard against anyone doing this type of thing like he said in the thread about that former Clinton official? That's what I thought. In both cases, I want them prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law because they're both guilty. Same with Rove, Delay, and William Jefferson. But I'm just a partisan hack, so what do I know. :rolleyes:

BTW, even if he wins, Cheney's rep has been destroyed forever in the reality based community... er, even worse than before.
Yeah I'm waiting for Swarm to provide his avowed balance to this issue. Back in 1998 I would have to assume he was on Clinton's side.

Or he's a hypocrite who'll say anything for political gain. :shrug:

[Swarmlord]

Yeah I'm waiting for Swarm to provide his avowed balance to this issue. Back in 1998 I would have to assume he was on Clinton's side.

Or he's a hypocrite who'll say anything for political gain. :shrug:

Arrived late to the thread...

I thought the executive branch was immune from lawsuits for actions having to do with the conduct of the job. It has to be that way or the President can't make life and death decisions involving the American public.

I never suggested that this protection didn't apply to Clinton while he was in office. He was impeached and that is the proper legal recourse for the executive branch. If this Plame thing is an impeachable offense, then draw up the articles of impeachment and go forward with it.

[gauchogolfer]

Arrived late to the thread...

I thought the executive branch was immune from lawsuits for actions having to do with the conduct of the job. It has to be that way or the President can't make life and death decisions involving the American public.

Exactly what part of his job was outing a CIA operative to score points against a political opponent?

[leekohler]

Arrived late to the thread...

I thought the executive branch was immune from lawsuits for actions having to do with the conduct of the job. It has to be that way or the President can't make life and death decisions involving the American public.

I never suggested that this protection didn't apply to Clinton while he was in office. He was impeached and that is the proper legal recourse for the executive branch. If this Plame thing is an impeachable offense, then draw up the articles of impeachment and go forward with it.

This is the least of their impeachable offenses.

[FFTT]

They have to work their way up the ladder because Cheney is there as Bush's
insurance policy.

They have to go after Rove in order to expose Cheney's wrong doing
and then that leaves Bush wide open.

[IJ Reilly]

I never suggested that this protection didn't apply to Clinton while he was in office. He was impeached and that is the proper legal recourse for the executive branch. If this Plame thing is an impeachable offense, then draw up the articles of impeachment and go forward with it.

Whoa there pardner. The entire justification for the Clinton impeachment was testimony he provided in a civil trial, which was held while he was in office. The fact that the testimony was stricken by the judge in the case, and then the case itself dismissed, and that the entire trial was a political hit, made no difference to anybody on the Republican side. They weren't worried at all about the ability of a president to do his job.

[Swarmlord]

Whoa there pardner. The entire justification for the Clinton impeachment was testimony he provided in a civil trial, which was held while he was in office. The fact that the testimony was stricken by the judge in the case, and then the case itself dismissed, and that the entire trial was a political hit, made no difference to anybody on the Republican side. They weren't worried at all about the ability of a president to do his job.

That's what I'm saying. It was his testimony, not his actions that did him in. He should have just spoke the truth and told everyone to deal with it. Not like it would have changed either side's perception of him. Nor his wife's for that matter.

[IJ Reilly]

That's what I'm saying. It was his testimony, not his actions that did him in. He should have just spoke the truth and told everyone to deal with it. Not like it would have changed either side's perception of him. Nor his wife's for that matter.

Yes, but what you are also saying is that Bush administration officials should be immune from civil suits. Bill Clinton was not, and certainly Bill Clinton would not have been hauled into the impeachment trial if this had been the operative principle at the time. He also would not have been impeached had the GOP been even remotely interested in the ability of a president to do his job. Not only would the impeachment not have happened, but the civil trial which got him there would not have happened. What I and others are saying here is that the shoe doesn't seem to fit when it's put on the other foot. Now, it seems, short of impeachment, we've got no right to hold administration officials to any standards of behavior. Oh, the irony.

[mactastic]

That's what I'm saying. It was his testimony, not his actions that did him in.
Which is exactly why Cheney is fighting so hard not to have to testify, right?

He should have just spoke the truth and told everyone to deal with it. Not like it would have changed either side's perception of him. Nor his wife's for that matter.
And his testimony was compelled by a court challenge by conservative activists who claimed (at the time) that a sitting president was NOT immune to civil lawsuits. A great deal of time and money was spent arguing that very point, and in the end they were successful in persuading a judge. Clinton was deposed, and the rest is history.

Now Cheney and company's testimony is being demanded as part of a civil lawsuit brought by Valerie Plame, and Cheney and the entire right-wing wurlitzer noise machine are saying the exact opposite of what they argued only a few years ago.

And surprise surprise, you're going along with them.

[johnee]

Okay forget about the bullet then since I don't own a gun. How 'bout I throw him in that tree trimming shredder machine that the utility workers use when they're trimming the trees away from the power lines?

NO! that is just wrong! How can you say that?



He's an oil man. He likes oil, so give him oil! give him all the oil in the world! right up his corn hole! haha :D

[Thomas Veil]

Okay forget about the bullet then since I don't own a gun. How 'bout I throw him in that tree trimming shredder machine that the utility workers use when they're trimming the trees away from the power lines?Don't be silly. You can't do that. That would be vandalism.

[MACDRIVE]

Don't be silly. You can't do that. That would be vandalism.

LOL!!! . . . http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n284/MACDRIVE/GIFS/laugh.gif

[solvs]

If this Plame thing is an impeachable offense, then draw up the articles of impeachment and go forward with it.

I think this is as good as we're going to get with you, so I for one am placated.

They released the name of an undercover CIA operative as political payback for her husband telling the truth about something. If that ain't impeachable, I don't know what is. And to think, I used to be mad over lying about a bj. :rolleyes:

[leekohler]

I think this is as good as we're going to get with you, so I for one am placated.

They released the name of an undercover CIA operative as political payback for her husband telling the truth about something. If that ain't impeachable, I don't know what is. And to think, I used to be mad over lying about a bj. :rolleyes:

Well, a BJ is so much worse, don't ya know. That's SEX! :)

[solvs]

Well, a BJ is so much worse, don't ya know. That's SEX! :)
Well, we haven't see the DC Madam's list yet, have we? ;)