Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by yg17, Jul 13, 2006.
Well, not quite everyone, but Cheney, Rove and Libby.
Those are the three draft dodgers who leaked this CIA agent out. Im sure if we didnt have a republican ran govt they would have been hammmered but since republicans run the show not much is happening to these treasonous bums.
no surprise there. i assume she and mr wilson feel that the fitzgerald investigation is over.
Good for her. I hope she wins.
She deserves a huge chunk of Cheney's cash. If she doesn't win, we need an armed revolt against this administration.
where do i sign up?
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.
Might be nice to see the right bit in the ass for their "penny-wise, pound-foolish" waste of taxpayer time and money in their blind hatred of Bill Clinton.
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.
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.
Hmm... I wonder if "official acts" covers leaking classified information to smear a political opponent.
Wonderful. Now you've got the spooks' attention with your treasonous talk...
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).
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.
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."
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.
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.
"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.
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?
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:
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.
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?