PDA

View Full Version : obama's justice department sides with bush administration on valerie plame


saz
05-27-2009, 01:14 PM
this is shameful. i guess it's okay now to leak the names of covert cia operatives.



Obama admin. opposes Joe and Valerie Wilson's request for Supreme Court appeal in suit against Cheney, Rove, Libby and Armitage

Citizens Blogging for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington
Submitted by crew on 20 May 2009 - 4:15pm


CREW learned today that the Obama administration is opposing our request that the Supreme Court reconsider the dismissal of the lawsuit, Wilson v. Libby, et al. In that case, the district court had dismissed the claims of Joe and Valerie Wilson against former Vice President Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, Scooter Libby and Richard Armitage for their gross violations of the Wilsons’ constitutional rights.

Agreeing with the Bush administration, the Obama Justice Department argues the Wilsons have no legitimate grounds to sue. It is surprising that the first time the Obama administration has been required to take a public position on this matter, the administration is so closely aligning itself with the Bush administration’s views.

In fact, the Obama administration has gone one step further, suggesting Mr. Wilson failed to provide any evidence that Mr. Cheney, Mr. Rove or Mr. Libby harmed him. This is particularly ironic because the government had moved to have the case dismissed before the Wilsons had the opportunity to uncover the details of how Ms. Wilson’s covert identity was revealed.

Melanie Sloan, the executive director of CREW and one of the Wilsons’ attorneys, said:

We are deeply disappointed that the Obama administration has failed to recognize the grievous harm top Bush White House officials inflicted on Joe and Valerie Wilson. The government’s position cannot be reconciled with President Obama’s oft-stated commitment to once again make government officials accountable for their actions.



valerie plame and joe wilson on 60 minutes part 1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wXbyG7SR-jM) and 2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7AMMqFttN9c&feature=related)

new rule: traitors don't get to question my patriotism (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g8xNQMsZsB0)

DroppinScience
05-27-2009, 01:53 PM
Yeah, I heard about that a few days ago. Bunch of bullshit. What happened to the change we can believe in? (n)

RobMoney$
05-27-2009, 04:03 PM
MEET THE NEW BOSS...

Bob
05-27-2009, 04:18 PM
MEET THE NEW BOSS...

i wish mccain would have won, then none of this would have ever happened

RobMoney$
05-27-2009, 04:43 PM
Well it's not like he had a record of going against is own party or anything.

BTW, what was that nickname he had...

Bob
05-27-2009, 04:48 PM
barracuda?

RobMoney$
05-27-2009, 05:13 PM
When you're left with no defense, attack the other guy?

C'mon Bob. You're better than this.

Bob
05-27-2009, 05:17 PM
When you're left with no defense, attack the other guy?

C'mon Bob. You're better than this.

i don't see how it was an inappropriate thing to say. obama's fucking the dog by doing what he's doing here, sure, but my point was that it's kind of silly to say "see? see what you voted for?" when in all likelihood, electing mccain wouldn't have resulted in a different outcome

Bob
05-27-2009, 05:18 PM
besides, i voted for nader

yeahwho
05-27-2009, 07:35 PM
Us suckers never get an even break. Why don't they just change the name of my Country to the United Suckers of America.

saz
06-23-2009, 02:39 PM
shameful, what a total disgrace.


Court Will Not Revive Plame Lawsuit Against Cheney, Libby, Armitage

June 22, 2009 11:51 AM EST | The Associated Press


WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court will not revive a lawsuit that former CIA operative Valerie Plame brought against former members of the Bush administration.

The court on Monday refused to hear an appeal from Plame and her husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson.

A lower court last year threw out the lawsuit in which Plame and Wilson accused former Vice President Dick Cheney and several former high-ranking administration officials of revealing her identity to reporters in 2003. Plame and Wilson said that violated their constitutional rights.

The lawsuit named former presidential adviser Karl Rove; Cheney's former top aide, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby; and former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit said that Plame and Wilson did not meet the legal standard for constitutional claims, in part because the lawsuit hinges on alleged violations of the Privacy Act _ a law that does not cover the president or the vice president's offices.

Armitage was the original source for a 2003 newspaper column identifying Plame as a CIA officer. At the time, her husband was criticizing the Bush administration's prewar intelligence on Iraq and had become a thorn in the side of the White House. Rove also discussed Plame's employment with reporters.

The leak touched off a lengthy investigation that resulted in Libby's conviction for obstruction and lying to investigators. Jurors found that he told reporters about Plame and lied about it to the FBI and a federal grand jury. President George W. Bush commuted Libby's sentence before he ever served a day in prison.

Nobody was ever charged with the leak itself and Plame's lawsuit is one of the last remaining legal issues associated with the case.

The case is Wilson v. Libby, 08-1043.


link (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/22/court-will-not-revive-pla_n_218919.html)

Documad
06-23-2009, 10:56 PM
I don't like Cheney and I typically like CREW but I briefly reviewed the complaint in this case ages ago and it didn't make sense to me. CREW didn't convince me that they had a legal argument. It didn't surprise me when the first judge dismissed it and I don't think it warranted review by the US Supreme Court. It would have been a waste of time.

I'm not saying that Cheney isn't a monster. It's just really difficult to sue high government officials for things they did on their job.

RobMoney$
06-24-2009, 06:16 AM
IT'S CAPTAIN HUFF-PO TO THE RESCUE!

DroppinScience
06-24-2009, 08:56 AM
So you don't like the news, Rob? The story is from the Associated Press.

Anyways, a dangerous precedent has been set if high government officials can never be held accountable for illegal actions.

Documad
06-24-2009, 08:35 PM
Anyways, a dangerous precedent has been set if high government officials can never be held accountable for illegal actions.

A dangerous precedent that we adopted from jolly old england in the early days of our country.

Except that your use of "illegal" might be misleading. This case is about whether a government official has to pay monetary damages to a plaintiff. It has nothing to do with criminal prosecution. The Plame case that was discussed in this thread involved Plame sueing government officials for money. It was not about whether the prosecutors could prosecute a crime. And the truly silly part of the complaint is that claim her husband tried to make against the officials.

And it's not "never" be held accountable. It's "almost never." :)

RobMoney$
06-24-2009, 09:41 PM
So you don't like the news, Rob? The story is from the Associated Press.


Brett thinks I'm not aware of national news stories and is going to condescendingly inform me about them.

Thanks Brett (y)