Cheney seeks immunity in Plame lawsuit.

[ProSense]

From Think Progress:

Cheney seeks immunity in Plame lawsuit. Attorneys for Vice President Cheney, Karl Rove, Scooter Libby said “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.” Cheney’s attorney argued that the vice president is “legally akin to the president because of his unique government role, and has absolute immunity from any lawsuit.”

[Kagemusha]

1. Question. What about Paula Jones?

The President doesn't have absolute immunity from any lawsuit. What gives?

[still_one]

4. Clinton only had to deal with it AFTER he left office... /nt

[Kagemusha]

5. Uhhhhhhh.

The whole grounds for his being impeached was deception while being deposed by Paula Jones' lawyers in the discovery phase of her lawsuit.

So what gives?

[still_one]

6. Clinton was NEVER impeached. Or should I say it was not successful

Impeachment is merely the process which then allows that person to be removed from office if it is successful

After that he can be charged

An active President or vice President cannot be charged Constitutionally when he is in office

[Kagemusha]

7. ...Excuse me, the Supreme Court ruled 9-0 that Paula Jones' civil case could proceed.

And it did proceed. And Clinton was not successful in blocking his having to respond to that suit while still serving as sitting President. It was not a criminal case. Neither is Valerie Plame's case.

[still_one]

8. You are right I screwed up. Appreciate the correction

I got my timeline mixed up

In retrospect that should have never happened, but since a precident has been set, I think it is only proper to bring cheney to trial

Thanks again for setting me straight

[Kagemusha]

11. Ok, we're cool. I just don't get how Cheney's lawyers can argue this.

Bates is gonna have to take a long, hard look at that 9-0 decision. Not for the first time, Cheney's argument seems to be that the VP has *more* privileges than the President, if less power.

[Golden Raisin]

14. Easy. Bush, Cheney and all of this cabal

feel they are above the law. And so far they have been. Condoleeza Rice basically tells Congress to take their subpoenas and shove them and Congress does nothing. Gonzales bold-facedly lies to Congressional committees and they do nothing. Bush decides (via his "signing statements") which laws or portions of laws he will or will not obey and Congress does nothing. Impeachment is off the table. We are screwed.

[Kagemusha]

16. Well, the courts shouldn't have much sympathy for arguments like Cheney's

I mean, they went through so much trouble slapping Clinton down when he made similar arguments through his lawyers. I realize that Cheney feels he SHOULD have immunity from all lawsuits... but that doesn't necessarily make it so, depending on what the lawsuit covers. But we'll see. It's not a small issue.

Frankly, I'd feel a lot more comfortable with immunity for Cheney for acts while in office than this completely ridiculous claim that his staffers should be completely immune for anything they do that's even vaguely job related, even if it greatly exceeds their lawful authority. That's getting darned close to royal privilege.

[still_one]

19. You are right on, however if it gets to the Supreme Court this time, the makeup

of the court has changed drastically, and they might just not allow it

Impeachment is always an option

[Kagemusha]

21. The Paula Jones ruling was 9-0.

Frankly, I don't think hindsight was kind to what happened - the justices said, no way this was gonna impact the functioning of government, or should. HA! HAHA! That's not to say it was wrong on all grounds, far from it; that's just to say that the 'no impact' thing got turned on its head by real life.

The thing is, there's no real reason that the Cheney immunity theory for himself and his staff could not be applied to cold blooded murder of war critics rather than exposing their wives' secret CIA covers. That is why courts have viewed protected actions as being ones consistent with the lawful authority provided to a particular individual. In the President's case, he is Commander-in-Chief; the Vice-President is not Vice-Commander-in-Chief. He doesn't command ANYTHING. Why the same, or, as I have laid out, more protections than the President has been deemed entitled to, should belong to the Vice-President (because he's oh-so-special), is beyond me, and beyond the previous confines of the law.

[Orangepeel]

10. yes he was.

It was bullshit, of course, but he was, in fact, impeached. Impeachment is akin to indictment. He wasn't convicted.

[Enrique]

20. 9/11 changed everything

I bet you a dollar someone will try using that one.

[still_one]

2. Actually that is only true as long as he is vice president

After his term charges can be brought against him

Of course if they impeach cheney and it is successful, then it will be sooner

[still_one]

9. see post 7, which correctly points out that Clinton was brought to court

[C_U_L8R]

3. It's very simple ...Dick

Don't break the law and you've got nothing to worry about.

[Double T]

12. The WH execs are running like a bunch of very scared rabbits.

[Supersedeas]

23. the discretion to ruin the service of a career civil servant -- immunity worth?

[Festivito]

13. Should have been denied on the spot. Why the wait.

Negotiating how the judge's free hunting trip with Cheney might end.

Naw, mostly, just a way to delay eventual testimony.

[Kagemusha]

17. If he's gonna deny the motion to dismiss, the judge will have to explain why

since the Cheney attorneys etc. made some very bold statutory and constitutional claims that imply barring not only this suit, but setting a precedent to bar similar suits FOR ALL TIME.

Any judge faced with such a daunting prospect ought to break out the law books and be able to explain why. These are not small issues. They involve a complete decoupling of wrongs against private citizens while in elected or appointed office from ANY accountability before a court of law. This isn't little stuff. This is a major, major change in how Americans perceive their allegedly Republican form of government. Agree or disagree, it shouldn't be done with casual frivolity.

[zbdent]

15. Everybody's forgetting one key point ... Cheney's a Republican ...

they have immunity from any laws ...

[GreenPartyVoter]

18. Bugger. I wanted to see them nail him to the wall. n/t

.

[onenote]

22. The situation in Clinton v Jones could be distinguished by a first year law student

The posts that point to Clinton v. Jones as dispositive of Cheney et al's argument misapprehend the holding in that case and/or the crux of the Cheney et al argument.

The issue in Clinton v. Jones was not merely one of Presidential immunity. It was whether the President has immunity for "unofficial acts". THe answer, provided by a unanimous SCOTUS, was no. However, the holding was limited to "unofficial acts" taken before Clinton was elected and reaffirmed the broad immunity granted the president from civil lawsuits brought with respect to "official acts." Cheney and company are, of contending that their conversations with reporters were part of their official duties.

The latter claim is a close call, imo. I would reach the conclusion that conversing with reporters about a CIA agent's identity is not an official act; however, I could easily see (and, indeed, wouldn't be surprised to see) a court reach a different conclusion. The conversations it could be argued related to government business, which easily distinguishes the situation from that in Clinton v Jones.