Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Plame Seeks Showdown With Cheney

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
kpete Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-17-07 08:22 AM
Original message
Plame Seeks Showdown With Cheney
Plame Seeks Showdown With Cheney
By JOSH GERSTEIN
Staff Reporter of the Sun
May 17, 2007

A lawsuit brought by a CIA agent whose cover was blown by Bush administration officials, Valerie Plame, is expected to face a withering attack this morning at a court hearing in Washington.

Through their attorneys, the defendants in the case have denounced it as a political vendetta on the part of Ms. Plame and her husband, Joseph Wilson, a former ambassador. Named in the lawsuit are Vice President Cheney, his former chief of staff, I. Lewis Libby Jr., President Bush's top political adviser, Karl Rove, and a former deputy secretary of state, Richard Armitage.

"This case is a political exercise masquerading as a civil lawsuit," Mr. Armitage's lawyers complained in their motion to dismiss the case. Judge John Bates is scheduled to hear two hours of arguments today on whether the suit should go forward. The federal government, which was not named as a defendant, has also urged that the case be thrown out.

The lawsuit alleges a plot among government officials to expose Ms. Plame's CIA affiliation as retribution for her husband's criticism of claims Mr. Bush used to justify the invasion of Iraq. In particular, the suit claims that the defendants violated Mr. Wilson's right to freedom of speech, violated the couple's rights to equal protection under the law, violated Ms. Plame's constitutional right to privacy, and deprived Ms. Plame of her property interest in continuing employment at the CIA. The suit also alleges that the defendants committed a tort against her by disclosing "private facts," namely her classified affiliation with the agency.

more at:
http://www.nysun.com/article/54630
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
HereSince1628 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-17-07 08:27 AM
Response to Original message
1. Best wishes to the Plame team.
Go Val!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sinkingfeeling Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-17-07 08:28 AM
Response to Original message
2. I'm not hopeful for the Wilsons considering Judge Bates bio.
http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/bates-bio.html

Judge Bates was appointed United States District Judge in December 2001. He graduated from Wesleyan University in 1968 and received a J.D. from the University of Maryland School of Law in 1976. From 1968 to 1971, he served in the United States Army, including a tour in Vietnam. Judge Bates clerked for Judge Roszel C. Thomsen of the United States District Court for the District of Maryland from 1976 to 1977 and was an associate at Steptoe & Johnson from 1977 to 1980. He served as an Assistant United States Attorney for the District of Columbia from 1980 to 1997, and was Chief of the Civil Division of the U.S. Attorney's Office from 1987 to 1997. Judge Bates was on detail as Deputy Independent Counsel for the Whitewater investigation from 1995 to mid-1997. In 1998, he joined the Washington law firm of Miller & Chevalier, where he was Chair of the Government Contracts/Litigation Department and a member of the Executive Committee. Judge Bates has served on the Advisory Committee for Procedures of the D.C. Circuit and on the Civil Justice Reform Committee for the District Court, and as Treasurer of the D.C. Bar, Chairman of the Publications Committee of the D.C. Bar, and Chairman of the Litigation Section of the Federal Bar Association. He was a member of the Board of Directors of the Washington Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs. In 2005, he was appointed by Chief Justice Rehnquist to serve on the U.S. Judicial Conference Committee on Court Administration and Case Management. In February 2006, he was appointed by Chief Justice Roberts to serve as a judge of the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Justitia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-17-07 08:46 AM
Response to Reply #2
5. ugh, you're right, that's ugly -eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Norquist Nemesis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-17-07 08:50 AM
Response to Reply #5
7. Why?
Really tried to see what the two of you are seeing. :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
11 Bravo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-17-07 08:54 AM
Response to Reply #7
8. Endorsements from Rehnquist and Roberts cause my antennae to tingle.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sinkingfeeling Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-17-07 09:30 AM
Response to Reply #7
12. He was a deputy USA under Ronnie, the Civil Division chief under Bush I,
a deputy in the Whitewater investigation, and appointed by Roberts to the FIS court. Pretty heavy into the 'right' side of things.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Norquist Nemesis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-17-07 10:48 AM
Response to Reply #12
13. Well...okay... It took a little more googling
because I wasn't getting that from the above bio. He was kept on under Clinton administration too and until Gonzo came along, the DOJ was held in fairly high esteem. On Renquist and Roberts, who else would have done the appointing for those things?

But then found this piece by Dana Milbank that Bates was the judge who made the decision on Cheney's energy 'task force'. He details what he (Milbank) sees as similarities for Bates in the two cases of Cheney and the Whitewater. The resulting decision of Bates isn't too positive for Milbank's 'analysis'.

http://foi.missouri.edu/execprivilege/isjudgespast.html

"As a deputy to Whitewater prosecutor Kenneth W. Starr in 1997, Bates was a key figure in a case called Office of the President v. Office of Independent Counsel. Bates tried fervently to get the release of White House documents, winning the case when the Supreme Court refused to reconsider an appellate court ruling in Starr's favor.

The facts of the two cases are different. The one Bates fought was an attorney-client privilege case involving notes of then-first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton's conversations with government lawyers about her former law firm's billing records. The Walker case -- about whether the White House must disclose who met with Cheney and his aides and what energy advice they gave -- hinges on the GAO's statutory authority to sue the executive branch.

But the similarities are strong. In both cases, the White House (first President Bill Clinton and then Bush) argued that presidential advisers must be able to give confidential advice and disclosing that advice would have a "chilling effect" on presidential decision-making. In both cases, the White House said that its opponent was on a "fishing" expedition and that the matter should be handled not by the courts but in the give-and-take of the legislature. And in both cases, the White House decided not to invoke executive privilege, inviting a precedent-setting legal battle by relying on less absolute legal arguments."

So, I'm with you guys!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Norquist Nemesis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-17-07 08:49 AM
Response to Reply #2
6. A little suprised on the last sentence of that bio
Isn't that the "secret court"? I dunno, though. Over all, without looking at a record of his rulings it looks fairly ummm...strong to me. :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wtmusic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-17-07 09:19 AM
Response to Reply #2
11. Who assigns these judges anyway?
If it's the DOJ this is an exercise in futility.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Norquist Nemesis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-17-07 10:50 AM
Response to Reply #11
14. *ahem* Remember "Advice and Consent"?
Pretty sure that Bush 'nominates' for a specific area and the Senate gives the "consent".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wtmusic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-17-07 10:52 AM
Response to Reply #14
15. I meant to the specific cases. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Norquist Nemesis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-17-07 11:12 AM
Response to Reply #15
16. Not sure if this helps ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wtmusic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-17-07 11:16 AM
Response to Reply #16
18. Complicated
As long as it stays in the judiciary, which it seems to do, there is a shot at impartiality

Maybe she just got some bad luck.

Anyway, thanks for info. :thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
samsingh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-17-07 08:34 AM
Response to Original message
3. good for her
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BOSSHOG Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-17-07 08:42 AM
Response to Original message
4. Conservative bastards whining about a political vendetta
how incredibly rich.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
unpossibles Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-17-07 09:05 AM
Response to Reply #4
9. no shit.
as someone who was (IS) sickened by the Clinton, Kennedy, etc. witch hunts, their crying "FOUL!!" is such a larf. It's like the school bully who get spunched and starts crying to the teacher.

Knowing Armitage's sordid history, I hope the Plame's don't have an "accident"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PRETZEL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-17-07 09:11 AM
Response to Original message
10. I'll wait til the ruling,
the Wilson's have a very very strong case in my opinion. They also have precedence on their side. Besides, what better way to create an ever greater contraversy than to have a Bush appointed judge ruling in favor of the Bush Administration officials.

Personally, I think the Administration wants no publicity on this case.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jack Rabbit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-17-07 11:14 AM
Response to Original message
17. The Bushies say the Wilsons are on a political vendetta?
Now that's rich.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftchick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-17-07 11:22 AM
Response to Reply #17
19. there is no irony meter big enough for these bastards.
:grr:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 25th 2024, 03:53 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC