P2P-Zone

P2P-Zone (http://www.p2p-zone.com/underground/index.php)
-   Political Asylum (http://www.p2p-zone.com/underground/forumdisplay.php?f=34)
-   -   Valerie Plame leaker identified (http://www.p2p-zone.com/underground/showthread.php?t=23043)

Drakonix 09-09-06 01:32 AM
Valerie Plame leaker identified
 
Former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage has admitted he was the one who leaked the identity of CIA operative Valerie Plame (Wilson).

Armitage said he inadvertently revealed Plame’s job to syndicated columnist Robert Novak in July 2003.

Quote:
Early in the inquiry, Armitage told authorities he was Novak’s source. Armitage said Fitzgerald asked him to not to say that publicly. Fitzgerald then pressed on with the investigation, questioning White House aides. Among them was top Bush adviser Karl Rove, who appeared five times before a grand jury before being cleared of wrongdoing this summer.

It was not Rove, Libby, Cheney or the President. Fitgerald's knowledge and silence regarding the truth IMO gives considerable proof that the "investigation" was just political manuvering and not the investigation that it was supposed to be.

You can call it "Patrick Fitgerald's publicly funded Witchunt".

[Yawn] Another liberal conspiracy theory appropriately flushed away as deserved. Years of "investigation" efforts when Fitzgerald knew the truth. I wonder how many tax dollars went down the flusher on this..

Consequently, Joseph C. Wilson 4th and Valerie Plame Wilson's lawsuit against Rove, Libbby and Cheney will probably go the way of the flusher as well. [Insert Laugh track here]

Conspiracy is still a probable issue, but it's now a question of whether or not Fitzgerald and others consipred to falsely implicate Rove, Libby, Cheney, or the President.

LOL, let's see what happens now. The sideshow just got somewhat more entertaining.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14723718/

LOL, give a flame for Plame, I don't care.

Nicobie 11-09-06 07:01 PM
Nobody is pitching a bitch about the media read on the thing?


hahahahahahaa

buried on the 3rd page.

albed 11-09-06 07:12 PM
Poor knifey...:dis:

theknife 12-09-06 05:00 AM
leaving a couple of things out here, aren't we?

Quote:
What Valerie Plame Really Did at the CIA

In the spring of 2002 Dick Cheney made one of his periodic trips to CIA headquarters. Officers and analysts were summoned to brief him on Iraq. Paramilitary specialists updated the Vice President on an extensive covert action program in motion that was designed to pave the way to a US invasion. Cheney questioned analysts about Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. How could they be used against US troops? Which Iraqi units had chemical and biological weapons? He was not seeking information on whether Saddam posed a threat because he possessed such weapons. His queries, according to a CIA officer at the briefing, were pegged to the assumptions that Iraq had these weapons and would be invaded--as if a decision had been made.

Though Cheney was already looking toward war, the officers of the agency's Joint Task Force on Iraq--part of the Counterproliferation Division of the agency's clandestine Directorate of Operations--were frantically toiling away in the basement, mounting espionage operations to gather information on the WMD programs Iraq might have. The JTFI was trying to find evidence that would back up the White House's assertion that Iraq was a WMD danger. Its chief of operations was a career undercover officer named Valerie Wilson.
so while Armitage may have been the first, other administration officials like Libby made multiple calls to reporters - to discuss or discredit a war critic, while revealing the cover of the CIA agent in charge of wmd espionage in Iraq - at a time when they were preparing for war with Iraq. true patriots, your neocons - how proud you must be.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060918/corn

albed 12-09-06 09:15 AM
Hmmm, a war critic in charge of an operation supporting war. How strange that the operation did poorly. :dunno:

Drakonix 12-09-06 10:58 AM
Quote:
leaving a couple of things out here, aren't we?
Nope. Not a thing. The article link is there. An article from MSN, not Fox.

The original leak was made by Richard Armitage to syndicated columnist Robert Novak. Novak’s column, published in a number of places 07/14/2003 is what publicly disclosed Valerie Plame Wilson’s identity as a CIA operative.

It was this public disclosure that prompted Joseph C. Wilson IV to make allegations that the White House had purposefully leaked his wife’s CIA employment for punitive measures against his criticism of the invasion of Iraq. The Wilson’s primarily blamed Rove, Libby, and Cheney - naming them in a lawsuit. Joseph and Valerie Wilson were wrong.

From Joseph and Valerie Wilson’s preliminary statement in their lawsuit against Libby, Rove and Cheney:
Quote:
This Complaint arises out of a conspiracy among current and former high-level officials in the White House and actions taken by and on behalf of those officials in 2003 to violate the constitutional and other legal rights of Valerie Plame Wilson and her husband, Joseph C. Wilson IV. Those officials sought to punish Mr. Wilson for his public statements regarding assertions by the President of the United States in the 2003 State of the Union address that he used to justify the war against Iraq. As their chief method of punishment, the White House officials destroyed Mrs. Wilson’s cover by revealing her classified employment with the CIA to reporters prior to and after July 14, 2003, the date on which a newspaper column by Robert Novak made public that employment.
The full text of the lawsuit, in .pdf form can be downloaded at http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/se...Plame_Suit.pdf
It's 23 pages, slightly larger than 4 MB.

What is even far worse is that Armitage told Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald he was Robert Novak’s source early in the “investigation”. Yet, this revelation was never disclosed and the “investigation” continued as if this information was unknown.

It seems clear that the “investigation” into the leak has been clearly demonstrated to be something other than the thorough and impartial investigation it was supposed to be.

I’m speculating of course, but it seems clear that the “investigation” was simply the continuation of an effort to fabricate wrongdoing by Rove, Libby, Cheney, and the President. The smear campaign didn’t work, Fitzgerald and the Wilson's have been caught in a gigantic lie.

Too bad we can’t send Fitzgerald and the Wilson's to Singapore for an ass caning.

daddydirt 13-09-06 01:41 PM
NOVAK: ARMITAGE DID NOT TELL ALL
Wed Sep 13 2006 08:37:07 ET

"When Richard Armitage finally acknowledged last week he was my source three years ago in revealing Valerie Plame Wilson as a CIA employee, the former deputy secretary of state's interviews obscured what he really did," Bob Novak claims in a column set for Thursday release.

Novak, attempting to set the record straight, writes: "First, Armitage did not, as he now indicates, merely pass on something he had heard and that he 'thought' might be so. Rather, he identified to me the CIA division where Mrs. Wilson worked, and said flatly that she recommended the mission to Niger by her husband, former Amb. Joseph Wilson. Second, Armitage did not slip me this information as idle chitchat, as he now suggests. He made clear he considered it especially suited for my column."

Novak slams Armitage for holding back all this time.

Armitage's silence for "two and one-half years caused intense pain for his colleagues in government and enabled partisan Democrats in Congress to falsely accuse Rove of being my primary source," Novak explains.

"When Armitage now says he was mute because of special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald's request, that does not explain his silent three months between his claimed first realization that he was the source and Fitzgerald's appointment on Dec. 30. Armitage's tardy self-disclosure is tainted because it is deceptive."

Developing...

http://www.drudgereport.com/flash9.htm

http://www.suntimes.com/output/novak...t-novak14.html

Drakonix 13-09-06 07:21 PM
Quote:
An accurate depiction of what Armitage actually said deepens the irony of him being my source. He was a foremost internal skeptic of the administration’s war policy, and I long had opposed military intervention in Iraq. Zealous foes of George W. Bush transformed me improbably into the president’s lapdog. But they cannot fit Armitage into the left-wing fantasy of a well-crafted White House conspiracy to destroy Joe and Valerie Wilson. The news that he and not Karl Rove was the leaker was devastating news for the left.
It would be funny if it were not such a serious matter.

This thing has the potential of rapidly expanding into a massive and revealing scandal of unprecedented proportions.

It appears the Plame matter can now be legally proven to be a purposeful attempt by the left to undermine the U. S. Government for political and personal gain. The government should sock it to them big time.

theknife 13-09-06 07:43 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drakonix
It would be funny if it were not such a serious matter.

This thing has the potential of rapidly expanding into a massive and revealing scandal of unprecedented proportions.

It appears the Plame matter can now be legally proven to be a purposeful attempt by the left to undermine the U. S. Government for political and personal gain. The government should sock it to them big time.
the basic facts remain unchanged: if Novak is accurate, we now know that Armitage was the first, followed by (at least) Rove and Libby, to reveal the name of a classified intelligence officer working on prevention of WMD proliferation in Iraq. who's undermining who here, drak? you have three of the highest officials in the Bush administration actively breaching national security interests - since you don't mention this part of the story, should we assume you condone this behaviour?

daddydirt 13-09-06 08:21 PM
why bother anymore Drak.....sad, but it seems reading between the lines and connecting the dots can only implicate, not exonerate the Bush inner circle. never mind keeping an eye on the ball, some refuse to even admit the ball exists.

Sinner 14-09-06 08:39 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by daddydirt
never mind keeping an eye on the ball, some refuse to even admit the ball exists.

GO Twins!!

Sinner 21-09-06 01:00 PM
Ain't politics grand!!??

Stop, Thief!
No Right To Privacy From Snooping Democrats
By Dan McLaughlin

So, it turns out that a liberal blogger hacked into a password-protected section of Minnesota GOP Senate candidate Mark Kennedy's website to get an unauthorized peek at Kennedy's campaign ads before they ran. The blogger - a Democratic consultant - apparently did this illegally, and Democratic candidate Amy Klobuchar has now fired her chief spokeswoman, who viewed the purloined ads. This follows on the heels of California Democrat Phil Angelides' campaign admission that it accessed a taped conversation that was password protected on a Web site operated by Governor Schwarzenegger's campaign. Technology has sure come a long way since the days when John Kerry's brother broke into the basement of an opponent's headquarters.

Now, the Minnesota Democrat's defense is to claim that Kennedy's website was too vulnerable to snoopers like him. You may remember a case a few years back when the shoe was on the other foot, and Democrats embarrassed by highly damaging internal Judiciary Committee memos (showing them taking direction on judicial nominees from far-left interest groups, targeting one nominee because he was Latino and stalling another at the request of participants in a pending case) demanded an investigation of a GOP staffer who snooped on their files. So, for all those who were outraged by that story or thought it worthy of media attention, here's your chance to denounce Klobuchar and Angelides:

Paging Walter Pincus and the Washington Post.

Paging Michael Crowley and the New Republic.

Paging Josh Marshall.

Paging Media Matters.

Paging Kevin Drum.

Paging Dahlia Lithwick and Slate.

Paging Armando. (And this Kos diarist and this one too).

Paging The Carpetbagger Report.

Paging Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington.

Well, you get the idea.

RDixon 06-03-07 07:35 PM
Fair And Ballanced Propaganda
 
1 Attachment(s)
.

miss_silver 06-03-07 08:05 PM
Not according to MSNBC ;)

Quote:
...Libby was convicted of one count of obstruction, two counts of perjury and one count of lying to the FBI about how he learned Plame’s identity and whom he told. Prosecutors said he learned about Plame from Cheney and others, discussed her name with reporters and, fearing prosecution, made up a story to make those discussions seem innocuous...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17479718/

Nicobie 06-03-07 08:20 PM
They say he 'could' get 25 years.

I bet the lying govm'nt worker gets less than 3 years and that will be with a bracelet on his ankle, living at his home with secret service guards kissing his stanky arse.

miss_silver 06-03-07 08:42 PM
She used to be (Valerie) CIA's Iran eyes and ears about their nuke/WMD's program.

Quite ironic she was "leaked" in favor of other middle east informants. Anyone, take a wild guess on whom we now rely on Iran inside intel?

RDixon 06-03-07 08:52 PM
Did anyone else notice those huge ass knives sticking out of his back as he was leaving the courtroom?

Next big news story: Cheney resigns.

It just a question of when now.

miss_silver 06-03-07 08:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by RDixon (Post 254770)
Did anyone else notice those huge ass knives sticking out of his back as he was leaving the courtroom?

Next big news story: Cheney resigns.

It just a question of when now.
I feel he will meet the same fate as Kenneth Lay before Cheney resings.

RDixon 07-03-07 02:14 AM
Libby doesn't have enough money to pull off faking his own death to avoid prison.

Sinner 07-03-07 10:37 AM
He will receive a presidential pardon and not spend a second in prison.

JackSpratts 07-03-07 12:47 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sinner (Post 254791)
He will receive a presidential pardon and not spend a second in prison.
cheney or libby? :CE:

- js.

Sinner 07-03-07 01:11 PM
I don't know why Cheney would need one, but if all Sandy Berger got was probation for destroying original classified documents from the National Archives that were critical into the inquiry about 9/11, how could Libby get any thing more? Even if he does he will appeal until 08 and then will receive a pardon.

And Jack isn't it ironic how liberals are pretending that perjury and obstruction of justice suddenly matter?

albed 07-03-07 04:05 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JackSpratts (Post 254795)
cheney or libby? :CE:

- js.
Jack's too fucked up to even understand who you're talking about.

theknife 07-03-07 04:59 PM
the money quote, from one of the 12 people who had the whole thing layed out for them in minute detail:
Quote:
"There was a tremendous amount of sympathy for Mr. Libby on the jury. It was said a number of times, 'What are we doing with this guy here? Where's Rove? Where are these other guys?'" juror Denis Collins said. "I'm not saying we didn't think Mr. Libby was guilty of the things we found him guilty of. It seemed like he was, as Mr. Wells put it, he was the fall guy."

Sinner 07-03-07 05:16 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by theknife (Post 254801)
the money quote, from one of the 12 people who had the whole thing layed out for them in minute detail:
Fallguy For Joseph C. Wilson IV

Quote:
Former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, dispatched by the CIA in February 2002 to investigate reports that Iraq sought to reconstitute its nuclear weapons program with uranium from Africa, was specifically recommended for the mission by his wife, a CIA employee, contrary to what he has said publicly.

In other words, he lied about how he came to be in Niger in the first place, and his wife was further complicit in the lie.

Wilson's assertions -- both about what he found in Niger and what the Bush administration did with the information -- were undermined yesterday in a bipartisan Senate intelligence committee report.

The panel found that Wilson's report, rather than debunking intelligence about purported uranium sales to Iraq, as he has said, bolstered the case for most intelligence analysts. And contrary to Wilson's assertions and even the government's previous statements, the CIA did not tell the White House it had qualms about the reliability of the Africa intelligence that made its way into 16 fateful words in President Bush's January 2003 State of the Union address.

In other words, he lied about the conclusions of his own report, and further lied about the information that was given to President Bush on the matter.

The report said Plame told committee staffers that she relayed the CIA's request to her husband, saying, "there's this crazy report" about a purported deal for Niger to sell uranium to Iraq. The committee found Wilson had made an earlier trip to Niger in 1999 for the CIA, also at his wife's suggestion.

In other words, Plame had already made up her mind about the truthfulness of the report, and dispatched her husband to Niger not to investigate, but specifically to come back with debunking evidence. From the committee's report, the information Wilson returned with actually strengthened the administration's case, so he just lied about what its conclusions were to the press.

In the most stunning lie of all, the committee caught Wilson in a lie of "Christmas in Cambodia Under Nixon in '68" proportions:

The report also said Wilson provided misleading information to The Washington Post last June. He said then that he concluded the Niger intelligence was based on documents that had clearly been forged because "the dates were wrong and the names were wrong."

"Committee staff asked how the former ambassador could have come to the conclusion that the 'dates were wrong and the names were wrong' when he had never seen the CIA reports and had no knowledge of what names and dates were in the reports," the Senate panel said. Wilson told the panel he may have been confused and may have "misspoken" to reporters. The documents -- purported sales agreements between Niger and Iraq -- were not in U.S. hands until eight months after Wilson made his trip to Niger.

Whooops.

Indeed, Wilson's mendacity was so stunning that even the "Vast Right Wing Conspirators" at the Washington Post ultimately concluded that whoever leaked Plame's name was ultimately doing so to shed light on the fact that Wilson had no business being in Niger in the first place, and that a political agenda drove him there - rather than out of a vindictive desire to exact retribution on Wilson for exposing the truth:

The report may bolster the rationale that administration officials provided the information not to intentionally expose an undercover CIA employee, but to call into question Wilson's bona fides as an investigator into trafficking of weapons of mass destruction.

So let's review - Wilson lied about how he got to Niger, he lied about seeing a report that didn't even exist at the time, he lied about the conclusions of his own report(!), he lied about what the administration had been told, and his wife, Valerie Plame, specifically sent him on a mission to intentionally debunk a claim, not to find facts or perform inspections. I'd say the WaPo's conclusion is pretty sound on this one.

When the White House learned that a serial liar within their administration was being given op-ed space in the New York Times, and had the friendly ear of numerous journalists, in order to specifically contest the official administration policy, it is apparent that the Vice President asked a question that would have occurred to any halfway intelligent individual: "Who the heck is this Joe Wilson who is [among other things] claiming that I've seen a document which I haven't?" And thus set in motion a chain of events which led to today's conviction of Scooter Libby.

theknife 07-03-07 06:27 PM
gee, left out a few things, no?
Quote:
And thus set in motion a chain of events which led to today's conviction of Scooter Libby
without even getting into your unsourced op-ed, it somehow glosses over the fact that the "chain of events" includes the Vice Prez and associates disclosing the identity of a NOC to half a dozen reporters - and then lying about it to federal investigators.

so it actually isn't even about Joseph Wilson at this point. Libby got convicted by 12 people - not bloggers, politicos, op-ed writers, talking heads, or commentators -12 people who now know more about this matter than anybody....had the entire scenario laid out in excruciating detail, then took ten days to analyze and rehash every bit of it...and these people not only decided that Libby committed four felonies, but wondered why the other culpable people got to walk away.

albed 07-03-07 06:50 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by theknife (Post 254804)
12 people who now know more about this matter than anybody....
I suppose your criminal record precludes you from serving on a jury so I'll forgive your ignorance and just tell you that jurors don't get to "know" everything about a matter but only what's presented in court. And certain aspects of a case are often forbidden to be mentioned before them.


But fuck it; you're once again showing your warped liberal bias by even thinking that without sworn testimony from Plame and Wilson, jurors can have a complete picture of the matter.

JackSpratts 07-03-07 09:25 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sinner (Post 254797)

And Jack isn't it ironic how liberals are pretending that perjury and obstruction of justice suddenly matter?
it certainly matters when you're convicted doesn't it? just ask the wall street journal, or ask the president of the united states, a man whose lack of sympathy for strangers convicted or accused is as legendary as it is brutal.

it may be ironic that many of the strident "law & order" types who wanted clinton destroyed for obscuring an affair between consenting adults want freedom "now" for a man who is guilty of lying to the fbi about a "smear campaign that was orchestrated by his boss against the first person to unmask one of the many untruths that president bush used to justify invading iraq" and that has killed so many.

well, that's really not irony. unfortunately it's business as usual.

and pay no attention to our fouled trolls; we will see how far this goes, and where it leads, and who and how many in the end will seek the pardons so similar to those bush senior handed out like bon-bons to iran-contra felons...

in the meantime, "it was still a breath of fresh air to see someone in this administration, which specializes in secrecy, prevarication and evading blame, finally called to account."

yes it was.

the best is yet to come.

- js.

albed 08-03-07 09:10 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JackSpratts (Post 254807)
who wanted clinton destroyed for obscuring an affair between consenting adults
- js.
So that's what liberals call lying in speeches and perjuring in court, all on videotape - "obscuring".


No bias in their drug shriveled, propaganda saturated minds.

JackSpratts 08-03-07 10:18 AM
trolling again albed...perjury in this case is a legal term as you well know. something mr. libby is familiar with now that he's been convicted on four of five counts, including perjury and obstruction of justice. after a forty million dollar plus witch hunt, clinton wasn't convicted of anything, so no, he wasn't guilty of perjuring himself in the legal sense. as for the moral sense, when the majority of those practicing fellatio didn't consider the activity "sex" and the question was specifically about sex, the argument that clinton lied ends there as well.

i wondered why the prosecutors simply didn't ask him if he had "physical contact" with the woman, and if so, what variety...they could have done so and had clinton denied it he clearly would have set himself for perjury, although i have my doubts as to whether he would have "obscured" an answer to such a direct question. but it didn't happen and we'll never know. for whatever reason they demurred.

in any event we all knew the genesis of this. it was the continuing attempt by the right and the supreme court to subvert democracy and was itself far more harmful to the republic than any awkward verbal gymnastics clinton may have employed to defend himself and the office of a duly elected president.

in spite of trolls trying continuously to confuse this (and so many other current republican political disasters) with deliberately misleading history lessons on clinton, it is about valerie plame's leakers, where the subversion continues unabated, and with bush and cheney at its head.

of course thanks to bush 1, jr. has better advisors. this man is a sociopath who doesn't understand truth beyond the fact he senses it's dangerous. when the 9/11 commission requested he swear in and testify under oath this president flatly refused.

so i won't call him a perjurer. he isn't one - yet.

for now he's just a liar. the highest in the land.

- js.

Sinner 08-03-07 01:33 PM
Bill Clinton lied in a civil suit. His purpose was deny justice to Paula Jones. There was about 1500 people then held in federal prisons by the executive branch which he headed for the exact crimes that he committed. A federal judge then ordered President Bill Clinton to pay $90,686 for giving false testimony in the civil sexual harassment lawsuit filed against him by Paula Jones. Clinton did not fight the ruling and agreed to pay the court $1,202 for expenses associated with a deposition and for "reasonable costs incurred by plaintiffs" as a result of his actions. Now The payments were in addition to the $850,000 Clinton paid to Jones to settle her lawsuit.

Again funny how being a liar all of a sudden matters to liberals.

Libby is guilty because he lied in an investigation which the prosecutor already knew was bogus. Why do you think he was not put of trail for outing her? Answer me that.

I also may go back on saying he will receive a pardon because I believe you have to admit guilt to get one. He will be better off getting cleared in an appeal. Why didn’t the judge allow the impeachment of Russert with tape, or allow the defense to call Mitchell to the stand??? But if the appeals fail I guess a pardon is just as good...

RDixon 08-03-07 01:43 PM
1 Attachment(s)
.

RDixon 08-03-07 02:01 PM
How Rove escaped the same fate as Libby.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/blument...scooter_libby/

albed 08-03-07 02:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JackSpratts (Post 254815)
after a forty million dollar plus witch hunt, clinton wasn't convicted of anything,
Being pronounced "not guilty" doesn't mean "innocent" by a long stretch, especially when the pronouncement isn't made by the judicial branch but by a politically dominated institution.



Quote:
Originally Posted by JackSpratts (Post 254815)
when the majority of those practicing fellatio didn't consider the activity "sex" and the question was specifically about sex, the argument that clinton lied ends there as well.
Got a link for that odd conclusion? You have to be really warped to think fellatio isn't sex, so you've got no problem I suppose but are you really in the majority?




Quote:
Originally Posted by JackSpratts (Post 254815)
this man is a sociopath
Liberal Education Hour -
http://www.answers.com/sociopath&r=67
Quote:
so·ci·o·path (sō'sē-ə-păth', -shē-) pronunciation
n.

One who is affected with a personality disorder marked by antisocial behavior.

Someone whose social behavior is extremely abnormal. Sociopaths are interested only in their personal needs and desires, without concern for the effects of their behavior on others.
Wow, if that doesn't fit President StickHisDickInAnythingButHillary to a tee.

malvachat 09-03-07 07:01 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by albed (Post 254819)
Being pronounced "not guilty" doesn't mean "innocent" by a long stretch
Sorry to tell you it does.
You know why?
Of course you do.
Because you are INNOCENT till proven guilty.:tu:

albed 09-03-07 08:00 AM
The term is "presumed innocent" in this country beerboy.


It means you have to be treated as if innocent, not that you are.

malvachat 10-03-07 05:43 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by albed (Post 254832)
The term is "presumed innocent" in this country beerboy.


It means you have to be treated as if innocent, not that you are.
I am innocent:PE: :PE: :PE:

daddydirt 19-07-07 02:48 PM
Judge Dismisses Plame Lawsuit :AP:

whiners and whingers may commence whining and whinging now.

vernarial 20-07-07 07:21 AM
So pretty much nobody is gonna get into trouble for the leak. Typical D.C.

multi 20-07-07 07:53 AM
Plame Suit Dismissed by Controversial GOP Loyalist

Quote:
Since his tenure on the federal bench began six years ago, Bates's legal opinions and rulings supporting the administration's executive powers stand in stark contrast to his legal work as an assistant US attorney. He worked for Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr prosecuting President Clinton's Whitewater investment deals.

In 1997, Bates successfully argued for the release of thousands of pages of White House documents related to Hillary Clinton's conversations about Whitewater.

In January 2003, Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, suggested that the judge was a hypocrite by pursuing access to White House documents when Clinton was in office while supporting Cheney's claims of executive privilege in refusing to turn over his energy task force documents to Congress.

"When that guy was working for Ken Starr, he wanted to go open the dresser drawers of the White House," Leahy said. "I guess it's a lot different when it's a Republican vice president."

Since 2001, Judge Bates has been a staunch supporter of the White House's assertion of executive privilege on a wide range of controversial legal challenges by third parties.

Bates, who was appointed by President Bush in 2001, first came to the public's attention in December 2002 when he dismissed a lawsuit filed against Cheney by the Government Accountability Office that sought access to the vice president's energy task force documents.

In that case, Bates threw out the GAO's lawsuit, stating that the GAO lacked the authority to sue the vice president, a ruling that was criticized by the legal community. On Thursday, Bates dismissed the Wilsons' lawsuit for similar reasons.

He wrote that, as a technical legal matter, the Wilsons can't sue under the Constitution. Bates added that the defendants had the right to rebut criticism aimed at the White House by Plame's husband, former Ambassador Joe Wilson, who accused the administration of twisting prewar Iraq intelligence. He said the leak of Plame's undercover CIA status to a handful of reporters was "unsavory" but simply a casualty of Wilson's criticism of the administration.

"The alleged means by which defendants chose to rebut Mr. Wilson's comments and attack his credibility may have been highly unsavory," Bates wrote. "But there can be no serious dispute that the act of rebutting public criticism, such as that levied by Mr. Wilson against the Bush administration's handling of prewar foreign intelligence by speaking with members of the press, is within the scope of defendants' duties as high-level Executive Branch officials."

Mazer 20-07-07 01:51 PM
Plus there's a good chance that Libby will have his conviction overturned on appeal now that his sentence has been commuted.

You know, the last time somebody started a witch hunt in Washington D.C. the president of the United States ended up getting impeached. Is this the best the left wing can muster? I fear for the future of the Democrat party (not that the Republicans are doing any better).

theknife 20-07-07 04:21 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mazer (Post 257258)
Plus there's a good chance that Libby will have his conviction overturned on appeal now that his sentence has been commuted.

You know, the last time somebody started a witch hunt in Washington D.C. the president of the United States ended up getting impeached. Is this the best the left wing can muster? I fear for the future of the Democrat party (not that the Republicans are doing any better).
^concern troll^ :BL:

Mazer 20-07-07 07:57 PM
Yep, you got me. ;)

malvachat 21-07-07 03:07 AM
So it was a bent judge then?

Mazer 21-07-07 08:22 AM
Ignore the spin or you'll get dizzy trying to follow it. Take this line from multi's article:

Quote:
Melanie Sloan, executive director of the government watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, who leads Wilson's defense team, said she would immediately appeal Judge Bates's verdict.
Defense team? Wilson and Plame are not the defendants, they're the plaintiffs in this case.

The reporting on this whole affair has been very one-sided. If anyone involved appears 'bent' then it's because you're looking at them through the eyes of the media.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:54 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© www.p2p-zone.com - Napsterites - 2000 - 2024 (Contact grm1@iinet.net.au for all admin enquiries)