Valerie Plame leaker identified

[albed]

Originally Posted by JackSpratts

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.

Originally Posted by JackSpratts

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?

Originally Posted by JackSpratts

this man is a sociopath

Liberal Education Hour -
http://www.answers.com/sociopath&r=67

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]

Originally Posted by albed

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.

[albed]

The term is "presumed innocent" in this country beerboy.


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

[malvachat]

Originally Posted by albed

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

[daddydirt]

Judge Dismisses Plame Lawsuit

whiners and whingers may commence whining and whinging now.

[vernarial]

So pretty much nobody is gonna get into trouble for the leak. Typical D.C.

[multi]

Plame Suit Dismissed by Controversial GOP Loyalist

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."