Thursday, July 19, 2007
Waiting for Justice
The serial liars Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson have suffered a series of defeats in the past few years. After a ton of hoopla, no one was indicted for leaking Ms. Plame's job, and Scooter Libby, who was convicted peripherally for perjury and obstruction, got his sentence commuted by the President. Today the Wilson/Plame's silly lawsuit against Vice President Cheney, Scooter Libby, Carl Rove and Richard Armitage (who was gossiping about where Valerie worked to Bob Woodward and Robert Novak, who published it) for a 'civil rights' violation for revealing where she worked, was dismissed today in total by a federal district judge. Now if they would only indict Plame for lying to Congress, a lot of us would feel better about our justice department and Justice in a higher sense would be served. I think I'm probably just dreaming about that last bit.
There were a lot or problems with the lawsuit and Judge John D. Bates only acted on a few of them.
The final thing to go wrong recently for the cute couple is the CIA has refused to give Valerie permission to publish a book about her stirring adventures as a blond spy. Having bitched and moaned so much about the revelations of her job, the CIA leadership can't now say, OK she can reveal everything she wants. She's had to sue the CIA to let her reveal more than just who she worked for. Personally, I think the woman is suit happy. That lawsuit seems a real longshot too.
UPDATE: Dafydd ab Hugh over at Big Lizards Blog has a good posting regarding what really could be the end of the Plame Affaire. He has just the right amount of snark. Witness:
Naturally. Armitage, a virulent opponent of the Iraq invasion and protege of then-Secretary of State Colin Powell (another outspoken opponent), was seeking "retribution" against Lyin' Joe Wilson for defaming the Bush administration -- over the Iraq invasion that Armitage despised!
We all know there is one and only one reason that Armitage was added to the lawsuit: because he is the only person known actually to have leaked her name to the press; and it would look pretty stupid -- even for a Democrat -- to file a lawsuit against three people who Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald did not claim leaked her name, but not against the one person who Fitzgerald did say leaked her name.
I keep hearing, even now, from Democrats (like Craig Silverman) that they believe Dick Cheney conspired with Rove to punish Joe Wilson for telling the truth about Niger yellowcake by revealing his wife's job at a desk a CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia. But the people who actually know about who leaked what to whom, know it was just gossip and not any conspiracy, and further, that Joe Wilson did not tell the truth about Niger yellowcake. Everyone can have their own opinion, but no one gets to have their own facts.
There were a lot or problems with the lawsuit and Judge John D. Bates only acted on a few of them.
The final thing to go wrong recently for the cute couple is the CIA has refused to give Valerie permission to publish a book about her stirring adventures as a blond spy. Having bitched and moaned so much about the revelations of her job, the CIA leadership can't now say, OK she can reveal everything she wants. She's had to sue the CIA to let her reveal more than just who she worked for. Personally, I think the woman is suit happy. That lawsuit seems a real longshot too.
UPDATE: Dafydd ab Hugh over at Big Lizards Blog has a good posting regarding what really could be the end of the Plame Affaire. He has just the right amount of snark. Witness:
Naturally. Armitage, a virulent opponent of the Iraq invasion and protege of then-Secretary of State Colin Powell (another outspoken opponent), was seeking "retribution" against Lyin' Joe Wilson for defaming the Bush administration -- over the Iraq invasion that Armitage despised!
We all know there is one and only one reason that Armitage was added to the lawsuit: because he is the only person known actually to have leaked her name to the press; and it would look pretty stupid -- even for a Democrat -- to file a lawsuit against three people who Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald did not claim leaked her name, but not against the one person who Fitzgerald did say leaked her name.
I keep hearing, even now, from Democrats (like Craig Silverman) that they believe Dick Cheney conspired with Rove to punish Joe Wilson for telling the truth about Niger yellowcake by revealing his wife's job at a desk a CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia. But the people who actually know about who leaked what to whom, know it was just gossip and not any conspiracy, and further, that Joe Wilson did not tell the truth about Niger yellowcake. Everyone can have their own opinion, but no one gets to have their own facts.
Labels: Plame Lawsuit
# posted by Roger Fraley @ 3:28 PM 
Comments:
<< Home
So this judge, the man who worked for two years with Ken Starr, the man who dismissed the suit against Dick Cheney and the Energy Task Force, dismissed a case from someone who brought a suit against members of the current administration? Absolutely Shocking!
Andy, the one thing I notice more and more and really hate, is instead of looking at the logic of and the factual support of the action, the dismayed party looks only at the supposed political ties of the man who took the action and, if there is any perceived partisan 'taint,' dismisses the action as injustice due solely to political payback et al.. I'm not saying only Democrats do it, but you just did it now. There is indeed a very real legal concept called governmental immunity--get used to it.
Roger,
You must resist Roger. You must put this matter behind you. Don't go there anymore. I mean I don't think you need to join a 12 step program but it is close. Don't make me organize an intervention.
T
You must resist Roger. You must put this matter behind you. Don't go there anymore. I mean I don't think you need to join a 12 step program but it is close. Don't make me organize an intervention.
T
# posted by 
: 10:31 AM
: 10:31 AM
Roger,
This decision will undoubtedly be appealed. Indeed the strategy of the Wilson's is to take this to as high a court as possible. Your fat lady has not yet sung. However, all may turn out exactly the same as this decision. Fine.
No one denies the need for executive privilege. However, when it comes to justice their are scales. The power of executive privilege are NOT absolute.
And as for Bates, as one of the deputy prosecutors working for Ken Starr he argued against Bill Clinton in the matter of executive privilege. Now with Bush in office, executive privilege means a bit more to Judge Bates.
I'm just saying that given past decisions, it was entirely predictable that he would side with this administration. My opinion is that decision was not born out of whether this was the logical one or not. Call me skeptical.
And please, don't even tilt your nose just a little bit upward and say that if the roles were reversed, you wouldn't see it as I did.
This decision will undoubtedly be appealed. Indeed the strategy of the Wilson's is to take this to as high a court as possible. Your fat lady has not yet sung. However, all may turn out exactly the same as this decision. Fine.
No one denies the need for executive privilege. However, when it comes to justice their are scales. The power of executive privilege are NOT absolute.
And as for Bates, as one of the deputy prosecutors working for Ken Starr he argued against Bill Clinton in the matter of executive privilege. Now with Bush in office, executive privilege means a bit more to Judge Bates.
I'm just saying that given past decisions, it was entirely predictable that he would side with this administration. My opinion is that decision was not born out of whether this was the logical one or not. Call me skeptical.
And please, don't even tilt your nose just a little bit upward and say that if the roles were reversed, you wouldn't see it as I did.
It's perfectly acceptable for a lawyer, acting in behalf of a client, to advocate a position he or she would not support if he or she were on the bench. The first question should be is this a sound decision. If you can't decide based on the decision itself, then you can look at the history of the judge and I guess as far back as when he or she was a lawyer, but don't skip the analysis of the decision. Sorry if my nose seems up in the air. I am, after all, a lawyer.
Post a Comment
<< Home
