Was Karl Rove the source of the Plame leak. . .

Linking to Huffington Post really needs to be outlawed... just as realgm and hoopsworld are outlawed in the GARM. It's just a ridiculously biased source with no objectivity whatsoever.

 

Well Allah be praised you don’t make the rules around here.

 

Well if you would ever care to offer any contrary evidence that is credible, perhaps you'll be able to convince the mods to ban it.

But that would actually require you to discuss the issues, and stay on topic.

 

Still no Fitzmas.

[rquoter]Appeals court upholds CIA leak lawsuit dismissal

By Andy Sullivan Tue Aug 12, 12:01 PM ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A U.S. appeals court on Tuesday dismissed former CIA analyst Valerie Plame's lawsuit against Vice President Dick Cheney and several former Bush administration officials for disclosing her identity to the public.
ADVERTISEMENT

The Court of Appeals in Washington dealt another setback to the former spy, who has said her career was destroyed when officials blew her cover in 2003 to retaliate against her husband, Iraq war critic Joseph Wilson.

Plame's outing led a lengthy criminal investigation, which resulted in the conviction of Cheney's top aide, Lewis "Scooter" Libby, for perjury and obstruction of justice.

President George W. Bush commuted Libby's 2 1/2-year prison sentence last year.

Plame and Wilson sought money damages from Cheney, Libby, former White House aide Karl Rove and former State Department official Richard Armitage for violating their constitutional free speech, due process and privacy rights.

But a three-judge panel of the appeals court upheld a federal judge's ruling that dismissed the couple's lawsuit.

The court ruled Cheney and the others were acting within their official capacity when they revealed Plame's identity to reporters.

Government employees who engage in questionable acts, such as abusing prisoners at the Guantanamo Bay facility or engaging in defamatory speech, cannot be held individually liable if they are carrying out official duties, the court said.

"The conduct, then, was in the defendants' scope of employment regardless of whether it was unlawful or contrary to the national security of the United States," Appeals Court Chief Judge David Sentelle wrote in the opinion.

Plame's lawyer said she was disappointed.

"We're considering all of our options, including appeal, which I think is likely," said Plame attorney Melanie Sloan, who added that she is still studying the decision.[/rquoter]

 

basso won and lost in the same post

 

That's an improvement...

 

I love the irony when you consider the link in his sig.

 

I don't know if you've heard the news but Libby was convicted of perjury and sentenced to prison a long time ago, so "Fitz" pretty much did his job there.

Do I need to explain the difference between a civil case in federal court and a federal criminal proceeding to you? I won't, but I will take the opportunity to ridicule you for not knowing it, which I guess I just did.

 

This thread continues! A marathon... no doubt about it.


"The conduct, then, was in the defendants' scope of employment regardless of whether it was unlawful or contrary to the national security of the United States," Appeals Court Chief Judge David Sentelle wrote in the opinion.

Thanks, basso, for pointing out why Plame is having such a difficult time trying to get justice.



Impeach Bush/Cheney.

 

not sure why you felt the need to make an ad hominem attack like this- the article is quite clear that it's the civil case.

 

cheney says Bush should have pardoned Libby.

[rquoter]Cheney Speaks Out on Libby
Former vice president calls prosecution a "serious miscarriage of justice" and disagrees with Bush's decision.
by Stephen F. Hayes
01/22/2009 1:00:00 AM

Former Vice President Dick Cheney disagreed publicly with his boss just four times in the eight years they served together. Yesterday, however, on the first day after the official end of the Bush administration, Cheney disagreed with George W. Bush once more.

Cheney told THE WEEKLY STANDARD that his former chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, whom he described as a "victim of a serious miscarriage of justice," deserved a presidential pardon.

Asked for his reaction to Bush's decision Cheney said: "Scooter Libby is one of the most capable and honorable men I've ever known. He's been an outstanding public servant throughout his career. He was the victim of a serious miscarriage of justice, and I strongly believe that he deserved a presidential pardon. Obviously, I disagree with President Bush's decision."

Bush's decision not to pardon Libby has angered many of the president's strongest defenders. One Libby sympathizer, a longtime defender of Bush, told friends she was "disgusted" by the president. Another described Bush as "dishonorable" and a third suggested that refusing to pardon Libby was akin to leaving a soldier on the battlefield. They believe that the prosecution of Libby was riddled with inconsistencies and double-standards. Not least of those is the fact that former deputy secretary of state Richard Armitage, who leaked the identity of former CIA operative Valerie Plame to at least two reporters, was never charged. And Fitzgerald had known from the outset of his investigation that Armitage was the leaker.

Others, including some who believe it's possible that Libby did lie to the grand jury, argue that Libby should have been pardoned because his conviction came as a result of highly-charged political fight between the Wilson, the CIA, and the Bush administration. The entire chain of events that led to Libby's conviction started with a lie from Joseph Wilson, Plame's husband, who claimed to have debunked forged documents related to intelligence reports on Iraq, Niger and uranium. But Wilson, who was sent by the CIA to investigate the reports after his wife recommended him, could not have discredited the reports as forgeries because the U.S. government did not yet possess them at the time he made his trip.

Despite the many problems with Wilson's stories--at one point he justified his falsehoods by acknowledging he had used a little "literary flair"--they became the narrative that drove media reporting on the story and shaped Fitzgerald's understanding of the case.

So why did Bush refuse to pardon Libby? There are some indications that he believes Libby was guilty. When Bush commuted Libby's 30-month prison sentence in the summer of 2007, he issued a statement that suggested a pardon for Libby would be unlikely. "I respect the jury's verdict," Bush said at the time, noting only that he found the sentence "excessive." He added: "The consequences of his felony conviction on his former life as a lawyer, public servant and private citizen will be long-lasting." Earlier, Bush had praised special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald for running his investigation in "a very dignified way."

A second reason is less defensible. Two sources believe that the White House was concerned with public relations and simply did not want to defend or justify a Libby pardon.

In an interview on Larry King Live yesterday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi claimed that she spoke to Bush about his views on pardons.

Larry King: Were you surprised the outgoing president issued no pardons.

Pelosi: I spoke to him about that yesterday at breakfast before we came to the Capitol and he was very proud of that. He said people who have gotten pardons are usually people who have influence or know friends in high places--is not available to ordinary people. So he was very proud of that. It was interesting .He thought that there was more access for some than others and he was not going to do any.

Cheney spoke Wednesday to Wyoming state legislators in Cheyenne. He recalled his time in the capitol as an intern and avoided much serious discussion of his role in the Bush administration.

Still, it was a big role and Cheney won far more arguments than he lost. Of the four times that Cheney had publicly disagreed with Bush--on a gay marriage ban; on firing Donald Rumsfeld; on Washington, D.C.'s gun ban; and on North Korea--two of them involved personal loyalty Cheney felt to someone other than the president. On one occasion it was his daughter, Mary Cheney, and on the other it was his longtime mentor, Donald Rumsfeld.
Libby makes it three.[/rquoter]

 

This is the one instance where Bush is smarter. If he had been pardoned, Congress could have compelled Libby to testify without any ability to plead the 5th. Now, he's out of prison, the rich wingers are taking care of him, and he can continue to stonewall any investigations that might tarnish W's good name.

 

Of course, the greater event in this case (and other stuff, like domestic spying) yesterday was Obama saying this...

He did away with the Bush executive Order that gutted the Presidential Records Act passed after Watergate. Interesting that this is the first action he took to restore a Constitutional balance to our government. It just so happens that it now guarantees a continuous dribble of Bush administration (and maybe HW atrocities as well) will come out over the next few years. This is a beautiful convergence of good government and smart politics.

 

Please cite an example of how you lost your freedom under Bush. Nothing abstract, but something concrete, something personal.

TIA.

 

More...

And to answer your question basso, one thing I lost was the freedom to know what the Bush Administration was doing in our name. Of course, you ask an abysmal question, one just as likely to come from a Tory in 1776 as you... and then I remember you disagree with the Declaration of Independence, so I shouldn't be surprised. Freedom is by definition both abstract and personal. The loss of freedom to some is a loss to all. (And I guess you didn't watch KO last night when some new revelations about the Bush domestic spying program came out.)

 

Why don't we run the same exercise with respect to you and gay marriage. Since you're not gay it shouldn't matter to you should it? Yet it does.....nd now we see why this little exercise in imposing standing requrement is a useless trick.

 

you're right gay marriage doesn't matter to me, which is why i say, party on. not sure i see your point.

 

So you don't support the right to for homosexual couples to marry?

Interesting.

Your position on this issue has been more and more clear lately, though it is at odds to much of what you've stated in the past.

 

TIA?

Thanks in Avance? Or Total Information Awareness? How about your and my phone, email, finance, and travel records being subject to government snooping, without warrants or even suspicion of wrongdoing?

You sorta answered your own question there.