Plame's lawsuit rejected by Judge

Darth Rotor · 19th July 2007, 03:11 PM

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070719/...a_leak_lawsuit

It appears that Valerie Plame's latest attempt at redress from having had her cover blown, by suing Rove, Cheney, Bush, and friends, was rejected by the judge on, roughly, the grounds that politicians could not be sued for being politicians and responding to political attacks on their politics.

Or something like that.

From the article:

Quote:

Though Bates said the case raised "important questions relating to the propriety of actions undertaken by our highest government officials," he said there was no legal basis for the suit.

In this case, Bates said, Congress passed the Privacy Act to cover many of Plame's claims. Courts have held that the Privacy Act cannot be used to hold government officials personally liable for damages in court.

Bates also sided with administration officials who said they were acting within their job duties. Plame had argued that what they did was illegal and outside the scope of their government jobs.

"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," Bates said.

DR

frank462 · 20th July 2007, 06:11 AM

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070719/...a_leak_lawsuit

It appears that Valerie Plame's latest attempt at redress from having had her cover blown, by suing Rove, Cheney, Bush, and friends, was rejected by the judge on, roughly, the grounds that politicians could not be sued for being politicians and responding to political attacks on their politics.

Or something like that.

From the article:

DR

Richard Armitage was the one who leaked the information about Valerie Plame.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14533384/site/newsweek/

Quote:

A book coauthored by NEWSWEEK's Michael Isikoff details Richard Armitage's central role in the Valerie Plame leak.

Darth Rotor · 20th July 2007, 07:43 AM

Originally Posted by frank462

Richard Armitage was the one who leaked the information about Valerie Plame.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14533384/site/newsweek/

You will note that this is not why the judge dismissed the case. Armitage's role is no secret, and he was a defendant in the case.

Quote:

Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage

was listed in the link I provided, wasn't he? Yes, he was.

You will also note that the judge (wisely, IMO) chose not to comment on the Constitutional issues that this case raises, or may raise.

Ms Plame is trying to use the tort system, the civil courts, to remedy a wrong done to her (as she sees it, of course.) That means she wants money, right?

Follow the money, eh?

The criminal charges against Armitage were, for whatever reason, never made. (Still puzzling, given the President's claim early on that whoever leaked an agent's role would be punished.)

Do you understand, now, what is going on?

DR

mhaze · 20th July 2007, 07:46 AM

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor

You will note that this is not why the judge dismissed the case. Armitage's role is no secret, and he was a defendant in the case. was listed in the link I provided, wasn't he? Yes, he was.

You will also note that the judge (wisely, IMO) chose not to comment on the Constitutional issues that this case raises, or may raise.

Ms Plame is trying to use the tort system, the civil courts, to remedy a wrong done to her (as she sees it, of course.) That means she want money, right?

Follow the money, eh?

The criminal charges against Armitage were, for whatever reason, never made. (Still puzzling, given the President's claim early on that whoever leaked an agent's role would be punished.)

Do you understand, now, what is going on?

DR

PLAME AND WILSON ARE BORING!

ponderingturtle · 20th July 2007, 09:24 AM

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor

You will note that this is not why the judge dismissed the case. Armitage's role is no secret, and he was a defendant in the case. was listed in the link I provided, wasn't he? Yes, he was.

You will also note that the judge (wisely, IMO) chose not to comment on the Constitutional issues that this case raises, or may raise.

Ms Plame is trying to use the tort system, the civil courts, to remedy a wrong done to her (as she sees it, of course.) That means she wants money, right?

Follow the money, eh?

The criminal charges against Armitage were, for whatever reason, never made. (Still puzzling, given the President's claim early on that whoever leaked an agent's role would be punished.)

Do you understand, now, what is going on?

DR

The judge is saying outing covert operatives for their spouces publicizing reports that they don't want people to know about is normal political procedure.

Darth Rotor · 20th July 2007, 09:32 AM

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

The judge is saying outing covert operatives for their spouces publicizing reports that they don't want people to know about is normal political procedure.

Yes, that appears to be a part of his position. Perhaps this line of thinking will not be taken by the appelate judge. The article notes that Plame is appealing the dismissal. This reminds me of the old "get a second opinion" in a medical case.

Plame's suit looks to me to boil down to one of "clean hands:" when not performing legally, one vacates protections of performing in the office, and thus vacates being protected by official status as previous cases had shown.

This raises a curious problem about Armitage's actions, and whatever official sanction has been levied on him for his indiscretion. As I understand it, he fessed up to either Powell or someone else at State. If Rove has not already been shown by a charge and a conviction to have acted illegally, I am not sure how her case can be won, without a finding of illegal activity on Rove's part. Same for Cheney. Her attorney's noted that this was going to be a real bear to win.

This puts Libby in a different position, since his obstruction might be shown to contribute to a charge and conviction not being available against Rove? I am, at this point, rather at sea, and think an attorney would need to clarify the linkages. It's a tricky one.

It is spouses (spice?) rather than spouces.

DR

Katana · 20th July 2007, 09:38 AM

Doesn't the fact that the judge was appointed by Bush represent a conflict of interest?

I know, I know - let me go out on a limb there.

I mean in a formal sense to the extent that he should have recused himself.

Darth Rotor · 20th July 2007, 09:45 AM

Originally Posted by Katana

Doesn't the fact that the judge was appointed by Bush represent a conflict of interest?

I know, I know - let me go out on a limb there.

I mean in a formal sense to the extent that he should have recused himself.

Was that in the article? How do we know Judge Bates was appointed by Bush? Do we?

DR

Katana · 20th July 2007, 10:00 AM

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor

Was that in the article? How do we know Judge Bates was appointed by Bush? Do we?

DR

Heard it first on NPR last night.

It appears that he is a 2001 Bush appointee.

Also mentioned in the CNN article about this situation.

Quote:

Bates, a Bush appointee, agreed with defense arguments that federal law protects Cheney and the other top administration officials from being sued for actions taken as part of their official duties.

From the Yahoo story:

Quote:

Bates, a former Whitewater prosecutor, was appointed to the bench in 2001 by Bush.

ponderingturtle · 20th July 2007, 10:01 AM

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor

Yes, that appears to be a part of his position. Perhaps this line of thinking will not be taken by the appelate judge. The article notes that Plame is appealing the dismissal. This reminds me of the old "get a second opinion" in a medical case.

Plame's suit looks to me to boil down to one of "clean hands:" when not performing legally, one vacates protections of performing in the office, and thus vacates being protected by official status as previous cases had shown.

This raises a curious problem about Armitage's actions, and whatever official sanction has been levied on him for his indiscretion. As I understand it, he fessed up to either Powell or someone else at State. If Rove has not already been shown by a charge and a conviction to have acted illegally, I am not sure how her case can be won, without a finding of illegal activity on Rove's part. Same for Cheney. Her attorney's noted that this was going to be a real bear to win.

This puts Libby in a different position, since his obstruction might be shown to contribute to a charge and conviction not being available against Rove? I am, at this point, rather at sea, and think an attorney would need to clarify the linkages. It's a tricky one.

It is spouses (spice?) rather than spouces.

DR

Well probably spouse's as that should be possesive not plural, at least I think.

Gramar is hard, math is so much easier.

Katana · 20th July 2007, 10:05 AM

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

Well probably spouse's as that should be possesive not plural, at least I think.

Gramar is hard, math is so much easier.

Wouldn't it be spouses'?

pgwenthold · 20th July 2007, 10:13 AM

Originally Posted by Katana

Heard it first on NPR last night.

It appears that he is a 2001 Bush appointee.

On Rachel Maddow's show last night, she mentioned that he is the same judge who ruled in favor of Cheney in the "secret energy meetings" case.

calebprime · 20th July 2007, 10:19 AM

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

Well, probably 'spouse's' in this case should be possessive--not plural, I think.

Grammar is hard. Math is so much easier.

Katana · 20th July 2007, 10:20 AM

Originally Posted by pgwenthold

On Rachel Maddow's show last night, she mentioned that he is the same judge who ruled in favor of Cheney in the "secret energy meetings" case.

Yep.

ponderingturtle · 20th July 2007, 10:22 AM

Originally Posted by Katana

Wouldn't it be spouses'?

Hey I would prefer spouse and spouse₂

firecoins · 20th July 2007, 04:08 PM

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor

The criminal charges against Armitage were, for whatever reason, never made. (Still puzzling, given the President's claim early on that whoever leaked an agent's role would be punished.)

DR

Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald decided not to charge him, not Pres. Bush. Unless there is evidence that Bush told Fitzgerald not charge Armitage, therer is nothing to discuss on it.

firecoins · 20th July 2007, 04:10 PM

Originally Posted by pgwenthold

On Rachel Maddow's show last night, she mentioned that he is the same judge who ruled in favor of Cheney in the "secret energy meetings" case.

I find it funny that VP Cheney declared executive priviledge in that case but now is claiming he isn't apart of the executive branch when needed to make sure secret documents needed to be reviewed.

Kerberos · 21st July 2007, 02:18 AM

Originally Posted by Katana

Doesn't the fact that the judge was appointed by Bush represent a conflict of interest?

I know, I know - let me go out on a limb there.

I mean in a formal sense to the extent that he should have recused himself.

I don't think so. I mean he's already been appointed. If he was waiting for an answer on whether he would be appointed to some new position that would be a conflict of interests, but I don't think this qualifies. Obviously one could suspect him of bias, but that would be almost as true for a Clinton appointee, only in the other direction.

Schneibster · 21st July 2007, 02:51 AM

If you're gonna do this, do it right.

Armitage saw the documents because Cheney's office asked for them. Armitage is and was a known gossip.

Ever seen a pickpocket work? There's always a distraction.

Unabogie · 21st July 2007, 11:51 AM

And of course, let us all note that Armitage was not the leaker.

Armitage was one of four known leakers, which also include Scooter Libby, Karl Rove, and Ari Fleischer.

All four of these people leaked the name and status of a covert CIA agent to members of the press.

Which is why the "Armitage leaked so let's all ignore everyone else" red herring is so much pablum.

19th July 2007, 03:11 PM	#1
Darth Rotor Salted Sith Cynic Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Rat cheer Posts: 34,225	Plame's lawsuit rejected by Judge http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070719/...a_leak_lawsuit It appears that Valerie Plame's latest attempt at redress from having had her cover blown, by suing Rove, Cheney, Bush, and friends, was rejected by the judge on, roughly, the grounds that politicians could not be sued for being politicians and responding to political attacks on their politics. Or something like that. From the article: Quote: Though Bates said the case raised "important questions relating to the propriety of actions undertaken by our highest government officials," he said there was no legal basis for the suit. In this case, Bates said, Congress passed the Privacy Act to cover many of Plame's claims. Courts have held that the Privacy Act cannot be used to hold government officials personally liable for damages in court. Bates also sided with administration officials who said they were acting within their job duties. Plame had argued that what they did was illegal and outside the scope of their government jobs. "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," Bates said. DR
	__________________ Helicopters don't so much fly as beat the air into submission. "Jesus wept, but did He laugh?"--F.H. Buckley____"There is one thing that was too great for God to show us when He walked upon our earth ... His mirth." --Chesterton__"If the barbarian in us is excised, so is our humanity."--D'rok__ "I only use my gun whenever kindness fails."-- Robert Earl Keen__"Sturgeon spares none.". -- The Marquis Last edited by Darth Rotor; 19th July 2007 at 03:14 PM.

20th July 2007, 06:11 AM	#2
frank462 Philosophical Taoist Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Indianapolis, Indiana (USA) Posts: 306	Originally Posted by Darth Rotor http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070719/...a_leak_lawsuit It appears that Valerie Plame's latest attempt at redress from having had her cover blown, by suing Rove, Cheney, Bush, and friends, was rejected by the judge on, roughly, the grounds that politicians could not be sued for being politicians and responding to political attacks on their politics. Or something like that. From the article: DR Richard Armitage was the one who leaked the information about Valerie Plame. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14533384/site/newsweek/ Quote: A book coauthored by NEWSWEEK's Michael Isikoff details Richard Armitage's central role in the Valerie Plame leak.
	__________________ "I know I look like a buddha but you can't burn incense in my navel!"

20th July 2007, 07:43 AM	#3
Darth Rotor Salted Sith Cynic Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Rat cheer Posts: 34,225	Originally Posted by frank462 Richard Armitage was the one who leaked the information about Valerie Plame. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14533384/site/newsweek/ You will note that this is not why the judge dismissed the case. Armitage's role is no secret, and he was a defendant in the case. Quote: Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage was listed in the link I provided, wasn't he? Yes, he was. You will also note that the judge (wisely, IMO) chose not to comment on the Constitutional issues that this case raises, or may raise. Ms Plame is trying to use the tort system, the civil courts, to remedy a wrong done to her (as she sees it, of course.) That means she wants money, right? Follow the money, eh? The criminal charges against Armitage were, for whatever reason, never made. (Still puzzling, given the President's claim early on that whoever leaked an agent's role would be punished.) Do you understand, now, what is going on? DR
	__________________ Helicopters don't so much fly as beat the air into submission. "Jesus wept, but did He laugh?"--F.H. Buckley____"There is one thing that was too great for God to show us when He walked upon our earth ... His mirth." --Chesterton__"If the barbarian in us is excised, so is our humanity."--D'rok__ "I only use my gun whenever kindness fails."-- Robert Earl Keen__"Sturgeon spares none.". -- The Marquis Last edited by Darth Rotor; 20th July 2007 at 07:45 AM.

20th July 2007, 09:24 AM	#5
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Tarrytown, NY Posts: 26,417	Originally Posted by Darth Rotor You will note that this is not why the judge dismissed the case. Armitage's role is no secret, and he was a defendant in the case. was listed in the link I provided, wasn't he? Yes, he was. You will also note that the judge (wisely, IMO) chose not to comment on the Constitutional issues that this case raises, or may raise. Ms Plame is trying to use the tort system, the civil courts, to remedy a wrong done to her (as she sees it, of course.) That means she wants money, right? Follow the money, eh? The criminal charges against Armitage were, for whatever reason, never made. (Still puzzling, given the President's claim early on that whoever leaked an agent's role would be punished.) Do you understand, now, what is going on? DR The judge is saying outing covert operatives for their spouces publicizing reports that they don't want people to know about is normal political procedure.
	__________________ Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no poofing in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin

20th July 2007, 09:32 AM	#6
Darth Rotor Salted Sith Cynic Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Rat cheer Posts: 34,225	Originally Posted by ponderingturtle The judge is saying outing covert operatives for their spouces publicizing reports that they don't want people to know about is normal political procedure. Yes, that appears to be a part of his position. Perhaps this line of thinking will not be taken by the appelate judge. The article notes that Plame is appealing the dismissal. This reminds me of the old "get a second opinion" in a medical case. Plame's suit looks to me to boil down to one of "clean hands:" when not performing legally, one vacates protections of performing in the office, and thus vacates being protected by official status as previous cases had shown. This raises a curious problem about Armitage's actions, and whatever official sanction has been levied on him for his indiscretion. As I understand it, he fessed up to either Powell or someone else at State. If Rove has not already been shown by a charge and a conviction to have acted illegally, I am not sure how her case can be won, without a finding of illegal activity on Rove's part. Same for Cheney. Her attorney's noted that this was going to be a real bear to win. This puts Libby in a different position, since his obstruction might be shown to contribute to a charge and conviction not being available against Rove? I am, at this point, rather at sea, and think an attorney would need to clarify the linkages. It's a tricky one. It is spouses (spice?) rather than spouces. DR
	__________________ Helicopters don't so much fly as beat the air into submission. "Jesus wept, but did He laugh?"--F.H. Buckley____"There is one thing that was too great for God to show us when He walked upon our earth ... His mirth." --Chesterton__"If the barbarian in us is excised, so is our humanity."--D'rok__ "I only use my gun whenever kindness fails."-- Robert Earl Keen__"Sturgeon spares none.". -- The Marquis Last edited by Darth Rotor; 20th July 2007 at 09:35 AM.

20th July 2007, 07:46 AM	#4
mhaze Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Woo*(+-1.10)^20=AGWwoo Posts: 15,384	Originally Posted by Darth Rotor You will note that this is not why the judge dismissed the case. Armitage's role is no secret, and he was a defendant in the case. was listed in the link I provided, wasn't he? Yes, he was. You will also note that the judge (wisely, IMO) chose not to comment on the Constitutional issues that this case raises, or may raise. Ms Plame is trying to use the tort system, the civil courts, to remedy a wrong done to her (as she sees it, of course.) That means she want money, right? Follow the money, eh? The criminal charges against Armitage were, for whatever reason, never made. (Still puzzling, given the President's claim early on that whoever leaked an agent's role would be punished.) Do you understand, now, what is going on? DR PLAME AND WILSON ARE BORING!

20th July 2007, 09:38 AM	#7
Katana Illuminator Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 4,894	Doesn't the fact that the judge was appointed by Bush represent a conflict of interest? I know, I know - let me go out on a limb there. I mean in a formal sense to the extent that he should have recused himself.
Katana Illuminator Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 4,894	__________________ "I think Katana is as big of a perv as the rest of us." - Dragonrock "The rationality was there, and clear and concise. The condescention was hinted at and was like french onion dip on the perfect potato chip. Tasted like woo smackdown." - Fowlsound (aka Ducky, darnit) "Katana is one quick shut-yo-mouth!" - JonnyFive StopSylviaBrowne

20th July 2007, 09:45 AM	#8
Darth Rotor Salted Sith Cynic Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Rat cheer Posts: 34,225	Originally Posted by Katana Doesn't the fact that the judge was appointed by Bush represent a conflict of interest? I know, I know - let me go out on a limb there. I mean in a formal sense to the extent that he should have recused himself. Was that in the article? How do we know Judge Bates was appointed by Bush? Do we? DR
	__________________ Helicopters don't so much fly as beat the air into submission. "Jesus wept, but did He laugh?"--F.H. Buckley____"There is one thing that was too great for God to show us when He walked upon our earth ... His mirth." --Chesterton__"If the barbarian in us is excised, so is our humanity."--D'rok__ "I only use my gun whenever kindness fails."-- Robert Earl Keen__"Sturgeon spares none.". -- The Marquis

20th July 2007, 10:00 AM	#9
Katana Illuminator Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 4,894	Originally Posted by Darth Rotor Was that in the article? How do we know Judge Bates was appointed by Bush? Do we? DR Heard it first on NPR last night. It appears that he is a 2001 Bush appointee. Also mentioned in the CNN article about this situation. Quote: Bates, a Bush appointee, agreed with defense arguments that federal law protects Cheney and the other top administration officials from being sued for actions taken as part of their official duties. From the Yahoo story: Quote: Bates, a former Whitewater prosecutor, was appointed to the bench in 2001 by Bush.
Katana Illuminator Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 4,894	__________________ "I think Katana is as big of a perv as the rest of us." - Dragonrock "The rationality was there, and clear and concise. The condescention was hinted at and was like french onion dip on the perfect potato chip. Tasted like woo smackdown." - Fowlsound (aka Ducky, darnit) "Katana is one quick shut-yo-mouth!" - JonnyFive StopSylviaBrowne Last edited by Katana; 20th July 2007 at 10:04 AM.

20th July 2007, 10:01 AM	#10
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Tarrytown, NY Posts: 26,417	Originally Posted by Darth Rotor Yes, that appears to be a part of his position. Perhaps this line of thinking will not be taken by the appelate judge. The article notes that Plame is appealing the dismissal. This reminds me of the old "get a second opinion" in a medical case. Plame's suit looks to me to boil down to one of "clean hands:" when not performing legally, one vacates protections of performing in the office, and thus vacates being protected by official status as previous cases had shown. This raises a curious problem about Armitage's actions, and whatever official sanction has been levied on him for his indiscretion. As I understand it, he fessed up to either Powell or someone else at State. If Rove has not already been shown by a charge and a conviction to have acted illegally, I am not sure how her case can be won, without a finding of illegal activity on Rove's part. Same for Cheney. Her attorney's noted that this was going to be a real bear to win. This puts Libby in a different position, since his obstruction might be shown to contribute to a charge and conviction not being available against Rove? I am, at this point, rather at sea, and think an attorney would need to clarify the linkages. It's a tricky one. It is spouses (spice?) rather than spouces. DR Well probably spouse's as that should be possesive not plural, at least I think. Gramar is hard, math is so much easier.
	__________________ Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no poofing in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin

20th July 2007, 10:05 AM	#11
Katana Illuminator Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 4,894	Originally Posted by ponderingturtle Well probably spouse's as that should be possesive not plural, at least I think. Gramar is hard, math is so much easier. Wouldn't it be spouses'?
Katana Illuminator Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 4,894	__________________ "I think Katana is as big of a perv as the rest of us." - Dragonrock "The rationality was there, and clear and concise. The condescention was hinted at and was like french onion dip on the perfect potato chip. Tasted like woo smackdown." - Fowlsound (aka Ducky, darnit) "Katana is one quick shut-yo-mouth!" - JonnyFive StopSylviaBrowne

20th July 2007, 10:13 AM	#12
pgwenthold Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2001 Posts: 12,066	Originally Posted by Katana Heard it first on NPR last night. It appears that he is a 2001 Bush appointee. On Rachel Maddow's show last night, she mentioned that he is the same judge who ruled in favor of Cheney in the "secret energy meetings" case.
	__________________ "Baseball is a philosophy. The primordial ooze that once ruled our world has been captured in perpetual motion. Baseball is the moment. Its ever changing patterns are hypnotizing yet invigorating. Baseball is an art form. Classic and at the same time...progressive. Baseball is pre-historic and post-modern. Baseball is here to stay." (Stolen from the side of a lava lamp box, and modified slightly)

20th July 2007, 10:19 AM	#13
calebprime Somewhat Elitist Parasite Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 7,747	Originally Posted by ponderingturtle Well, probably 'spouse's' in this case should be possessive--not plural, I think. Grammar is hard. Math is so much easier.
	__________________ Mr. DeBakey's free, but he's a little bit conciliatory.

20th July 2007, 10:20 AM	#14
Katana Illuminator Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 4,894	Originally Posted by pgwenthold On Rachel Maddow's show last night, she mentioned that he is the same judge who ruled in favor of Cheney in the "secret energy meetings" case. Yep.
Katana Illuminator Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 4,894	__________________ "I think Katana is as big of a perv as the rest of us." - Dragonrock "The rationality was there, and clear and concise. The condescention was hinted at and was like french onion dip on the perfect potato chip. Tasted like woo smackdown." - Fowlsound (aka Ducky, darnit) "Katana is one quick shut-yo-mouth!" - JonnyFive StopSylviaBrowne

20th July 2007, 10:22 AM	#15
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Tarrytown, NY Posts: 26,417	Originally Posted by Katana Wouldn't it be spouses'? Hey I would prefer spouse and spouse₂
	__________________ Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no poofing in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin

20th July 2007, 04:08 PM	#16
firecoins Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Nyack, NY Posts: 3,191	Originally Posted by Darth Rotor The criminal charges against Armitage were, for whatever reason, never made. (Still puzzling, given the President's claim early on that whoever leaked an agent's role would be punished.) DR Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald decided not to charge him, not Pres. Bush. Unless there is evidence that Bush told Fitzgerald not charge Armitage, therer is nothing to discuss on it.
	__________________ NY Paramedic, skeptic, 9/11/01 Reality-ist. I am both right wing nut and left wing lunatic. Deal with it.

20th July 2007, 04:10 PM	#17
firecoins Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Nyack, NY Posts: 3,191	Originally Posted by pgwenthold On Rachel Maddow's show last night, she mentioned that he is the same judge who ruled in favor of Cheney in the "secret energy meetings" case. I find it funny that VP Cheney declared executive priviledge in that case but now is claiming he isn't apart of the executive branch when needed to make sure secret documents needed to be reviewed.
	__________________ NY Paramedic, skeptic, 9/11/01 Reality-ist. I am both right wing nut and left wing lunatic. Deal with it.

21st July 2007, 02:18 AM	#18
Kerberos Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 4,608	Originally Posted by Katana Doesn't the fact that the judge was appointed by Bush represent a conflict of interest? I know, I know - let me go out on a limb there. I mean in a formal sense to the extent that he should have recused himself. I don't think so. I mean he's already been appointed. If he was waiting for an answer on whether he would be appointed to some new position that would be a conflict of interests, but I don't think this qualifies. Obviously one could suspect him of bias, but that would be almost as true for a Clinton appointee, only in the other direction.
Kerberos Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 4,608	__________________ Bible code: A method for obtaining hidden messages from texts that contains none, for the purpose of predicting events after they happen. "When the facts are on you side, but the law is against you, stress the facts. When the law is on your side, but the facts are against you stress the law. When both the facts and the law is against you, pound the table and yell like hell". Laywer maxim

21st July 2007, 02:51 AM	#19
Schneibster Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 3,966	If you're gonna do this, do it right. Armitage saw the documents because Cheney's office asked for them. Armitage is and was a known gossip. Ever seen a pickpocket work? There's always a distraction.
Schneibster Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 3,966

21st July 2007, 11:51 AM	#20
Unabogie Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Portland, OR Posts: 5,840	And of course, let us all note that Armitage was not the leaker. Armitage was one of four known leakers, which also include Scooter Libby, Karl Rove, and Ari Fleischer. All four of these people leaked the name and status of a covert CIA agent to members of the press. Which is why the "Armitage leaked so let's all ignore everyone else" red herring is so much pablum.