A judge has dismissed former CIA operative Valerie Plame's lawsuit accusing members of the Bush administration of leaking her identity.

Interesting.
:-)

Quote:

U.S. District Judge John D. Bates dismissed the case on jurisdictional grounds

I'd guess it will be refiled in the correct jurisdiction.

Jim.

Quote:

QUOTE:

I'd guess it will be refiled in the correct jurisdiction.

It would be better if it was refiled in Feb 2009.

Better for whom?

---

Paul D

The full story:


Valerie Plame's Lawsuit Dismissed

Jul 19, 3:51 PM (ET)

By MATT APUZZO

WASHINGTON (AP) - A federal judge dismissed former CIA operative Valerie Plame's lawsuit against members of the Bush administration Thursday, eliminating one of the last courtroom remnants of the leak scandal.

Plame, the wife of former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, had accused Vice President Dick Cheney and others of conspiring to leak her identity in 2003. Plame said that violated her privacy rights and was illegal retribution for her husband's criticism of the administration.

U.S. District Judge John D. Bates dismissed the case on jurisdictional grounds and said he would not express an opinion on the constitutional arguments. Bates dismissed the case against all defendants: Cheney, White House political adviser Karl Rove, former White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby and former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage.

Plame's attorneys had said the lawsuit would be an uphill battle. Public officials are normally immune from such lawsuits filed in connection with their jobs.

Plame's identity was revealed in a syndicated newspaper column in 2003, shortly after Wilson began criticizing the administration's march to war in Iraq. Plame believes the leak was retribution and that it violated their constitutional rights.

Armitage and Rove were the sources for that article, which touched off a lengthy leak investigation. Nobody was charged with leaking but Libby was convicted of lying and obstruction the investigation. Bush commuted Libby's 2 1/2-year prison term before the former aide served any time.

"This just dragged on the character assassination that had gone on for years," said Alex Bourelly, one of Libby's lawyers. "To have the case dismissed is a big relief."

Plame's attorneys said they were reading the opinion and had no immediate comment.

While Bates did not address the constitutional questions, he seemed to side 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."

Thanks, that had not been released when the first reports were coming out.

I just saw her attorney on TV. They are taking it to the Court of Appeals

Bush will pardon everyone!

History will not pardon him.

Quote:

QUOTE:
History will not pardon him.

I bet you got one of these .:-)

[/IMG

No, BobW, but I do have one of these:

Yeah it will. Long after you're gone Bush will go down as one of the greatest presidents ever.

Don't hurt yourself.

Is it not historically possible for a president who is not highly regarded in his time, be highly regarded many years after?

Yes that would be possible but not for a buffoon, a total failure. It worked for Truman, that was a rare case. It did not work for

Nixon
Carter
Hoover
Harding
Cleveland
Johnson
Grant

I could make a longer list, but I think that is enough to get the idea across. The fact is that we have had a bunch of duds in the White House, some decent ones, but very few great Presidents.

This nation has not survived because of most of its leaders, but in spite of most of them. It has survived because, in their wisdom, the Founders installed safeguards to save us from ourselves.

Wasn't' Lincoln another president who wasn't favored in his time, but is now up there in the top 3?

And saying Bush is a total failure is a stretch isn't it?

Quote:

Wasn't' Lincoln another president who wasn't favored in his time, but is now up there in the top 3?

And saying Bush is a total failure is a stretch isn't it?

Lincoln and Wasted in the same breath, Whippersnapper? You mock the gods! I'd advise you not to stand under any trees for the next day or so -- even if it's sunny weather.

Total failure a stretch? How about rank, absolute, consummate, out-and-out, has-to-be-seen-to-be-believed, definition-of-the-word failure!

Some friendly advice: While you can, go somewhere quiet and think -- save what little Fox Noise has left you for a functional mind. You just have to separate those lips of yours from Billo-and-Friends neo-con propagandizing butts before it requires some sort of life-threatening surgery. :-(

Quote:

Lincoln and Wasted in the same breath, Whippersnapper? You mock the gods!

I didn't use Lincoln and wasted in the same breath. Your vision must be blurred this morning.

Quote:

QUOTE:
Wasn't' Lincoln another president who wasn't favored in his time, but is now up there in the top 3?

Lincoln wasn't favored by the Southern states because of the Civil War (bringing them back into the Union when they seceded) and because of hr freed the slaves. They regarded him as a tyrant for his actions. History, however, sees that his actions preserved the Union and led to better civil rights. (Interesting side note: Booth originally planned to merely kidnap the President and demand the release of some Confederate prisoners. However, after hearing a Lincoln speech promoting voting rights for blacks, he changed his mind and decided to kill Lincoln instead.

Quote:

QUOTE:
And saying Bush is a total failure is a stretch isn't it?

No, he's not a total failure. He could have decided to invade Iran also and really stretched our military past the breaking point. (Instead of leaving them right at the breaking point.)

He is, however, one of the least popular presidents ever.



(Chart from http://www.hist.umn.edu/~ruggles/Approval.htm )

I believe the only president liked even less was Nixon. And Carter is barely above Bush. Not good company to be in. IMO, the best Bush can hope for is for history to judge him as incompetent. The worst will be for history to judge him as malicious.

You are much too kind, Jason. :evilgrin:

I've actually thought for a long time that Bush, by himself, is merely incompetent. The people he surrounds himself with, however, take that incompetence and raise it to levels of sheer maliciousness.

Take, for example, Dick Cheney's recent assertions that he can't be forced to comply with an Executive Branch order because he's actually part of the Legislative Branch. Turns out he was questioned by an interviewer a year or so ago about refusing to cooperate with Congressional subpoenas. He answered that he can't be ordered to comply with those because he's part of the Executive Branch. (The Daily Show highlighted this fact. Unfortunately, it looks like Comedy Central already taken that segment off of their website to make way for newer segments.) So if he's not part of yet not part of the Executive Branch and part of yet not part of the Legislative Branch, where is he exactly? (Note the pixelation.)

There, and also in the catbird seat.

Tomorrow Cheney will become President for a few hours when Bush is under anesthesia for a colonoscopy. Sleep well folks!

Hmm... how will they know when the anesthesia wears off?

I read about that. Why in the hell would this be publicized? Gross.

Just what is gross about it?

Maybe it's not so gross to those who have had it done.

Quote:

QUOTE:
Maybe it's not so gross to those who have had it done.

Like Katie Couric, on national T.V.

She's hot.

In an old way.

Quote:

Tomorrow Cheney will become President for a few hours when Bush is under anesthesia for a colonoscopy

Wimp.

It's not a lot of laughs but I see no reason to be sedated for the procedure. And yes, I've had it done 3 times without sedation. Fortunately nothing interesting was observed.

If the Pres. should need anything questionable biopsied, he could then receive anesthesia.

Jim.

Quote:

I've had it done 3 times without sedation

:lol: It takes my breath away even thinking about it. Ain't nobody ramming anything up my butt without a fight.

You would need sedation because it first would require major surgery to get your head out of there.

Sorry, I just couldn't resist. :evilgrin:

VILE!

But very funny!

Damn...They found your head first. The brown nose was the initial clue.

Quote:

If the Pres. should need anything questionable biopsied, he could then receive anesthesia.

Damn, they are going to find Stephen Harper in there :-)

:clap: :clap: :clap:

Possibly John Howard as well - he wouldn't take up much room.

---

Paul D

Quote:

QUOTE:
Tomorrow Cheney will become President for a few hours when Bush is under anesthesia for a colonoscopy. Sleep well folks!

Hmm... how will they know when the anesthesia wears off?

Not read this thread before, so I'm sure some else will have said the obvious, but....

I suppose this colonoscopy is to confirm he IS full of sh.......!!

Not after the prep for the procedure.

Quote:

QUOTE:
Not after the prep for the procedure.

Quote:

And saying Bush is a total failure is a stretch isn't it?

Well, I guess nobody's perfect.

Quote:

QUOTE:
Yes that would be possible but not for a buffoon, a total failure. It worked for Truman, that was a rare case. It did not work for

Nixon
Carter
Hoover
Harding
Cleveland
Johnson
Grant

I could make a longer list, but I think that is enough to get the idea across. The fact is that we have had a bunch of duds in the White House, some decent ones, but very few great Presidents.

This nation has not survived because of most of its leaders, but in spite of most of them. It has survived because, in their wisdom, the Founders installed safeguards to save us from ourselves.

In my opinion,and historically you left off one of the worse of the bunch.Andrew Jackson ! And yes I know ,as you, that there are others that belong on the list.

There were enough to make the point. I left out more than I listed.

However, history (media) did improve the FDR and Kennedy administrations from whence they were governing.

I'm not sure what that is supposed to mean. FDR was probably the most popular President in our history. He won the Presidency four times by landslides. Three of them before we entered WWII.

Not True

Harry S Truman went out of office as one of most disliked Presidents in history. Harry S is now considered on of our greatest.
He was disliked for blunt speaking doing what was best as he saw it for the country not making decisions based on polls or what the party thought he should do.

Harry Truman did what he thought was good for the country. Bush does what he thinks will further his insane messianic mission, America and the world be damned.

Sorry, Whippersnapper -- this argument continued past my bedtime. I would now, if I may, like to add to Shelly's enlightened commentary:

As far as I am aware, Presidential pardons don't apply to non-criminal cases - in other words, to civil suits, which this suit is, or was, or may be again.

Jim.

I don't know, Jim. But since the buffoon you're stuck with now is dangerously delusional and conducts himself as if endowed with the divine right of kings, instead of the temp-civil-service worker he actually is, who the hell knows what he thinks his limitations are -- if any.

Cross your fingers and hold your breath -- sixteen months to go before history begins to award this crazy son-of-a-%*&^# his well-deserved place among the greats.

regardless of who wins or loses this case, we are all losers. If Plame loses, it will be a little harder for the US to recruit spys if they can be outted by other government officials just doing their job.
If Plame wins (some of you will disagree with this as a loss) the US proves to the world once more that we have elected a bunch of folks (who outted one of our own spies for personal gain) a little short on the brain power to think things through.

What was Richard Armitage's personal gain? http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/08/30/leak.armitage/index.html

I was trying to be nice.
How about - they are all a bunch of doo-doo heads who seem to have a hard time reflecting on the consequences of their actions.
Perhaps Armitage will write a nice book about it, since (I hope) his public career is over.

A little off topic but.....



Valerie Plame is hot!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Hey....This is the off-topic lounge. Valerie Plame is a looker alright.
:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :9 :P

Another interesting view:
New York Post July 21, 2007 -- Valerie Plame and Joseph Wilson say they're not surprised that a federal judge threw out their lawsuit against four top Bush officials, vowing to prevail in "a higher court."
Actually, Judge John Bates' 41-page decision shouldn't surprise anyone.

The former CIA operative and her ex-diplomat husband, who've become the darlings of the anti-war Bush-bashing crowd, sued Vice President Dick Cheney; his onetime chief of staff, Lewis "Scooter" Libby; White House political operative Karl Rove, and former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage in connection with the leaking of Plame's name to columnist Robert Novak.

They claimed a political conspiracy was hatched at the top levels of the White House to discredit Wilson for his criticizing the administration's pre-war Iraq policy - and that "outing" Plame violated the couple's constitutional rights.

But the judge cited several reasons why the lawsuit shouldn't go forward - including the fact that these officials are legally immune from such suits, and that it was filed under an inapplicable act.

Judge Bates also made some substantive, non-technical points. Key among them: "Speaking with members of the press is within the scope of defendants' duties as high-level Executive Branch officials."

In other words, none of those named in the suit violated the couple's privacy by discussing them with reporters.

Actually, there are reasons why Plame and Wilson took a legally dubious route with this lawsuit, instead of using the more applicable Privacy Law: Courts have ruled that the White House is exempt from that law, and Cheney & Co. were the couple's prime targets.

Plus, using that law would have left Armitage - who, it turns out, was the actual named leaker (though he was never charged) - as the only named defendant. And he opposed the Iraq war.

That, in turn, would have underscored the reality that the leak of Plame's name was not a White House vendetta, but rather an inadvertent, offhand remark.

In the end, Joseph Wilson, in his criticism of the administration, was guilty of exactly what he charged the White House of doing: politicizing intelligence.

The longer the issue remains alive, the more his credibility, and his wife's, will suffer. They'd do better to let the matter drop and just collect their book royalties.

You are nothing if not consistent! If Faux Noise is not handy, you go to the New York Post, a fish wrapper also owned and controlled by Rupert Murdoch.

Have you ever used any news source where they are not told what to think and say by one sleazy old man.

If Rupert Murdoch knew your views/opinions he probably wouldn't think much of you either.

Your daily fix.

Your house number is missing.

Quote:

QUOTE:
If Rupert Murdoch knew your views/opinions he probably wouldn't think much of you either.

I would consider that a complement.

What's wrong with a difference of opinions? Just because News Corp doesn't fit into what you believe to be the truth why is it wrong?

Because it is a propaganda mill. It has no regard for journalistic integrity.

I live in a very conservative part of the country, the majority here do not agree with me politically. Our one daily newpaper is also very conservative and owned by Morris Communications, an extreme right wing company who own a number of newspapers and radio stations in the deep south. I respect, and have that paper delivered seven days a week, because they confine their views to the editorial page, as is their right. They do not allow their philosophy to affect any other part of the paper. They report the news, not the publishers opinions.