Breaking: Valerie Plame's Civil Suit Dismissed

Valarie Plame's civil suit has been dismissed by a Bush appointed judge. I have to add that note, because of course in this time where partisan reigns supreme, this point is very relevant.

From wilsonsupport.com:

Washington, DC -- Earlier today, District of Columbia District Court Judge John D. Bates dismissed Joe and Valerie Wilson's civil suit against Vice President Dick Cheney, presidential aide Karl Rove, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby and Richard Armitage. While Judge Bates recognized that the Wilsons' claims "pose important questions relating to the propriety of actions undertaken by our highest government officials," he dismissed their suit on a threshold legal issue: that there is no constitutional remedy available to them.

While the Wilsons' lawyers are reviewing the decision, they anticipate filing an appeal. Melanie Sloan, executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington ("CREW"), one of the Wilsons' lawyers, said today, "While we are obviously very disappointed by today’s decision, we have always expected that this case would ultimately be decided by a higher court." Sloan continued, "We disagree with the court's holding and intend to pursue this case vigorously to protect all Americans from vindictive government officials who abuse their power for their own political ends."

Here is a little background on the judge who chose to dismiss this case:

On December 9, Judge John D. Bates of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled that Congress' watchdog, the General Accounting Office (GAO), led by Comptroller General David M. Walker, lacked standing to sue Vice President Dick Cheney for access to the records of the energy task force. In his ruling, Judge Bates stated that "[t]here is no doubt here that the issues framed by the parties invoke core separation of powers questions at the heart of the relationship among the three branches of our government."

Judge Bates added that, in his assessment of whether the Comptroller General has asserted a sufficient injury to establish standing, "the Court must therefore be mindful that the standing inquiry should be 'especially rigorous' because reaching the merits of this dispute could require deciding whether an action taken by one of the other branches of government was unconstitutional."

Named to the bench by President Bush, the Judge is being attacked for his decision, with some arguing that he took the easy way out by deciding the case on the jurisdictional grounds of standing, rather than on the merits. Others are critical for what they see as a crushing loss for the public's right to know, coming at a time when Americans are demanding more accountability from their government and corporate leaders.

Arguments for dismissal were the following:

Defendants in this action argue that two statutes, whether considered independently or in combination, counsel hesitation [to recognize a private right of action) under the special-factors analysis.

The first and most important of these statutes is the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552a (2000), which "regulate[s] the collection, maintenance, use, and dissemination of information" about individuals by federal agencies. Privacy Act of 1974, Pub. L. No. 93-579, § 2(a)(5), 88 Stat. 1896, 1896. The second statute, the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982, 50 U.S.C. §§ 421-426 (2000), criminalizes the intentional public disclosure of information identifying a covert agent. Defendants contend that by enacting these statutes, Congress considered the proper recourse for individuals whose personal information has been improperly disclosed by government officials -- the alleged activity giving rise to plaintiffs' claims. Furthermore, the absence in these statutory schemes of a civil damages action against the offending officials was not inadvertent, and Congress has not plainly expressed an intention that the courts preserve Bivens remedies. Therefore, defendants argue, this Court should not imply additional damages remedies under the Constitution.

Oh please don't remind us of our now gutted, bleeding Constitution.

From the Washington Post:

U.S. District Judge John D. Bates said that Cheney and White House aides cannot be held liable for the disclosure of information about Plame in the summer of 2003 while they were trying to rebut criticism of the administration's war efforts levied by her husband, former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV. The judge said such efforts were certainly part of the officials' scope of normal duties.

"The alleged tortious conduct, namely the disclosure of Mrs. Wilson's status as a covert operative, was incidental to the kind of conduct that defendants were employed to perform," Bates wrote in an opinion released this afternoon.

Bates also ruled that the court lacked the power to award damages for public disclosure of private information about Plame. The judge said that was because Plame and Wilson had failed to exhaust other remedies in seeking compensation from appropriate federal agencies for the alleged privacy violations.

Turns out that it's OK to commit the felony of outing a covert CIA agent if you are part of the Unitary Executive. Or if you are a King. Seems we have one or the other. At any rate, the judge certainly isn't going to question the power of a King.

Perfect storm today. Lawless. We are now a lawless nation. Look out world! Lawless nation with lots of big guns, coming through! (Duck and cover - we've been told that and duct tape work wonders.)

New Poll: 54% favor impeachment of Cheney

And believe me, it's climbing. And this with only the Washington Post telling it like it really is.

Hats off to WaPo for doing the job other American journalists don't want to do: inform the citizens! Our nation's founders would be proud of you.

The rest of you corporate media pundits and your lame, insignificant news coverage (Paris Hilton, 24/7) are a blot on our democracy. What you don't cover, refuse to cover, makes you complicit.

Meanwhile, CNN has picked up the poll, but (typical MSM) ONLY the parts of the poll that dealt with the Scooter commutation. Can you believe that a poll exists showing a solid majority of American voters want the VP impeached, and the major news sources are going out of their way to ignore it? That, friends, is truly sad....

If you mainstream media talking heads wonder why so many of us have turned to the internet, the BBC and independent media news coverage, it is because you stopped providing it. If I want to be entertained by the news, I'll watch Jon Stewart (and actually learn something.)

Once upon a time we had Walter Cronkite, Dan Rather and Roger Mudd. They would have covered this. Once upon a time television news had integrity and credibility. Once 'news' actually meant real news, not propaganda or sensationalist drivel. Television media has been eaten up by Wallstreet and destroyed: you are now nothing better than a dramatized version of those gossip rags at the grocery store checkout counter.

You are a disgrace to journalism. An absolute disgrace.

POLL: ARG Pardon/Impeachment

A new American Research Group national survey of 1,100 adults (conducted 7/3 through 7/5) finds:

* 31% of approve of "President George W. Bush commuting the 30-month prison sentence of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby while leaving intact Mr. Libby's conviction for perjury and obstruction of justice in the CIA leak case;" 64% disapprove.

* 11% favor a complete presidential pardon for Libby; 84% oppose.

* 45% favor "the US House of Representatives beginning impeachment proceedings against President George W. Bush;" 46% oppose.

* 54% favor "US House of Representatives beginning impeachment proceedings against Vice President Dick Cheney;" 40% oppose.

Original, from the American Research Group:

Question:
Do you favor or oppose the US House of Representatives beginning impeachment proceedings against President George W. Bush?
7/5/07	Favor	Oppose	Undecided
All Adults	45%	46%	9%
Voters	46%	44%	10%
Democrats (38%)	69%	22%	9%
Republicans (29%)	13%	86%	1%
Independents (33%)	50%	30%	20%
3/15/06	42%	49%	9%
Based on 1,100 completed telephone interviews among a random sample of adults nationwide July 3-5, 2007. The theoretical margin of error is plus or minus 3 percentage points, 95% of the time. Of the total sample, 933 interviews were completed among registered voters.

Question:
Do you favor or oppose the US House of Representatives beginning impeachment proceedings against Vice President Dick Cheney?
7/5/07	Favor	Oppose	Undecided
All Adults	54%	40%	6%
Voters	50%	44%	6%
Democrats (38%)	76%	24%	-
Republicans (29%)	17%	83%	-
Independents (33%)	51%	29%	20%
Based on 1,100 completed telephone interviews among a random sample of adults nationwide July 3-5, 2007. The theoretical margin of error is plus or minus 3 percentage points, 95% of the time. Of the total sample, 933 interviews were completed among registered voters.

More media outrage over Scooter Skate

This from RAW STORY:

MSNBC's Dan Abrams expressed outrage at the Scooter Libby commutation on Monday, saying, "The public should appreciate the famous or powerful will be treated just as harshly as anyone else. ... This sends the message that if you know the president or the vice president well enough, even a jury and judge cannot ensure justice. ... As they say, the president had the right to do it, but it wasn't the right thing to do."

Finally the media is 'noticing' that laws and justice don't apply to this administration. Bush - er, make that Cheney - may finally have overplayed his hand. Of course he wouldn't think so. The squawkings of the unwashed masses are clearly none of his concern.

Libby judge questions Bush commutation

Judiciary Committee prepares hearings

The House Judiciary Committee plans hearings next week into President George W. Bush's decision to commute the sentence of convicted former White House aide I. Lewis 'Scooter' Libby. They are likely to focus their inquiry into whether Bush's commuting of a jail sentence that had not yet been served was appropriate after the key judge in the Libby case questioned the President's act.

The judge is a little incensed. And this is good, because we need a few incensed judges to squelch any 'this is all partisan' angle the GOP hardliners may have dreamed up as a defense. What this is, is total bullshit. And it is obstruction of justice.

This 'get out of jail free' card was paramount to blackmail: "Scooter, I'll protect you - but keep your mouth shut." The judge of course, isn't very keen in obstruction of justice. Nice to have a few judges that aren't partisan, isn't it? We might want to keep it that way.

When asked why Bush let Libby out of jail, Snow gave one of the most Bush-indicting statements yet:

"He thought that any jail time was excessive. And therefore, he did not see fit to have Scooter Libby taken to jail," the White House Press Secretary stated, after a reporter pointed out that "Normally, somebody at least serves a day in jail, a week in jail, a month in jail," before a commutation is granted.

How wonderfully dictator-ish of you, W. The president over-ruled the decision of the judge because 'he thought any jail time was excessive.' And this for a felony, mind you. This, the guy who never gives clemency to anyone, for anything - unless of course they're his buddies.

This may turn out to be the finally straw; the ultimate overstep that brings Bush down. One can only hope. And Conyers was right there waiting for him (perhaps expecting this move?)

In a statement to RAW STORY Tuesday, Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, said the decision to commute Libby's sentence required congressional oversight.

"In light of yesterday's announcement by the President that he was commuting the prison sentence for Scooter Libby, it is imperative that Congress look into presidential authority to grant clemency, and how such power may be abused," Conyers said in a statement released to RAW STORY Tuesday night.

"Taken to its extreme, the use of such authority could completely circumvent the law enforcement process and prevent credible efforts to investigate wrongdoing in the executive branch."

Decider went off on his own: sorta

Apparently the Decider-guy struck again (with a lot of prompting from the Cheney-behind-the-curtain-guy, no doubt,) making his Scooter Skate ruling almost entirely on his own. Considering his past actions, all of which take place in a 'good guys verses bad guys' cowboy bubble, this should probably come as no surprise. Scooter, for all his lyin ways, is of course a partisan 'good guy.' Good, rich, white, Republican guys nevah go to jail...

Wormtongue Dick hissed 'doooo itttttt' in his ear, and of course -- Incurious George did it:

"For the first time in his presidency, Bush made a decision to commute a sentence without going through a process of running requests through lawyers at the Justice Department," the Post alleged. "He also did not ask the chief prosecutor in the case, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, for his input, as routinely happens in cases routed through the Justice Department's pardon attorney."

Bush, however, said in his statement that he'd carefully weighed the arguments for and against a pardon -- apparently without actually getting information from the prosecutor about the case.

"Both critics and defenders of this investigation have made important points," Bush wrote. "I have made my own evaluation. In preparing for the decision I am announcing today, I have carefully weighed these arguments and the circumstances surrounding this case."

"Prosecutors? Those law guys, right? That Fitz-whatever-his-name-is fella? Naw, we don't need em. I'm gonna send Scooter home - he's my buddy."

Corrupt to the Core

On the 'silencing of the Scooter':

Joe Wilson with Keith Olbermann: Springing Libby Shows Administration Is "Corrupt to the Core"

Editor & Publisher

Tuesday 03 July 2007

New York - Former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, husband of outed CIA operative Valerie Plame, tonight ripped President Bush's decision to commute the prison sentence of Lewis "Scooter" Libby in the CIA leak case.

Appearing in an audio interview on MSNBC's "Countdown," Wilson called the move the latest evidence that the administration is "corrupt to the core." He added that it meant that the president was now participating in the "obstruction of justice."

Wilson called on both the president and Libby's former boss, Vice President Cheney, to "come clean" on their roles in the leaking of his wife's name, now that Libby has been spared prison. He called the leaking of the name "treasonous."

Asked by host Keith Olbermann if there was a "quid pro quo" - Libby would remain silent about crucial details of Cheney's role in the case in exchange for a pardon or commutation - Wilson answered, "absolutely."

Gloves off now, Democrats?

WASHINGTON -- President Bush commuted the sentence of former aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby Monday, sparing him from a 2 1/2-year prison term in the CIA leak case. Bush left intact a $250,000 fine and two years probation for Libby, according to a senior White House official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the decision had not been announced.

Bush's move came hours after a federal appeals panel ruled Libby could not delay his prison term in the CIA leak case. That decision put the pressure on the president, who had been sidestepping calls by Libby's allies to pardon the former chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney.

Jesus. Even Paris Hilton went to jail. Not poor, poor Scooter. Never the Scooter.

This country is going to the dogs. Absolutely to the dogs. No, dogs have more class than neocons.

Rich, White Republicans can't go to jail...!

Ah, the screams of injustice from the ruling class. The double standard isn't working this time... how can this be? Amidst death threats and a barrage of angry letters from the rich, white Republican establishment, Judge Reggie B. Walton is sending Scooter off to jail, right on schedule.

"Unfair!" the Republicans screamed.

Yes, Libby was found guilty on four felony accounts... but come on, he's our buddy! He's a 'good guy!' And he's one of us... you can't lock us up, like common criminals! (Shades of Paris Hilton here?)

BILL MOYERS: Attempting to trash critics of the war, Libby and his pals in high places - including his boss Dick Cheney - outed a covert CIA agent. Libby then lied to cover their tracks. He kicked sand in the eyes of truth, to throw investigators off the trail. Said the Chief Prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald: "Libby lied about nearly everything that mattered." The jury agreed and found him guilty on four felony counts. The judge - Reggie B. Walton - a no-nonsense lock-em-up-and-throw-away-the-key type appointed to the bench by none other than George W. Bush - called the evidence ‘overwhelming' and threw the book at Libby. You would have thought their man had been ordered to Guantanamo, so intense was the reaction from his defenders. They flooded the judge's chambers with letters of support for their comrade and took to the airwaves in a campaign to free Scooter Libby.

Alas, poor Scooter, a 'casualty' of partisan politics. Never mind that he lied and obstructed justice. These rules don't apply in the Beltway, I mean do they really?

BILL MOYERS: One beltway insider is quoted saying the neo-cons are "weighted down by the sheer, glaring unfairness" of Libby's sentence. And there's the rub. None seem the least weighted down by the sheer, glaring unfairness of sentencing soldiers to repeated and longer tours of duty in a war induced by deception. It was left to the hawkish academic Fouad Ajami to state it baldly, as he pleaded on the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal for Bush to pardon Libby. For believing "in the nobility of this war," wrote Ajami, Scooter Libby had himself become a "casualty" -- a fallen soldier the president dare not leave behind on the beltway battlefield. Not a word in the entire article about the real fallen soldiers. The honest-to-god dead and dying and wounded. Not a word about the chaos or the cost. All the beltway warriors can muster is a plea of mercy for one of their own who lied to cover their tracks.

In the end, it is the loss of their double standard that seems most troubling to the Washington establishment. But as one honest conservative, former Governor of Virginia James Gilmore put it rather bluntly: "If the public believes there's one law for a certain group of people in high places and another law for regular people, then you will destroy the law and destroy the system."

I wish I believed this wasn't their intention.