Oh snap. DEY SUIN' THE VICE PRESIDENT

[Art Sandusky 0]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/07/13/cia...t.ap/index.html

 

Have at it, guys. Let's talk about something that's, again, making it fashionable for Republicans to attack the current Administration.

[bobobrazil1984 0]

good for her. Not that it'll matter, but still. Is there anyone who's not a right winger who still doubts taht they were indeed going after and trying to discredit their opponents? I mean, god, fuck this bullshit. and hey if the next prez is dem and they do the same bullshit, fuck them too. hit em for the maximum legal punishment.

[Guest InuYasha]

Let's see...

 

Clinton had an extra-marital affair and got his winky waxed, and then lied about it. He gets impeached.

 

Vice Prez. Cheney, and maybe even Prez. Bush are involved in a conspiracy to discredit a voice of opposition by outing the identity of his wife, who is an undercover CIA agent. That's illegal. During a time of war, it's treason. Scooter Libby throws himself on the sword for Cheney, and the special investigator stops sniffing around, even when there's evidence that Karl Rove was the true mastermind behind it.

 

And the response from Congress....?

 

Nothing.

 

In 2008, does anyone else think Bush is going to pull out all the stops to get his Presidency extended?

[keith6601 0]

Bush has already made comments numerous times about his plans after his next re-election.

[Guest Felonies!]

Crono, you're not smart. What a not smart post.

[SuperJerk 0]

I already know where this thread is going. People are going to counter-argue that (a) Plame's status as a CIA agent was not a secret at the time of the revelation, and (b) that the president is allowed to delassify any information he wants, so anything the White House chooses to leak to perfectly legal. Then the thread will turn into either a bitch session about (a) how the liberal media is out to get Cheney or (b) every unethical thing Cheney has alledgedly done since becoming VPOTUS.

[Vyce 0]

It's more like this.

 

1) They have no case.

 

2) Cheney et al. are likely protected from this suit based upon governmental immunity.

 

3) Assuming that their conduct is not covered by governmental Immunity of the Federal Tort Claims Act, the evidence indicates that there wasn't any purposeful - or, more importantly for their case, willful and malicious - disclosure of Plame's name & status. Hell, Bob Novak just gave an interview THIS WEEK stating as much. Thus, see #1 again.

 

4) This is all a publicity stunt to keep their names in the papers. There's a book deal out there, remember.

[snuffbox 0]

Has any other sitting VP ever been sued and shot a guy in the same calendar year?

[SuperJerk 0]

It's more like this.

 

1) They have no case.

 

2) Cheney et al. are likely protected from this suit based upon governmental immunity.

 

3) Assuming that their conduct is not covered by governmental Immunity of the Federal Tort Claims Act, the evidence indicates that there wasn't any purposeful - or, more importantly for their case, willful and malicious - disclosure of Plame's name & status. Hell, Bob Novak just gave an interview THIS WEEK stating as much. Thus, see #1 again.

 

4) This is all a publicity stunt to keep their names in the papers. There's a book deal out there, remember.

 

My copy of the GOP talking points memo didn't have the second page, apparently.

 

I'm curious to know how "willful and malicious" really plays into this legally.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Bob Novak just gave an interview THIS WEEK stating as much

 

The Douchebag of Liberty is really your go-to guy on this?

[SuperJerk 0]

Isn't Novak actually PART OF this story?

[Guest InuYasha]

Isn't Novak actually PART OF this story?

You are correct, Sir!

 

Bob Novak was the original journalist who outed Plame's undercover identity. As for the President being able to declassify anything he wants for any reason? That's complete bull and you know it.

 

As for willful and malicous? They knew she was a CIA agent at the time. That makes it willful. They knew she was an undercover agent, who's secrey and anonymity protect not only her, but other undercover agents who work with her. That makes it malicious.

 

Deny it if you want, but Bush had every intention of going into Iraq, whether the evidence supported it or not.

 

It should scare you all senseless when the President is taking unprecedented steps to expand the powers of the Executive branch, and about half of the members of the Supreme Court would bend over for him on command.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

about half of the members of the Supreme Court would bend over for him on command.

 

Hey, coherent post. Kudos.

 

But I disagree here. I don't know about Roberts or Alito, but I think Clarence Thomas in the only one who will truly grab his ankles for Bush.

 

Read Justice Scalia's dissent in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (joined by Justice Stevens~!). Brings a tear to my eye. Seriously.

 

The very core of liberty secured by our Anglo-Saxon system of separated powers has been freedom from indefinite imprisonment at the will of the Executive...

 

The Founders well understood the difficult tradeoff between safety and freedom...

 

The Founders warned us about the risk, and equipped us with a Constitution designed to deal with it.

 

Many think it not only inevitable but entirely proper that liberty give way to security in times of national crisis--that, at the extremes of military exigency, inter arma silent leges. Whatever the general merits of the view that war silences law or modulates its voice, that view has no place in the interpretation and application of a Constitution designed precisely to confront war and, in a manner that accords with democratic principles, to accomodate it. Because the court has proceeded to meet the current emergency in a manner the Constitution does not envision, I respectfully dissent.

 

 

http://supreme.justia.com/us/542/507/case.html

[SuperJerk 0]

Isn't Novak actually PART OF this story?

You are correct, Sir!

 

Bob Novak was the original journalist who outed Plame's undercover identity.

 

Hmmmm...that'd seem to indicate that maybe he was too close to the story to comment on it objectively.

 

As for the President being able to declassify anything he wants for any reason? That's complete bull and you know it.

 

As Commander-in-Chief, the President has the power to declassify anything he wants. All they have to do is show that Pres. Bush declassified Plame's status before the VP's office leaked the info. Thus, I don't see these charges sticking.

 

As for willful and malicous? They knew she was a CIA agent at the time. That makes it willful. They knew she was an undercover agent, who's secrey and anonymity protect not only her, but other undercover agents who work with her. That makes it malicious.

 

That makes sense, but common sense won't get you very far in an American court, I'm afraid. State of mind is difficult to prove.

 

Deny it if you want, but Bush had every intention of going into Iraq, whether the evidence supported it or not.

 

The only way I'd beleive that is maybe if Dick Cheney had plans for an Iraqi invasion already written out before even 9/11 happened. Of course, that's a completely ridicules idea, right?

[Art Sandusky 0]

The military had a plan for invading Iraq before 9/11, just like they have plans for invading every country on the planet probably if need be. We've probably got a humdinger of an invasion plan if we ever scrap with Russia or something.

 

Back to the topic, why doesn't anyone ever mention the two weeks in which White House E-mail databases have holes in them? Anyone working there is required to save every bit of correspondence, but months ago Libby's legal team discovered that there were at least a dozen E-mails that no longer existed (just one case among others where his own legal team has accidentally uncovered more improprieties). Even if you don't think there's any chance of convictions or lawsuits succeeding, at least admit that these are some scumbaggy mofos working within our Presidential Palace.

[SuperJerk 0]

Dick Cheney was Secretary of Defense for 4 years. Of course he had plans to invade Iraq. The suggestion was that he had plans that he planned to use.

[Art Sandusky 0]

That's an actual contested point?

[SuperJerk 0]

I guess not.

 

I seriosuly doubt anything will be uncovered about Cheney that'll force him to resign. Not that I'm saying he's innocent, but the guy's only got 2 1/2 years left.

 

You know what'd happen if Cheeny resigned? Bush would appoint someone else VP. Except this person would probably want to run for president, and would have an automatic name-recognition advantage over everyone else in the field.

[Art Sandusky 0]

Of course, with me it's open-and-shut, but some of those who place more belief in the honor of the Executive branch may disagree.

[SuperJerk 0]

There's one other thing that needs to be said about this story that has been completely overlooked.

 

 

I'd hit it.

[snuffbox 0]

You know what'd happen if Cheeny resigned? Bush would appoint someone else VP. Except this person would probably want to run for president, and would have an automatic name-recognition advantage over everyone else in the field.

 

It worked for Jerry Ford...

[SuperJerk 0]

 

 

You know what'd happen if Cheeny resigned? Bush would appoint someone else VP. Except this person would probably want to run for president, and would have an automatic name-recognition advantage over everyone else in the field.

 

It worked for Jerry Ford...

Ford was already president when he ran in 1976.

 

I'm just speculating on how well an appointed VP would do running for president. There's no valid real-world example of this because the only person to be appointed VP was dropped from the ticket and dead before the next election.

[snuffbox 0]

No way, fo realz?!

 

I thought it went without saying that I was refering to his re-election bid in '76. Guess not.

[SuperJerk 0]

No way, fo realz?!

 

I thought it went without saying that I was refering to his re-election bid in '76. Guess not.

 

Considering that Ford lost the election of 1976, and I was trying to say that an appointed VP could win an election, I didn't see the point in letting your false premise go unchallenged.