SwiftVets.com Forum Index SwiftVets.com
Service to Country
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Valerie Plame suing Cheney and Rove
Goto page Previous  1, 2
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    SwiftVets.com Forum Index -> Geedunk & Scuttlebutt
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
docford
Lt.Jg.


Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Posts: 149

PostPosted: Sat Jul 15, 2006 3:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The reason that the charges of violation of the First and Fifth Amendments are particularly stupid, is that the Bill of Rights protects against government action. By alleging that Rove, Libby and Cheney violated their 1st and 5th Amendment rights, Plame and Wilson are implicitly alleging that this was a government action. Therefore, sovreign immunity applies.
_________________
Doc Ford
HMC (SW) USN
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
shawa
CNO


Joined: 03 Sep 2004
Posts: 2004

PostPosted: Sat Jul 15, 2006 3:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bye Bye Ms. American Spy
Funny!!
The Right Place
H/T:Macsmind Blogspot
_________________
“I love the man that can smile in trouble, that can gather strength from distress, and grow brave by reflection. ‘Tis the business of little minds to shrink; but he whose heart is firm, and whose conscience approves his conduct, will pursue his principles unto death.” (Thomas Paine, 1776)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
SBD
Admiral


Joined: 19 Aug 2004
Posts: 1022

PostPosted: Sat Jul 15, 2006 4:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

docford wrote:
The reason that the charges of violation of the First and Fifth Amendments are particularly stupid, is that the Bill of Rights protects against government action. By alleging that Rove, Libby and Cheney violated their 1st and 5th Amendment rights, Plame and Wilson are implicitly alleging that this was a government action. Therefore, sovreign immunity applies.


You are right, the CIA is exempt from the CSRA.

SBD


Last edited by SBD on Sat Jul 15, 2006 5:29 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
scotty61
LCDR


Joined: 07 May 2004
Posts: 419
Location: Glyndon MN

PostPosted: Sat Jul 15, 2006 4:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Captain's Quarters has a take on what Wilson can expect if he takes the stand.

Taking A Stroll Through The Garden Of Half-Truths

I've had a chance to review the lawsuit filed on behalf of Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson, and it has an amusing take on reality that I heartily recommend to all interested parties. Quite frankly, the defense will have a delightful time if this ever gets to court. This is one of those moments when one wonders what color the sky is in another's world.

We can start on page 6 of the PDF file, where the plaintiffs lay out the facts of the case. Paragraph 18b starts us off down the primrose path (emphases mine):

On May 6, 2003, the New York Times published a column by Nicholas Kristof which disputed the accuracy of the "sixteen words" in the State of the Union address. The column reported that, following a request from the Vice President's office for an investigation of allegations that Iraq sought to buy uranium from Niger, an unnamed former ambassador [now known to be Plaintiff Joseph C. Wilson IV] was sent on a trip to Niger in 2002 to investigate the allegations. According to the column, the ambassador reported back to the CIA and State Department in early 2002 that the allegations were unequivocally wrong and based on forged documents.

Note the qualifying phrase, According to the column. The complaint never mentions two salient facts: (1) Joe Wilson was Kristof's source, and (2) Wilson reported nothing of the kind. According to Wilson's own testimony to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, the Prime Minister of Niger told him the exact opposite:

Quote:
[Wilson's] intelligence report indicated that former Nigerien Prime Minister Ibrahim Mayaki was unaware of any contracts that had been signed between Niger and any rogue states for the sale of yellowcake while he was Prime Minister (1997-1999) or Foreign Minister (1996-1997). Mayaki said that if there had been any such contract during his tenure, he would have been aware of it. Mayaki said, however, that in June 1999,(REDACTED) businessman, approached him and insisted that Mayaki meet with an Iraqi delegation to discuss "expanding commercial relations" between Niger and Iraq. The intelligence report said that Mayaki interpreted "expanding commercial relations" to mean that the delegation wanted to discuss uranium yellowcake sales. The intelligence report also said that "although the meeting took place, Mayaki let the matter drop due to the UN sanctions on Iraq."


So we have a key omission already in the complaint -- that the Kristof information came directly from Wilson, and that it was a flat-out lie. That's a great start to a legal filing! The false information Wilson leaked is what set off the entire chain of events, leading to the discovery that Plame personally lobbied for the selection of her husband for this trip, who then mysteriously failed to sign the standard no-disclosure agreements.

In fact, that brings us to paragraph 18f:

On or about June 11, 2003, Libby spoke with a senior officer of the CIA to ask about the origin and circumstances of Wilson's trip and was advised by the CIA officer that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA and was believed [erroneously] to be responsible for sending Wilson on the trip.

Erroneously? Once again, we return to the SSCI report, which makes it clear that Plame had not only suggested her husband for the trip, she campaigned for it and then facilitated the briefing session:

Quote:
Some CPD officials could not recall how the office decided to contact the former ambassador, however, interviews and documents provided to the Committee indicate that his wife, a CPD employee, suggested his name for the trip. The CPD reports officer told Committee staff that the former ambassador's wife "offered up his name" and a memorandum to the Deputy Chief of the CPD on February 12, 2002, from the former ambassador's wife says, "my husband has good relations with both the PM [prime minister] and the former Minister of Mines (not to mention lots of French contacts), both of whom could possibly shed light on this sort of activity." This was just one day before CPD sent a cable DELETED requesting concurrence with CPD's idea to send the former ambassador to Niger and requesting any additional information from the foreign government service on their uranium reports. The former ambassador's wife told Committee staff that when CPD decided it would like to send the former ambassador to Niger, she approached her husband on behalf of the CIA and told him "there's this crazy report" on a purported deal for Niger to sell uranium to Iraq.
The former ambassador was selected for the 1999 trip after his wife mentioned to her supervisors that her husband was planning a business trip to Niger in the near future and might be willing to use his contacts in the region ...

On February 19, 2002, CPD hosted a meeting with the former ambassador, intelligence analysts from both the CIA and INR, and several individuals from the DO's Africa and CPD divisions. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the merits of the former ambassador traveling to Niger. An INR analyst's notes indicate that the meeting was "apparently convened by [the former ambassador's] wife who had the idea to dispatch [him] to use his contacts to sort out the Iraq-Niger uranium issue." The former ambassador's wife told Committee staff that she only attended the meeting to introduce her husband and left after about three minutes.


Paragraph 18f turns out to hold a whopper of a lie. Less egregious but still eyebrow-raising are the contentions in paragraphs 18i and 18k, where two more columns get printed using unnamed sources, one by the Washington Post and the other by the New Republic. Once again, neither paragraph mentions that Wilson himself was the source and was disseminating false information about his report.

18n gets around to discussing Wilson's own op-ed in the New York Times, where he misled readers about the reason he got assigned the trip -- never disclosing his CIA connections -- and once again spreading false information. The complaint does the same thing:

... In his Op-Ed article and interviews in print and on television, Wilson asserted, among other things, that he had taken a trip to Niger at the request of the CIA in February 2002 to investigate allegations that Iraq had sought or obtained uranium yellowcake from Niger, and that he doubted that Iraq had obtained uranium from Niger recently, for a number of reasons. ...

The "sixteen words" did not say that Iraq had actually obtained uranium from Niger; it said that Iraq had sought uranium from Africa, and according to Wilson's report to the CIA and his testimony to the SSCI -- under oath-- that's exactly what he found. Once again, his attorneys don't bother to include those facts in the complaint. In 18q, they double down, stating that George Tenet's characterization of the "sixteen words" was a mistake shows that Wilson's criticism of them was "legitimate and correct" -- when the SSCI shows that Wilson's report substantiated it!
The defense attorneys should have a field day with Wilson on the stand.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To see what a living hell Cheney, Rove and Libby have made Wilson and Plame's lives, follow these links.

http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2006/07/sheer-hell-how-else-to-describe-life.html

http://jimtreacher.com/archives/001456.html
_________________
John Kerry. A Neville Chamberlain for our times.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
scotty61
LCDR


Joined: 07 May 2004
Posts: 419
Location: Glyndon MN

PostPosted: Sat Jul 15, 2006 4:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Also from Captain's Quarters

Talk About A Bad Draw!

Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame have run into a bit of bad luck in their lawsuit against Dick Cheney, Scooter Libby, Karl Rove, and ten random Republicans. CQ reader Denis K took a peek at the complaint and noticed something that I had missed earlier -- the judge assigned to the case. Wilson and Plame drew Judge John D. Bates -- and a quick glance at his rulings will no doubt have the Left fuming.

For instance, Judge Bates ruled in January 2005 that Michael Newdow would suffer no harm if the President said a prayer at his inauguration. Newdow, most known for using his (non-custodial) child as a means to attack the Pledge of Allegiance, lost his bid to enact a prior restraint on the President's speech at his own inauguration simply because Newdow planned to attend.

If that doesn't get the ** in a fury, they may instead recall their anger when Judge Bates told Congress that they had no standing to sue for access to the records of Dick Cheney's energy task force. Relying on "the restricted role of the Article III courts in our constitutional system of government," Bates denied the request of the GAO, spurred on by Democrats who disliked the energy plan pushed by the White House. The judge ruled that the separation of powers and executive privilege meant that Cheney could consult with advisors to formulate policy without producing records of the meeting to Congress.

It gets even better, or worse, depending on one's point of view. Judge Bates received an appointment earlier this year to the FISA Court, the secret panel that reviews warrant requests for national-security investigations. He replaced Judge James Robertson, who resigned in protest against the Bush administration's bypass of the FISA Court on the NSA terrorist surveillance program. How sympathetic will Judge Bates be to a lawsuit from someone who leaked misinformation after getting sent on an assignment by his wife?

And, hell, if that doesn't do it for Wilson supporters, his work as one of Kenneth Starr's staff during his independent-counsel investigation of Bill Clinton should force them into despair.

How long will it take before the Left starts screaming "CONSPIRACY"? Faster than the Wilsons can file a disqualification motion with the court.
_________________
John Kerry. A Neville Chamberlain for our times.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Maggie 1
Seaman Recruit


Joined: 15 Jul 2006
Posts: 1
Location: New Mexico

PostPosted: Sun Jul 16, 2006 2:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Can’t help but wonder if this falls under “A best defense is a good offence”. Add to the mix here the names of Ray McGovern, Larry C Johnson, Rand Beers, Mary McCarthy, Dana Priest, the CIA crackdown on leakers, the possible loss of government pensions, etc. Is it possible there is a lot more here that shows up on the surface.
_________________
Just a concerned housewife
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Deuce
Senior Chief Petty Officer


Joined: 19 Mar 2005
Posts: 589
Location: FL

PostPosted: Sun Jul 16, 2006 11:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

just piling on here...in a reality based world, the yellowcake sales would have been to a front in Libya (not Iraq), since Iraq 'outsourced' its nuclear operations to Libya to confuse the UN/US/press/etc. Wonder what Libya's imports from Niger were in that era? wait...confuse...press...strike that part, it's an oxymoron.
Speaking of confused, was Ms Plame part of the CIA's domestic overt subterfuge division or its domestic covert subterfuge division??? CIA's been confused ever since it dropped the Browning HiPower!

Deuce
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Schadow
Vice Admiral


Joined: 30 Sep 2004
Posts: 936
Location: Huntsville, Alabama

PostPosted: Sun Jul 16, 2006 2:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Maggie 1 wrote:
Can’t help but wonder if this falls under “A best defense is a good offence”. Add to the mix here the names of Ray McGovern, Larry C Johnson, Rand Beers, Mary McCarthy, Dana Priest, the CIA crackdown on leakers, the possible loss of government pensions, etc. Is it possible there is a lot more here that shows up on the surface.


I think that the suit can be summed up as promoting a book. Valerie had already refused a $2.5 million advance from one publisher when she signed with Simon & Schuster for who-knows-what.

The denizens over at Truthout have emerged from their depression over the failure of their temporary hero, Patrick Fitzgerald, to indict Karl Rove. (They now think that Rove actually has been indicted but it's under seal.) Rolling Eyes They link to a new website which is the Plame/Wilson fund-raising "Trust" for pursuing their lawsuit. The appeal contains this charitable notation:

Quote:
Should the civil action result in a payment to Joe and/or Valerie Wilson that is in excess of all costs associated with their legal activities, the equivalent of all monies contributed to the Trust will be returned to the Trust. All Trust money will then be distributed by the trustees to a charitable organization(s) that works to protect government whistleblowers’ First Amendment rights and helps to defend them from retaliatory action.


The site also contains this modest portrayal of Valerie (apparently written by the Washington Post):



"crème de la crème" Question

The fundraising site is Here and the Truthout asylum on the subject is Here (link removed...interested parties may PM Schadow/me#1)

By the way, Maggie, welcome aboard!

Schadow
_________________
Capt, 8th U.S. Army, Korea '53 - '54
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Stevie
Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy


Joined: 25 Aug 2004
Posts: 1451
Location: Queen Creek, Arizona

PostPosted: Tue Jul 18, 2006 8:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

well, I think someone with tons of money - who hates Bush - is behind it.

like Soros....

anything to keep the news 'reporting' that there is something bad brewing

with the administration.... for the upcoming elections.

and I said way back when that Joe W outed his own wife.... Shocked
_________________
Stevie
Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage
morale and undermine the military are saboteurs and should
be arrested, exiled or hanged.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    SwiftVets.com Forum Index -> Geedunk & Scuttlebutt All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2
Page 2 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group