Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

How'd I let this one slip under the RADAR?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • How'd I let this one slip under the RADAR?

    The Plame-Wilson nuisance lawsuit was tossed out of court...LINK

    The alleged means by which defendants chose to rebut Mr. Wilson's comments and attack his credibility may have been highly unsavory. 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. Thus, 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...

    For the reasons given above, plaintiffs have failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted with respect to their four causes of action asserted directly under the Constitution. Furthermore, this Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over plaintiffs' claim for public disclosure of private facts. Accordingly, defendants' motions to dismiss are granted. A separate order accompanies this memorandum opinion.

    JOHN D. BATES
    United States District Judge
    IOW...Cheney, Rove, Libby, Armitage, etc. were properly doing their jobs.
    Last edited by The Doctor; 31 Jul 07, 07:44.
    Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

  • #2
    Is this the same Federal District Judge John D. Bates that ruled that it was acceptable for the president to sign a bill that had not been passed by Congress?

    Is it the same John Bates that dismissed a lawsuit filled by the U.S. Comptroller General David M. Walker against Cheney because Walker wanted Mr. Cheney to reveal the names of industry executives who helped the administration develop its energy policy?

    Anyone else seeing a trend here?
    Last edited by Dolley; 31 Jul 07, 09:41.
    Love. Where does it come from?
    from The Thin Red Line

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Dolley View Post
      Is this the same Federal District Judge John D. Bates that ruled that it was acceptable for the president to sign a bill that had not been passed by Congress?

      Is it the same John Bates that dismissed a lawsuit filled by the U.S. Comptroller General David M. Walker against Cheney because Walker wanted Mr. Cheney to reveal the names of industry executives who helped the administration develop” its energy policy?

      Anyone else seeing a trend here?
      No way Dolley, your talking about some of the most righteous people that have ever served our country.

      highly unsavory
      unsavory??? Dolley your a teacher. English comprehension has always been a weakness of mine. Just what does that word mean?

      HP
      "Ask not what your country can do for you"

      Left wing, Right Wing same bird that they are killing.

      you’re entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Dolley View Post
        Is this the same Federal District Judge John D. Bates that ruled that it was acceptable for the president to sign a bill that had not been passed by Congress?

        Is it the same John Bates that dismissed a lawsuit filled by the U.S. Comptroller General David M. Walker against Cheney because Walker wanted Mr. Cheney to reveal the names of industry executives who helped the administration develop its energy policy?

        Anyone else seeing a trend here?
        Definitely no worse than the liberal judge in Vermont who loves to let pedophiles free.

        See, each side has its heroes and icons!

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Dolley View Post
          Is this the same Federal District Judge John D. Bates that ruled that it was acceptable for the president to sign a bill that had not been passed by Congress?

          Is it the same John Bates that dismissed a lawsuit filled by the U.S. Comptroller General David M. Walker against Cheney because Walker wanted Mr. Cheney to reveal the names of industry executives who helped the administration develop its energy policy?

          Anyone else seeing a trend here?
          Yes indeed...A very clear trend of following the law and the Constitution in a constructionist manner...

          Assuming this goes to the DC Circuit for appeal...the Plame-Wilson Gang will likely lose again.


          Oh...I just couldn't resist...

          "Is this the same Federal District Judge John D. Bates that ruled that it was acceptable for the president to sign a bill that had not been passed by Congress?"

          Yes it is...Sort of. The Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 passed by the Senate did not exactly match the version passed by the House. The Speaker of the House and President Pro Tempore of the Senate agreed to pass the Senate version on to the President for his signature. The President signed it and it became law. Judge Bates correctly ruled that the suit should be dismissed because "under the 'enrolled bill rule' of Marshall Field & Co. v. Clark, 143 U.S. 649, 672 (1892), which deems 'complete and unimpeachable' the authentication of an enrolled bill by the signatures of the Speaker of the House, the President of the Senate, and the President of the United States."

          Last edited by The Doctor; 31 Jul 07, 13:46.
          Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

          Comment


          • #6
            Hmmm, that's funny, because I'm pretty sure he's the same guy that said the White house had to give access to papers during Whitewater...

            As a prosecutor in Starr’s office, Bates successfully argued that the White House had to turn over documents related to then-first lady Hillary Clinton. Yet, after Bush successfully nominated him to a seat on the appeals court in Washington, Bates ruled that the General Accounting Office of Congress did not have the right to demand that Vice President Dick Cheney’s energy task force turn over records of its closed-door meetings.
            http://www.forward.com/articles/7598/
            The Plame-Wilson case may be thrown out, but it doesn't negate what really happened.
            Love. Where does it come from?
            from The Thin Red Line

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Dolley View Post
              Hmmm, that's funny, because I'm pretty sure he's the same guy that said the White house had to give access to papers during Whitewater...
              ...Access to papers that had nothing to do with the operation of the Executive Branch. The papers in question had to do with an investigation of the Clintons' actions in Arkansas, prior to Bill Clinton becoming President.

              Executive Privilege does not extend to a President's actions prior to his or her presidency. Nor does Executive Privilege extend to activities in which there is compelling evidence of illegality - like Watergate.

              Judge Bates was following the law and the Constitution in 1997 and in 2002.

              Originally posted by Dolley
              The Plame-Wilson case may be thrown out, but it doesn't negate what really happened.
              No…It doesn't change what happened. Valerie Plame defrauded the US taxpayers on at least two occasions, when she got the CIA to fund business trips to Africa for Joe Wilson. Joe Wilson was also given access to classified information; which he then revealed to the press. The Plame-Wilson Gang should still be charged with defrauding the US Government, violation of the Espionage Act and possibly even Treason.
              Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

              Comment


              • #8
                I agree, Doc. Wilson - Plame are lower than whale dung

                Comment


                • #9
                  U.S. District Judge John Bates said the lawsuit raises "important questions relating to the propriety of actions undertaken by our highest government officials." But in a 41-page decision, he found Plame and her husband, former U.S. Ambassador Joseph Wilson, failed to show the case belongs in federal court.

                  The way the defendants handled criticism from Joseph Wilson "may have been highly unsavory," the judge wrote, but "there can be no serious dispute that the act of rebutting public criticism ... by speaking with members of the press is within the scope of defendants' duties as high-level executive branch officials."
                  http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/07/...ref=newssearch

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    U.S. District Judge John Bates said the lawsuit raises "important questions relating to the propriety of actions undertaken by our highest government officials."

                    The way the defendants handled criticism from Joseph Wilson "may have been highly unsavory," the judge wrote...
                    ...And if Judge Bates had been a liberal-activist judge, the above passage would have sufficed. He would have ignored the law, the Constitution and all legal precedent to rule in favor of the Plame-Wilson Gang...For no other reasons than that he felt bad about how they were treated.
                    Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
                      ...And if Judge Bates had been a liberal-activist judge, the above passage would have sufficed. He would have ignored the law, the Constitution and all legal precedent to rule in favor of the Plame-Wilson Gang...For no other reasons than that he felt bad about how they were treated.
                      My point is that Judge Bates, a Bush political appointee, found the behaviour of the Cheney gang "unsavory". Does that give Plame and co. legal recourse? Maybe not, but it hardly exonerates Cheney and co. either.

                      Say what you want about Plame and Wilson, but Wilson was essentially right in his accusations of intel abuse.

                      BTW, did you see Larry King's interview with Cheney?
                      Apparently the VP never considers the possibility that he may be wrong about anything. Thus confirming my suspicions that he is not, in fact, human.
                      Last edited by AvramL; 03 Aug 07, 00:30.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        The Truth is out There

                        " ... not human." ???

                        What then? ~ one of them pod people?

                        Or one of David Icke's reptilians?

                        My partner and I like to cook and she's always getting these cookbooks, did a career shift to culinary arts;

                        Savory in cusine is not sweet, sour, or salty, but may be a bit of any or all but is mostly seasoned and flavorful, but it's an aspect of tastebuds and can be subjective.

                        So if Bates found Libby and the White House gang "unsavory" could it be that he is "NOT human" also?! And that he found these guys not to his tastes?

                        So whatever kind of alien Bates is, he doesn't find that the 'Cheney' alien is something he'd want to dine on?

                        When I extrapolate AvramL's 'hint' of non-humanity involved in the White House/Exec Branch I can't help wondering if someone hasn't had a bit too much BCbud and is flashbackin' on episodes of "The X-Files" or "V".
                        Last edited by G David Bock; 03 Aug 07, 01:32. Reason: typos
                        TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch
                        “War is merely the continuation of politics by other means” - von Clausewitz

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          What exactly did the judge say?

                          "The alleged means by which the defendants choose to rebut Mr Wilson's comments and his credibility might be highly unsavory."

                          Can this be interpreted as the judge saying that he found the behaviour of the Cheney gang "unsavory"?

                          Or is he making a point that even if their behavior might be considered as unsavory by some, there really is no legal case ... etc.

                          Given that this is a legal judgement, I do not believe that the judge intended to convey his own personal distaste or his own moral judgement concerning the issue, but is merely making a legal point.

                          We should try not to read our personal biases into the text and interpret it the way we want it to mean.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by AvramL View Post
                            My point is that Judge Bates, a Bush political appointee, found the behaviour of the Cheney gang "unsavory". Does that give Plame and co. legal recourse? Maybe not, but it hardly exonerates Cheney and co. either.
                            He's not a "political appointee" and it's the definition of exoneration.

                            Originally posted by AvramL
                            Say what you want about Plame and Wilson, but Wilson was essentially right in his accusations of intel abuse.
                            No he wasn't. Wilson said this on CNN after his much ballyhooed article:

                            "I've had confidence in -- that we would find weapons of mass destruction, weapons of mass destruction programs from the very beginning of the run-up to the war in Iraq.

                            687, the initial U.N. resolution dealing with weapons of mass destruction, demanded compliance, and it had as its objective disarmament. We had not yet achieved disarmament, so it was perfectly appropriate to continue to try and gather together the international consensus to disarm Saddam and his programs.

                            I think we'll find chemical weapons. I think we'll find biological precursors that may or may not have been weaponized. And I think we will find a continuing interest of -- on nuclear weapons."


                            In 1999 Iraq sent its former IAEA delgate to Niger to either negotiate a deal to buy uranium or just to help undermine the UN sanctions. The former Nigerien PM said that he did meet with the Iraqi trade delegation to discuss “expanding commercial relations”; however he successfully avoided Wilson’s attempts to delve more deeply into the “’crazy report' on a purported deal for Niger to sell uranium to Iraq”.

                            “Expanding commercial relations” between Iraq and Niger? What exactly does Niger produce? Uranium ore, livestock, cowpeas and onions according to the CIA World Fact Book.


                            Originally posted by AvramL
                            BTW, did you see Larry King's interview with Cheney?
                            Apparently the VP never considers the possibility that he may be wrong about anything. Thus confirming my suspicions that he is not, in fact, human.
                            I don't consider the possibility of being wrong either...It hampers the decision making process...
                            Last edited by The Doctor; 03 Aug 07, 11:15.
                            Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
                              He's not a "political appointee" and it's the definition of exoneration.
                              Sorry, "appointee", I was probably thinking about something else....

                              There was no real exoneration, just confirmation that an individual taking legal action against the VP is, in most cases, silly.

                              No he wasn't. Wilson said this on CNN after his much ballyhooed article:
                              He was in regards to the assertation that the VP and co. were manipulating intel and being misleading.

                              Even I figured that some sort of contraband would probably be found in Iraq, almost everyone did. The question was whether this amounted to a threat or not.

                              I don't consider the possibility of being wrong either...It hampers the decision making process...
                              Joking aside, this is probably why you're stuck in the mess you're in. The VP, who, along with his allies, was the primary pusher for the invasion, didn't consider what would happen if all didn't work out as they had imagined it.
                              Last edited by AvramL; 07 Aug 07, 04:39.

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X