If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNN)   Valerie Plame sues Cheney, Rove and Libby for conspiring to destroy her career   (cnn.com) divider line 783
    More: News  
•       •       •

13004 clicks; posted to Main » on 13 Jul 2006 at 4:51 PM   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



783 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all
 
2006-07-13 05:30:21 PM
elchip

You know, their next door neighbors didn't know that she was a CIA agent until Novak's column...

My neighbors don't know that I'm married to my sister/cousin/mother, but that don't make it no national secret.

Seriously, her neighbors are not the measure of whether her cover had been blown. Please.
 
2006-07-13 05:30:50 PM
Magorn: Because Pre-trial discovery comes BEFORE rule 56.1 Motions to Dismiss, which means that Valerie will have the oppourtunity to depose, under oath, every major player in this little scandal. And unlike the grand Jury she's not bound by secrecy rules, so she can share the transcripts with whomever she wants including the media.

The Director of National Intelligence will certainly invoke the state secrets privilege, which means that the court will have no choice but to dismiss the frivolous lawsuit.

In Kasza v. Browner, the federal appeals court held that the state secrets privilege is an absolute bar to discovery. "If the privilege deprives the defendant of information that would give a valid defense, the court may grant summary judgment to the defendant." And "if the subject matter of the action is a state secret, the court should dismiss the action based on the invocation of the privilege."

Kasza v. Browner was a decision from the ultra-liberal Ninth Circuit, which means that it is binding on all liberals, Bush-haters and activist judges.
 
2006-07-13 05:31:06 PM
skipjack: I guess the $2.5 million book deal wasn't enough?

What? Do you really believe she had no right or reason to collect a pension after years of service?
 
2006-07-13 05:31:10 PM
This is the most disgusting act of self serving behavior I have ever seen in my entire life!

This woman needs to be sent to a FPMITAP!! Why won't she just STFU and move on?? Doesn't she realize what is going on in Iraq and that this is a critical time to be critizing this administration? She is basically writing the terrorists a postcard saying "stick in there guys, I am going to mess up the administration some while you guys make your attacks"

I am disgusted.

http://www.liberalsmustdie.com/Home/tabid/36/EntryID/168/Default.aspx

Disgusted!!
 
2006-07-13 05:31:42 PM
2006-07-13 05:22:00 PM Croooow! [TotalFark]


Oh, its ok because they were just releasing classified information to discredit someone calling them out on their bullshiat reasons for going to war? Allright.


What I meant was that they clearly wanted reporters to know that he wasn't there at Cheney's request, that his wife got him the job. Sure it could be nasty, but has nothing to do with outing an agent and is clearly not retribution against Wilson.

That would be more like politics as usual, and not really lawsuit-worthy since it lacks malicious intent(since the paper trail suggests that indeed his wife did help him get the job).

Anybody who has his book on the bookshelf probably has Richard Clarke's book and is probably not the sharpest knife in the drawer. If I were these guys I'd write a book too.
 
2006-07-13 05:31:51 PM
Much as I'd like to see some sort of lawsuit go forawrd, it'll get dismissed faster than... well, it'll get dismissed PDQ.
 
2006-07-13 05:32:05 PM
2006-07-13 05:17:28 PM Reyals

Clinton v. Jones only applies to acts before the president doesn't it?


Nope. They could have ruled on that narrow question, but they made a much broader holding:

Petitioner's effort to construct an immunity from suit for unofficial acts grounded purely in the identity of his office is unsupported by precedent.

.....
As a factual matter, petitioner contends that this particular case--as well as the potential additional litigation that an affirmance of the Court of Appeals judgment might spawn--may impose an unacceptable burden on the President's time and energy, and thereby impair the effective performance of his office...

it appears to us highly unlikely to occupy any substantial amount of petitioner's time.The fact that a federal court's exercise of its traditional Article III jurisdiction may significantly burden the time and attention of the Chief Executive is not sufficient to establish a violation of the Constitution. Two long settled propositions, first announced by Chief Justice Marshall, support that conclusion.

....

Second, it is also settled that the President is subject to judicial process in appropriate circumstances. Although Thomas Jefferson apparently thought otherwise, Chief Justice Marshall, when presiding in the treason trial of Aaron Burr, ruled that a subpoena duces tecum could be directed to the President.... We unequivocally and emphatically endorsed Marshall's position when we held that President Nixon was obligated to comply with a subpoena ...

We therefore hold that the doctrine of separation of powers does not require federal courts to stay all private actions against the President until he leaves office.



In other words the final ruling was that the president was not immune from civil suit while in office, regardless of when the facts occured that gave rise to the suit.
 
2006-07-13 05:32:11 PM
BiffDangler:


the effort=9

the execution=2


/too strident
 
2006-07-13 05:32:12 PM
Stop promoting your idiotic website. And stop pretending to love America if you don't like 50% of Americans.
 
2006-07-13 05:32:12 PM
"The Director of National Intelligence will certainly invoke the state secrets privilege, which means that the court will have no choice but to dismiss the frivolous lawsuit."

So, the argument is...

-Plame was not covert there was nothing wrong with outing her.
-But discussing Plame would violate national security.


....right, good luck with that.
 
2006-07-13 05:32:14 PM
Anyone using the "nepotism" argument as an excuse:

Character assassination is the A-#1 knee-jerk political offensive used in place of defending against challenger when actual assassination is not an option.

Please recognize it for what it is and that it has nothing whatsoever to do with the merits of the case.
 
2006-07-13 05:32:51 PM
Hilary T. N. Seuss: Can you really sue somebody and keep those names secret? I thought that lawsuits were public record

They're listed as "J. Doe, to be named later", a standard tactic so that when a party in a lawsuit goes on a fishing expedition, anyone they catch can be amended in to the existing trial.

RIAA/MPAA lawsuits act in the same way. One person gets nailed, they squeal in a lawsuit against them, then the other plaintiffs are added as needed.

It saves the cost and expenses of a separate trial.
 
2006-07-13 05:33:22 PM
The spunk from this neocon circle jerk is smelling awfully bitter and impotent today. Enjoy being pissed off about this through November.
 
2006-07-13 05:34:02 PM
I said I said I said...elventy-one gazillion years ago.

Boom...boom...boom...
 
2006-07-13 05:34:45 PM
dramboxf: Sovereign Immunity

/nuff said


There's a bit more to sovereign immunity than can be found in a website "reference" compiled and contributed to by any moron on the internet.

You fail at citing authority.
 
2006-07-13 05:34:51 PM
FRCP Hunh. So is she gonna add the Russians, Cubans and the Swiss in her lawsuit as well?

So...the NYT was completely in the right to report on the SWIFT monitoring? Because you know, foreign intelligence agencies know about that too.

Or perhaps, when did the Swiss, Cubans, or Russians publish this information in a public source? Just because other agencies may know about something doesn't mean it's public knowledge. Hell, the Russians, Chinese, etc know things that our government does that are classified, but if I wrote an article about those classified things, I would still end up in jail.

There is a bit of a difference between a foreign intelligence agency knowing something through an error and something being willingly leaked to the press...

Either way, regardless of what happened, regardless of who already knew what, by orchestrating this leak Rove, Cheney, Libby, et al seriously compromised the national security of the United States by revealing this information. It wouldn't matter if she told every person she met that she was a covert agent. It is the responsibility of the superiors of an intelligence agent to protect that identity.

But, that's ok, not like we needed to have sources that could trust us to keep their cover. It's one thing for her to be an American, in America, outed, which seems to be the arguement that the right uses to justify this (forgetting how they were calling for the heads of the leakers until it was found out that the leaks were from their own)...rather, it is the severe damage to the credibility and recruitment efforts of the CIA.

I sure as hell wouldn't work for people who would do this to me, not knowing that there is a very real threat that the people I'm risking my life for by providing intelligence will turn on me for a petty political squabble.
 
2006-07-13 05:34:56 PM
Disgusted!!

What? You're disgusting?......Oh, Uh...nevermind.
 
2006-07-13 05:35:29 PM
Torc: The spunk from this neocon circle jerk is smelling awfully bitter and impotent today. Enjoy being pissed off about this through November.

Yes! I love Novembers!
 
2006-07-13 05:36:39 PM
Wilson is already in the lawsuit, just on the side of his wife ;)

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0713062plame1.html
 
2006-07-13 05:36:50 PM
I love the smell of November, it smells like neocon circle jerk bitter splooge.

/you all can use that
 
2006-07-13 05:36:55 PM
BiffDangler: Yes, if you as a CIA agent is creating a major international problem by using nepotism to secure a junket for your loser husband, and then letting him run around lying about reporting to the vice president. You should expect that you would get in trouble for being such a dumbass.

Wilson never said that he reported to the Vice-President. That's a right-wing spin. He said that the VPs office requested information and that the CIA sent him to get that info. If you have proof of your statements please provide them. (Repeated for truth.)

One could also take on the "loser husband" and "nepotism" parts of Biff's original post. Wilson was a former ambassador who was once "hailed as 'truly inspiring' and 'courageous' by George H. W. Bush" (wikipedia). So he was hardley a loser. He was also a former ambassador to Gabon and São Tomé and Príncipe, with intimate knowledge of the Uranium procurement process.

In other words, his credentials for that trip were excellent.

And saying otherwise just makes you look like a tool of the RNC.
 
2006-07-13 05:37:06 PM
BiffDangler: Wrong. He specifically said his wife did not send him, and he specifially said that he went at the request of Cheney and that he reported to Cheney. The lying jerk brought this on himself by seriously disrupting international affairs in order to inflate his own ego and feel important.

Source?
 
2006-07-13 05:37:09 PM
BiffDanglerhe specifially said that he went at the request of Cheney and that he reported to Cheney.

Um, I know that you probably read this on some Freetard site somewhere, and truly believe it in the bottom of your heart, but it's not true. Wilson's actual words:
In February 2002, I was informed by officials at the Central Intelligence Agency that Vice President Dick Cheney's office had questions about a particular intelligence report. While I never saw the report, I was told that it referred to a memorandum of agreement that documented the sale of uranium yellowcake - a form of lightly processed ore - by Niger to Iraq in the late 1990's. The agency officials asked if I would travel to Niger to check out the story so they could provide a response to the vice president's office.
While it's understandable that someone with limited reading comprehension would interpret this as "Cheney sent me" that's not what he said.

You can read the whole op ed here

But why read primary sources when it's so much easier to read predigested pap that tells you what you want to hear?

/or you might just be a troll
//you've certainly got the tard-speak down pat
///if so, nicely done...
 
2006-07-13 05:37:10 PM
Wilson's story was TRUE. Why doesn't the Right seem to understand that?
 
2006-07-13 05:37:42 PM
Whiney biatch
 
2006-07-13 05:37:50 PM
Anyone even following Novak's latest revelations?

Everything he's saying to the public now he already said to Fitzgerald earlier. Fitzgerald decided that he had no case to prosecute anyone for revealing "Secret Agents". Which is why Libby is on trial charged with "pulling a Clinton" in his testimony, instead of what Joe Wilson said he did.

Joe Wilson has been lying throughout this. No one goes on a confidential fact-finding mission for the CIA without having to sign non-disclosure forms - except him. Then in the press appearances he told a different story than what he later was willing to say under oath. Far from proving no intent to yellow-cake shop - his (under oath) answers made it seem MORE likely, His supposed public "cover story" that he was working for Cheney was nothing but an outrageous lie cooked up by HIMSELF and designed to bolster his anti-Bush stance - as indicated by the factoid that no "background" to it was ever set up. It was moreover a singularily STUPID lie - as it expected the folks he was lying about to willingly acquiesce in his lie.

Valarie Plume lost her job prospects because she went "political" instead of professional in her actions. Her current work was one she could have kept doing for the nest 20 years even after her actual employment was splashed on the headlines.
 
2006-07-13 05:38:11 PM
Animatronik: Anybody who has his book on the bookshelf probably has Richard Clarke's book and is probably not the sharpest knife in the drawer.


Having a book on a bookshelf relates to one's intelligence?

You seem very smart.
 
2006-07-13 05:39:06 PM
pearls before swine: Why doesn't the Right seem to understand that?

They prefer truthiness over truth.
 
2006-07-13 05:39:18 PM

Valerie, don't forget to sue Who's Who in America! They also exposed your identity, starting in 1999!

wizbangblog.com
Copyright © 2002 by Reed Elsevier, Inc.
(click here for full page PDF)


/All links open in a new window
 
2006-07-13 05:39:27 PM
atate_esq: Seriously, her neighbors are not the measure of whether her cover had been blown. Please.

I was using that to refute people who make it sound like everybody and their damn brother knew beforehand that she was a CIA agent.
 
2006-07-13 05:39:48 PM
i.a.cnn.netwww.ooops.pl
 
2006-07-13 05:39:57 PM
LIBERALASSLICKER,
I want to have your baby.
I love you.
You smell of crack-ho's and bad mozzerella.
 
2006-07-13 05:39:59 PM
I dunno about anyone else, but I would totally hit that. Valerie Plame is HOT. She can have my 'secret alias' anyday.
 
2006-07-13 05:40:26 PM
Glad to see this thread isn't devolving into a Plamewar....
oops...
 
2006-07-13 05:40:43 PM
too bad the leak was her own damn husband. but she didn't sue him.
 
2006-07-13 05:41:02 PM
Anagrammer: Valerie, don't forget to sue Who's Who in America! They also exposed your identity, starting in 1999!

Are you being sarcastic? I hope so... that blurb says nowhere what she's a CIA agent. The fact that she was Joe Wilson's wife was no secret...
 
2006-07-13 05:41:08 PM
You know she's not bad looking. A komplete kunt, but I'd spear her chocolate starfish with my purple-headed sea anenome. Then I'd make her give my hot rod a car wash. Then I'd ask her to help me overcome my misplaced rage --- why do I find it so such a turn-on to degrade women sexually? Then the healing can begin. After that, I'll pee on her.
 
2006-07-13 05:41:55 PM
too bad the leak was her own damn husband. but she didn't sue him.

She was also married to Scooter Libby?

BIGAMIST!
 
2006-07-13 05:42:25 PM

Working on sources everyone who has asked... it's been at least a year since I really dug into this..


Having just read the original op-ed again as posted above, I will make this observation. Just because Wilson said there were was no uranium deal, doesn't meant there wasn't. If other governments intelligence is saying there was, and Wilson, sent by his wife, says there wasn't, doesn't mean that the administration is obligated to ignore everyone else and only listen to Wilson.


Also, his orignial op-ed is not the only time Wilson talked about this stuff... it was in the press later that he was doing all the lying about who sent him, etc.

 
2006-07-13 05:42:36 PM
The who's who thing. Wow. People really can't figure out the difference between confirming somebody's existence and somebody's undercover job for the CIA.

You know - I'll bet she had a birth certificate, too! See - her cover was blown at birth!!111eleventy!111!!
 
2006-07-13 05:42:40 PM
pearls before swine: Wilson's story was TRUE. Why doesn't the Right seem to understand that?

Well, Uncle Dick certainly does. That's why he made the effort to crush her like a bug.
 
2006-07-13 05:42:56 PM
Meepzoid: the administration broke the law, for pure spite, and there's no way you can spin that fact.

Proof? Last I checked, a special prosecutor issued no charges after a 2 1/2 year investigation.

Unless you've somehow learned differently.

/Libby doesn't count, he only got dinged for perjury
 
2006-07-13 05:42:57 PM
i.a.cnn.net

milf hot maybe
 
2006-07-13 05:43:16 PM
2006-07-13 05:29:06 PM dramboxf


Sovereign Immunity

/nuff said


BZZZT!
George Bush, despite actions that would seem to indicate otherwise, is NOT the Sovereign. The United States GOVERNMENT, is entitled to sovereign immunity. Functionaries and persons employed thereby are not necessarily.

2006-07-13 05:30:50 PM SkinnyHead



The Director of National Intelligence will certainly invoke the state secrets privilege, which means that the court will have no choice but to dismiss the frivolous lawsuit.



Nope. The Court may chose to accept or reject the state secrets arguement in whole or in part. Mere assertion of SS does not grant automatic dismissal.


In Kasza v. Browner, the federal appeals court held that .. "if the subject matter of the action is a state secret, the court should dismiss the action based on the invocation of the privilege."



As the Neo-cons have forcefully argued that Plame's identity was no secret, they are goign to have a very hard time claiming otherwise in court , and even if it was V. Wilson has a very good argument that it isn't anymore, thanks largely to the actions of the defendants and that "equitable relief should not be granted to a party with unclean hands".
 
2006-07-13 05:43:17 PM
untrustworthy

What? Do you really believe she had no right or reason to collect a pension after years of service?


No, she has every right to do so. Thanks for projecting what you think i believe though.

/sarcasm
 
2006-07-13 05:43:21 PM
Anagrammer: Valerie, don't forget to sue Who's Who in America! They also exposed your identity, starting in 1999!


Some people read the thread first, then post.

And then there's you.
 
2006-07-13 05:43:27 PM
I am glad to see this and hope she wins. She got illegally and immorally farked over here and whether or not she needs any money, there are those who need some additional public shame and punishment over their treasonous actions.
 
2006-07-13 05:43:37 PM
Anagrammer:

Funny, I don't see "CIA AGENT!!!!111" anywhere in that who's who thingy.
 
2006-07-13 05:44:17 PM
the entire sotry has been proven to be BOGUS. Joe Wilson has been proven a LIAR...and no one ruined Valere plames career except for she and her lying partisan husband.....

this lawsuit has no merit and when it's thrown out, THEN it will be time to destroy these's people's pathetic, " Vanity Fair lovin'" lives.....
 
2006-07-13 05:44:24 PM
skipjack: No, she has every right to do so. Thanks for projecting what you think i believe though.

Then what was your point?
 
Displayed 50 of 783 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »





Report