dr. elsewhere here
Still trying to catch up, which looks more and more like an impossible dream, though catching news on the fly, mainly at mealtimes. Again, Joe is so far beyond able to manage magnificently without me; always has, always will. Goes without saying, but just saying anyway.
Still, did want to put something out there on the Plame lawsuit. Most of you who are following this have likely noted the several posts by emptywheel, Christy at FDL, and too many others to count. I have been cataloging the info and hope to review it for a post by mid-week.
But this offering from Attaturk at FDL today caught my eye, as it addressed in part one issue I raised here in a comment to a Joe post a couple of days ago.
Namely, will Cheney be able to declare immunity from Plame's lawsuit?
Attaturk, seems to think so, based on his reading of the Supreme Court decision on Jones v Clinton. Attaturk says that the court ruled on the fact that the case had been filed prior to Clinton's taking office. However, I admit here and now that I am not a lawyer and I have not read the text of that decision, but the press reports of that decision state not that the timing of the filing of the suit was the basis of the decision. Instead, the press reports claimed the Court decided Clinton's argument (that he could not be sued while in office) did not cover personal matters. In other words, officials are immune only from suit for doing what they were elected or appointed to do, not from doing something of a personal nature.
Now, I find it fascinating in this recent post by Jason Leopold that virtually all the CIA, State Department, and White House officials he quotes who were involved in the activities regarding Wilson's attempts to expose the Niger story interestingly stress that they were struck at how personally Cheney took Wilson's positon.
I put in a comment to Attaturk's post, but don't expect to get a response to it. But, in my further digging, I hope to find someone who can clarify that point for me. I may even read the Jones v Clinton decision myself, and it seems there was a more recent SC ruling that would apply here, as well (was it Sybil Edmonds?). So will read those, along with closer scrutiny of the Plame suit, Novak's interviews, and all the other stuff on this story that seems to be multiplying like the bunnies in this Rabbit Hole.
So, more later (or sooner, I hope).
7 comments:
Elsewhere, I've seen the difference between a president's official action and a personla action explained thus: If a president decides to drop bombs on a foreign country, it's official. If he decides to murder a visitor from Milwaukee doing the White House tour, it's personal. The former is protected from lawsuit and the latter is not.
So it comes down to this: Is a comnspiracy to squelch and discredit an administration opponent official or personal? Clearly the latter, in my eyes. But I'll be interested and amused when Cheney and Rove's lawyers claim the former.
Don't torment yourselves with legalisms.
Whatever current law or precedent may be, the Supreme Court will alter it to insulate Cheney et al. The most that will be gained is bad publicity for Dick, and another books tour for Wilson/Plame.
Joe Wilson, alas, is no hero. He was a loyal employee of Bush I. in any other country, he'd be regarded as just another right-wing defender of empire, American beneficience and the right to a lucrative publishing contract. Next thing we know, he'll be running the Senate.
joe, thanks for that distinction, though for the analogy to apply, we'd have to ask if the milwaukee visitor was dissenting openly from WH policy and position. so i agree cheney's actions were NOT what the american citizenry would consider anything they elected him or any other official to do while in office. hence my interest in leopold's sources' several references to how cheney took wilson's attacks 'personally'. and by the by, rove cannot claim immunity; his office was not by election or approved appointment. he's toast in this case.
anon, i don't know how you can so glibly dismiss legalisms at this point. granted, this deck is mighty stacked, but that did not stop the supremes from just soundly slam dunking this administration in their hamden decision. dick is looking bad all around, and i'm not sure the court will be any more inclined to give dick grace than they were bush in the hamden decision.
and your characterization of wilson is patently absurd. first of all, he initially joined the foreign service in 76 and served under carter, and then every president until 98 when he retired. he served under bush 1, and served heroically, really, standing up to hussein in order to get american citizens out prior to the gulf war.
and i fail to see what about his management of his current situation makes him a defender of empire. quite the contrary; if you consider the history of this administration, you'll be forced to admit that it was his insistence in holding his government to account (his words) that forced it to retract those 16 words, opening up the possibility in the eyes of the public that we were lied into this invasion. an interesting exercise to consider how much longer bush's slide into the abyss of poor ratings might have taken had wilson not spoken up and we'd have been forced to wait for someone else with his courage to step forward.
permit me to offer a word of caution:
cynicism can be just as destructive as outright lies.
dr. elsewhere, have you actually read Wilson? It's the same old crap, American the Virutous and Beneficient, etc. And he has the deepest respect for Bush I.
Only the current administration could make a political hack like him look good.
As for glibness, I guess the irony I intended didn't quite come off. I'm not glib about the law, but have no hopes it will enforced by Republican courts. As for the recent Supreme Court decision, per Hamdan and the Geneva Conventions, you'll note that all but one of the "conservatives" voted against it (Roberts was barred from the decision, but had already voted with Bush on the lower court). Without the swing vote, we Americans will have no rights at all. So would place much hope there.
I's reluctantly on the side of Anonymous in this debate, Doc, although I'd prefer to be on yours. There's just no way that the immunity question will be allowed to go against Cheney, not in today's judiciary. I have no faith in the SCOTUS at all, with Roberts and Alito joining Scalia and Thomas. And how much longer will that geezer Stevens last? I mean, it may get worse yet, soon. Seriously, Cheney could have got drunk, whacked Wilson with extreme prejudice with his shotgun, and Scalia would still have found a way to grant him immunity. He'd be supported by R, A, and T (whoa, got an acronym there, don't we!), and Kennedy would go with the majority while pretending to object. I would be astounded if the SCOTUS threw Cheney to the wolves. In fact, I would take it as very bad news indeed, because it would mean that things are so very bad that even the SCOTUS realizes we're tipping over the abyss. Too late, of course.
I's? I's? Must be a n***** in the woodpile my folks never told me about.
I'm. I'm reluctantly on... etc.
Oh, come on. Cut me some slack, it's been a long day.
hey, i never said this would be cake. i'm looking mainly at the precedent, which the court will be forced to address, and then explain away, should there be inconsistencies in their rulings.
but of course, they are not above inconsistencies. the bush v gore case the most egregious example. but still, we must know what these things are in order to hold them accountable.
and i'm not at all sure that cheney is so damn invincible as everyone seems to think he is. i'm sensing that his days are numbered. hell, he may not even live long enough to face a trial. which would be most unfortunate.
as for wilson, no one's claiming he's a saint here, but he was a diplomat who worked for several presidents, and has great respect for them all (except this one). i daresay one reason he has so much respect for bush 1 is that ghwb actually listened to him and adhered to his advice during the gulf war mess. that kind of heady flattery will gain anyone's respect, i should think. and i wager that wilson does not know all the seedy nasty factoids about ghwb that swarm the net; i'm not sure i believe them all, but i do know he's a power-monger from way back, and that wilson would likely rethink his opinion were he shown proof. not to excuse wilson, but i hardly think his having respect for bush 1 under those circumstances makes him irretrievably evil.
because he also has a deep love for this country. now each of us has his/her own idea about what this country means, and i have no doubt there are differences between his and my versions. but it does appear that he has a great respect for our constitution and its meaning, and he has clearly stood up for his interpretation of it at great risk to himself and his wife and children. and he has borne the slings and arrows of that risk with tremendous grace, in my opinion. he did, after all, shift his political affiliation, and he does, after all, continue to fight this fight. it will be interesting to see if there is ever a settlement; that will tell a lot about all parties concerned. i'm betting the wilson's fully intend to take this all the way through a trial, hopefully with a jury.
i guess i worry when anyone is condemned because one aspect of their perspective is not perfectly in line with the condemner's, while dismissing any similarities or inherent goodnesses. that flirts dangerously with a narrow-minded prejudice that will never serve any solutions for our future.
Post a Comment