dr. elsewhere here
[Correction noted: Fourth paragraph from the end, I have - thanks to Joe's sharp attention - cleared up some very confusing (and exceedingly rushed) verbage. Though I have no doubt you smarties out there knew exactly what I meant to say. Sigh; pride does come before a fall, eh?]
Ok. I've been absent a disgracefully loooong time, and am more than appropriately embarrassed and ashamed. I do hope someone - anyone! - out there will forgive, but the various events interrupting my life as dr. e have been way too many to go into here, and interesting only to moi (except for one, which I'll share soon), so I'll spare you all.
Suffice it to say that I've been unable to connect online for several days, and seems like years of events have occurred in the interim. It's taken me hours to catch up. Such as I have.
My first stop was here, of course, and also of course, Joe has been burning the keyboard, as per usual. I could hardly keep up with him, and try to cruise for other intriguing angles, etc. The guy is a force of nature, but then we all know that.
So, in my own small way here, I'd like to make a humble attempt to curry favor with his readers once again and offer bon-bons by promising a couple of upcoming pieces. One will be my long-promised complaints on the Southern heritage, and the other will be a semi-exclusive interview with the author of an upcoming book on impeaching the guilty parties of this administration. The first is near complete, so that will be here shortly, but the second will require a good deal of preparation on my part, which I've started and am enjoying thoroughly. Will keep you posted on that, with increasingly juicy teasers along the way.
For now, though, please allow this bad bitch to toot her own horn for a second. Not a huge thang, but enough of a vindication that at least the fact upon which I base my horn-tootin' must be aired and shared.
Some time back, when the atmosphere hung heavy with allegations and speculations on all matters Plame-Wilson, Rove, and Scooter, I posed (in a comment to a Joe post here) the observation that the Wilson lawsuit against Libby, Rove, Cheney, et al., would likely rely heavily on the Supreme Court Decision that allowed Paula Jones's suit against Clinton to move forward. Some other speculations (beyond Joe's) on this point suggested that the SC decision was based on the fact that the suit had been filed prior to Clinton's taking office. However, from my review of the press coverage of the decision, this was not the case.
(To read the rest, click "Permalink" below)
Now mind you, I am no attorney, and I do not claim to have been up to my eyeballs in that travesty that was the Clinton impeachment, but the timing logic just never made enough sense to me. After all, the reason Constitutional officers enjoy some protection from such suits is to keep them from being unduly harrassed while attempting to perform their duly elected duties. Therefore, when Jones filed her suit would make no difference; there is the larger matter.
That larger matter is whether or not the suit is based on actions committed within the official's line of official duties. Given that Clinton's alleged behavior had nothing to do with his Presidential duties, but instead involved a personal action and behavior, then - the Justices unanimously determined - the case could move forward.
(A parenthetical aside here. Embedded in the same comments to the link to Joe's post above, there is an astute comment by some anonymous or other who points out that the SC decision is itself unConstitutional, in that it does not protect government officials from frivolous suits to distract them from their duties. I agree, but we'll just have to put a marker on that for now and get back to it later. For now, we'll have to count it as an fortunate gift from an unfortunate source.)
Shift forward in time a bit shy of a decade, and a good bit beyond blow jobs and a blue dress to the here and now, and te countless crimes against the state, the Constitution, and humanity later.
As I argued earlier, the rhetoric being tossed around just after the Wilson lawsuit was filed had a very intriguing tone to it. There was abundant emphasis in those early accounts referencing aides and individuals close to the VP during those spring '03 days stating that he "seemed to take personally" Ambassador Wilson's questioning of the Administration push to invade Iraq. There were so many of these references that they really jumped out at me, suggesting strongly that Wilson's legal team would be not the least bit dissuaded by the decision designed to take Clinton down. Instead, it appears they may actually be using that very decision, replete with its specific reasoning, to take down the big Dick, and force the suit against him to go forward.
Which, as I also argued previously, puts the entire Bush/Cheney, Rove/Libby cabal in the most uncomfortable position. In order for them, most specifically the Dick, to get the immunity from this suit they so deeply desire, they'll have to argue that everything that they did in terms of revealing Plame's identity and smearing Wilson was done in the line of duty.
Now, I don't know about you, but I am quite sure I am not the only citizen of this country who would resist placing such questionable activities within the purview of the VP's official duties, much less feel ok about paying his salary to do so. There has been some attempt within Team Libby to claim that it was important to "get out the truth" regarding Iraq's interest in uranium from Niger, and that might fly, except they will still have to explain just what exposing Valerie Plame's CIA identity had to do with all that.
The dilemma, almost exactly as I speculated, is getting some attention now that Joseph Cotchett has joined Wilson's legal team. And I confess to feeling a blush of validation. Ok; more than a blush. Horn-tootin'. Not to mention not just a little thrill that the defendents in this case appear to be somewhat boxed in.
And if that's not enough claim for complete forgiveness from you all for my unforgiveable absence, then perhaps it's a start.
So, see you soon. And that's a promise (or a threat, depending).
7 comments:
Well then, it all gets down to whether the Dems can regain control of congress, doesn't it? Because the Republicans will always define the politics of retaliation as falling within the purview of the veep's duties.
In the case of the civil suit, what definition will the judges allow? Given the kinds of judges who have been appointed lately, I am not optimistic.
well, anon, i can certainly understand your pessimism, but consider the implication here.
it will be no easier for a judge to call the decision that these alleged actions - not least of which was exposing the identity of a cia agent - were within their purview of duty, than it will be for these guys to make this their argument for being granted immunity.
though i agree that, depending on the judge, any sort of convoluted argument could be attempted, there really isn't anything that could fly. so i'll ask around about whether or not this level of decision can be appealed.
meanwhile, the notion of actually making retaliation as part of the veep's duties will most definitely not fly; they'll have to absolutely come up with something to explain that one away.
but then, they did manage to excuse bush's argument of equal protection for the 2000 election.
more on that soon.
If this maneuver is successful, think of the ramifications. Bush/Cheney and the whole cabal can be sued for nearly everything they have done during this administration, because, it can be argued quite persuasively, most of what they have done has been for the personal enrichment of themselves and their cronies.
;>)
There must be millions of people with standing to bring such suits!
Be thankful America doesn't operate under the Mexican system. In Mexico, there is a law forbidding anyone from bringing suit against an elected official. You have to bring a pleading to a special court in order to get an exception to that law.
sofla said:
Dr. E wrote: some anonymous or other who points out that the SC decision is itself unConstitutional, in that it does not protect government officials from frivolous suits to distract them from their duties
While protecting governmental officials from frivolous suits is a worthy aim, it cannot be found in the Constitution, to my knowledge. Rather, this would be an area for legislation, and/or the SCOTUS to 'fill in the blank' area that the Constitution leaves there with regard to this question.
In fact, a doctrine of sovereign immunity for any and all official actions was decided by the SCOTUS during Nixon's terms, when a lawsuit was brought against him by the father or surviving family of a member of the armed services who had been killed in Vietnam under Nixon's heading up the government.
anon, you're right; there is no inherent immunity for members of the executive or judicial branches, only the legislative.
so one really must wonder just where this argument would come from, except that nixon ruling.
anon, you're right; there is no inherent immunity for members of the executive or judicial branches, only the legislative.
so one really must wonder just where this argument would come from, except that nixon ruling.
Post a Comment