Crush Liberalism

Liberalism: Why think when you can “feel”?

Can this Plame b#tch finally go away now?

Plame’s bovine feces lawsuit against Darth Cheney and his Bu$hitler McRummyburton minions in the administration (a little moonbat-ese for our leftist visitors to feel right at home for the duration of this post) was tossed.  It seems that sharing the name of a non-covert agent whose husband had already put her name and identity out there for the whole world to see isn’t a crime…go figure.

Merry Fitzmas, moonbats!  😆

August 12, 2008 Posted by | Cheney, moonbats, Plamegate | 8 Comments

Plame lawsuit chucked to the weeds

From My Way News:

Former CIA operative Valerie Plame lost a lawsuit Thursday that demanded money from Bush administration officials whom she blamed for leaking her agency identity.

Plame, the wife of former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, had accused Vice President Dick Cheney and others of conspiring to disclose her identity in 2003. Plame said that violated her privacy rights and was illegal retribution for her husband’s criticism of the administration.

U.S. District Judge John D. Bates dismissed the case on jurisdictional grounds and said he would not express an opinion on the constitutional arguments.

Bates dismissed the case against all defendants: Cheney, White House political adviser Karl Rove, former White House aide I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby and former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage.

Plame’s lawyers said from the beginning the suit would be a difficult case to make. Public officials normally are immune from such suits filed in connection with their jobs.

Plame’s identity was revealed in a syndicated newspaper column in 2003, shortly after Wilson began criticizing the administration’s march to war in Iraq.

Armitage and Rove were the sources for that article, which touched off a lengthy leak investigation. Nobody was charged with leaking but Libby was convicted of lying and obstruction the investigation. Bush commuted Libby’s 2 1/2-year prison term before the former aide served any time.

Though Bates said the case raised “important questions relating to the propriety of actions undertaken by our highest government officials,” he said there was no legal basis for the suit.

Lawyers have said courts traditionally are reluctant to wade into these types of cases, particularly when Congress has established other resolutions.

In this case, Bates said, Congress passed the Privacy Act to cover many of Plame’s claims. Courts have held that the Privacy Act cannot be used to hold government officials personally liable for damages in court.

Bates also sided with administration officials who said they were acting within their job duties. Plame had argued that what they did was illegal and outside the scope of their government jobs.

“The alleged means by which defendants chose to rebut Mr. Wilson’s comments and attack his credibility may have been highly unsavory,” Bates wrote.

“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,” Bates said.

The suit was dismissed “purely on jurisdictional grounds”, huh? Well, as Texas Rainmaker (himself an attorney) points out…:

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.

Put that in your bong and smoke it, Mr. and Mrs. Wilson.

July 20, 2007 Posted by | Plamegate | Leave a comment

Was Plame covert?

I know, I know…the question’s been bantied about for 3+ years now. However, perhaps this will shed some light on it. From Bob Novak:

Republican Rep. Peter Hoekstra could hardly believe what he heard last Friday on television as he watched a House Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearing. Rep. Henry Waxman, the Democratic committee chairman, said his statement had been approved by the CIA director, Gen. Michael Hayden. That included the assertion that Valerie Plame Wilson was a covert CIA operative when her identity was revealed.

As House Intelligence Committee chairman when Republicans still controlled Congress, Hoekstra had tried repeatedly to learn Plame’s status from the CIA but got only double talk from Langley. Waxman, the 67-year-old, 17-term congressman from Beverly Hills, may be a bully and a partisan. But he is no fool who would misrepresent the Director of Central Intelligence (DCI). Waxman was correctly quoting Hayden. But Hayden, in a conference with Hoekstra Wednesday, still did not answer whether Plame was covert under the terms of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act.

The former CIA employee’s status is critical to the attempted political rehabilitation of former Ambassador Joseph Wilson and his wife. The Democratic target always has been Karl Rove, President Bush’s principal adviser. The purpose of last week’s hearing was to blame Rove for “outing” Plame, in preparation for revoking his security clearance.

Claims of a White House plot became so discredited that Wilson was cut out of John Kerry’s presidential campaign by the summer of 2004. Last week’s hearing attempted to revive a dormant issue. The glamorous Mrs. Wilson was depicted as the victim of White House machinations that aborted her career in secret intelligence.

Waxman and Democratic colleagues did not ask these pertinent questions: Had not Plame been outed years ago by a Soviet agent? Was she not on an administrative, not operational, track at Langley? How could she be covert if, in public view, she drove to work each day at Langley? What about comments to me by then CIA spokesman Bill Harlow that Plame never would be given another foreign assignment? What about testimony to the FBI that her CIA employment was common knowledge in Washington?

Instead of posing such questions, Waxman said flatly that Plame was covert, and cited Hayden as proof. The DCI’s endorsement of Waxman’s statement astounded Republicans whose queries about her had been rebuffed by the Agency. That confirmed Republican suspicions that Hayden is too close to Democrats.

These issues were not explored by the only two Republicans who showed up at last week’s hearing. Rep. Tom Davis, the committee’s ranking Republican and former chairman, is a skilled legislator but not prone to roughhouse with Waxman. Unwilling to challenge Plame’s covert status, Davis blamed the CIA instead of the White House for her alleged exposure. The other Republican present — Rep. Lynn Westmoreland, a second-termer from metro Atlanta — seemed awed by the beautiful woman facing him. “If I seem a little nervous,” he began, “I’ve never questioned a spy before.”

Davis had e-mailed the committee’s other Republicans requesting their presence. Where were they? I asked Rep. Christopher Shays, who during nine previous terms in Congress had proved a tenacious questioner at hearings. “We felt the committee is so biased,” he replied, “we would do better to just stay away.”

That decision left the field last Friday to such partisan Democrats as Rep. Chris Van Hollen, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. Rep. Diane Watson, Waxman’s fellow Californian, mimicked the chairman’s inquisitorial style. She repeatedly interrupted lawyer Victoria Toensing, the lone rebuttal witness granted the Republicans by Waxman.

Toensing testified that Plame was not a covert operative as defined by the Intelligence Identities Protection Act (which she had helped draft as a Senate staffer in 1982) if only because she was not stationed overseas for the CIA the past five years. Waxman hectored Toensing, menacingly warning that her sworn testimony would be scrutinized for misstatements.

Waxman relied on his support from Gen. Hayden. When the DCI’s role was pointed out to one of the president’s most important aides, there was no response. The White House from the start has treated the Plame leak as a criminal case not to be commented on. The Democrats still consider it a political blunderbuss, aimed at Karl Rove and his boss.

The author of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act stated that Plame could not be considered covert, to which Rep. Nostrilitis…er, Waxman…basically said “Yeah, well, what do you know about it? It’s not like you wrote the law or anything! Keep that up, Missie, and I’ll see if I can trump up some perjury or contempt of Congress charges on you! Now where was I?”

The left is fond of saying “A-HA! The head of the CIA said she was covert, so she must have been!” Funny that the guy they look to, Gen. Hayden, didn’t feel compelled to answer that same basic question when Republicans asked it, but when Democrats asked it, then as luck would have it, he decided to cooperate! I’m sure that was a big coinkidink.

As Novak alludes to and Wizbang points out about the Bush administration, they “have one huge, gaping, flagrant flaw, one area where they are incredibly inept: they simply have no clue how to deal with certain types of political attack. And as a consequence, they end up getting slammed for doing the right (or, at least, legal) thing — but utterly and completely bollixing up the whole situation.” Wiz points out how Wilson lied, Plame lied, yet the left doesn’t care…it gets in the way of their inquisition. Truth is always the first casualty in a leftist political witch hunt.

Plus, there is one inescapable fact that the left does its level best to ignore: no charges have been filed against anyone for “leaking” Plame’s identity. The only charges that were filed were against Scooter Libby for lying about something that wasn’t a crime. (Alas for Scooter, anyone not named Clinton can go to jail for perjury. Do the crime, do the time.) But if the IIPA had been violated, then you can bet your bottom dollar that Fitz would have charged someone with it, especially considering that’s the purpose for which he was implemented. Until those charges are filed, it’s obvious to anyone with a functioning brain cell that Plame could not have possibly been covert. Period.

Blue Fitzmas

March 22, 2007 Posted by | Plamegate | Leave a comment