Juicy juicy juicy:Wilson may take Bush/Cheney to court & It's CHENEY

snip~

In an interview yesterday, Wilson said that once the criminal questions are settled, he and his wife may file a civil lawsuit against Bush, Cheney and others seeking damages for the alleged harm done to Plame's career.

If they do so, the current state of the law makes it likely that the suit will be allowed to proceed -- and Bush and Cheney will face questioning under oath -- while they are in office. The reason for that is a unanimous 1997 U.S. Supreme Court decision ruling that Paula Jones' sexual harassment suit against then-President Bill Clinton could go forward immediately, a decision that was hailed by conservatives at the time.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000087&sid=aSuj1d8CcYAk&refer=top_world_news


Incredible article. Read the whole thing because it's CHENEY!
snip~

Oct. 17 (Bloomberg) -- A special counsel is focusing on whether Vice President Dick Cheney played a role in leaking a covert CIA agent's name, according to people familiar with the probe that already threatens top White House aides Karl Rove and Lewis Libby.


But I love the sweet payback of that last sentence regarding Clinton.

And SOMEBODY is leaking this Cheney stuff.

Time to get some hard answers.

The Torture King, former White House (T/C)hief counselor is now the AG who 's predecessor had to recuse himself...

Oh the web we weave, when first we practice to deceive...newly updated by the Bush (mis)administration.

I'm glad to hear this and I can't wait for them to be under oath!!! Get the popcorn gang!

This could be B-I-G!

If only Wilson and Plame live that long.

Jeez, I bet they could tell some stories.

They had to testify during Clinton's trial.

:shrug:

Like they were for Clinton and Monica.

but probably will not get to try him while in office.

It's not as clear-cut as Bloomberg makes it out to be. Yes, in Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681 (1997), the Supreme Court did hold that Clinton was not insulated from civil lawsuits while in office. But a closer examination of the opinion demonstrates that it's application to the Plame facts is not so neat and tidy.

See, in Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 731 (1982), the Supreme court held that a president had absolute immunity from civil actions while in office. Jones narrowed that, saying that essentially there is an exception for actions taken before becoming President. The Jones decision did not establish a bright-line rule which would allow Bush to be sued; instead, it provided an analytical framework which set forth which criteria should--and should not-- be given weight in deciding whether a sitting President may be sued in civil court.

I wrote more here: http://g10.blogspot.com.

If he does, I think it wil be stayed. Just my $.02.

Should be fun to watch though :)

I hope Wilson sues em for millions. Republican's institutional hate comes back to bite them again.

Their hatred of FDR resulted in them pushing for term limits. The first President after term limits were instituted that could have sought a third term was a republican (Eisenhower.)

Patience Mr and Mrs Wilson. I wish you strength in this battle.

You go, Joe and Valerie! :loveya:

"But I love the sweet payback of that last sentence regarding Clinton."

eom

Don't think the SCOTUS might be looking forward to reversing it. Yeah, what goes around comes around. It is sad that the Dems are lost in this type of efforts.

Seven of nine of those who made that ruling are still seated.

Did I make ya think about Jeri Ryan?

quotes by the rethugs regarding Kosovo: The last one by * himself still gets me. We need an 'exit strategy' for HIM!

Verbatim quotes from when Clinton was committing troops to Bosnia:

"You can support the troops but not the president."
---Rep Tom Delay (R-TX)

"Well, I just think it's a bad idea. What's going to happen is they're going to be over there for 10, 15, maybe 20 years."
---Joe Scarborough (R-FL)

"Explain to the mothers and fathers of American servicemen that may come home in body bags why their son or daughter have to give up their life?"
---Sean Hannity, Fox News, 4/6/99

" President . . . is once again releasing American military might on a foreign country with an ill-defined objective and no exit strategy. He has yet to tell the Congress how much this operation will cost. And he has not informed our nation's armed forces about how long they will be away from home. These strikes do not make for a sound foreign policy."
---Sen Rick Santorum (R-PA)

"American foreign policy is now one huge big mystery. Simply put, the administration is trying to lead the world with a feel-good foreign policy."
---Rep Tom Delay (R-TX)

"If we are going to commit American troops, we must be certain the y have a clear mission, an achievable goal and an exit strategy."
---Karen Hughes, speaking on behalf of George W Bush

"I had doubts about the bombing campaign from the beginning . . . I didn't think we had done enough in the diplomatic area."
---Senator Trent Lott (R-MS)

"I cannot support a failed foreign policy. History teaches us that it is often easier to make war than peace. This administration is just learning that lesson right now. The President began this mission with very vague objectives and lots of unanswered questions. A month later, these questions are still unanswered. There are no clarified rules of engagement. There is no timetable. There is no legitimate definition of victory. There is no contingency plan for mission creep. There is no clear funding program. There is no agenda to bolster our over-extended military. There is no explanation defining what vital national interests are at stake. There was no strategic plan for war when the President started this thing, and there still is no plan today"
-Rep Tom Delay (R-TX)

"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is."
-Governor George W Bush (R-TX)
........................................................
Great news, I hope the Wilsons do it.

And makes me so pissed off!

quotes like these but it is up to us to keep them in the spotlight as much as possible. I emailed these to a lot of web sites. I love seeing this thrown back in their faces.
If Joe Wilson does file a law suit, I'll find and post all the quotes of the rethugs beating on President Clinton. I'm sure there are many.

" Fitzgerald, 45, has also questioned administration officials about any knowledge Bush may have had of the campaign against Wilson. Yet most administration observers have noted that on Iraq, as with most matters, it's Cheney who has played the more hands-on role."

for what it's worth

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=461221#463774

though. That's very worrysome. I can't see Bushbot Gonzales allowing indictments. And if he refuses to, what's Fiztgerald's recourse:


from the article:

An Active Participant

To make a case against Cheney as part of a conspiracy indictment, Fitzgerald would have to show the vice president was an active participant in a decision to smear Wilson, Barcella said. ``It's a case most easily made if you can prove a person knowingly entered into an agreement to do something illegal,'' he said. ``Beyond that, it can be tricky.''

Fitzgerald's status differs in one potentially important respect from the independent counsels who investigated alleged wrongdoing during earlier administrations. They reported to a panel of appellate judges, while Fitzgerald reports to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, who at least theoretically must approve any indictment.

Given the prospect of both protracted criminal cases and then civil lawsuits, it now seems possible the issue will bedevil the final years of Bush's presidency, much as the Iran- contra affair burdened President Ronald Reagan's second term and the Monica Lewinsky scandal plagued President Bill Clinton's.

So how would Gonzales have the right to quash the findings of a Grand Jury?

directly to the Attorney General...which is Gonzales. It's apparently the difference between an "Independent Counsel" (Starr) and a Special Prosecutor (Fitz) according to the article.

Since Gonzales might be implicated in a "cover up" though maybe that would give Fitz some clout. Gonzales didn't report that a CIA had started an investigation to Andy Card (was it Card) until three or four days after he knew. PLUS Asscroft sat around on it for months.

I might not have the exact timing correctly so much has happened it between but I remember Asscroft didn't recuse himself until way after he should have. Maybe Gonzales is in the same boat and it will have to go down the line in the Attorney Generals office for approval. :shrug:

I'll bet there are some SERIOUS negotiations going on about now about who can give the okay to Fitz though...

The AG could, i suppose, refuse to assign anyone to prosecute the case, assuming the charter for Fitzgerald's investigation includes a hand-off to DoJ. But, if the charter includes him as prosecutor beyond investigation and indictment, then the process is already airtight.

And, it seems hard to believe that anyone would sit still for quashing indictments. These guys have made lots of enemies now, even on their own side. Quashing indictments would only lead to another investigation, this time of Gonzales himself. I think he might be clever enough to avoid that.
The Professor

:\ And what if the Wilson's goes into court?

Suit way back when the story broke. He suggested it would be better for the Wilson's to go that way because they could get Cheney and Bush under oath and would have broader ability to subpeona records. But the Wilson's chose to leave it to Fitzgerald. Maybe they thought if the GJ didn't indict they would still have the Civial Suit option like Paula Jones used but the Civil Suit could then use any evidence the GJ found and speech the suit up. :shrug:

Either way, if Fitz doesn't indict it's good to know that the Wilsons can still have a chance of broadening this and maybe even getting into "Why We Went to War." That would be good. Would sure tie up the Bushies and the PNAC'ers for a long time.

the precedent (through their Repub "activist" judges) that a sitting Pres can be sued and deposed etc while in office. Nice.

That this can continue...because of what they put Clinton through with Paula Jones and the Right Wing GLEE over it...is sort of Karma, Back ATCHA! It's good...

he will be impeached along with Bush and Cheney. This country won't stand for that kind of blatant cover-up.

It seems that his name hardly ever comes up in a significant way. Was the CNN "bullshit" episode staged, so that he could retire from public scrutiny? Has he even been before the Grand Jury?

In the article it comments that,
"Fitzgerald reports to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, who at least theoretically must approve any indictment."

(Why do I have visions of Gonzales trying to block/stop the indictments).

Please tell me that I am wrong.
I want all these crooks frog-marched to jail.

nt

:nominated:

is that it was a civil suit, and the "discovery" that took place in preparing for trial that brought a lot of "hidden" things to light. I have been hoping for a long time that the Wilson's would bring a civil suit....it will be easier to win, too, if Fitz brings indictments. Note to Joe and Valerie Wilson: Cheney is a RICH man, made so by Halliburton---sue for MILLIONS.

I'd say that planning a treasonous act
endangers our country more than getting
a blow job in the oval office.

of course Bush is a blown job in the oval office.

Peace.

Gotta loive it!!!

ments are expected. My first hit on it was that it was not good. Fitzgerald couldn't get to Cheney; and best we can hope for is "unindicted co-conspirator." But who knows? There is so much behind-the-scenes on this one, we don't have much of a clue, really. It could also be a positive sign in two respects: that Fitzgerald DOES have the goods on Cheney, and the Wilson's are going to go after him in the confidence that Fitzgerald has laid it all out; and it's a move to keep the pressure on (and maybe relieve some pressure on Fitzgerald?).

My mantra: Don't depend on prosecutions to save our imperiled democracy. Throw Diebold and ES&S election theft machines into 'Boston Harbor' NOW!

:rofl: It'll bite you in the ass every time! Please, please, please file the lawsuit, Joe!

:popcorn:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000087&sid=aIh7Ul2ZhzQE&refer=top_world_news

Enjoy! :)

that law. It was ok for CLinton, of course But, Fearless Leader should not be subjected to the same thing. :Sarcasm:

However, who wouldn't believe that idiot when he constantly can't remember a fucking thing. It's what we all knew all along.

do you recognize me now, Mr. Cheney?

These are the days that make life worth living.....

office!!! They have gotten WAY to powerful and its time to go!!!

Will they go quietly!!! I don't think so!!!

it was my recollection that an issue in the jones decision was the exemption from lawsuits arising from official acts vs. private acts. the jones actions were not during clinton's term in office. i do not think you can file a civil suit against elected officials for their official actions. i am not a lawyer, tho.