WILSONS WILL TAKE CASE AGAINST BUSH ADMIN. TO SUPREME COURT

[L. Coyote]

COURT OF APPEALS DENIES REHEARING IN WILSON CASE - WILSONS WILL TAKE CASE AGAINST BUSH ADMIN. OFFICIALS TO SUPREME COURT
18 Nov 2008 // Washington, D.C. - http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/35536


In response to the Court of Appeals November 17, 2008 denial of the Wilsons’ petition for rehearing of their civil case against Vice President Cheney, Scooter Libby, Karl Rove, Richard Armitage and other unnamed officials, CREW’s executive director Melanie Sloan stated, “The Wilsons and their counsel are certainly disappointed by the Court of Appeals’ decision, but it is not over yet. Now we will petition the Supreme Court to hear the case.” Sloan continued, “There must be consequences when government officials abuse their power and endanger national security for political ends. This is an issue worth fighting over and we will not give up.”

Read the court’s decision ......

[SharonRB]

1. I'm glad they're doing this, but I don't hold out much hope

given the make-up of the court.

[bdamomma]

11. that pig Scalia,

will he say that was in the past, and move on. I do not trust the Supreme Court they are stained.

[trof]

14. Read Toobin's "The NINE" and lose any hope.

Fascinating and frightening look at the supremes, the 2000 coronation, all of it.

[Winterblues]

2. I hope they don't expect a fair hearing

This is afterall the "Extreme Court" that brought us Bush*...

[peacetalksforall]

3. Is there a time statute? It seems logical, to me, that more proof will help them

andit's logical, to me, that more 'stuff' is going to come out.

[Rebubula]

15. Good question

If they can wait a couple of years to see if President Obama can place a couple of friendly judges...

Right now...even Don Quixote would say they are being foolish.

[robertpaulsen]

4. K & R!

:kick:

[barbtries]

5. kicking

they should win. the bushies should be in prison.

[PBS Poll-435]

6. Easiest K & R all day.

nt

[CatWoman]

7. K&R

:kick:

[spanone]

8. fucking k and fucking r

[proud patriot]

9. Good for them

:thumbsup:

[L. Coyote]

10. Whoooo Yeah, this is a popular idea!!! SO, Support CREW now.

https://secure.democracyinaction.org/dia/organizations/CREW/shop/custom.jsp?donate_page_KEY=1299&t=Redesign.dwt

[WillyT]

12. Big K & R !!!

:kick:

[myrna minx]

13. This should be interesting. K&R n/t

[goforit]

16. I don't think the Conservative Supreme Court will take the case. Sad Times!!!

But......If Obamas smart maybe he will reopen the investigation in Comgress.

Quite frankly though there are alot of Congress members that were accomplices to
this crime.

[madamesilverspurs]

17. Chief Justice Roberts

was rewarded with his position after engineering the bizarre scenario that led to Bush's selection by the court in 2000. Does anyone really believe that he'd allow any bites to the hand that so generously fed him?

[Dinger]

24. Well, Ya Never Know what Can Happen

Presidents ( I use that term loosely in the case of you-know-who) sometimes are sur[rised by the judges they appoint to the Supreme Court. There's always hope, even if that's ALL there is.

[Piewhacket]

18. Um... I know it ain't "right", but..

wouldn't the President himself have the authority
to out a CIA agent, even if Scooter and others
didn't have that authority.

Is the real problem that Bush doesn't want to admit
he did it?

[Vickers]

19. The president is not above the law.

I'm not sure under what scenario you envision this could be possible.

For instance, when this all started happening folks were saying that the president could have de-classified the info and then released it...two problems with that: you can only declassify what you originally had authority to classify, and you need a damn good reason for it, neither of which he had.

[clear eye]

25. Naah. There's some kind of threshold of necessity

that has to be crossed for even a President to out a spy. It's illegal(impeachable, ha-ha) if he doesn't have a good reason. Some Constitutional expert on TV over a year ago explained that, but I don't have the vaguest memory of the man's name. What he said stuck in my mind because, like you, I was worried that the President was the one person allowed to do that. I was glad to hear it wasn't so.

[Piewhacket]

26. Interesting...

It might have been Jonathan Turley.

I don't question whether the act might be considered in or
form the basis of an impeachment. I question whether the
law may be _criminally_ applied to the President. If good
cause is needed, good cause might conceivably be simply
deemed by him. Just a guess. Did the scholar suggest something
formal must be done to deem it a necessity?

Yet Bush was interviewed by Fitzgerald in 2004 concerning Plame,
and has publicly denied any involvement in the Plame outing.
(Through spokesperson Scott McClellan - June 2004. Scott now says Bush
privately admitted to him that he authorized Plame's outing)
In any event Bush's general denial is also a public denial that
he deemed there to be good cause, assuming that was needed.

So in sum, Bush he might have done it without authority,
or lied to the prosecutor, and be subject to prosecution
after leaving office. Alternatively Bush might have done it
with authority, confessed to the prosecutor whilst at all
times lying to the public. So which is it?

We can't say which it is (yet). But one thing does seem clear,
at this point and whatever the case
Bush ain't going to willingly admit to it.

[clear eye]

27. The reality frame here is that these sort of secrets are the country's, not Bush's

So he can't just make up a reason to expose them out of thin air. Plame was doing essential work that required absolute secrecy, both for its success, and to protect the lives of all on her team, including cooperating foreigners. Just because the Bush admin treats the law like Kleenex, doesn't mean the courts would.

Frankly, having heard Cheney say the mistake made by the Nixon inner circle was to keep their President "too much in the loop", I doubt that any of the illegal activities of the last eight years were at Bush's direct say so. Bush may have been convinced by Cheney--who worried about his own skin--that as President, Bush could get away with the Plame crime better than he, and if the investigation got that high Bush should claim he ordered it and bluff it out. But the problem was taken care of, like all their other illegal power grabs and attacks on the U.S. people, by Congress's refusal to move toward impeachment. Without that as a credible threat, Congressional investigators' subpoenas could simply be ignored when they got too close to the top.

In general I have a problem with Bush did this or that, or decided this or that. People don't seem to realize how deeply stupid and bewildered by governing the man is. The only part of it he understands is that people should behave around him with apparent deference and anyone who tries to get him in trouble (hold him accountable for anything) should be "taken care of". He also gets that the U.S. Treasury is very big, and thinks that he owes the power elite of Cheney's and his father's set whatever they ask for in exchange for maintaining the facade of him as President. Any larger or more abstract concept of governing is simply over his head.

The first part of these past eight years were a Cheney/Rumsfeld cabal, and the last part has been Cheney (and the program demands of the mega-corporate friends with whom he regularly consults)/Rove partnership. Rice was used to get Bush on board w/o telling him too much. When you hear Bush repeat over and over "I'm a war President", you can just picture how they manipulated him into shilling for the Iraq occupation. He just wanted to knock over Saddam, show up his Dad, declare victory, and leave to general acclaim.

If we or life doesn't get to Karl Rove, he might repeat the charade with Sarah Palin who is cut out of the same cloth as Bush.

[Piewhacket]

28. Ok, but the problem is...

he's the president of the country, the top executive,
and although his power has limits, it is nonetheless
rather awesome, even when it is wielded by a half-wit.

May I presume to suggest you can imagine some good
enough reason that would justify in your mind the outing
of a CIA operative, and further that if such reason existed
you would agree that the president would be the one
to decide whether it was a good reason and to do (order) the deed?

Yet even given that he must have a good reason, and that he
might have to tell it to someone someday, it still does not
necessarily follow that he must tell the reason to us now.

So I think it is very problematic to apply that criminal law to
the chief executive, happy as I might be to see it done.

He is a fool, of course. We all knew it in 2000,
and that if elected he would be closely "supervised". We
just didn't quite see it would be Cheney, nor clue about
what a monster Cheney really was.

Palin we must simply crush. Looking forward to it.
Nice thread, I enjoyed your analysis.

[PRETZEL]

20. I don't think the SC will hear the case,

I seemed to be under the impression that the court ruled it didn't have jurisdiction. I'm not sure the SC will go and tell the Court of Appeals that they were wrong.

[pleah]

21. K&R

[ksimons]

22. Kick!

too late to R but a big K

[santamargarita]

23. Why don't they wait until we get a Supreme Court?

These shitbags won't do anything!