Obama admin. opposes Joe and Valerie Wilson's appeal against Cheney, Rove, Libby and Armitage

[Me.]

Obama admin. opposes Joe and Valerie Wilson's request for Supreme Court appeal in suit against Cheney, Rove, Libby and Armitage

“CREW learned today that the Obama administration is opposing our request that the Supreme Court reconsider the dismissal of the lawsuit, Wilson v. Libby, et al. In that case, the district court had dismissed the claims of Joe and Valerie Wilson against former Vice President Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, Scooter Libby and Richard Armitage for their gross violations of the Wilsons’ constitutional rights.

Agreeing with the Bush administration, the Obama Justice Department argues the Wilsons have no legitimate grounds to sue. It is surprising that the first time the Obama administration has been required to take a public position on this matter, the administration is so closely aligning itself with the Bush administration’s views.

In fact, the Obama administration has gone one step further, suggesting Mr. Wilson failed to provide any evidence that Mr. Cheney, Mr. Rove or Mr. Libby harmed him. This is particularly ironic because the government had moved to have the case dismissed before the Wilsons had the opportunity to uncover the details of how Ms. Wilson’s covert identity was revealed.” Cont…

http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/39740

[liberalmuse]

1. I might become an anarchist like my nephew.

As soon as people get into power, they think they are a part of this special club, and protect their own. I won't be mollified, and don't care how good the speech is Thursday. How utterly disappointing. I'm getting pretty much where I was two years ago. Hating Republicans and cynical and disgusted with the whole lot of Democrats.

[slay]

27. You are not alone my friend

in your feelings. I too can not stand Republicans but the Dems seem to be better only in some social areas. The reality for me is that both parties have betrayed the American People by doing the bidding of big money corporations and lobbyists. Or as Gore Vidal said when talking about economic policies: "In this country, we have two right-wing parties." Other than social issues, he seems to be right.

[Baby Snooks]

52. The Republicrats...

For the most part "Democrat" and "Republican" is merely a matter of demographics and which will win in which district.

For the most part the only Democrats and Republicans in this country are the fools who believe there are Democrats and Republicans on the ballot.

[slay]

63. Good call

And it seems we have alot of these "believers" here on DU. I get attacked EVERY DAY now here at DU for challenging Obama - like he said he wanted us to! I just never figured so many DU'ers (I mean this IS DemocraticUNDERGROUND not DemocraticEstablishment) would just blindly put their faith in Obama just because he has a (D) in front of his name to signify party affiliation. In geneneral, intelligent people know, politicians are liars and you can.not.trust.them.

Glad to see some other DU'ers on here who realize that too. :hi:

[moodforaday]

64. With much deference to Gore Vidal

I would amend this to "two authoritarian parties". Especially that the concepts of left and right keep shifting under the pressure of media propaganda and "received wisdom", and the center is ever moving.

Two authoritarian parties, each with somewhat different emotional buttons they push to retain the loyalty of their followers. The (R) pushes the buttons of religion, abortion and gun control; the (D) pushes the buttons of mild economic and social betterment for the middle class. To that extent they may be located on the left -- right spectrum. Scratch that surface, and underneath you have a single core of entrenched authoritarian rulers.

If anybody up there is playing chess, it's with their voters - not with each other.

[Freddie Stubbs]

61. Even they are not hiring in this economy

[polichick]

2. This really is disgusting.

[snappyturtle]

3. Since when can the executive branch 'suggest' to the judicial branch

which cases to hear or not to hear? I feel as though I've fallen through the rabbit hole.

[stillcool]

7. what does the Justice Department..

have to do with an appeal? Isn't that up to the court to decide?

[snappyturtle]

16. I too have always thought the court made the decisions. Guess not.

Too bad we didn't get some of the over reaching executive branch clipped BEFORE President Obama took the oath to protect us!

[stillcool]

22. From what I've read..

the Justice Department is the Obama Administration. As far as protecting 'us',..the only 'we the people' served by our government are those 2%'ers...but then they can't help but get what they want. They're the only ones that have contact with politicians.

[sendero]

4. I'm slowly going from incredulity..

... to disgust.

[liberalmuse]

5. I'm still holding off.

I like Obama, but two years ago, I really wasn't all that impressed with him like I was back in 2004. If he keeps this shit up, I'm going to have to give up politics. This is killing me.

[moodforaday]

66. That's exactly what they're counting on.

If he keeps this shit up, I'm going to have to give up politics.

That's exactly what they're counting on. And succeeding wildly - not just in the US, mind, but all across the so-called western world.

[peace frog]

59. Same here

and it's a powerfully uncomfortable place to be.

[timtom]

60. Disgust!!!

That became the party affiliation on my facebook. Just within the last month, too.

[ima_sinnic]

6. & tomorrow we get to hear some BS speech about "terrorism" to "mollify" us

-- when will he address the question of terrorists Cheney, Bush, Rumsfeld, Gonzalez, etc. etc. ad nauseum? The more he protects them, the more those who truly believed in him fall by the wayside. good luck with that in 2012.

[glitch]

20. I am picking up on ta similar pattern.

major concessions to the right, minor concessions to the center. Bugger all to the left.

[Bluebear]

33. +1

[SammyWinstonJack]

38. Great isn't it?

x(

[keepthemhonest]

8. I hope this is somehow BS

I do not understand why a man who should know justice and want justice,would do something so ujust.WTF.Obama needs to stop agreeing the the idiot adminstration or he'll end up the a 25 % rating.

Oh edited to add.WTF Cheney outed a CIA agent and definately put her and anyone who she had associated with overseas at risk.That is high treason and Cheney' fingerprints are all over it.Cheny must go down.

[jgraz]

9. Rec'd in appalled silence.

:puke:

[Tangerine LaBamba]

10. Actuallly, the Obama administration (and the courts)

are correct.

The law under which the Wilsons are trying to sue is a difficult one, and they cannot prove that the acts alleged were beyond the purview of "official duties." So, as loathesome as it seems, the Obama administration - and (I hate myself for this) so was the Fuckface administration.

Further, alleging that Wilson sustained no damage is an essential part of the way these things are written. Joe Wilson himself wasn't harmed - maybe his wife was, but I don't see that that was alleged, so I don't know.

Sounds awful, but if you look at the law the Wilsons are trying to use, it's a perfectly reasonable disposition of the case. They honestly never had a chance. I think this case was filed mostly for the news value, and maybe that was a good idea, but I don't think so.................

[mmonk]

14. It's hard for me to believe exposing CIA operatives to the world

is an official duty of office.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

15. But, you see,

that was never proven.

That particular law - the one that Patrick Fitzgerald tried so valiantly to put to work against those thugs - is such a narrow, horribly-drawn piece of crap, no one has ever been convicted under it. In fact, now that I think of it, I'm not sure anyone has ever even been indicted under it.

It was drafted by Victoria Toensing. That's about all anyone needs to know about it ......................

[snappyturtle]

19. Sounds reasonable but why not let the SCOTUS tell us that?

This is political jeopardy for the President....imho.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

25. They already did,

didn't they?

I'm not following this really closely, but my recollection is that the Supreme Court refused to hear the case - I thought that was announced a few weeks ago, and this is a re-petition to get them to consider it again - a total, total, total waste of time, one (I know this from personal experience) that is only done to get news coverage.

Did you mean that the Supreme Court should state why they're not going to hear the case? Well, they never do that. They either agree to hear the case or they don't. Anything else would require consideration of the case, which would require agreeing to hear i, and by their refusal to hear it, they offer no opinion on the merits of the case in any way. It just leaves the lower court ruling standing. In this case, it's the end of the road for the Wilsons.

Yeah, this does suck for the Obama administration, but it's them following the law. I hope people can understand this. I found myself gagging when I had to post the the initial ruling, dismissing the case, was made, because - oh, god, I'm already feeling nauseous again - it meant I had to agree with the Chimpy Fucknuts administration.

And no one, not even a Washington lawyer, should have to do that twice in a lifetime....................................

[PRETZEL]

42. I agree that the Wilson's chances weren't that great,

but maybe for a slightly different reason. I got the impression from the last time the case was dismissed on appeal and from Judge Bates' ruling that the court didn't have jurisdiction and as such wouldn't hear the case. Maybe I'm wrong but, to me anyway, it wasn't so much that the Wilson's case wasn't without merit to at least continue to trial, but that they needed to find the right court.

I think the ironic thing it that no court wanted to hear this case and that any court would have done their level best to punt it off to another jurisdiction.

This is Judge Bates' ruling. It's been a while since I've read the whole thing and could only understand a little of it.

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2006cv1258-52

[mmonk]

46. This case is about damage to individuals through unwarranted actions.

It is a civil case, not interpretation on that law.

[glitch]

17. The entire fucking world could very well be harmed by Brewster Jennings no longer able to track

rogue nukes. But that's in the future, we have to wait until it potentially fucking pans out before we can claim "harm".
Of course the damage to our health from fearing them exists now, can we claim harm for that?

:puke:

"Assholes, they do vex me!" - Robin Williams

[Qutzupalotl]

62. Would you mind posting this as an OP for visibility?

You make good points, and I think you're correct. But judging by the misplaced anger on this thread, I think most here did not read your post.

[buff2]

11. A "progressive" in the White House?

It will never happen. It's always going to be a rightwinger or a rightwing lover. This shit makes me sick.I don't watch political shows anymore. It's too depressing and it makes me too angry. I don't even feel it's worth voting anymore.You hear everything you want to hear during the campaign,then when the election is over we get nothing but the middle finger.I've had it. :grr:

[rhett o rick]

13. You've had it? So what you going to do about it? nm

[rhett o rick]

12. I believe in giving him some time. But this is a good test. Abandon Joe and Valerie, abandon Don

Seigelman, abandon closing Gitmo, abandon changing "don't ask don't tell" and Pres Obama has abandoned me.

[glitch]

18. Abandon "Almost heaven, West Virginia" and ditto. nt

[snappyturtle]

24. Hear! Hear! and it's been done so-o fast! Mind boggling. nt

[BostonMa]

32. kick

[Better Believe It]

21. There you go. The Republicans are stabbing the Wilson's in the back again!

What?

It's not the Republicans?

It's the Obama administration?

You gotta be kiddin.

This is a joke .... right?

[Bluebear]

23. "Agreeing with the Bush administration" - - - there he goes playing chess again!

[Better Believe It]

26. Bi-partisanship strikes again!

[Wednesdays]

28. K&R

:kick:

[earth mom]

29. Wow, this shit just goes from bad to worse.

:wow:

[TheMadMonk]

30. I think the Obama administration might just be beginning to learn...

...exactly how malfeasant the previous administration's actions have been and how culpable this makes the United States as a whole.

Between maintaining plausible deniability and being kept deliberately in the dark and fed bullshit, the Democratic Party could pass matters off as political manouvering and taking advantage of oportunity.

However, it is now becoming more and more apparent to them that what was told off as a few prods in the right direction, has instead been reavealed to be deliberate wholesales fabrications and that this escalation in the "War on Terror" was made to happen for reasons that had absolutely nothing to do with those expressed. That (tens of?) millions of people have been killed, injured, made homeless, childless, orphans for economic reasons, to secure personal power, to manipulate politics in other nations. All for the personal enrichment of a very select few.


The administration is learning that it (the United States) has been used as a tool by this select few. There will I think ultimately be prosecutions (mostly I think on side issues like destruction of evidence and who knew what), but certain players will be allowed to die free, or fade off into alcoholic oblivion, before these prosecutions are done with. Then the real issues will be allowed to die through lack of evidence and/or death of principals.


You can take your geopolitical lumps as a nation, with a name that is mud in international circles, or what I think the Obama Administration is doing its best to avoid, openly admit everything and leave the nation liable for enormous reparations.

[Me.]

31. Isakoff Reported On Rachael

That at a meeting today at the WH with human rights groups, Obama took exception to be told by one of the attendees that his policies was looking more and more like *'s.

[autorank]

49. But he said, keep me honest, criticism is good

He doesn't like yelling and disrespect, which is a great change. He did ask for any diagreements to be provided
in a respectful fashion. This was a good point. He neds to deal with it. But he knows what his human rights
policy looks like. Look at Iraq-still humming and look who was appointed to run the Afghanistan war revival -
a guy who was in charge of killing people.

[Me.]

53. What Everyone Seems To Forget

Is that there is a reason everyone fought so fiercely to get the Cons out of power and that what we say we want, we do actually want. That we don't deal in rhetoric.

[autorank]

56. You are my sister! Yes, it's reality and becoming essential to survival - truth

[glitch]

57. Very good point. We live in the real world, we like living in the real world.

Perception management and "creating our own reality" and lipstick on pigs is for Republicans.

[NoodleyAppendage]

76. Well, if its the same old sh*t, it's likely to stink the same way too.

Rham "Iago" Emmanuel is behind this effort to sweep all the war crimes under the rug. He's under a misguided assumption that doing so would mean no second term for Obama...which is complete bullsh*t.

J

[orleans]

34. ugh. he's really scoring big points with the liberals isn't he?

:sarcasm:

[Vidar]

35. Obama has the potential to be one of our best presidents, but seems to

be determined to become one of our worst.

[Me.]

36. K

[mmonk]

37. Join me. You'll feel better.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5692920

[Quezacoatl]

39. Confused

Are there any cases pending where the Obama administration's position differs from the Bush administration's position?

[mmonk]

41. Not in a court of law, just in rhetoric.

[flyarm]

70. Simple answer..no eom

[Hubert Flottz]

40. And I thought that Obama was against partisanship...

[mod mom]

43. QUESTION: Is Elena Kagan related to neocon Robert Kagan? I searched but couldn't

locate an answer.

[cascadiance]

44. My patience with Obama is wearing VERY thin now! We voted for JUSTICE, NOT pandering to the right!

Obama, your so-called "bi-partisan" approach is being exposed as cowing to the corporate elite that you don't seem to want to confront, that is ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY that you confront at some point if this country is going to be fixed.

I think just as high as my priority to get public campaign financing and instant runoff voting as a recipe to fixing this system is ALSO an ammendment to force a new election with a "no-confidence" national referendum vote. It seems obvious now that the stacked, rigged, and expensive elections are not enough of a means of keeping these people accountable to us. We may need some direct democratic means to keep these representatives accountable to us, that even the Dems now are being exposed as failures in working for us now!

This move is REALLY annoying to me! Sibel Edmonds will never be heard in court and the criminals that are still in our government will never be made to pay for their actions and will come back again and destroy the country if they haven't already done so the last eight years if Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame aren't heard!

Come on Obama! What is keeping you from being "the boss" that you are supposed to be and shutting these people down, if your heart is REALLY for us! I've been trying to hold off thinking you were at some point going to play your ace after placating the right on so many issues to work for us at some point. But it looks like your heart might not be waiting for that but just continuing to play us "hoping" for change but never getting it.

Jesse Ventura I think is starting to build the roots of a new party. Now we need some more liberals in such a party to balance out perhaps his other views. But some like him along with other liberals that ALL have the collective will to get rid of corporate power might have a shot in next election of throwing corporate toadies out (Democrat or Republican)!

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

45. But, but, but, he's smarter than us.

Change we can believe in...

:puke:

[H2O Man]

47. Of course.

The Executive Branch does this as a matter of course. It's not a big thing.

[autorank]

48. k*r Uh, this is the exemplar of inconsistency

I was going to use an earthier phrase but not this early in the morning.

They had no reason to feel that they were harmed. What about the fact that blowing her cover puts Valerie
Plame at risk with those contacts she gained information from under her NOC cover?

I'm just a citizen, which makes me, like the rest of us, much more qualified to ask and answer this question
than anyone in the three branches of government.

The answer is, she's at huge risk. Denying this is the very worst form of intellectual honesty and it
really discredits the DoJ, starting a new era of racing to the bottom of legal conduct by those who are to
protect us from crime etc.

How will anyone take DoJ seriously after such a ridiculous assertion?

[Me.]

51. Will Anyone Take DOJ Seriously Now?

That is the question isn't it?

[autorank]

67. NO

They're supposed to operate independently. The President is not the nation's top law officer. If Holder thinks that
he should go after Bush on murder and the rest on torture, he should do that period.

It doesn't work that way but to be so obvious as to have Holder sit silent is really bad news.

Holder knows the law, he's quite capable but he's mute.

No respect where none is due.

[Amaya]

50. like i said many times-

this country is so fucked beyond repair &
obama is not a savior- he is fucking politician...

[WyldRogue]

54. Hmm...

...it is dis-heartening to see the Obama Administration siding with those that broke the law (being that he was what? A lawyer himself at one time?)

No one knows what his agenda might be and maybe he's playing a different angle on something (akin to 'playing a chess game') so I will wait until there is a FINAL outcome. If indeed he does side with the * Cabal then he guarantees that my vote will not go toward him come 2012.

However, I still urge those of you to wait of the FINAL resolution he gets to before going 'nukular' because the way I see it, Obama is at an impasse: Either he restores us as a 'Nation of Laws' or he joins the good old 'we few who are above the laws' mantra.

The ball is in his court and I pray he does what is right instead of jumping back and forth across the political fence.

[Me.]

55. He Does Deserve Time To Flesh Out His Administration

It sometimes seems he's been in office years instead of months. I agree with the idea of giving him latitude to see where he's going and taking us. That be said, we should be mindful that our role shouldn't be that pf silent observers. We get the government we deserve and therefore it is our responsibility to make sure we raise our voices in a determination to make sure we get sure we have the government we want.

[autorank]

68. You're right that we have the compelling obligation to act against indifference to the law

But we DO NOT deserve this government.

The candidate opportunities are narrowed by money and media.

The election contests are not issue driven.

The voting machines are available to many for corruption plus the institutional barries that throw out
and blocks black, Latino, and poor citizens.

THEY did this, we didn't.

If we could make a difference through "democracy" the bailout would never have passed.

:):hi::)

[rucky]

58. If you want to make some noise, support CREW

they're one of the best action groups out there.

[IndianaGreen]

65. Is this payback for the Wilsons supporting Hillary or...

is this more of Obama morphing into Bush-lite?

[Lord Helmet]

69. neither

Obama gave Clinton SOS so he can't be holding a grudge. From what my prof says the Wilsons are shit out of luck when it comes to standing. next.

[WyldRogue]

71. Nice to read....

... how easily you dismiss the Wilsons with such an arrogant 'Next' response. Glad to know that they have one less psuedo-dem that doesn't support the fact that * and company did commit high treason but hey: Next!

[Lord Helmet]

72. I'm not emotionally wrapped up in what I post here.

I just relayed what my professor said. He's a lawyer and I'm not. Who doesn't want to see these jerks frog marched? You presume too much in your hysterical accusations. Thanks for the laugh.

[WyldRogue]

73. Hysterical??

Hmm... me thinks you should look in the mirror as I was just showing your own reflection back at ya but nice deflection and projection.

[Lord Helmet]

74. you're the one flinging unfounded accusations

in your self-righteous attempt to pick a fight: Odd since we agree the Wilsons were screwed by the Bush admin. You can't discuss this from a legal pov because you can't control your emotional response. That's your deficiency in debate.

(Edited)

[WyldRogue]

75. Sure...

... as per your original response, there was no debate lmfao@you

Anyways, if there was a debate, you had ended it before it was even started 'next'

Buh-bye now

[mmonk]

77. Why did the Justice Department feel compelled to get involved?

And if there is no standing for them for the retaliation by the bush administration of betraying her NOC status while in service to her country for Joe telling the truth to the American people about Iraq, why get involved?

[Toasterlad]

78. Well, Of Course They Do! Can't Have Any...What's That Word?

Oh, yeah. Accountability. That gets in the way of "reaching across the aisle".