What a shame.

[Yonivore]

Dismissed (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8QFR71G1&show_article=1)

[DarkReign]

Who didnt see that coming?

[Yonivore]

Who didnt see that coming?Valerie and Joe, apparently.

[j-6]

When's she posing for Playboy?

[Wild Cobra]

Who didnt see that coming?
Good question. Everything I have seen and able to conclude tells me there was no crime. If there was, why didn't Fitzgerald have Armatige arrested?

Oh thats right... He was from the Secretary of States office, not close enough to the president... Especially since Powell and Armatige were opposed to the war!

[xrayzebra]

When's she posing for Playboy?

Soon, it pays well and airbrushes do wonders. Right
Sportscamper.......LOL

[Yonivore]

When's she posing for Playboy?
:hitit:

[xrayzebra]

:hitit:

I would try. But I am not sure I would have enough
horse power. :donkey

[Yonivore]

I would try. But I am not sure I would have enough
horse power. :donkey
One word: Viagra.

[xrayzebra]

One word: Viagra.

Second word: wrong party. I wouldn't stand a chance.
and Viagra wont help that.

[boutons_]

Plame Suit Dismissed by Controversial GOP Loyalist

By Jason Leopold and Matt Renner
t r u t h o u t | Report

Thursday 19 July 2007

A federal judge has dismissed the civil lawsuit filed against top Bush administration officials by former CIA operative Valerie Plame Wilson and her husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson. The judge, John Bates of the US District Court in Washington, DC is a Bush appointee who previously dismissed a lawsuit filed by the federal government against Vice President Dick Cheney. That suit sought access to Cheney's energy task force documents.

Since his tenure on the federal bench began six years ago, Bates's legal opinions and rulings supporting the administration's executive powers stand in stark contrast to his legal work as an assistant US attorney. He worked for Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr prosecuting President Clinton's Whitewater investment deals.

In 1997, Bates successfully argued for the release of thousands of pages of White House documents related to Hillary Clinton's conversations about Whitewater.

In January 2003, Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, suggested that the judge was a hypocrite by pursuing access to White House documents when Clinton was in office while supporting Cheney's claims of executive privilege in refusing to turn over his energy task force documents to Congress.

"When that guy was working for Ken Starr, he wanted to go open the dresser drawers of the White House," Leahy said. "I guess it's a lot different when it's a Republican vice president."

Since 2001, Judge Bates has been a staunch supporter of the White House's assertion of executive privilege on a wide range of controversial legal challenges by third parties.

Bates, who was appointed by President Bush in 2001, first came to the public's attention in December 2002 when he dismissed a lawsuit filed against Cheney by the Government Accountability Office that sought access to the vice president's energy task force documents.

In that case, Bates threw out the GAO's lawsuit, stating that the GAO lacked the authority to sue the vice president, a ruling that was criticized by the legal community. On Thursday, Bates dismissed the Wilsons' lawsuit for similar reasons.

He wrote that, as a technical legal matter, the Wilsons can't sue under the Constitution. Bates added that the defendants had the right to rebut criticism aimed at the White House by Plame's husband, former Ambassador Joe Wilson, who accused the administration of twisting prewar Iraq intelligence. He said the leak of Plame's undercover CIA status to a handful of reporters was "unsavory" but simply a casualty of Wilson's criticism of the administration.

"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."

( and outing Plame was a rebuttal? )
Wilson and his wife have filed a civil suit against top administration officials - among them Vice President Dick Cheney, White House Political Adviser Karl Rove and Cheney's former Chief of Staff I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, for allegedly violating his and Plame Wilson's civil rights when they disclosed her covert CIA status to the media. The defendants argued that the lawsuit should be dismissed on grounds that it was a "policy dispute." Libby was convicted and sentenced to 30 months in prison earlier this year of four counts of perjury, obstruction of justice and lying to a grand jury about how he discovered that Plame Wilson was a CIA employee, and whether he discussed her role at the agency with the media. Bush commuted Libby's sentence calling it "excessive," despite the fact that it had been in line with federal sentencing guidelines.

A federal investigation led by Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald later found that numerous White Officials had retaliated against and sought to discredit Joseph Wilson for publicly claiming that the administration had manipulated Iraq intelligence by telling a handful of elite Washington, DC reporters that Wilson's investigation into the Niger claims could not be trusted. The administration told the reporters that Valerie Plame Wilson worked at the CIA and had arranged to send her husband to Niger. The officials suggested that the trip was the result of nepotism. Plame Wilson testified before Congress this year that she had had no role in selecting her husband for the mission.

Melanie Sloan, executive director of the government watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, who leads Wilson's defense team, said she would immediately appeal Judge Bates's verdict.

"We disagree with the court's holding and intend to pursue this case vigorously to protect all Americans from the vindictive government officials who abuse their power for their own political ends," Sloan said in a statement. She added that Bates "recognized that the Wilson's claims 'pose important questions relating to the propriety of actions undertaken by our highest government officials.'"

Wilson, the former ambassador, reacted to Bates's ruling by vowing to continue fighting.

"This case is not just about what top government officials did to Valerie and me." Wilson said. "We brought this suit because we strongly believe that politicizing intelligence ultimately serves only to undermine the security of our nation. Today's decision is just the first step in what we have always known would be a long legal battle and we are committed to seeing this case through."

Bates's support of the Bush administration's position on secrecy was instrumental in getting the judge appointed to the court set up by Congress in 1978 to monitor domestic spying immediately after the Bush administration said it would start using the court to obtain domestic surveillance warrants. Bates, who was appointed to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court by Chief Justice John Roberts in February, replaced a judge who resigned in protest following news reports that the White House circumvented the court and spied on American citizens who were allegedly communicating with terrorists. As a judge on the FISA court, Bates reviews the Justice Department's applications for domestic spying activities in the US and has a final say on whether to approve the requests.

================

So the Repugs got the Cheney and Plame cases judged by a Repug partisan hack.

[RobinsontoDuncan]

Second word: wrong party. I wouldn't stand a chance.
and Viagra wont help that.

you only fuck republicans? i consider myself a pretty staunch liberal, but there are certainly a few republicans i would get into bed with



http://fitsnews.files.wordpress.com/2007/04/dana-perino.jpg

[FromWayDowntown]

The fact that some of those on one side feel that they can't socialize (or bed) those who's beliefs are on the other side strikes me as a sad commentary on the state of our current political polarization.

It's no wonder that we can't get agreement on anything -- each side hates the other based on nothing other than what they believe.

[Yonivore]

The fact that some of those on one side feel that they can't socialize (or bed) those who's beliefs are on the other side strikes me as a sad commentary on the state of our current political polarization.

It's no wonder that we can't get agreement on anything -- each side hates the other based on nothing other than what they believe.
I said I'd hit it!

[Oh, Gee!!]

The fact that some of those on one side feel that they can't socialize (or bed) those who's beliefs are on the other side strikes me as a sad commentary on the state of our current political polarization.

It's no wonder that we can't get agreement on anything -- each side hates the other based on nothing other than what they believe.

I think Xray says he'd be willing, but that Plame would reject him based on his politics. I think she would reject him based on his face.

[Dreamshake]

Since your on the general topic.

Broader Privilege Claimed In Firings
White House Says Hill Can't Pursue Contempt Cases

By Dan Eggen and Amy Goldstein
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, July 20, 2007; A01
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...1902625_pf.html

Bush administration officials unveiled a bold new assertion of executive authority yesterday in the dispute over the firing of nine U.S. attorneys, saying that the Justice Department will never be allowed to pursue contempt charges initiated by Congress against White House officials once the president has invoked executive privilege.

The position presents serious legal and political obstacles for congressional Democrats, who have begun laying the groundwork for contempt proceedings against current and former White House officials in order to pry loose information about the dismissals.

Under federal law, a statutory contempt citation by the House or Senate must be submitted to the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, "whose duty it shall be to bring the matter before the grand jury for its action."

But administration officials argued yesterday that Congress has no power to force a U.S. attorney to pursue contempt charges in cases, such as the prosecutor firings, in which the president has declared that testimony or documents are protected from release by executive privilege. Officials pointed to a Justice Department legal opinion during the Reagan administration, which made the same argument in a case that was never resolved by the courts.

"A U.S. attorney would not be permitted to bring contempt charges or convene a grand jury in an executive privilege case," said a senior official, who said his remarks reflect a consensus within the administration. "And a U.S. attorney wouldn't be permitted to argue against the reasoned legal opinion that the Justice Department provided. No one should expect that to happen."

The official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the issue publicly, added: "It has long been understood that, in circumstances like these, the constitutional prerogatives of the president would make it a futile and purely political act for Congress to refer contempt citations to U.S. attorneys."

Mark J. Rozell, a professor of public policy at George Mason University who has written a book on executive-privilege issues, called the administration's stance "astonishing."

"That's a breathtakingly broad view of the president's role in this system of separation of powers," Rozell said. "What this statement is saying is the president's claim of executive privilege trumps all."

The administration's statement is a dramatic attempt to seize the upper hand in an escalating constitutional battle with Congress, which has been trying for months, without success, to compel White House officials to testify and to turn over documents about their roles in the prosecutor firings last year. The Justice Department and White House in recent weeks have been discussing when and how to disclose the stance, and the official said he decided yesterday that it was time to highlight it.

Yesterday, a House Judiciary subcommittee voted to lay the groundwork for contempt proceedings against White House chief of staff Joshua B. Bolten, following a similar decision last week against former White House counsel Harriet E. Miers.

The administration has not directly informed Congress of its view. A spokeswoman for Rep. John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.), the Judiciary Committee's chairman, declined to comment . But other leading Democrats attacked the argument.

Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) called it "an outrageous abuse of executive privilege" and said: "The White House must stop stonewalling and start being accountable to Congress and the American people. No one, including the president, is above the law."

Sen. Charles E. Schumer (N.Y.) said the administration is "hastening a constitutional crisis," and Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.) said the position "makes a mockery of the ideal that no one is above the law."

Waxman added: "I suppose the next step would be just disbanding the Justice Department."

Under long-established procedures and laws, the House and Senate can each pursue two kinds of criminal contempt proceedings, and the Senate also has a civil contempt option. The first, called statutory contempt, has been the avenue most frequently pursued in modern times, and is the one that requires a referral to the U.S. attorney in the District.

Both chambers also have an "inherent contempt" power, allowing either body to hold its own trials and even jail those found in defiance of Congress. Although widely used during the 19th century, the power has not been invoked since 1934 and Democratic lawmakers have not displayed an appetite for reviving the practice.

In defending its argument, administration officials point to a 1984 opinion by the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, headed at the time by Theodore B. Olson, a prominent conservative lawyer who was solicitor general from 2001 to 2004. The opinion centered on a contempt citation issued by the House for Anne Gorsuch Burford, then administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.

It concluded: "The President, through a United States Attorney, need not, indeed may not, prosecute criminally a subordinate for asserting on his behalf a claim of executive privilege. Nor could the Legislative Branch or the courts require or implement the prosecution of such an individual."

In the Burford case, which involved spending on the Superfund program, the White House filed a federal lawsuit to block Congress's contempt action. The conflict subsided when Burford turned over documents to Congress.

The Bush administration has not previously signaled it would forbid a U.S. attorney from pursuing a contempt case in relation to the prosecutor firings. But officials at Justice and elsewhere say it has long held that Congress cannot force such action.

David B. Rifkin, who worked in the Justice Department and White House counsel's office under presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, praised the position and said it is consistent with the idea of a "unitary executive." In practical terms, he said, "U.S. attorneys are emanations of a president's will." And in constitutional terms, he said, "the president has decided, by virtue of invoking executive privilege, that is the correct policy for the entire executive branch."

But Stanley Brand, who was the Democratic House counsel during the Burford case, said the administration's legal view "turns the constitutional enforcement process on its head. They are saying they will always place a claim of presidential privilege without any judicial determination above a congressional demand for evidence -- without any basis in law." Brand said the position is essentially telling Congress: "Because we control the enforcement process, we are going to thumb our nose at you."

Rozell, the George Mason professor and authority on executive privilege, said the administration's stance "is almost Nixonian in its scope and breadth of interpreting its power. Congress has no recourse at all, in the president's view. . . . It's allowing the executive to define the scope and limits of its own powers."


Wow. It must be real hard to be one of the last bastions of fruit cakedness that thinks these are the right ways to lead a nation. Cant wait for GW to get his Impeachment.

[Dreamshake]

And wouldnt the real SHAME be that Bush, already cutting Vet Benefits, is now opposing the Military pay hike as recommended by both houses of the congress.


Among other things that support the troops.

http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/a...308/1018/NEWS08

3.5% raise too much for Bush

By Tom Philpott

Talk about lousy timing. With President Bush's popularity scraping bottom in opinion polls, with U.S. casualties rising in Iraq in a force surge that has stretched tours to 15 months, the Bush administration has said it "strongly opposes" key military pay and benefit gains tossed into the fiscal 2008 defense bill.

Initiatives the administration opposes include:

# A military pay raise for next January of 3.5 percent versus 3 percent endorsed by the White House.

# Lowering the age-60 start of reserve retirement annuities for reserve component members by the length of their future mobilizations.

# Expanding eligibility for Combat-Related Special Compensation to service members forced by combat disabilities to retire short of 20 years.

# Directing pharmaceutical manufacturers to provide the Department of Defense with same-price discounts for Tricare retail pharmacy network that are provided on medicines dispensed from base pharmacies.

The administration also grumbled that the Senate intends to block for another year Tricare fee increases for under-65 retirees and dependents.

The objections appear in a "Statement of Administration Policy" from the White House's Office of Management and Budget delivered to Senate leaders as they opened floor debate on the defense authorization bill.

A day later, Senate Republicans, at White House urging, blocked amendments that would have shortened Iraq tours for U.S. ground forces and slowed the frequency of war deployments.

Here is more on provisions the White House opposes:

Pay raise: Like the House, senators favor a 3.5 percent military pay raise for 2008 versus the administration's proposed 3 percent to match private sector wage growth as measured by the government's Employment Cost Index or ECI. The White House calls the extra half percentage point unnecessary and notes that basic pay has jumped by 33 percent since 2001. The added cost of the bigger raise, $2.2 billion through 2013, is money "that would otherwise be available to support our troops," said the OMB letter.

Congress intends to approve the ninth consecutive military raise to be set at least .5 percent above private sector wage gains, continuing to close a perceived "pay gap" with civilians.

Tricare increases: Dr. S. Ward Casscells, the assistant secretary of defense for health, has said he intends to work with Congress and service associations on more modest Tricare fee increases for under-65 retirees and their dependents than has been pushed so far by the administration. The OMB letter doesn't reflect that.

Reserve retirement: The Senate bill would lower the start of reserve retirement at age 60 by three months for every 90 days a reservist or Guard member is recalled after the change is enacted. The administration says this will "only marginally" improve career retention.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

you only fuck republicans? i consider myself a pretty staunch liberal, but there are certainly a few republicans i would get into bed with
Margaret Hoover is another one. She's got some legs. Yes, she's Herbert Hoovers great grand daughter. Sorry no pic.