Judge Dismisses former CIA Operative Valerie Plame's Lawsuit Against

[Waterrescuedude]

That she got on her knees to get her job and had no business there anyways. She got pimped out by the CIA and made no money for her "heroic actions"

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Every time one of you Liberals make a false claim I will, if I see it, call you on it. The claim is made that her status as a covert agent was established by the courts. That is simply NOT true. No court EVER ruled at all on her status under the law in question. When the claim is retracted I will " move on".

 

[Care4all]

Every time one of you Liberals make a false claim I will, if I see it, call you on it. The claim is made that her status as a covert agent was established by the courts. That is simply NOT true. No court EVER ruled at all on her status under the law in question. When the claim is retracted I will " move on".

No Court had to rule on her Classified Undercover Status, this is established by her designation asigned by the CIA.

Her Covert status was not in question after the FBI investigators preliminaries.

I don't see what the Court would have to do with extablishing her covert status other than take a statement from General Hayden ascribing her to such Classified status.

And I would imagine that the Grand jury for the Plame investigation had to review what status she had with the Cia, classified or not classified, before the Justice Dept could go forward with their case.

The Grand Jury, in their indictment against Libby, stated that she was Classified Undercover. Libby's lawyers NEVER questioned this because they knew she was classified undercover....they knew this because Ms Martin, who works for the vp, testified that she notified Cheney and Libby that Plame was an operative for the CIA as soon as she found this out from Harlow, and that she told them this a MONTH BEFORE the outing of Plame by Novak's article.

Now you can choose to stick your head in the ground like an ostrich for the rest of your life, for all I care, but that does NOT in anyway take away from the truth....

And the truth is that she was a covert operative for the CIA and she was Classified as an Under Cover Intelligence Officer of the CIA, NOT a CIA employee that had NO COVER from the CIA....but one that was under their cover, under their protection if caught in a foreign country, doing something wrong.

I have read that for a time she was under Non Official Cover, a NOC....which is the MOST dangerous position someone working for the CIA can be in.

You don't want to read about what evidence was produced in the Libby trial because you don't want to know the truth, that's all it can be, and that is sad Ret sgt, sad indeed.

Care

 

[jillian]

It's still braking news. That's all they have put up so far. Give it a bit longer and more info will come out.

The answer is that it's a terrible decision. Having handled cases that weren't loved by certain political entities, I can tell you that the case being dismissed isn't a reflection of it's merit. It's a reflection of the results of having the weight of government come down on your neck.

Dismissal is only supposed to be granted under the most extreme circumstances. If there's the slightest issue of fact, then it is up to a judge or jury to decide the merits after trial.

 

[CockySOB]

No Court had to rule on her Classified Undercover Status, this is established by her designation asigned by the CIA.

Her Covert status was not in question after the FBI investigators preliminaries.

I don't see what the Court would have to do with extablishing her covert status other than take a statement from General Hayden ascribing her to such Classified status.

There you go again....

Without a finding of fact, all you are left with are arguments about her status, but no legal ruling to determine the veracity of such arguments. Using this form of "logic," you should believe everything the GWB administration has ever said - after all, if the administration makes an argument and they think they are solid ground, shouldn't they know what they're talking about? That's why we leave the rulings on such arguments to the Judicial Branch, so that the Executive Branch is not vested with absolute power. And in case you forgot, the CIA *is* in the Executive Branch.

And I would imagine that the Grand jury for the Plame investigation had to review what status she had with the Cia, classified or not classified, before the Justice Dept could go forward with their case.

Irrelevant. Again, you are asserting that information the prosecutor presents to the jury must somehow be a legal fact, when in truth such information is never contested. In short, you are asserting that the prosecutor's word is as good as law, and that the evidence he presents are somehow legal fact. Ever hear of a guy named "Nifong?"

The Grand Jury, in their indictment against Libby, stated that she was Classified Undercover. Libby's lawyers NEVER questioned this because they knew she was classified undercover....they knew this because Ms Martin, who works for the vp, testified that she notified Cheney and Libby that Plame was an operative for the CIA as soon as she found this out from Harlow, and that she told them this a MONTH BEFORE the outing of Plame by Novak's article.

Now you can choose to stick your head in the ground like an ostrich for the rest of your life, for all I care, but that does NOT in anyway take away from the truth....

Oh, bullshit. Libby's lawyers didn't get to question jack or shit in the grand jury. I gave you a brief education on the differences between the grand and petit juries, as well as how legal fact is established. The grand jury returned indictments against Libby for perjury, making false statements and obstruction of justice. They made NO indictments regarding Plame's status at the CIA, nor of any associated, substantive charges.

What is apparent to anyone with an active brain cell is that YOU are the one with her head in the sand... or perhaps stuck somewhere else.

And the truth is that she was a covert operative for the CIA and she was Classified as an Under Cover Intelligence Officer of the CIA, NOT a CIA employee that had NO COVER from the CIA....but one that was under their cover, under their protection if caught in a foreign country, doing something wrong.

I have no doubt that at one time, Valerie Plame was a covert operative per the IIPA. However there has been NO legal proof that she was covert per the IIPA at the time Novak broke his story. Just because she was covert at one time does NOT mean she is covered by the IIPA in perpetuity.

I have read that for a time she was under Non Official Cover, a NOC....which is the MOST dangerous position someone working for the CIA can be in.

You don't want to read about what evidence was produced in the Libby trial because you don't want to know the truth, that's all it can be, and that is sad Ret sgt, sad indeed.

Care

You're pathetic, Care. You're also a broken record bent on purposely skipping tracks in order to hear the tune YOU want, and not the entire piece.

 

[red states rule]

The answer is that it's a terrible decision. Having handled cases that weren't loved by certain political entities, I can tell you that the case being dismissed isn't a reflection of it's merit. It's a reflection of the results of having the weight of government come down on your neck.

Dismissal is only supposed to be granted under the most extreme circumstances. If there's the slightest issue of fact, then it is up to a judge or jury to decide the merits after trial.

Justice rules - libs whine

Nothing new here

Next time make sure the Judge is a Bush hating liberal - then you will get what you want

 

[red states rule]

No Court had to rule on her Classified Undercover Status, this is established by her designation asigned by the CIA.

Her Covert status was not in question after the FBI investigators preliminaries.

I don't see what the Court would have to do with extablishing her covert status other than take a statement from General Hayden ascribing her to such Classified status.

And I would imagine that the Grand jury for the Plame investigation had to review what status she had with the Cia, classified or not classified, before the Justice Dept could go forward with their case.

The Grand Jury, in their indictment against Libby, stated that she was Classified Undercover. Libby's lawyers NEVER questioned this because they knew she was classified undercover....they knew this because Ms Martin, who works for the vp, testified that she notified Cheney and Libby that Plame was an operative for the CIA as soon as she found this out from Harlow, and that she told them this a MONTH BEFORE the outing of Plame by Novak's article.

Now you can choose to stick your head in the ground like an ostrich for the rest of your life, for all I care, but that does NOT in anyway take away from the truth....

And the truth is that she was a covert operative for the CIA and she was Classified as an Under Cover Intelligence Officer of the CIA, NOT a CIA employee that had NO COVER from the CIA....but one that was under their cover, under their protection if caught in a foreign country, doing something wrong.

I have read that for a time she was under Non Official Cover, a NOC....which is the MOST dangerous position someone working for the CIA can be in.

You don't want to read about what evidence was produced in the Libby trial because you don't want to know the truth, that's all it can be, and that is sad Ret sgt, sad indeed.

Care

Care, please watch your Kool Aid consumption - the sugar content is bad for you

 

[jillian]

Justice rules - libs whine

Nothing new here

Next time make sure the Judge is a Bush hating liberal - then you will get what you want

And you base your comments on the appropriateness of dismissal upon your extensive knowledge of the law, I suppose?

I know you're thick, Tweddle Dum, honey, but you really should try to avoid commenting on things that are beyond you...

oh wait... that would mean you wouldn't post.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

And you base your comments on the appropriateness of dismissal upon your extensive knowledge of the law, I suppose?

I know you're thick, Tweddle Dum, honey, but you really should try to avoid commenting on things that are beyond you...

oh wait... that would mean you wouldn't post.

As opposed to your supposed superior knowledge, from what you have said in other threads you are a partisan hack more than willing to IGNORE the very law your sworn to uphold if it helps your party. You may have had the schooling dear, but you sure do not come off on this board as using it often.

 

[Care4all]

There you go again....

Without a finding of fact, all you are left with are arguments about her status, but no legal ruling to determine the veracity of such arguments. Using this form of "logic," you should believe everything the GWB administration has ever said - after all, if the administration makes an argument and they think they are solid ground, shouldn't they know what they're talking about? That's why we leave the rulings on such arguments to the Judicial Branch, so that the Executive Branch is not vested with absolute power. And in case you forgot, the CIA *is* in the Executive Branch.

Let's see, the CIA is lying on this and saying she is covert, and filed a crimes report with the Justice Dept... to HELP the Executive Branch?

The FBI Investigators hired by Justice to determine if people in the White House intentionally outed a CIA Undercover Officer made up a lie, and then Fitzgerald reported a LIE to the entire world about the CIA actively trying to keep her identity a secret, about her undercover assignments overseas...and about her status? Don't you think that Tenet would have spoken up and gone to Fitzgerald and said, HEY, THAT'S NOT TRUE? Don't you think that the FBI Investigators would have gone to Tenet on this in their questioning of the crime they were charged to Investigate? Where does logic come in with you? Just because we can't see this highly sensitive investigative part by the FBI Investigators and we can't hear the testimony in the grand jury regarding this classified info DOES NOT MEAN THAT Libby and his Lawyer did not get to see this evidence...

Our Justice Dept and Fbi Investigators are part of the Executive branch, does that mean every department in the Executive Branch can not be investigated by them or a person working in one of the "execitive branch departments" could never be charged with a crime because the person charging them would be from the Executive Branch also? I guess I am missing your point on this...????

And General Hayden's confirmation of Plame's covert status is something I SHOULD IGNORE, like YOU DO....? you're pathetic, to repeat your words to me!



Irrelevant. Again, you are asserting that information the prosecutor presents to the jury must somehow be a legal fact, when in truth such information is never contested. In short, you are asserting that the prosecutor's word is as good as law, and that the evidence he presents are somehow legal fact. Ever hear of a guy named "Nifong?"

Oh, bullshit. Libby's lawyers didn't get to question jack or shit in the grand jury. I gave you a brief education on the differences between the grand and petit juries, as well as how legal fact is established. The grand jury returned indictments against Libby for perjury, making false statements and obstruction of justice. They made NO indictments regarding Plame's status at the CIA, nor of any associated, substantive charges.

Bologna! I am saying that the evidence that was gathered by the prosecutor through the FBI Investigators and the grand jury that "charged" libby with his 4 Felony Counts, was USED AGAIN in the JURY TRIAL to show the JURY OF 12, why they believed Libby was guilty of Lying about his connection and the vp's connection to the Outing of Valerie Plame, an agent who was Under CIA official Cover.

And those statements and those contentions and evidence to such was presented TO THE JURY OF 12 IN LIBBY'S TRIAL.

Therefore, as I have stated, Libby and his Attorney could have made some mention differing with what Fitzgerald was presenting to the jury, couldn't he have?


What is apparent to anyone with an active brain cell is that YOU are the one with her head in the sand... or perhaps stuck somewhere else.

UNNECESSARY drivel. You need to work on your social skills young man!



I have no doubt that at one time, Valerie Plame was a covert operative per the IIPA. However there has been NO legal proof that she was covert per the IIPA at the time Novak broke his story. Just because she was covert at one time does NOT mean she is covered by the IIPA in perpetuity.

I do not disagree, HOWEVER we do not know for certain on IIPA

AND we DO KNOW that SHE WAS CLASSIFIED AS A CIA UNDER COVER INTELLIGENCE OFFICER.... which is different, but ALSO COVERED under OTHER LAWS regarding the handling of Classified status people and classified information of the various levels.

In fact, I believe this is what Fitzgerald was investigating all along if you view the Statute mentioned by him.... it was only the Republicans that "brought this IIPA in to the picture" with sending good ole Victoria T out there to all the different news medias touting her shit, then the Dems started defending it.... when from what I have been able to see so far, this was not the Statute Fitzy used for his reason to pull up the first Grand Jury.

So, on to the topic of this thread....

IF her IIPA status or undercover status had NOT been determined as FACT YET in a COURT of Law as you have stated...

How could this Judge throw her case out on the grounds that Cheney, Libby, Rove and armitage were "Just doing their Legal Jobs", without knowing for certain, with the determination by a court of Law that YOU say is needed, that Cheney, Libby etc. were not in fact, doing something that was perhaps breaking protocol in the least and breaking the Law at worse, and NOT just "doing their jobs"?

Please answer my last question!

Care

 

[CockySOB]

The answer is that it's a terrible decision. Having handled cases that weren't loved by certain political entities, I can tell you that the case being dismissed isn't a reflection of it's merit. It's a reflection of the results of having the weight of government come down on your neck.

Dismissal is only supposed to be granted under the most extreme circumstances. If there's the slightest issue of fact, then it is up to a judge or jury to decide the merits after trial.

It would seem to me that the Judge's ruling was spot-on. Since the named defendants of the Wilson civil suit were agents of the Federal government and acting in what may have been an official capacity, the initial civil suit should have been against the Federal government, not against the individuals. This is what Judge Bates referred to as the jurisdictional issue which needed to be settled prior to the Wilsons' filing against the individuals. Since the court determined that it had no jurisdiction, the civil action as brought could not continue at this time, and was properly dismissed.

Now if the Wilsons choose to pursue civil action against the Federal government concerning the potential violation of the Privacy Act, they should certainly do so - it would be the proper course of action within the framework of our legal system. The material questions could then be asked about potential violations of the Privacy Act which the Wilsons brought up in their civil suit against the individuals. Once the claim against the Federal government is ruled on, we would have a determination made whether the individuals were acting under the sovereign immunity of the Federal government, or acting outside the bounds of that immunity (at which point they could be sued as individuals).

So tell me again why you think Judge Bates' ruling was improper?

 

[CockySOB]

How could this Judge throw her case out on the grounds that Cheney, Libby, Rove and armitage were "Just doing their Legal Jobs", without knowing for certain, with the determination by a court of Law that YOU say is needed, that Cheney, Libby etc. were not in fact, doing something that was perhaps breaking protocol in the least and breaking the Law at worse, and NOT just "doing their jobs"?

Please answer my last question!

Care

The first part of your post was the same, tired tripe you've been dishing out since day one. Sing a new tune, sugar.

As to your question, I just posted a question to Jillian concerning the ruling. What Judge Bates actually ruled was that his court did not have jurisdiction yet. Until the Wilsons properly exhaust their remedies under the Federal Tort Claims Act, they cannot bring such a civil action against the individuals.

That's the way it works, tootsie! And I hope the Wilsons do file suit against the Federal government for the alleged wrong-doing which they claim occurred. Then, if the court finds that the individuals actually did commit the alleged crimes, they can be sued as individuals - but only AFTER exhausting their options under the Federal Tort Claims Act.

BTW, I think it was a blatant play by the Wilsons that they filed against the individuals in violation of the FTCA so that they could claim a "moral victory" against the big, bad Bushies and the vast Right-Wing Conspiracy. If their case actually gets inside a courtroom, Joe and Val are screwed because then they have to support everything they've claimed with legal fact (that little thing you seem to have worlds of trouble with).

 

[JeffWartman]

As opposed to your supposed superior knowledge, from what you have said in other threads you are a partisan hack more than willing to IGNORE the very law your sworn to uphold if it helps your party. You may have had the schooling dear, but you sure do not come off on this board as using it often.

Considering the level of thought behind most of your posts, and the fact that you haven't had the schooling shows you wouldn't know the difference of whether Jillian was using the knowledge or not.

 

[Annie]

Considering the level of thought behind most of your posts, and the fact that you haven't had the schooling shows you wouldn't know the difference of whether Jillian was using the knowledge or not.

When was the 'degree' amendment added? I think I'd probably pass that requirement, while most strenuously disagreeing with the underlying principle that you are trying to lay.

 

[red states rule]

And you base your comments on the appropriateness of dismissal upon your extensive knowledge of the law, I suppose?

I know you're thick, Tweddle Dum, honey, but you really should try to avoid commenting on things that are beyond you...

oh wait... that would mean you wouldn't post.

and your "knowledge" of the law is blocked by your loyalty to to your party first - and the law is secondary

Anytime the Dems lose in Court the decision was flawed and politcally motivated

When Dems win - justice was served

 

[JeffWartman]

When was the 'degree' amendment added? I think I'd probably pass that requirement, while most strenuously disagreeing with the underlying principle that you are trying to lay.

Yet the post was not directed towards you.

You continue to interject yourself and respond to posts that ignore you...why?

Are you drunk that early?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Yet the post was not directed towards you.

You continue to interject yourself and respond to posts that ignore you...why?

Are you drunk that early?

And people ask why we "conservatives" think liberals attack the messenger not the message.

 

[red states rule]

Yet the post was not directed towards you.

You continue to interject yourself and respond to posts that ignore you...why?

Are you drunk that early?

and you continue to be a Class A Jerk

 

[red states rule]

And people ask why we "conservatives" think liberals attack the messenger not the message.

He is what we call a RINO

 

[CockySOB]

Jillian, I'm still waiting for you to clarify why you thought Judge Bates' ruling was a bad one. You're supposedly a "legal eagle" around here, so backing up your assertion should be a cakewalk I would think. Or perhaps you'd care to revisit your own statement and revise it?