It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Valerie Plame Sues Libby, Rove, and Cheney

page: 2
1
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:
df1

posted on Jul, 14 2006 @ 08:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Oh Really?

Having information and being able to use that information in court are seperate matters. Really. And we also have the matter of the president, and I use the term "president" loosely, authorizing the outing of plame after the fact.


[edit on 14-7-2006 by df1]




posted on Jul, 14 2006 @ 08:47 AM
link   
It will be interesting to see how far Cheney goes to prove that he is above the law.



posted on Jul, 14 2006 @ 08:55 AM
link   
Oh so that’s what’s stopping him from making an indictment now is it? Here I though a top Prosecutor would know how to introduce information whether it be secret or not, in court.



posted on Jul, 14 2006 @ 08:59 AM
link   
I swear I sometimes think that when God said who wants brains? some of you thought he said rain and ran for cover.

The reason no one has been convicted is because it hasn't been brought to trial yet, the investigation is ongoing. There have been iinditments handed down though, most notably Dick Cheney's chief of staff Scooter Libby, and grand juries do not, as a rule, hand down inditments casually, there has to be something there. Why the hell do you think that after 8 years of partisian trying that there were no serious (underline serious meaning the Clintons) inditments from whitewater investigations? Because the grand jury did not find cause to.



posted on Jul, 14 2006 @ 09:08 AM
link   
Grover its sad you can’t stop with the insults. :shk:

And the case may be ongoing but Rove will not be indicted and I doubt anyone else is. I’m not talking about convictions (if there are any) I’m talking about why this prosecutor has not indicted anyone for outing Plame if this case is open and shut as some seem to suggest. Libby was not indicted for outing Plame by the way, he was indicted I believe for perjury.


[edit on 14-7-2006 by WestPoint23]



posted on Jul, 14 2006 @ 09:17 AM
link   
Valery Plame has every right as a U.S. citizen to have her day in court.

Cheney, Rove and Libby will have to answer the charges of conspiracy or
use the legal system to prove that they are above the law.

Either way Valery Plame wins by showing the American people just how far this administration
will go to avoid the charges.



posted on Jul, 14 2006 @ 09:35 AM
link   
FallenFromTheTree What charges are you talking about? There have been no charges filed against Bush, Chaney, Rove, Libby or anyone else for the "outing" of Plame. Why do you continue to ignore that fact?



posted on Jul, 14 2006 @ 09:41 AM
link   
it is not as simple as you make it out to be westpoint...far from it. The special proscutor is looking into who leaked her name and in doing so, broke the law in revealing a covert CIA operative. According to the inditement of Libby, he lied to the proscutor and the grand jury about what he knew. Lying to a grand jury is a felony whether anything else is found, and if nothing else is found the question remains, why lie to a grand jury?



posted on Jul, 14 2006 @ 09:44 AM
link   
What do you think an inditement is? It is another word for charges. Scooter Libby has been indited for lying to a special prosocutor and a grand jury and will be tried on those CHARGES.



posted on Jul, 14 2006 @ 09:44 AM
link   
Valerie Plame is personally charging Cheney, Rove and Libby with conspiracy to damage her career.

Like it or not, she has the right as a U.S. citizen and a government employee to file charges in a court of law.


As in any other legal case, the defendants will have to answer the subpoenas and file their
response to the plaintiff's Bill Of Particulars.


From that point on, it will be up to the judge to decide on how to proceed.

The defendant's attorneys will surely file a motion attempting to dismiss the case, but
the judge may decide that there is enough cause to hear the case.













[edit on 14-7-2006 by FallenFromTheTree]



posted on Jul, 14 2006 @ 09:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by grover
There have been indictments handed down though, most notably Dick Cheney's chief of staff Scooter Libby,


Only Scooter Libby is what you meant, I believe. No one else has been indicted.

And those indictments were for obstruction of justice and perjury. As has been pointed out, nothing to do with the actual subject of investigation.

[edit on 7/14/2006 by eaglewingz]



posted on Jul, 14 2006 @ 09:49 AM
link   
Really? SO they or he was obstructing justice and purjurying himself for the fun of it? Sounds like loads of fun.



posted on Jul, 14 2006 @ 09:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by grover
What do you think an inditement is? It is another word for charges.


Yes I know perfectly well what it is, obviously you didn’t read my post, I specifically said "There have been no charges filed against Bush, Chaney, Rove, Libby or anyone else for the "outing" of Plame". And Libby has pleaded not guilty so if he is convicted you can ask why he lied to the prosecutor.


Originally posted by FallenFromTheTree
Valerie Plame is charging Cheney, Rove and Libby with conspiracy to damage her career.


She can sue for whatever she wants, it’s the new hobby in America these days, but whether her case has any merit or ground under its feet is what’s relevant here. IMO it does not.



posted on Jul, 14 2006 @ 09:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by grover
The special proscutor is looking into who leaked her name and in doing so, broke the law in revealing a covert CIA operative.


Actually, Fitzpatrick has stated that there was no provable crime committed in the "leak", so he will not be filing any charges in regards to it. Obstruction of justice and perjury are the lines of inquiry now.

And Scooter Libby was not indicted for lying about what he knew. He was indicted for denying having conversations with certain reporters, which he claims to have forgotten. Probably not a good defense in court, but we'll see.



posted on Jul, 14 2006 @ 10:08 AM
link   
The plaintiff does bear the responsibility to prove damages in a civil case.

The plaintiff's attorney's will certainly subpoena any records they feel are
important to their case.

This is where the defendants attorney's will attempt to hide behind executive privledge
and national security to prevent disclosure of their client's records.

Doing so will only show the American people that once again this administration will use any means necessary to remain above the law.



posted on Jul, 14 2006 @ 10:33 AM
link   
Is this really going to discussed, again? While this is news, much of the substance is not. And, this should be on the PTS part of the site, as it's long since stopped being a conspiracy.

1) Valerie PLame was undercover CIA.

REPLY: Why is it that some people don't understand? As been shown time and again, the law pertaining to protection of agents says "COVERT".

The law has a statute of limitations of 5 years. Plame was outed in the mid 90's by Russia, which is when she lost her "covert" status and took a desk job.

She outed herself as being "undercover' when she voted in the Algore election, and stupidly gave the name of the front company she worked for, mentioned by another poster: "Brewster Jennings was the company valerie Plame managed, a front for the CIA."

Her husband outed her at at least two social gatherings/parties as his CIA wife.

One of the judges WHO HELPED WRITE THE LAW of agent protection said "no law was broken".

The entire case has been a red herring from the start, as Fitzgerald was told by the CIA at the beginning of the investigation, that she was no longer covert. This was nothing more than an attempted (failed) coup by the 5th collumn in the CIA to do damage to the Bush administration.



posted on Jul, 14 2006 @ 10:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by grover
What do you think an inditement is? It is another word for charges. Scooter Libby has been indited for lying to a special prosocutor and a grand jury and will be tried on those CHARGES.


REPLY: Libby was charged because his memories of details were different to that of someone else; nothing more, nothing less. Political law is inept in that respect, because it should first be determined by a grand jury if in fact a law was broken, which is what normally happens. If that was the procedure, even libby wouldn't be charged with anything.



posted on Jul, 14 2006 @ 10:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by niteboy82
Last I checked, even Fox News stated that she was an UC agent.



Actually this morning they said that she wasn't.

She hadn't been an undercover agent for many years. She can't sue for
being 'outted' ... she wasn't undercover for anyone to 'out'. Not only that,
but she and her husband were the biggest mouths in DC when it came to
telling people what she did for a living. THEY have been 'outting' her for
years at all their DC society parties.


ALSO - TV news is reporting that Plame and her hubby had a meeting with
top Democrats in DC to brief them on their lawsuit. I haven't found an internet
link to go with the TV news story.

Based the FACTS that she wasn't undercover; that THEY chatted up her CIA
connections all over DC; and that they 'briefed' the democrats on the lawsuit;
I say this is nothing more than more partisan crap coming from Wilson and
Plame. Partisan and media whoring.

What a freak'n waste of time and tax payer money. Who the heck hired
these two clowns (plame & wilson) to begin with??



[edit on 7/14/2006 by FlyersFan]



posted on Jul, 14 2006 @ 10:57 AM
link   
A lot of you people do not know what you are talking about.

Her affiliation with the CIA was classified. Period. The CIA does not use the term "undercover", the term that is used is "unacknowledged".

Ms. Plame was an employee of the CIA, within the Directorate of Operations, or "DO". It is standard CIA practice that all employees permanently assigned to the DO, especially those who travel overseas on CIA business, must not publicly admit their association with the CIA. In fact, the actual classification of that relationship is CONFIDENTIAL, at a minimum. Higher levels of classification may be employed depending on the individual in question and the position they occupy.

The fact that her husband had a big mout is irrelevant.

The fact that certain members of congress (who may or may not have held clearances and thus be able to receive classified information) knew she worked for the DO is irrelevant.

What Fox News says is irrelevant.

What matters is that someone in the executive branch, a policy maker and policy enforcer, who knew full well of the classification and sensitivity of the information in question, purposely and maliciously broke their own rules with the sole purpose of dispensing punishment to someone who publicly opposed their political position. And in the process put our national security (albeit a very, very small part) at risk.

Someone needs to be strung up over this.


df1

posted on Jul, 14 2006 @ 11:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by zappafan1
it should first be determined by a grand jury if in fact a law was broken...

A grand jury decided that mckinney couldnt be charged with anything, but still the "faux patriots" refused to accept it and continued to drag that dead horse all over ATS post after post. A grand jury could find these criminals guilty of murder with video tape of the dirty deed and still you would deny it post after sickening post.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join