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: 3
1
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 14 2006 @ 11:19 AM
link   
Even if Libby, Rove, and Cheney get in trouble over this in the courts, they will be pardoned of all their wrongdoings. Some people are above the law in this country.




posted on Jul, 14 2006 @ 11:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by df1

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.


Well, people saw Ms. McKinney hit a police officer, and there is a video tape of said contact. So, there is proof that McKinney, did indeed, hit another human.

There is no such evidence in the so called "plame-gate".

-- Boat



posted on Jul, 14 2006 @ 11:25 AM
link   
Don't you Bush supporters and apologists find it unseemly that as retaliation against somebody (Joe Wilson) for saying something that they didn't like (the claim that bush made during the state of the union address that Iraq was trying to get yellowcake from Niger, was false and known to be false) that they outted his CIA operative, blew her cover and essentially shut down a nuclear materials monitoring program? I mean isn't the presidency supposed to be above such praticulars as revenge tactics? Oh yes these are Republicans I am talking about. Silly me.



posted on Jul, 14 2006 @ 11:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by grover
Don't you Bush supporters and apologists find it unseemly that as retaliation against somebody (Joe Wilson) for saying something that they didn't like (the claim that bush made during the state of the union address that Iraq was trying to get yellowcake from Niger, was false and known to be false)


These claims were not false!



Bush said then, “The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa .” Some of his critics called that a lie, but the new evidence shows Bush had reason to say what he did.

A British intelligence review released July 14 calls Bush’s 16 words “well founded.”

A separate report by the US Senate Intelligence Committee said July 7 that the US also had similar information from “a number of intelligence reports,” a fact that was classified at the time Bush spoke.

Ironically, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who later called Bush’s 16 words a “lie”, supplied information that the Central Intelligence Agency took as confirmation that Iraq may indeed have been seeking uranium from Niger .

www.factcheck.org...







that they outted his CIA operative


They did not "out" her! Here is a photo of them in Vanity Fair...



-- Boat



posted on Jul, 14 2006 @ 11:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by grover
that they outted his CIA operative, blew her cover

You haven't been reading the posts, have you? Go back and re-read.
One last time ... She WAS NOT outted. She wasn't undercover and
hadn't been for at least five years. There was no cover to blow.

However, if you want to string someone up for telling everyone that she
was with the CIA .. then the two that did the dirty work on that are
Plame and Wilson THEMSELVES. They blabbed it all over town to
anyone and everyone who would listen .. including magazines (as you
can see by the previously posted picture).

Her lawsuit hasn't got a leg to stand on. She wasn't 'outted' and when
the information was recently discussed more in the open her career
wasn't destroyed (as she claims). Any destruction came from her and
her loud mouthed hubby who blabbed and blabbed ...


Oh yes these are Republicans I am talking about. Silly me.

Oh yes these are democrats I am talking about. Silly me.
I can shoot that right back atchya.



posted on Jul, 14 2006 @ 11:53 AM
link   
There appears to be some confusion with some of the posters here, the thread is a bout a civil law case. A civil case allows defendants to be named, and upon preponderance of evidence, an appropriate award (usually monetary) made.

Civil cases can, and are made anyone who has felt they have been wronged or is disgruntled, and are often frivolous... In the event that the case has merit, and is won, a Presidential pardon isn't possible (they only apply to criminal cases, and then only ones under Federal jurisdiction).

en.wikipedia.org...

en.wikipedia.org...

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Jul, 14 2006 @ 11:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pyros
A lot of you people do not know what you are talking about.

right back at you.



Her affiliation with the CIA was classified. Period.

IF that's the case then she and her husband should be prosecuted for
breaking the law. So should every drunk socialite in DC who partied
with them and spread the gossip.


The CIA does not use the term "undercover", the term that is used is "unacknowledged".

Unacknowledged ... undercover.... Use whatever term you like. The
fact is that she wasn't undercover (or unacknowledged as you claim the
title is) for more than 5 years. That means she was no longer undercover
(or unacknowledged ... whatever).


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

It most certainly IS relevant. Even if we use your alleged standards of
what CIA rules are ... His big mouth is indeed relevant. So is hers.


someone needs to be strung up over this

IF anyone does it is Valerie Plame and her husband for making this the
worst kept secret in DC.



posted on Jul, 14 2006 @ 12:14 PM
link   
i wonder if we see a push by conservatives to reverse the ruling that citizens can sue the president. remember this law was changed, with the conservitives backing, during the clinton/jones fiasco. now would be a good time for the law to pass thru the senate, while the conservitive still has the majority, and for it to arrive at the supreme court for bush to use some of his political capital to get the majority of the judges to cooperate (a little thank you for nominating me...i'll save you from being sued).

[edit on 14-7-2006 by rockieboy]



posted on Jul, 14 2006 @ 01:32 PM
link   
quotes (mostly) by Pyros


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".


REPLY: They use the term "covert", also, which she was not. HA HA HA DOCUMENTS are "classified", people are not.


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.


REPLY: No, there is a LAW against it, not a "standard practice."


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


REPLY: He blabbed it to people at parties long before these charges were made.


The fact that certain members of congress ..... knew she worked for the DO is irrelevant.


REPLY: .... and the fact that half of washington knew it?


What Fox News says is irrelevant.


REPLY: Should read: "what Fox news says is irrelevant "to me."


......purposely and maliciously broke their own rules..."


REPLY: "Rules" are Laws in this matter and, as Mr Fitz has said, no laws were broken.


".....with the sole purpose of dispensing punishment to someone who publicly opposed their political position."


REPLY: Total crap-ola. This came to light because it was first stated that Cheney knew about, or was the one who sent Wilson to Africa, which was false, and which is why this whole thing into the limelight. What "punishment"?


And in the process put our national security ...... at risk.


REPLY: Ummmmm, exactly how has this happened? If that were true, it would have been brought up long before now.


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.


REPLY: This is accurate... though they never did get caught for having the billing records stolen, which were found in the White House.



posted on Jul, 14 2006 @ 01:38 PM
link   
quotes by grover


Don't you Bush supporters and apologists find it unseemly that as retaliation against somebody (Joe Wilson) for saying something that they didn't like (the claim that bush made during the state of the union address that Iraq was trying to get yellowcake from Niger, was false and known to be false)


REPLY: That's part of the point; the CIA knew that getting YC from Niger was false to begin with, so why send Wilson? They knew that what Saddam already had came from another part of the region, so, why send Wilson on a witch hunt?

Also, what Wilson said to the Times was different from the report he gave to the CIA.


".... that they outted his CIA operative, blew her cover and essentially shut down a nuclear materials monitoring program?"


REPLY: Why do you insist she was outed? Could you link to where the montoring program was shut down? Insults???? No-one here is calling you a Democratic hack, are they? And, no, I'm not, either.

[edit on 14-7-2006 by zappafan1]


df1

posted on Jul, 14 2006 @ 01:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by zappafan1
Also, what Wilson said to the Times was different from the report he gave to the CIA.

Please post Wilsons CIA report or at least source it.

Oh gee... thats classified, which means your just making stuff up.



posted on Jul, 14 2006 @ 01:58 PM
link   
As someone posted: "Someone should be strung up..."

From The Washington Post:


Wilson has asserted that his wife was not involved in the decision to send him to Niger. "Valerie had nothing to do with the matter," Wilson wrote in a memoir published this year. "She definitely had not proposed that I make the trip."

The report said Plame told committee staffers that she relayed the CIA's request to her husband, saying, "there's this crazy report" about a purported deal for Niger to sell uranium to Iraq. The committee found Wilson had made an earlier trip to Niger in 1999 for the CIA, also at his wife's suggestion.

The report also said Wilson provided misleading information to The Washington Post last June. He said then that he concluded the Niger intelligence was based on documents that had clearly been forged because "the dates were wrong and the names were wrong."

"Committee staff asked how the former ambassador could have come to the conclusion that the 'dates were wrong and the names were wrong' when he had never seen the CIA reports and had no knowledge of what names and dates were in the reports," the Senate panel said.

Wilson told the panel he may have been confused and may have "misspoken" to reporters. The documents -- purported sales agreements between Niger and Iraq -- were not in U.S. hands until eight months after Wilson made his trip to Niger.

Wilson's reports to the CIA added to the evidence that Iraq may have tried to buy uranium in Niger, although officials at the State Department remained highly skeptical, the report said.

Wilson said that a former prime minister of Niger, Ibrahim Assane Mayaki, was unaware of any sales contract with Iraq, but said that in June 1999 a businessman approached him, insisting that he meet with an Iraqi delegation to discuss "expanding commercial relations" between Niger and Iraq -- which Mayaki interpreted to mean they wanted to discuss yellowcake sales.

Still, it was the CIA that bore the brunt of the criticism of the Niger intelligence. The panel found that the CIA has not fully investigated possible efforts by Iraq to buy uranium in Niger to this day, citing reports from a foreign service and the U.S. Navy about uranium from Niger destined for Iraq and stored in a warehouse in Benin.

The agency did not examine forged documents that have been widely cited as a reason to dismiss the purported effort by Iraq until months after it obtained them. The panel said it still has "not published an assessment to clarify or correct its position on whether or not Iraq was trying to purchase uranium from Africa."


So.... the case is still open as to whether or not Iraq tried or succeeded in the purchase of YC, although Wilsons statements lean toward that they did, as does the comments on a meeting by Ibrahim Assane Mayaki.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Wilson told the panel he may have been confused and may have "misspoken" to the commitee...."

Funny how he gets away with what amounts to the same thing Libby is accused of doing!!!

So Wilson lied about who he was referred by, and he gets away with that, too???

df1: Is that enough?

[edit on 14-7-2006 by zappafan1]



posted on Jul, 14 2006 @ 02:50 PM
link   
I look forward to the award amount...
if this is a jury judgement, then i can proudly say....
I would much rather that Cheneys war profits from halliburton go to a former CIA operative working on the Iranian problem, than to Cheney...

at least she has served this country with honor...

as far as Rove and Libby... I could care less for Rove, but would love to see him have to do without a few manicures...

as far as Libby goes... IMO he is a loyal knight falling on his sword for his king...
unfortunatley his king is a Putz... but God forgives the ignorant...



posted on Jul, 14 2006 @ 03:00 PM
link   
No matter how you want to dissect the whole story about Palmer, Libby, Rove and Cheney is all about politics.

Now the Whole issue of the law sue is nothing than more politics.

Sorry that you want to keep politics from the conspiracy but is all dripping in it
niteboy82.

The whole issue has been beaten to a pulp and it looks like the revenge of the nerds to me.



posted on Jul, 14 2006 @ 03:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
Sorry that you want to keep politics from the conspiracy but is all dripping in it
niteboy82.

The whole issue has been beaten to a pulp and it looks like the revenge of the nerds to me.


Yep Marg, I fear you're right! How can you not pull a suit like this and not bring politicians into it, when you're suing them?!?


Curious on something. If, and only if, Rove is called up on the stand for anything, he could make a possible mistake and say something to contradict previous statements in the criminal investigation. Could this be nothing more than some under the table game to try and make these guys slip up, and get hit with a perjury charge? I personally believe that Mr. Special Counsel is an interesting fellah and that he could have some tricks up his sleeve, though that is purely my personal, unsourced, speculation. Also if this was a political trick, would it be so quiet-like in the MSM? It seems to be on the back burner with all the insanity going on in the Middle East right now. Truly unfortunate what is going on, and I am not trying to discount those events at all, but I wonder how this would have played if no rockets would have started flying around...


*Edit, I wanted to clarify something. There was a running joke around on calling Val Plame "Mr. Wilson's wife" in order to spoof the idea that people didn't want to leak her name that she was using. Hence, I was calling him Mr. Plame. MrWupy had pointed this out, and I wanted to clarify that, because I don't want people thinking I am purposefully spreading disinfo or anything of the sort.


[edit on 7/14/06 by niteboy82]


df1

posted on Jul, 14 2006 @ 03:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by zappafan1
df1: Is that enough?

Your information quotes a partisan source, a congressional committee within a republican congress. Some people will believe anything, but Im not one of those people.



posted on Jul, 14 2006 @ 03:22 PM
link   
Here is a breakdown of the actual complaints:


The complaint details eight causes of action, all surrounding the trio's involvement in outing Valerie Wilson as a CIA agent:

1) Violation of First Amendment Right to Freedom of Speech - because the First Amendment "prohibits government officials from subjecting any individual to retaliatory action in reprisal for the exercise of the right to speech."

2) Violation of Fifth Amendment Right to Equal Protection of the Laws - because the Equal Protection Clause of the Fifth Amendment "prohibits government officials from intentionally subjecting any individual to treatment that is different from that accorded to others similarly situated and is without legitimate basis." In other words, they singled the Wilsons out for a smear job.

3) Violation of Fifth Amendment Right to Privacy - because the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment "prohibits government officials from violating any individual's right to privacy by publicly disclosing personal information."

4) Violation of Fifth Amendment Right to Property - because the Due Process Clause "prohibits government officials from depriving any individual of a property interest in employment without due process."

5) Conspiracy to Deprive Persons of Their Civil Rights - because Rove, Cheney and Libby conspired to deprive the Wilsons of their civil rights (as described in 1-4).

6) Action for Neglect to Prevent Civil Rights Violation - because Rove, Cheney, and Libby could have stopped the smearing of the Wilsons, but didn't, and then lied to investigators and the federal grand jury about their role in the leak.

7) Public Disclosure of Private Facts - because "The Defendants caused widespread publication of a private fact... in a manner that would be deemed outrageous and highly offensive to a reasonable person of ordinary sensibilites."

8) Civil Conspiracy.



And here is a link to the lawsuit, as filed:
www.talkingpointsmemo.com...


Too bad Shrub and Novak aren't being sued too.



posted on Jul, 14 2006 @ 03:29 PM
link   
niteboy82

To tell you the truth I agree that all this law sue is another way to distract the American people from other pressing issues with primaries around and congress.

I feel that the whole law sue will go nowhere because so many technicalities involve.

Palmer will get another few days on prime news but I doubt that she will get her day in court.



posted on Jul, 14 2006 @ 04:28 PM
link   
Well marg, I am all for people have their day in court, only because for some people it validates whatever hardship they face. Will this become anything? I'm afraid not. I do think this could easily be part of the distraction, goodness knows there are enough of those out there though. This would be getting more media play if the Middle East didn't explode into war now. We'll see...



posted on Jul, 14 2006 @ 04:54 PM
link   
The Smoking Gun has a PDF of the complaint that Plame filed.

Here's a link:

The Smoking Gun

The part that I think is very interesting is on the first page where it lists the defendants.

It says:

Scooter Libby
Karl Rove
Dick Cheney
And John Does 1-10

Now I wonder who the John Does could be? Obviously the complaint wouldn't name GW, but do you think there's a chance he's included?




top topics



 
1
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join