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: 4
1
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 14 2006 @ 05:05 PM
link   
quote by LazarusTheLong


I would much rather that Cheneys war profits from halliburton...."



Cheney has been receiving a deferred salary from Halliburton in the years since he left the company. In 2001, he received $205,298. In 2002, he drew $162,392. He is scheduled to receive similar payments through 2005, and has an insurance policy in place to protect the payments in the event that Halliburton should fold.

In addition, Cheney still holds 433,333 unexercised stock options in Halliburton. He has agreed to donate any profits to charity.


REPLY:...... his donations are public record, so whoever's doing the Iran thing wouldn't be getting much.




posted on Jul, 14 2006 @ 05:13 PM
link   
quote by df1


Please post Wilsons CIA report or at least source it.


Which I did..........


Your information quotes a partisan source, a congressional committee within a republican congress.


REPLY: ... from a bi-partisan commitee.


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


REPLY; Very interesting.... everything that is classified is.... what.... fictional?
Being ex-military does not make me privy to everything that is classified; some, but not all.

I'm glad I didn't have anymore kids, but trying to have a rational conversation here is pretty much like the same thing. Actually, they were/are very rational and admit when they're wrong.



posted on Jul, 14 2006 @ 05:38 PM
link   
posted by psyopswatcher

BOLD items are mine


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

REPLY: She has to prove she was outed, as has been shown she wasn't, so if the case hinges on that fact, which it does, all else is moot.

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."

REPLY: Nope, bold items are not in the Bill of Rights.

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.

REPLY: Nope, bold items are not in the Bill of Rights.

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."

REPLY: Nope, not in there.

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."

REPLY: No "right" to property, or privacy for that matter. It says: "A right.... to be secure in your papers and effects."

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).

REPLY: Nope, obviously didn't happen. If her/their lawyer wrote this for them, he should be shot, as charges have to spelled out very clearly as it pertains to the Constitution; none of these do.

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.

REPLY: See above.

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."

REPLY: The facts weren't private, obviously.

8) Civil Conspiracy.

Her attorney's a nim-nool; "people" aren't classified, "documents" are.

This cracks me up: "On or about September 21, 2003, the CIA requested that United States Department of Justice investigate....."

They admitted from the start that she was no longer covert. I have to go read the rest, but since she quit her job, a decision she made on her own, she and her husband have to pay for this themselves; thank God. It has cost Americans $22 million to date, all over nothing but a smear campaign of their own.

Sorry kids, it don't wash. I'm looking forward to when this is finally over, and looking forward to reading this thread.

Of course, as has been pointed out here already, Bush can't pardon anyone in a civil trial, but there wil be those that say "something is fishy." HA HA HA HA



[edit on 14-7-2006 by zappafan1]



posted on Jul, 14 2006 @ 05:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by FallenFromTheTree

I find it difficult to understand why anyone here could still defend the lies and deception
of this administration.

I can only assume that those doing so depend on this administration for their livelihood.

I do not wish to derail this thread with another endless battle of bickering, but it really bothers
me that anyone could be so blind to what is really going on.



So, in your mind you get to bash, but in the interest of not derailing this thread with another endless battle of bickering, no one else gets to respond?

Earth to FallenFromTheTree (and landed on head?);


That's not how a debate or discussion works.


On the topic, this does sound a little like the OJ trial in that when the victim's family did not receive justice in criminal court, filed a civil suit against OJ. Civil court rules generally make it much easier for the plaintiff to obtain a judgement in their favor. For example, the jury does not have to reach a unanimous verdict as they do in a criminal trial.

[edit on 7/14/2006 by centurion1211]



posted on Jul, 14 2006 @ 05:45 PM
link   
I really wonder if the founding fathers realized that the documents created were going to be picked apart and skewed to protect political interests? Right so secured effects, but that doesn't mean they have to be kept private. How terrible. I guess if we keep interpreting those documents how we see fit, we can effectively trash them in the process without realizing we've done so until it's too late. Of course, Bush can't pardon a civil trial, doesn't work that way as far as I know. Could it be attempted? Of course, that's what would be setting a precendent. Possible, no doubt! New laws are enacted all the time to hone in purposes of functions and laws.

I do find it disconcerting how the interpretation of mentioned documents is able to be so jumbled up and interpreted just to prove a point. Really a shame. I can read the motto of the site and say "deny ignorance means that only those here are denying ignorance throughout the world." Of course that is hogwash, but it's funny how we can play with interpretations to get exactly what we want.



posted on Jul, 14 2006 @ 06:23 PM
link   
I'm with df!!

What happened is obvious and the Bush Administration is guilty of so much abuse of average Americans I sincerely hope the attornies for Palme are competent and the judge is not owned or purchaseable by the Party of God.



posted on Jul, 14 2006 @ 07:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by niteboy82
Of course, Bush can't pardon a civil trial, doesn't work that way as far as I know. Could it be attempted? Of course, that's what would be setting a precendent. Possible, no doubt! New laws are enacted all the time to hone in purposes of functions and laws.




Good question, Niteboy. That's looking ahead.

Where are our legal beagles to help answer that one?



posted on Jul, 14 2006 @ 07:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by sayswho

What happened is obvious and the Bush Administration is guilty of so much abuse of average Americans I sincerely hope the attornies for Palme are competent and the judge is not owned or purchaseable by the Party of God.


What still burns me is how Jr. claimed (and claimed and claimed) that anyone in the WH involved in this ongoing investigation would be fired. The man's word ain't worth spit. Ok, Scooter's gone, but what about Rove? He has been demoted but is still on staff (in whatever capacity they call him these days), and still running the show, none the less.

The 'Keep the Neocon's in Power' show, that is.



posted on Jul, 14 2006 @ 07:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by chiS2000
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




I noticed the John Does too. Who was the CIA director during this time frame? George Tenet? Failing to protect her privacy, he could be one of them, and Porter Goss too?

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?



posted on Jul, 15 2006 @ 12:25 AM
link   

Of course, Bush can't pardon a civil trial, doesn't work that way as far as I know.


REPLY: "... as far as I know." are the operative words there (and many other places). That's where you come in, and do the research; library; internet, whatever. Many people here do it all the time. Then post a link to the facts.



posted on Jul, 15 2006 @ 07:46 AM
link   
When Ben Franklin left the Constituitional Congress he was asked what type of government we were getting and he replied..."A Republic, if you can keep it." He understood, because in those days people read and reasoned as opposed to watching faux news and listening to mush loosebowels, that a democracy is an inherantly fragile construct and historically tend to fall apart or give in to dictatorships in a couple hundred years....he also said "that any people willing to trade their liberties for security, deserve neither." Regretably we are right on track. With 45% of the people as a rule voting regularly it becomes increasingly easy for one group of fanatics, be it some funnymentalist group or a political party (left or right but given the critical condition of the left these days, most likely the right and the extreme right at that) to vote themselves into power and to stay there. And then democracy becomes just another catch phrase to wave about on the 4th of July and to totally disregard the rest of the year. Kinda like church going ya know.



posted on Jul, 15 2006 @ 12:27 PM
link   
[quote]"....that a democracy is an inherantly fragile construct and historically tend to fall apart or give in to dictatorships in a couple hundred years..."

REPLY: Which is exactly why America never was a democracy; we operate using a very few democratic principles, but hopefully we continue to be a Representative Constitutional Republic.

It's amazing people are so afraid of one single news service, which is practically the only couterbalance to every other news service/media out there. They present news much like any other, although they provide news that many others won't; but so many don't want their presentation of the news to get to "The People." So sad.



posted on Jul, 15 2006 @ 12:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by zappafan1
It's amazing people are so afraid of one single news service, which is practically the only couterbalance to every other news service/media out there. They present news much like any other, although they provide news that many others won't; but so many don't want their presentation of the news to get to "The People." So sad.


Faux News is not so much news as it is disinformation.

My case and point: just recently when An Inconveniant Truth was released and Al Gore was a guest on The Daily Show, Faux News ran an hour long special on why global warming is "a hoax." The only people they interviewed were republican congressman and the few scientists they could find that don't agree with the consensus of the entire scientific community. And at the end of the show the reporter had the audacity to say that Faux News doesn't take sides, it simply presents the information and "lets you decide" because they are "fair and balanced."



posted on Jul, 15 2006 @ 01:09 PM
link   
Hang it up shakey, zappa is a true believer and no amount of reason will make him change his mind. In his world view if its liberal its bad and if its conservative it can do no wrong...save your breath.



posted on Jul, 15 2006 @ 01:15 PM
link   
Joseph Wilson is scheduled for an interview this Monday July 17th @ 10:00 A.M. EST
on WAMU's Diane Rehm show.

I look forward to hearing what he has to say.

www.wamu.org...

Ambassador Wilson joins Diane to talk about the civil suit he and his wife Valerie Plame are filing against the Vice President and others in connection with the disclosure of Plame's identity as a classified CIA operative.



posted on Jul, 15 2006 @ 11:29 PM
link   
Only the brainwashed can excuse "outing" a CIA officer working on critical national security issues.

Not only did Novak out Plame, but also her cover company, Brewster Jennings. How many other CIA operatives used Brewster Jennings as cover? How many informants used doing business with Brewster Jennings as cover for their espionage efforts? Maybe none. Maybe many.

And what was Plame's focus? Nuclear proliferation. Iran, Pakistan, Libya...

If a Democratic administration was involved in something like this, the neo-conned would be howling treason and asking for the death penalty.



posted on Jul, 16 2006 @ 02:22 AM
link   
F*** her and F*** her treasonous husband. They are both democrat political hacks. It's a joke lawsuit. End of discussion.

If anyone has any doubt left that democrats and their media monopoly have been infiltrated by anti-American enemies, let this be one more piece of evidence.



posted on Jul, 16 2006 @ 06:50 AM
link   
OOH PLEASE....Apoc that is just plain stupid. I am sick of you right-wingers wailing about how everybody other than yourselves hate America. Just can it will ya. Just because we disagree with your politics and dislike what Bush is doing to this country DOES NOT mean that we hate this country. You idiots do not have a monopoly on patriotism.



posted on Jul, 16 2006 @ 09:33 AM
link   
This is off topic, but I will reply:


Faux News is not so much news as it is disinformation.


REPLY: I certainly don't base much of my research, 'nor do I spend much time at all watching TV. Be that as it may, you have a right to your opinion. They do, however, have much the same news as other news outlets.

There are a few Democrats who hold the same views. You might be correct that GW is a general consensus, but there is no consensus that humans are a great part of it. In fact, human activity only contributes about 4% of C02. There also is no consensus as to the results of GW as to how it may affect different parts of the globe.



posted on Jul, 16 2006 @ 03:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by zappafan1
You might be correct that GW is a general consensus, but there is no consensus that humans are a great part of it. In fact, human activity only contributes about 4% of C02. There also is no consensus as to the results of GW as to how it may affect different parts of the globe.


You're deluding yourself if you think that. For someone who claims to do research it sounds like your simply parroting what George Bush and Faux News have said about the matter.

If you actually did some research you would know that the vast majority of scientists agree that global warming is real and that humans are causing it. The scientists that don't agree are usually the ones getting lots of money from oil and coal companies to do their research.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join