The Grinch that Stole Fitzmas
June 13, 2006 7:21 AM Subscribe
You don't say.
posted by IshmaelGraves at 7:28 AM on June 13, 2006
posted by IshmaelGraves at 7:28 AM on June 13, 2006
Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson may sue Karl Rove in civil court.
posted by ericb at 7:30 AM on June 13, 2006
posted by ericb at 7:30 AM on June 13, 2006
Wait a minute, let me get my "shocked" face ready...
: 0
There we go.
posted by you just lost the game at 7:36 AM on June 13, 2006
: 0
There we go.
posted by you just lost the game at 7:36 AM on June 13, 2006
Surprise, surprise. The fix was always in. Any illusion that we live in a democracy with accountability should now be banished.
Wonder what they have on Fitz?
posted by fourcheesemac at 7:39 AM on June 13, 2006
Wonder what they have on Fitz?
posted by fourcheesemac at 7:39 AM on June 13, 2006
Wonder what they have on Fitz?
I think the better question is what they don't have on Rove. Like cause to indict.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 7:41 AM on June 13, 2006
I think the better question is what they don't have on Rove. Like cause to indict.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 7:41 AM on June 13, 2006
Also; Dubya would have pardoned him, anyway.
posted by you just lost the game at 7:42 AM on June 13, 2006
posted by you just lost the game at 7:42 AM on June 13, 2006
I thought the presidential pardons started in 2008. My mistake.
posted by Mr. Six at 7:44 AM on June 13, 2006
posted by Mr. Six at 7:44 AM on June 13, 2006
Any illusion that we live in a democracy with accountability should now be banished.
posted by fourcheesemac at 9:39 AM CST on June 13
Well, that is one way to look at this. Another might be to acknowledge that it is possible there was nothing there to begin with and this story was driven purely by speculation and wishful thinking. If the latter true, the fact that there was an investigation of a member of the executive body by a grand jury would seem to suggest that democracy and accountability are strong.
In totalitarian government, no such investigation would have occurred.
posted by dios at 7:45 AM on June 13, 2006
posted by fourcheesemac at 9:39 AM CST on June 13
Well, that is one way to look at this. Another might be to acknowledge that it is possible there was nothing there to begin with and this story was driven purely by speculation and wishful thinking. If the latter true, the fact that there was an investigation of a member of the executive body by a grand jury would seem to suggest that democracy and accountability are strong.
In totalitarian government, no such investigation would have occurred.
posted by dios at 7:45 AM on June 13, 2006
On the one hand, yeah Rove is guilty as sin. On the other, perjury and obstruction are difficult charges to make stick. If Rove's liar isn't making all this up, I'd say this is just how the system works.
posted by Nahum Tate at 7:46 AM on June 13, 2006
posted by Nahum Tate at 7:46 AM on June 13, 2006
It's possible that Fitzgerald is going to use his testimony in the upcoming trial against Libby, according to a commentor on Firedoglake.com.
Linked without comment -- I don't know enough about such things to say if "Otis" is correct.
posted by UrineSoakedRube at 7:47 AM on June 13, 2006
Linked without comment -- I don't know enough about such things to say if "Otis" is correct.
posted by UrineSoakedRube at 7:47 AM on June 13, 2006
Oh, by the way, I put Otis in quotes in my comment above, because it seems like such an obviously fake name. -- Mr. David UrineSoakedRube
posted by UrineSoakedRube at 7:50 AM on June 13, 2006
posted by UrineSoakedRube at 7:50 AM on June 13, 2006
Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson may sue Karl Rove in civil court.
posted by ericb at 9:30 AM CST on June 13
May sue? I'd guess it would be too rational to point out that they have no cause of action.
You can indict a cheese sandwich. But apparently after massive amounts of money spent, there wasn't even anything there to indict Rove. One might be led to believe that the speculation was wrong instead of just falling back on the idea that a civil suit will prove the nonsense.
posted by dios at 7:51 AM on June 13, 2006
posted by ericb at 9:30 AM CST on June 13
May sue? I'd guess it would be too rational to point out that they have no cause of action.
You can indict a cheese sandwich. But apparently after massive amounts of money spent, there wasn't even anything there to indict Rove. One might be led to believe that the speculation was wrong instead of just falling back on the idea that a civil suit will prove the nonsense.
posted by dios at 7:51 AM on June 13, 2006
Interesting, it looks like truthout's report was based on a single reliable source, in conjunction with a strange sealed indictment brought down the day that Leopold said it was. Apparently it was entitled Sealed v. Sealed instead of the normal U.S. v. Sealed which is the standard, according to truthout. Not being a criminal attorney, I can't tell you if any of that is true.
Its quite likely Rove has sold out Libby. So the operative question is, Is Libby Liddy?
posted by Ironmouth at 7:51 AM on June 13, 2006
Its quite likely Rove has sold out Libby. So the operative question is, Is Libby Liddy?
posted by Ironmouth at 7:51 AM on June 13, 2006
So Wilson outed his own wife, tried to blame it on anyone else, Fizgerald's trying hard to cover for Wilson's loose mouth, and in the meantime, it's perfectly okay to leak stuff that actually threatens national security - and THAT doesn't get investigated because a leak like THAT is a GOOD thing.
Yep, makes perfect sense to me, in a bizarro sort of way....
posted by JB71 at 7:52 AM on June 13, 2006
Yep, makes perfect sense to me, in a bizarro sort of way....
posted by JB71 at 7:52 AM on June 13, 2006
Appearently, truthout and rawstory links have been banned.
posted by Smart Dalek at 7:54 AM on June 13, 2006
posted by Smart Dalek at 7:54 AM on June 13, 2006
Damn It Feels Good To Be A Gangster...
posted by Dreamghost at 7:54 AM on June 13, 2006
posted by Dreamghost at 7:54 AM on June 13, 2006
On the other hand, in smart totalitarian governments, investigations and show trials lend an air of legitimacy where there is none. Derails about fasces aside, the details of the case have been mostly hidden and there has been plenty of time for backdoor shenanigans, so there was little "public" accountability to speak of, in the end.
posted by Mr. Six at 7:54 AM on June 13, 2006
posted by Mr. Six at 7:54 AM on June 13, 2006
Contessa
This was about the best I could find for you... sorry...
posted by JB71 at 7:56 AM on June 13, 2006
This was about the best I could find for you... sorry...
posted by JB71 at 7:56 AM on June 13, 2006
Truthout: Sealed vs. Sealed. According to Salon's War Room, "every sealed case appears in the database with the designation "Sealed v. Sealed" regardless of the caption the prosecutor might have used when the case was filed." Truthout attempts "to clearly separate what we know from what we believe," but War Room says that raises more questions than it answers.
Firedoglake speculates that the investigation's still going on.
posted by kirkaracha at 7:58 AM on June 13, 2006
Firedoglake speculates that the investigation's still going on.
posted by kirkaracha at 7:58 AM on June 13, 2006
Still, legal experts watching the Plame-Wilson investigation have been paying particularly close attention to Sealed vs. Sealed since the Karl Rove indictment story was published.
Jason, your friend who has worked at Kinko's for 5 years but is "totally going to take the LSAT soon" does not count as a legal expert.
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 8:05 AM on June 13, 2006 [1 favorite]
Jason, your friend who has worked at Kinko's for 5 years but is "totally going to take the LSAT soon" does not count as a legal expert.
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 8:05 AM on June 13, 2006 [1 favorite]
Also from truthout:
One negative consequence of the Rove indictment firestorm has been that so much of what we cover that is so important to the community has been pushed into the background. There's a war going on, the right to vote is in doubt, democracy itself is under attack. Let's work together to keep our focus.
And who bears the largest piece of the blame for that, Marc? Maybe if you hadn't rushed to publish Leopold's badly thought out original article there wouldn't have been any firestorm?
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 8:08 AM on June 13, 2006
One negative consequence of the Rove indictment firestorm has been that so much of what we cover that is so important to the community has been pushed into the background. There's a war going on, the right to vote is in doubt, democracy itself is under attack. Let's work together to keep our focus.
And who bears the largest piece of the blame for that, Marc? Maybe if you hadn't rushed to publish Leopold's badly thought out original article there wouldn't have been any firestorm?
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 8:08 AM on June 13, 2006
Anyone who thinks Rove did nothing and this is justice in action is dreaming.
But maybe there is more to it. Rove could have ratted out Libby to save his own (and more imp. his buttboy Georgie's ) ass.
posted by fourcheesemac at 8:11 AM on June 13, 2006
But maybe there is more to it. Rove could have ratted out Libby to save his own (and more imp. his buttboy Georgie's ) ass.
posted by fourcheesemac at 8:11 AM on June 13, 2006
I, for one, am outraged and shocked that someone in the White House is getting away with this kind of criminal activity!!!
"Harumph! Harumph!"
"Harumph! Harumph!"
posted by mountainmambo at 8:13 AM on June 13, 2006
"Harumph! Harumph!"
"Harumph! Harumph!"
posted by mountainmambo at 8:13 AM on June 13, 2006
Well color me surprised. The same govenment that can't find the anthrax letter guy, who can't find osama bin laden, who had no idea that saddam hussein was as disarmed as he claimed to be, can't find out who leaked the name of a CIA agent to the press?
The proper spin on this is not that Rove is innocent, but that this is another incidence of the complete incompetence of the a Republican-led government to enforce the law.
posted by three blind mice at 8:16 AM on June 13, 2006 [1 favorite]
The proper spin on this is not that Rove is innocent, but that this is another incidence of the complete incompetence of the a Republican-led government to enforce the law.
posted by three blind mice at 8:16 AM on June 13, 2006 [1 favorite]
dios:You can indict a cheese sandwich. But apparently after massive amounts of money spent, there wasn't even anything there to indict Rove. One might be led to believe that the speculation was wrong instead of just falling back on the idea that a civil suit will prove the nonsense.
Absolutely right, dios. Just like that poor OJ. He was obviously innocent of all wrongdoing, as the criminal justice system proved, so of course he couldn't face civil liability either. Oh wait, no, that's not right, he was found liable in civil suits for millions of dollars in damages for wrongfully causing the deaths of two people. How can that be?
Wait, could it be that civil and criminal standards of proof are different? And might that mean that a prosecutorial decision not to indict might be based on that difference -- or perhaps some other difference between the civil and criminal systems, such as the ability of a potential criminal defendant to provide information on others? Could that be it?
Honestly, dios, every time I read one of your comments I have to ask myself: "Is this guy really a lawyer or is he just trying to make the rest of us look bad?"
posted by The Bellman at 8:18 AM on June 13, 2006
Absolutely right, dios. Just like that poor OJ. He was obviously innocent of all wrongdoing, as the criminal justice system proved, so of course he couldn't face civil liability either. Oh wait, no, that's not right, he was found liable in civil suits for millions of dollars in damages for wrongfully causing the deaths of two people. How can that be?
Wait, could it be that civil and criminal standards of proof are different? And might that mean that a prosecutorial decision not to indict might be based on that difference -- or perhaps some other difference between the civil and criminal systems, such as the ability of a potential criminal defendant to provide information on others? Could that be it?
Honestly, dios, every time I read one of your comments I have to ask myself: "Is this guy really a lawyer or is he just trying to make the rest of us look bad?"
posted by The Bellman at 8:18 AM on June 13, 2006
He was obviously innocent of all wrongdoing, as the criminal justice system proved, so of course he couldn't face civil liability either. Oh wait, no, that's not right, he was found liable in civil suits for millions of dollars in damages for wrongfully causing the deaths of two people. How can that be?
Uh, because there's a civil cause of action called wrongful death. He wasn't sued for murder. What would you sue Rove for in this case?
posted by monju_bosatsu at 8:20 AM on June 13, 2006
Uh, because there's a civil cause of action called wrongful death. He wasn't sued for murder. What would you sue Rove for in this case?
posted by monju_bosatsu at 8:20 AM on June 13, 2006
> Anyone who thinks Rove did nothing and this is justice in action is dreaming.
fourcheesemac, are you a man dreaming he's a butterfly, or a butterfly dreaming he's a man? Just thought I'd throw the question out there among the hardcore naive-realists.
posted by jfuller at 8:25 AM on June 13, 2006
fourcheesemac, are you a man dreaming he's a butterfly, or a butterfly dreaming he's a man? Just thought I'd throw the question out there among the hardcore naive-realists.
posted by jfuller at 8:25 AM on June 13, 2006
Absolutely right, dios. Just like that poor OJ.
Who was, in fact, indicited.
He was obviously innocent of all wrongdoing, as the criminal justice system proved, so of course he couldn't face civil liability either. Wait, could it be that civil and criminal standards of proof are different? And might that mean that a prosecutorial decision not to indict might be based on that difference -- or perhaps some other difference between the civil and criminal systems, such as the ability of a potential criminal defendant to provide information on others? Could that be it?
Honestly, dios, every time I read one of your comments I have to ask myself: "Is this guy really a lawyer or is he just trying to make the rest of us look bad?"
posted by The Bellman at 10:18 AM CST on June 13
I ask the same thing about you. Because any person who was an attorney would understand what I was saying.
OJ was indicited but not found guilty at trial. The Plaintiffs sued him for wrongful death and were able to prove by the lesser standard of proof.
Now, switch to Rove. He was NOT indicted despite the fact that a cheese sandwich can get indicted. And what is the cause of action? Are they going to sue under the FTCA? Does the Identities act have a private cause of action to enforce it? If you are an attorney, WTF do you think they are going to sue under? Once you stumble upon a cause of action, then answer me how you are going to get around either qualified or sovereign immunity.
So insult me all you like. You are the one who looks like a hack here, not me.
posted by dios at 8:25 AM on June 13, 2006
Who was, in fact, indicited.
He was obviously innocent of all wrongdoing, as the criminal justice system proved, so of course he couldn't face civil liability either. Wait, could it be that civil and criminal standards of proof are different? And might that mean that a prosecutorial decision not to indict might be based on that difference -- or perhaps some other difference between the civil and criminal systems, such as the ability of a potential criminal defendant to provide information on others? Could that be it?
Honestly, dios, every time I read one of your comments I have to ask myself: "Is this guy really a lawyer or is he just trying to make the rest of us look bad?"
posted by The Bellman at 10:18 AM CST on June 13
I ask the same thing about you. Because any person who was an attorney would understand what I was saying.
OJ was indicited but not found guilty at trial. The Plaintiffs sued him for wrongful death and were able to prove by the lesser standard of proof.
Now, switch to Rove. He was NOT indicted despite the fact that a cheese sandwich can get indicted. And what is the cause of action? Are they going to sue under the FTCA? Does the Identities act have a private cause of action to enforce it? If you are an attorney, WTF do you think they are going to sue under? Once you stumble upon a cause of action, then answer me how you are going to get around either qualified or sovereign immunity.
So insult me all you like. You are the one who looks like a hack here, not me.
posted by dios at 8:25 AM on June 13, 2006
I float like a butterfly. I sting like a bee. Rove will get his. All of these bastards will. Anyone who extends even the presumption of innocence to them at this point is an enemy of America, in my opinion. Payback's coming, and it's gonna be a bitch.
posted by fourcheesemac at 8:29 AM on June 13, 2006
posted by fourcheesemac at 8:29 AM on June 13, 2006
OJ only killed two people. Rove helped kill hundreds of thousands. And counting.
That's why he didn't get indicted.
posted by chicobangs at 8:30 AM on June 13, 2006
That's why he didn't get indicted.
posted by chicobangs at 8:30 AM on June 13, 2006
Didn't the outing effectively end Plame's career? Surely in litigation-land you can sue for that? Loss of earnings etc.
posted by bonaldi at 8:32 AM on June 13, 2006
posted by bonaldi at 8:32 AM on June 13, 2006
Anyone who extends even the presumption of innocence to them at this point is an enemy of America, in my opinion. Payback's coming, and it's gonna be a bitch.
and this kind of statement is exactly the reason i worry about our rights being curtailed not only from the right, but from the left as well
in any case, all dios has done here is express an opinion on the case ... i'm not 100% sure he's right, but i don't have any facts to refute it ... neither do you ... and neither does fitzgerald, which is why rove isn't being indicted
you don't KNOW who leaked this, period ... and i would rather that the guilty party go free than to see this country embroiled in a mccarthyesque witch hunt
posted by pyramid termite at 8:35 AM on June 13, 2006
and this kind of statement is exactly the reason i worry about our rights being curtailed not only from the right, but from the left as well
in any case, all dios has done here is express an opinion on the case ... i'm not 100% sure he's right, but i don't have any facts to refute it ... neither do you ... and neither does fitzgerald, which is why rove isn't being indicted
you don't KNOW who leaked this, period ... and i would rather that the guilty party go free than to see this country embroiled in a mccarthyesque witch hunt
posted by pyramid termite at 8:35 AM on June 13, 2006
dios: after massive amounts of money spent
Massive meaning less than 1 million dollars accounted so far. Here's some spin and counter-spin on the matter for everyone's convenience.
posted by magullo at 8:36 AM on June 13, 2006
Massive meaning less than 1 million dollars accounted so far. Here's some spin and counter-spin on the matter for everyone's convenience.
posted by magullo at 8:36 AM on June 13, 2006
Is the indicted cheese sandwich grilled as part of the investigation, or after conviction?
posted by Kirth Gerson at 8:36 AM on June 13, 2006
posted by Kirth Gerson at 8:36 AM on June 13, 2006
mMMmm...grilled cheese sandwich.
posted by NationalKato at 8:40 AM on June 13, 2006
posted by NationalKato at 8:40 AM on June 13, 2006
... and neither does fitzgerald, which is why rove isn't being indicted
To be fair, and to balance my own comment from above, Ruskin's announcement is consistent with either a prosecutorial decision that they didn't have enough on Rove to indict, or a deal with Rove to avoid indictment in exchange for testimony against Libby, Cheney, and/or others. Because Fitzgerald hasn't commented, and we don't know the full extent of the investigation, there's no way to distinguish between these two scenarios right now.
For those of you filled with righteous indignation, wouldn't you trade Rove's indictment for Cheney's?
posted by monju_bosatsu at 8:40 AM on June 13, 2006
To be fair, and to balance my own comment from above, Ruskin's announcement is consistent with either a prosecutorial decision that they didn't have enough on Rove to indict, or a deal with Rove to avoid indictment in exchange for testimony against Libby, Cheney, and/or others. Because Fitzgerald hasn't commented, and we don't know the full extent of the investigation, there's no way to distinguish between these two scenarios right now.
For those of you filled with righteous indignation, wouldn't you trade Rove's indictment for Cheney's?
posted by monju_bosatsu at 8:40 AM on June 13, 2006
And more importantly, who did the grilling of said sandwich?
posted by mrbill at 8:40 AM on June 13, 2006
posted by mrbill at 8:40 AM on June 13, 2006
For those of you filled with righteous indignation, wouldn't you trade Rove's indictment for Cheney's?
Sigh...hope does spring eternal, doesn't it?
posted by you just lost the game at 8:42 AM on June 13, 2006
Sigh...hope does spring eternal, doesn't it?
posted by you just lost the game at 8:42 AM on June 13, 2006
What would you sue Rove for in this case?
posted by monju_bosatsu at 8:20 AM PST on June 13 [+fave] [!]
Aiding in (if not being responsible for) ending someone's career in espionage? Surely loss of wages, pension, benefits, etc. are the usual stuff of civil litigation?
posted by Mr. Six at 8:42 AM on June 13, 2006
posted by monju_bosatsu at 8:20 AM PST on June 13 [+fave] [!]
Aiding in (if not being responsible for) ending someone's career in espionage? Surely loss of wages, pension, benefits, etc. are the usual stuff of civil litigation?
posted by Mr. Six at 8:42 AM on June 13, 2006
he made a deal, and is either ensuring Libby's prosecution or gave info about Cheney or other administration staffers--they can't afford to lose him now.
Now that it's not an "ongoing investigation" will the WH answer questions about Rove? and about his security clearance? etc
posted by amberglow at 8:44 AM on June 13, 2006
Now that it's not an "ongoing investigation" will the WH answer questions about Rove? and about his security clearance? etc
posted by amberglow at 8:44 AM on June 13, 2006
Aiding in (if not being responsible for) ending someone's career in espionage? Surely loss of wages, pension, benefits, etc. are the usual stuff of civil litigation?
But what is the cause of action? Wrongful termination? Rove wasn't Plame's employer, so that doesn't work. Loss of wages is only a measure of damages, not a cause of action.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 8:44 AM on June 13, 2006
But what is the cause of action? Wrongful termination? Rove wasn't Plame's employer, so that doesn't work. Loss of wages is only a measure of damages, not a cause of action.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 8:44 AM on June 13, 2006
Plame is still on the CIA payroll. Wilson's income has increased dramatically. It will be very hard for them to show economic loss, and any civil suit they initiate will allow the defendant to pry into the finances of the Wilsons, their business partners and associates, and families. This is a nightmarish process even in cases which get no publicity. I'd be very surprised if the Wilsons file a suit and allow it to proceeded all the way to discovery.
posted by Jos Bleau at 8:46 AM on June 13, 2006
posted by Jos Bleau at 8:46 AM on June 13, 2006
You CANNOT indict a cheese sandwich (grilled or not).
A HAM sandwich, on the other hand...
posted by DesbaratsDays at 8:50 AM on June 13, 2006
A HAM sandwich, on the other hand...
posted by DesbaratsDays at 8:50 AM on June 13, 2006
Metafilter: Fitzmas gave me blue balls.
posted by dios at 4:43 PM CET on June 13
Metafilter: No Fitzmas made me ejaculate all over myself
posted by mr.marx at 8:51 AM on June 13, 2006
posted by dios at 4:43 PM CET on June 13
Metafilter: No Fitzmas made me ejaculate all over myself
posted by mr.marx at 8:51 AM on June 13, 2006
That's silly. How could your President's boss be indicted?
posted by slatternus at 8:53 AM on June 13, 2006
posted by slatternus at 8:53 AM on June 13, 2006
You have to have a cause of action.
And when suing employees of the executive branch, your causes of action are limited.
As monju_bosatsu correctly noted, loss of wages is not a cause of action.
There is no civil case here would could survive summary judgment. There are issues of sovereign and qualified immunity, issues of the Federal Tort Claims Act, and since this occurred in 2003, there are probably statute of limitations issues.
You can file suit for darn near anything. But that doesn't mean your suit will make it past that summary judgment hearing wherein the bars to suit require the court to dismiss your case.
posted by dios at 8:53 AM on June 13, 2006
And when suing employees of the executive branch, your causes of action are limited.
As monju_bosatsu correctly noted, loss of wages is not a cause of action.
There is no civil case here would could survive summary judgment. There are issues of sovereign and qualified immunity, issues of the Federal Tort Claims Act, and since this occurred in 2003, there are probably statute of limitations issues.
You can file suit for darn near anything. But that doesn't mean your suit will make it past that summary judgment hearing wherein the bars to suit require the court to dismiss your case.
posted by dios at 8:53 AM on June 13, 2006
Dios, either your ideological bias is getting in the way of your vision or you're trolling. A Grand Jury will, they say, "indict a ham sandwich" but first the ham sandwich has to be charged. This isn't a failure by Fitzgerald to get an indictment from a Grand Jury -- it is a decision by him not to pursue Rove as a target. Is that because he doesn't think he can get an indictment? Maybe. Or maybe it's because Rove is cooperating in the investigation. You can defend Turd Blossom all you want, but the prosecutorial decision not to charge him doesn't say anything about his guilt or innocence. [On preview, monju pointed this out. Thank you monju. I've lumped you in with dios in the past and I don't intend to do that here.]
Now let me turn to the question dios and monju asked: What is the civil case here? Well I'm not Christopher Wolf at Proskauer, so I don't know what he's planning. Certainly Proskauer is a well known and reputable firm and I'm sure they will find the appropriate causes of action. The things that entered my head right away (without the benefit of the facts that Mr. Wolf has) were a Section 1983 action, tortious interference with business relations (or whatever that tort is called in the relevant state -- I'm a New York lawyer so that's what we call it here) and the various defamation actions (based not on the outing, for which a "truth" defense might be available, but on the false allegation that Plame had her husband picked for the Niger trip and that he wasn't qualified). I'm sure there are others as well. I've never looked at the issue of whether there are private rights of action for violations of the intelligence statutes Rove violated, but I doubt it. There are plenty of civil legal avenues to defend one's rights to make a living and be free of false statements from agents of one's government.
By the way, dios, I've posted my identity on MeFi in the past. If you want to check my credentials, be my guest. I note that you have never done so, despite requests. But maybe that's for MeTa.
posted by The Bellman at 8:58 AM on June 13, 2006
Now let me turn to the question dios and monju asked: What is the civil case here? Well I'm not Christopher Wolf at Proskauer, so I don't know what he's planning. Certainly Proskauer is a well known and reputable firm and I'm sure they will find the appropriate causes of action. The things that entered my head right away (without the benefit of the facts that Mr. Wolf has) were a Section 1983 action, tortious interference with business relations (or whatever that tort is called in the relevant state -- I'm a New York lawyer so that's what we call it here) and the various defamation actions (based not on the outing, for which a "truth" defense might be available, but on the false allegation that Plame had her husband picked for the Niger trip and that he wasn't qualified). I'm sure there are others as well. I've never looked at the issue of whether there are private rights of action for violations of the intelligence statutes Rove violated, but I doubt it. There are plenty of civil legal avenues to defend one's rights to make a living and be free of false statements from agents of one's government.
By the way, dios, I've posted my identity on MeFi in the past. If you want to check my credentials, be my guest. I note that you have never done so, despite requests. But maybe that's for MeTa.
posted by The Bellman at 8:58 AM on June 13, 2006
Rove wasn't Plame's employer, so that doesn't work.
I don't understand why this is a necessary condition. If you hit me with your car deliberately or out of negligence, I can still sue for damages, whether or not you're my employer.
Rove was in a position where he could put CIA employees in harm's way by illegally releasing confidential information about their covert identities to the public, with the result of either ending their careers prematurely or, worse, having them killed or imprisoned as agents in an unfriendly country.
Seems like grounds for a civil lawsuit are there if he had caused or aided in this violation, and if damages can be shown.
posted by Mr. Six at 8:58 AM on June 13, 2006
I don't understand why this is a necessary condition. If you hit me with your car deliberately or out of negligence, I can still sue for damages, whether or not you're my employer.
Rove was in a position where he could put CIA employees in harm's way by illegally releasing confidential information about their covert identities to the public, with the result of either ending their careers prematurely or, worse, having them killed or imprisoned as agents in an unfriendly country.
Seems like grounds for a civil lawsuit are there if he had caused or aided in this violation, and if damages can be shown.
posted by Mr. Six at 8:58 AM on June 13, 2006
Everything that will come out during the Libby trial (and others?) will help the Plame/Wilson case, if they follow through. If they're smart, they're waiting to see what's revealed then.
posted by amberglow at 8:58 AM on June 13, 2006
posted by amberglow at 8:58 AM on June 13, 2006
I'm hoping someday Rove gets arrested for picking up a transvestite prostitute. Then he'll burn for sure and we'll finally get our satisfaction.
posted by disgruntled at 9:03 AM on June 13, 2006
posted by disgruntled at 9:03 AM on June 13, 2006
No, then we'll get a lot of empathy for him in his time of temptation, which he wilil surely overcome by God's grace.
posted by sonofsamiam at 9:05 AM on June 13, 2006
posted by sonofsamiam at 9:05 AM on June 13, 2006
Regardless of whether a civil suit has merit, it won't happen until after all criminal proceedings have ended. If it's filed sooner, the government will probably move (successfully) to have it stayed.
P.S. More on indicting ham sandwiches.
posted by brain_drain at 9:05 AM on June 13, 2006
P.S. More on indicting ham sandwiches.
posted by brain_drain at 9:05 AM on June 13, 2006
Mr. Six: Yes, that's the difference between wrongful termination and tortious interference with business relations. They are both torts, it's just an issue of who you sue. The standard of proof is also different, at least under New York law. As New York is an "at will" employment state, wrongful termination cases can generally only be brought if the termination was motivated by something like race, age, gender or in retaliation for something (such as whistle-blowing. That's an oversimplification, but it's close enough for, um, government work.
posted by The Bellman at 9:06 AM on June 13, 2006
posted by The Bellman at 9:06 AM on June 13, 2006
The things that entered my head right away (without the benefit of the facts that Mr. Wolf has) were a Section 1983 action, tortious interference with business relations (or whatever that tort is called in the relevant state -- I'm a New York lawyer so that's what we call it here) and the various defamation actions I'm sure there are others as well. I've never looked at the issue of whether there are private rights of action for violations of the intelligence statutes Rove violated, but I doubt it. There are plenty of civil legal avenues to defend one's rights to make a living and be free of false statements from agents of one's government.
There is not private cause of action for the Act. You can read it.
42 USC 1983? Please. What is the right that was deprived? How do you get around immunity?
Defamation? Tortious interference with prospective relations? Are you proposing suing a member of the executive branch directly for an intentional tort? Putting aside the obvious defenses to such claims, you do realize you can't just file a tort claim against a member of the executive branch? There are the annoying little things called sovereign immunity, qualified immunity, Federal Tort Claims act, and the like. And you do realize that this occurred years ago, so the statute of limitations would have expired on those claims? Did Wilson and Plame file an administrative complaint and get a ruling? I doubt it.
There is not case here. The ones that "entered your head" are asinine given the facts of who they would be suing and for what. And you questioned my bona fides as a lawyer?
posted by dios at 9:09 AM on June 13, 2006
There is not private cause of action for the Act. You can read it.
42 USC 1983? Please. What is the right that was deprived? How do you get around immunity?
Defamation? Tortious interference with prospective relations? Are you proposing suing a member of the executive branch directly for an intentional tort? Putting aside the obvious defenses to such claims, you do realize you can't just file a tort claim against a member of the executive branch? There are the annoying little things called sovereign immunity, qualified immunity, Federal Tort Claims act, and the like. And you do realize that this occurred years ago, so the statute of limitations would have expired on those claims? Did Wilson and Plame file an administrative complaint and get a ruling? I doubt it.
There is not case here. The ones that "entered your head" are asinine given the facts of who they would be suing and for what. And you questioned my bona fides as a lawyer?
posted by dios at 9:09 AM on June 13, 2006
...both Rove's apparent confirmation of CIA officer Valerie Plame's identity to syndicated columnist Robert D. Novak and his alleged disclosure of her identity to Time magazine correspondent Matthew Cooper should trigger the loss of his security clearance under the Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement ...
posted by amberglow at 9:44 AM on June 13, 2006
posted by amberglow at 9:44 AM on June 13, 2006
I would prefer to indict a Philly Cheesesteak, but only in English
posted by fourcheesemac at 9:54 AM on June 13, 2006
posted by fourcheesemac at 9:54 AM on June 13, 2006
So, dios, let me get this straight. Your view of this is that Rove's defense to a personal civil action against him based on any tort is that he was acting in his official capacity as a member of the Executive Branch when he leaked the information at issue? That would be the only basis for the defenses you cite. I would be extremely surprised to hear that defense from him, and I'm happy to address it, but I just want you to confirm that you believe that is a valid defense here. If so, you also believe that he would be able to make the necessary showing of good faith to partake of the qualified immunity he might enjoy?
I just want to understand your position: it is your view that, no matter what he did, no matter how outrageous or in bad faith his conduct, he is immune from suit because of his former position in the White House. Is that accurate?
posted by The Bellman at 9:56 AM on June 13, 2006
I just want to understand your position: it is your view that, no matter what he did, no matter how outrageous or in bad faith his conduct, he is immune from suit because of his former position in the White House. Is that accurate?
posted by The Bellman at 9:56 AM on June 13, 2006
Putting aside the obvious defenses to such claims, you do realize you can't just file a tort claim against a member of the executive branch?
I'm not a lawyer, but. . .are you sure?
posted by EarBucket at 9:57 AM on June 13, 2006
I'm not a lawyer, but. . .are you sure?
posted by EarBucket at 9:57 AM on June 13, 2006
LOL. They didn't sue Clinton. They sued his penis.
posted by fourcheesemac at 10:01 AM on June 13, 2006
posted by fourcheesemac at 10:01 AM on June 13, 2006
wouldn't you trade Rove's indictment for Cheney's?
No, honestly. Cheney may be a driving force behind the Iraq war - and there's significant amounts of evidence (visits to the CIA during the runup to the war) to suggest that he was the one running point on twisting Tenet's arm. That said, America's problems are much, much bigger than Iraq right now. Cheney only hurts the Republican party as a whole, because the public hates him more than (if I remember my poll numbers correctly) any other member of this administration. I could be wrong but I thought he recently polled at like 18%.
Rove, on the other hand, is relatively unknown to the public at large despite this case. He is directly involved in keeping the Republicans in party far moreso than any other single individual. It's not so much that I want to see him suffer as it is that I want to see his freedom taken away from him, his time so thoroughly consumed with a criminal case as to prevent him from being an effective campaign strategist, and his mind warped by stress and anger to the point where the few things he does have time to think up all hideously backfire.
Don't get me wrong, pretty much everyone in this administration is pursuing actions based on an ideology governed by money - and my feelings about them are all that they should be in light of this. But that said, being angry at Cheney doesn't help anything - Rove being too busy to be effective would.
posted by Ryvar at 10:02 AM on June 13, 2006
No, honestly. Cheney may be a driving force behind the Iraq war - and there's significant amounts of evidence (visits to the CIA during the runup to the war) to suggest that he was the one running point on twisting Tenet's arm. That said, America's problems are much, much bigger than Iraq right now. Cheney only hurts the Republican party as a whole, because the public hates him more than (if I remember my poll numbers correctly) any other member of this administration. I could be wrong but I thought he recently polled at like 18%.
Rove, on the other hand, is relatively unknown to the public at large despite this case. He is directly involved in keeping the Republicans in party far moreso than any other single individual. It's not so much that I want to see him suffer as it is that I want to see his freedom taken away from him, his time so thoroughly consumed with a criminal case as to prevent him from being an effective campaign strategist, and his mind warped by stress and anger to the point where the few things he does have time to think up all hideously backfire.
Don't get me wrong, pretty much everyone in this administration is pursuing actions based on an ideology governed by money - and my feelings about them are all that they should be in light of this. But that said, being angry at Cheney doesn't help anything - Rove being too busy to be effective would.
posted by Ryvar at 10:02 AM on June 13, 2006
and this kind of statement is exactly the reason i worry about our rights being curtailed not only from the right, but from the left as well
While I fantasize about the day we can go extra-juridicial on these bastards with a proper counter-coup. They stole the American government. All the rules are obviously suspended. We're all enemy combatants now.
posted by fourcheesemac at 10:07 AM on June 13, 2006
While I fantasize about the day we can go extra-juridicial on these bastards with a proper counter-coup. They stole the American government. All the rules are obviously suspended. We're all enemy combatants now.
posted by fourcheesemac at 10:07 AM on June 13, 2006
My moneys on a last minute redefinition of the word "is".
posted by Artw at 10:08 AM on June 13, 2006
posted by Artw at 10:08 AM on June 13, 2006
"I'd be very surprised if the Wilsons file a suit and allow it to proceeded all the way to discovery."
Point that should be repeated.
posted by TetrisKid at 10:10 AM on June 13, 2006
Point that should be repeated.
posted by TetrisKid at 10:10 AM on June 13, 2006
I'm not a lawyer, but. . .are you sure?
OK, I'll bite...Jones alleged things that happened before Clinton was president. I believe the issue in that case was executive privilege.
posted by Pacheco at 10:10 AM on June 13, 2006
OK, I'll bite...Jones alleged things that happened before Clinton was president. I believe the issue in that case was executive privilege.
posted by Pacheco at 10:10 AM on June 13, 2006
Valerie Plame was a Secret Agent is the new Vince Foster was killed by Bill Clinton.
And you'd better believe that the rest of us are just as tired of hearing about Valerie Plame as we were about Vince Foster.
posted by Alexandros at 10:22 AM on June 13, 2006
And you'd better believe that the rest of us are just as tired of hearing about Valerie Plame as we were about Vince Foster.
posted by Alexandros at 10:22 AM on June 13, 2006
Nice try, Allexandros! We all know that Vince Foster was killed by Hillary Clinton's lesbian lover to cover up the UFO conspiracy's ties to the Yakuza weathermachine that's run by the Russian mob.
posted by Jos Bleau at 10:28 AM on June 13, 2006
posted by Jos Bleau at 10:28 AM on June 13, 2006
and this kind of statement is exactly the reason i worry about our rights being curtailed not only from the right, but from the left as well
Absolutely. Totally agree.
While I fantasize about the day we can go extra-juridicial on these bastards with a proper counter-coup. They stole the American government. All the rules are obviously suspended. We're all enemy combatants now.
That's scary. Proving once again that the political spectrum is just a circle that connects at the extremes.
posted by pardonyou? at 10:36 AM on June 13, 2006
Absolutely. Totally agree.
While I fantasize about the day we can go extra-juridicial on these bastards with a proper counter-coup. They stole the American government. All the rules are obviously suspended. We're all enemy combatants now.
That's scary. Proving once again that the political spectrum is just a circle that connects at the extremes.
posted by pardonyou? at 10:36 AM on June 13, 2006
No, Pat Tillman is the new Vince Foster. Plame was a secret agent, only the stupid of the sheeple deny that now.
posted by If I Had An Anus at 10:36 AM on June 13, 2006
posted by If I Had An Anus at 10:36 AM on June 13, 2006
Valerie Plame was a Secret Agent is the new Vince Foster was killed by Bill Clinton
There was a conspiracy to make an undercover agent for the CIA an undercover agent for the CIA? Wha?
Is this the same as "double-secret probation" from the "rest of us" crowd?
posted by Mr. Six at 10:36 AM on June 13, 2006
There was a conspiracy to make an undercover agent for the CIA an undercover agent for the CIA? Wha?
Is this the same as "double-secret probation" from the "rest of us" crowd?
posted by Mr. Six at 10:36 AM on June 13, 2006
*puts a 'most' in front of stupid*
posted by If I Had An Anus at 10:37 AM on June 13, 2006
posted by If I Had An Anus at 10:37 AM on June 13, 2006
That's scary. Proving once again that the political spectrum is just a circle that connects at the extremes.
My "extreme" was created when the Bushistas stole our government from the people. Why should the left play by the rules if the right refuses to do so?
It's come to that. The friend of my enemy is my enemy.
posted by fourcheesemac at 10:42 AM on June 13, 2006
My "extreme" was created when the Bushistas stole our government from the people. Why should the left play by the rules if the right refuses to do so?
It's come to that. The friend of my enemy is my enemy.
posted by fourcheesemac at 10:42 AM on June 13, 2006
The friend of my enemy is my enemy.
That's the same logic that the USA used to bring up bin Laden and Hussein.
posted by sonofsamiam at 10:51 AM on June 13, 2006
That's the same logic that the USA used to bring up bin Laden and Hussein.
posted by sonofsamiam at 10:51 AM on June 13, 2006
That's the same logic that the USA used to bring up bin Laden and Hussein.
You don't say. Funny how Pandora's box works.
posted by fourcheesemac at 10:56 AM on June 13, 2006
You don't say. Funny how Pandora's box works.
posted by fourcheesemac at 10:56 AM on June 13, 2006
“For months now, ambassador Joseph Wilson and his wife, Valerie Plame, the covert CIA agent unmasked by the White House, have been preparing to file a civil lawsuit against the Bush administration officials who disclosed her identity and scuttled her career.
‘There is no question that her privacy has been invaded. She was almost by definition the ultimate private person,’ said the couple's attorney, Christopher Wolf, of the law firm Proskauer Rose, on Monday. ‘Suffice it to say, they have been substantially damaged, economically and personally.’ He said the couple would make a final decision on filing a lawsuit after Fitzgerald has completed his investigation.
If they do sue, Wilson and Plame could be the first litigants to depose senior White House officials since Paula Jones, an employee of the state of Arkansas, opened a can of worms by suing President Bill Clinton for allegedly exposing himself in a Little Rock hotel room. In a deposition for the Jones lawsuit, Clinton lied under oath about his relationship with another woman, Monica Lewinsky, a White House intern, triggering his impeachment by the House of Representatives and the disclosure of oral sex in the Oval Office. ‘The questions can range far afield. You can ask all kinds of stuff,’ said Gilbert Davis, an attorney who represented Jones in her sexual harassment lawsuit. ‘You can start free-wheeling with all kinds of discovery methods.’
Such discovery would be invaluable for historians -- and political partisans -- if Fitzgerald decided not to return indictments by Oct. 28, the day the grand jury investigating the leak of Plame's name to the press is scheduled to be dismissed. Though Democrats in Congress have requested a report from Fitzgerald on his findings, legal observers say Fitzgerald is under no obligation to provide one if he decides that no crimes were committed. The possibility of greater public disclosure has not escaped the notice of Wolf, the attorney for Wilson and Plame. ‘By its nature a civil case is somewhat more transparent than a criminal case,’ he said.
Wolf is a close personal friend of the couple's, having lived for years next door to them in the outskirts of Washington. His cousin, Audrey Wolf, served as a literary agent for Joseph Wilson's bestselling memoir, ‘The Politics of Truth.’ In an Op-Ed published in USA Today this summer, Wolf wrote that he was ‘collecting facts for any eventual civil suit’ on the couple's behalf. Early this week, Bloomberg reported that Wilson said he may file a civil suit against Bush, Dick Cheney and others, ‘seeking damages for the alleged harm done to Plame's career.’
Wilson, who could not be reached by Salon for comment for this story, wrote in ‘The Politics of Truth’ that his wife was ‘crestfallen’ when she discovered that syndicated columnist Robert Novak had disclosed her identity as a CIA ‘operative.’
‘She would never be able to regain the anonymity and secrecy that her professional life had required; she would not be able to return to her discreet work on some of the most sensitive threats to our society in the foreseeable future, and perhaps ever,’ he wrote.
In some ways, the Paula Jones case clears the way for a lawsuit by Plame and Wilson. In 1997 the Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision giving the green light to Paula Jones' lawsuit against Clinton, despite the fact that he was a sitting president. The court ruled that Jones' allegations, which involved personal conduct during Clinton's years as a governor, were not protected by any claims of executive immunity. After much legal wrangling, Clinton finally settled with Jones in 1998 for $850,000, though he offered neither an apology nor an admission of guilt. (Clinton's top lawyer in that case was Robert Bennett, who is representing New York Times reporter Judith Miller in the CIA leak investigation.)
However, there is one constitutional defense that senior White House officials, or at least Bush, could attempt to use. In a 1982 case, Nixon v. Fitzgerald (no relation to the current special prosecutor), the Supreme Court found, in a split decision, that a president enjoys ‘absolute immunity from damages liability predicated on his official acts.’ It is not clear whether this immunity extends to the vice president or senior White House aides, or if the White House could claim that discussions of Plame's identity should be viewed as an ‘official act.’
Most likely, the White House would try to litigate any civil case in the court of public opinion. One attorney from the Jones case, John Whitehead, said that the White House would likely renew its attacks against Wilson and Plame, working through intermediaries. ‘They shift the focus from the wrongdoer to the non-wrongdoer,’ said Whitehead, who works at the Rutherford Institute, a conservative civil rights group. (Some might argue that this strategy is now being played out in the Texas prosecution of Rep. Tom DeLay, R-Texas, on charges of money laundering and conspiracy. Republican supporters, and DeLay himself, have spent weeks attacking the prosecutor, Ronnie Earle, and have even filed a suit against him for misconduct.)
‘This is a media case,’ said Whitehead, adding that the attorney for Wilson and Plame had better be ready for a fight. ‘There will be people saying things about them that they have never heard before.’”
[Salon | October 18, 2005]
posted by ericb at 11:28 AM on June 13, 2006
‘There is no question that her privacy has been invaded. She was almost by definition the ultimate private person,’ said the couple's attorney, Christopher Wolf, of the law firm Proskauer Rose, on Monday. ‘Suffice it to say, they have been substantially damaged, economically and personally.’ He said the couple would make a final decision on filing a lawsuit after Fitzgerald has completed his investigation.
If they do sue, Wilson and Plame could be the first litigants to depose senior White House officials since Paula Jones, an employee of the state of Arkansas, opened a can of worms by suing President Bill Clinton for allegedly exposing himself in a Little Rock hotel room. In a deposition for the Jones lawsuit, Clinton lied under oath about his relationship with another woman, Monica Lewinsky, a White House intern, triggering his impeachment by the House of Representatives and the disclosure of oral sex in the Oval Office. ‘The questions can range far afield. You can ask all kinds of stuff,’ said Gilbert Davis, an attorney who represented Jones in her sexual harassment lawsuit. ‘You can start free-wheeling with all kinds of discovery methods.’
Such discovery would be invaluable for historians -- and political partisans -- if Fitzgerald decided not to return indictments by Oct. 28, the day the grand jury investigating the leak of Plame's name to the press is scheduled to be dismissed. Though Democrats in Congress have requested a report from Fitzgerald on his findings, legal observers say Fitzgerald is under no obligation to provide one if he decides that no crimes were committed. The possibility of greater public disclosure has not escaped the notice of Wolf, the attorney for Wilson and Plame. ‘By its nature a civil case is somewhat more transparent than a criminal case,’ he said.
Wolf is a close personal friend of the couple's, having lived for years next door to them in the outskirts of Washington. His cousin, Audrey Wolf, served as a literary agent for Joseph Wilson's bestselling memoir, ‘The Politics of Truth.’ In an Op-Ed published in USA Today this summer, Wolf wrote that he was ‘collecting facts for any eventual civil suit’ on the couple's behalf. Early this week, Bloomberg reported that Wilson said he may file a civil suit against Bush, Dick Cheney and others, ‘seeking damages for the alleged harm done to Plame's career.’
Wilson, who could not be reached by Salon for comment for this story, wrote in ‘The Politics of Truth’ that his wife was ‘crestfallen’ when she discovered that syndicated columnist Robert Novak had disclosed her identity as a CIA ‘operative.’
‘She would never be able to regain the anonymity and secrecy that her professional life had required; she would not be able to return to her discreet work on some of the most sensitive threats to our society in the foreseeable future, and perhaps ever,’ he wrote.
In some ways, the Paula Jones case clears the way for a lawsuit by Plame and Wilson. In 1997 the Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision giving the green light to Paula Jones' lawsuit against Clinton, despite the fact that he was a sitting president. The court ruled that Jones' allegations, which involved personal conduct during Clinton's years as a governor, were not protected by any claims of executive immunity. After much legal wrangling, Clinton finally settled with Jones in 1998 for $850,000, though he offered neither an apology nor an admission of guilt. (Clinton's top lawyer in that case was Robert Bennett, who is representing New York Times reporter Judith Miller in the CIA leak investigation.)
However, there is one constitutional defense that senior White House officials, or at least Bush, could attempt to use. In a 1982 case, Nixon v. Fitzgerald (no relation to the current special prosecutor), the Supreme Court found, in a split decision, that a president enjoys ‘absolute immunity from damages liability predicated on his official acts.’ It is not clear whether this immunity extends to the vice president or senior White House aides, or if the White House could claim that discussions of Plame's identity should be viewed as an ‘official act.’
Most likely, the White House would try to litigate any civil case in the court of public opinion. One attorney from the Jones case, John Whitehead, said that the White House would likely renew its attacks against Wilson and Plame, working through intermediaries. ‘They shift the focus from the wrongdoer to the non-wrongdoer,’ said Whitehead, who works at the Rutherford Institute, a conservative civil rights group. (Some might argue that this strategy is now being played out in the Texas prosecution of Rep. Tom DeLay, R-Texas, on charges of money laundering and conspiracy. Republican supporters, and DeLay himself, have spent weeks attacking the prosecutor, Ronnie Earle, and have even filed a suit against him for misconduct.)
‘This is a media case,’ said Whitehead, adding that the attorney for Wilson and Plame had better be ready for a fight. ‘There will be people saying things about them that they have never heard before.’”
[Salon | October 18, 2005]
posted by ericb at 11:28 AM on June 13, 2006
More Vicious than Tricky Dick -- "John Dean says the Bush team's leaks are even viler than his former boss's -- and that Plame and Wilson should file a civil suit."
posted by ericb at 11:29 AM on June 13, 2006
posted by ericb at 11:29 AM on June 13, 2006
Wall Street Journal -- Possible Civil Suit Looms As Threat in CIA-Leak Case.
posted by ericb at 11:31 AM on June 13, 2006
posted by ericb at 11:31 AM on June 13, 2006
Bloomberg: Wilsons May Sue Bush, Cheney
"In an interview yesterday, Wilson said that once the criminal questions are settled, he and his wife may file a civil lawsuit against Bush, Cheney and others seeking damages for the alleged harm done to Plame's career.posted by ericb at 11:33 AM on June 13, 2006
If they do so, the current state of the law makes it likely that the suit will be allowed to proceed -- and Bush and Cheney will face questioning under oath -- while they are in office. The reason for that is a unanimous 1997 U.S. Supreme Court decision ruling that Paula Jones' sexual harassment suit against then-President Bill Clinton could go forward immediately, a decision that was hailed by conservatives at the time."
[TalkLeft | October 17, 2005]
man, this bellman/dios argument is like watching those scenes in law and order where the da and the defense attorney go in front of the judge because of some piece of damning evidence the damn dirty criminal wants suppressed. first one attorney is like "yo, this is bullshit! what about shecky vs. mcphergus?" and the judge (whose position I sympathize with as an interested 3rd party only. what the fuck is with a judge not being aware of the statuteus these lawyers throw at him in the first place? isn't a judge like lawyer prime or something? he should be all like "bitch, don't quote that shit at ME, asshole. i was quoting that shit back when you were popping no-doze to get through your bar exam, shitwhich.") just sits there being like "that's true." and then the other lawyer will say "but gerfunktenstein vs. the people of awesometown shows that shecky doesn't apply to cases of extremem genital torture." and the judge will be like "huh! i'd forgotten gerfunktenstein! take THAT, counsel!" and the other counsel will be all like "but in order for gerfunktenstein to apply, counsel has to show that libre ex primis was violated by the parites in question!" and the judge will be all "holy fuck! you're right! what do you say to THAT viable ripost, counsel?" and they keep going till one of them just looks at the judge and goes, "your honor... come onnnn!" and then the judge bangs the gavel for the winner.
so yeah. that's me. I go like a sucker for every argument each one gives, and then each return arguement is like a new devastating blow. maybe that's just because I don't know shit about law, though.
posted by shmegegge at 11:37 AM on June 13, 2006 [11 favorites]
so yeah. that's me. I go like a sucker for every argument each one gives, and then each return arguement is like a new devastating blow. maybe that's just because I don't know shit about law, though.
posted by shmegegge at 11:37 AM on June 13, 2006 [11 favorites]
if it's confusing, my lowercase use of the letters "da" was intended to be a lazy way of typing DA, or District Attorney. I just realized, reading that, that even I was confused by what the hell "da" was supposed to mean.
posted by shmegegge at 11:40 AM on June 13, 2006
posted by shmegegge at 11:40 AM on June 13, 2006
Hmm. Rove has decided to squeal against Libby. I don't see that as much of a "victory" for Bush apologists. Honor among thieves and all that.
posted by bardic at 11:43 AM on June 13, 2006
posted by bardic at 11:43 AM on June 13, 2006
Coincidentally, Shecky v. McPhergus is controlling here.
posted by The Bellman at 11:47 AM on June 13, 2006
posted by The Bellman at 11:47 AM on June 13, 2006
Does Scooter remind anyone of Walter Starbuck in Kurt Vonnegut's Jailbird?
posted by Mr. Six at 11:47 AM on June 13, 2006
posted by Mr. Six at 11:47 AM on June 13, 2006
holy shit, you just linked to dustygrooves! I fucking love that site.
posted by shmegegge at 11:53 AM on June 13, 2006
posted by shmegegge at 11:53 AM on June 13, 2006
Are you people forgetting that Libby was indicted, and is now on trial? It's not like "Nothing" was found, or "no" justice was served.
Have some perspective people, I have no idea why Dios is saying that there's no reason to indict rove, there may have been reason, but a deal was struck instead.
posted by delmoi at 12:02 PM on June 13, 2006
Have some perspective people, I have no idea why Dios is saying that there's no reason to indict rove, there may have been reason, but a deal was struck instead.
posted by delmoi at 12:02 PM on June 13, 2006
*indicts dios' cheese sandwich for "tortious application of overused talking points"*
posted by Hat Maui at 12:04 PM on June 13, 2006
posted by Hat Maui at 12:04 PM on June 13, 2006
shmegegge's dope comment flagged as "awesometown."
And thanks, ericb. Nice reading.
posted by NationalKato at 12:08 PM on June 13, 2006
And thanks, ericb. Nice reading.
posted by NationalKato at 12:08 PM on June 13, 2006
Shecky v. McPhergus
McPhergus to be represented by Dewey, Cheethem, and Howe; Schecky by Dewey, Cheetham, and Howe.
posted by ericb at 12:14 PM on June 13, 2006
McPhergus to be represented by Dewey, Cheethem, and Howe; Schecky by Dewey, Cheetham, and Howe.
posted by ericb at 12:14 PM on June 13, 2006
and the judge will be all "holy fuck! you're right! what do you say to THAT viable ripost, counsel?" and they keep going till one of them just looks at the judge and goes, "your honor... come onnnn!" and then the judge bangs the gavel for the winner.
Except instead of a judge banging on a gavel and declaring a winner, the other lawyer just Disappears.
I wonder about that though, do they have lawyers to look up real stuff, or do they simply make up random names?
posted by delmoi at 12:16 PM on June 13, 2006
Except instead of a judge banging on a gavel and declaring a winner, the other lawyer just Disappears.
I wonder about that though, do they have lawyers to look up real stuff, or do they simply make up random names?
posted by delmoi at 12:16 PM on June 13, 2006
I'm not convinced that the reason Rove isn't being indicted is part of a deal to testify against Libby. Libby was indicted on October 29. If Fitzgerald had the goods on Libby then, why would he make a deal with Rove now?
I think it's possible Rove made a deal to testify against Cheney, but Rove's spokeman says "There is no deal. Period."
The most likely explanation is that Fitzgerald couldn't prove that Rove did anything wrong. (Which doesn't mean Rove didn't do anything wrong, just that Fitzgerald can't prove it.)
On May 13, Truthout claimed that Karl Rove had been indicted. Today, Karl Rove's attorney says Rove won't be charged. That mean's he hasn't been charged, and Truthout's story was wrong. They should retract their story, and Jason Leopold should reveal his sources like he said he would.
posted by kirkaracha at 12:18 PM on June 13, 2006
I think it's possible Rove made a deal to testify against Cheney, but Rove's spokeman says "There is no deal. Period."
The most likely explanation is that Fitzgerald couldn't prove that Rove did anything wrong. (Which doesn't mean Rove didn't do anything wrong, just that Fitzgerald can't prove it.)
On May 13, Truthout claimed that Karl Rove had been indicted. Today, Karl Rove's attorney says Rove won't be charged. That mean's he hasn't been charged, and Truthout's story was wrong. They should retract their story, and Jason Leopold should reveal his sources like he said he would.
posted by kirkaracha at 12:18 PM on June 13, 2006
Dios, either your ideological bias is getting in the way of your vision or you're trolling.
Why is this an either/or statement?
posted by Kirth Gerson at 12:22 PM on June 13, 2006
Why is this an either/or statement?
posted by Kirth Gerson at 12:22 PM on June 13, 2006
We only have Rove's lawyer's word for this--it's not a fact.
posted by amberglow at 12:25 PM on June 13, 2006
posted by amberglow at 12:25 PM on June 13, 2006
fourcheesemac--I'm not sure anything, certainly not democracy, is served by your hysteria. But carry on.
posted by OmieWise at 12:27 PM on June 13, 2006
posted by OmieWise at 12:27 PM on June 13, 2006
kirkaracha> I think it's possible Rove made a deal to testify against Cheney, but Rove's spokeman says "There is no deal. Period."
This is the link to that article.
I can't see any room for weaselling in Luskin's statement. I guess Rove didn't make a deal after all.
posted by UrineSoakedRube at 12:30 PM on June 13, 2006
This is the link to that article.
I can't see any room for weaselling in Luskin's statement. I guess Rove didn't make a deal after all.
posted by UrineSoakedRube at 12:30 PM on June 13, 2006
We only have Rove's lawyer's word for this--it's not a fact.
Rove's lawyer is top-notch, a well-respected litigator at Patton Boggs. I seriously doubt he'd tell the public a bald-faced law, especially when he would certainly be caught in the lie later.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 12:30 PM on June 13, 2006
Rove's lawyer is top-notch, a well-respected litigator at Patton Boggs. I seriously doubt he'd tell the public a bald-faced law, especially when he would certainly be caught in the lie later.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 12:30 PM on June 13, 2006
Metafilter: Fitzmas gave me blue balls.
posted by dios
Agree with him or no--ya gotta admit that every once in a while he gets a zinger in there.
posted by leftcoastbob at 12:41 PM on June 13, 2006
posted by dios
Agree with him or no--ya gotta admit that every once in a while he gets a zinger in there.
posted by leftcoastbob at 12:41 PM on June 13, 2006
monju, are you saying that lawyers never lie? The good ones get hired at the best firms precisely because they're good at it, and obfuscation through the filing of paperwork in general. (If the term "lie" rankles you, we might agree on the phrase "presents a selective 'truth' out of many possibilities that is best for his or her client.") Utterly laughable.
So let me go ahead and Godwinize the thread:
Hitler's minister of propoganda Dr. Paul Joseph Goebbels, was a top-notch, well-respected minister of propoganda for the Third Reich. Say what you will about his client, but his bona fides are unimpeachable.
posted by bardic at 12:55 PM on June 13, 2006
So let me go ahead and Godwinize the thread:
Hitler's minister of propoganda Dr. Paul Joseph Goebbels, was a top-notch, well-respected minister of propoganda for the Third Reich. Say what you will about his client, but his bona fides are unimpeachable.
posted by bardic at 12:55 PM on June 13, 2006
I can't see any room for weaselling in Luskin's statement. I guess Rove didn't make a deal after all.
I have seen an argument that differentiates between cutting a deal to plead down, and an agreement to testify in exchange for charges being dropped altogether. I think that's likely wishful thinking, but it's a possibility.
And, yeah, there's no way Luskin's lying here. That'd be like daring the SP to indict.
posted by EarBucket at 12:55 PM on June 13, 2006
I have seen an argument that differentiates between cutting a deal to plead down, and an agreement to testify in exchange for charges being dropped altogether. I think that's likely wishful thinking, but it's a possibility.
And, yeah, there's no way Luskin's lying here. That'd be like daring the SP to indict.
posted by EarBucket at 12:55 PM on June 13, 2006
Rove's lawyer is top-notch, a well-respected litigator at Patton Boggs. I seriously doubt he'd tell the public a bald-faced law
You'd also think he wouldn't accept payment from an accused drug drug dealer charged with money laundering through a precious metals trading company in the form of gold bars.
Although personally, I think successful criminals should be allowed to pay lawyers with potentially ill-gotten gains. It's a bit absurd for the government to be able to say say "Okay, we're going to fight you in court, but first we're going to take all your money so you can't afford a lawyer"
posted by delmoi at 1:03 PM on June 13, 2006
You'd also think he wouldn't accept payment from an accused drug drug dealer charged with money laundering through a precious metals trading company in the form of gold bars.
Although personally, I think successful criminals should be allowed to pay lawyers with potentially ill-gotten gains. It's a bit absurd for the government to be able to say say "Okay, we're going to fight you in court, but first we're going to take all your money so you can't afford a lawyer"
posted by delmoi at 1:03 PM on June 13, 2006
monju, are you saying that lawyers never lie? The good ones get hired at the best firms precisely because they're good at it, and obfuscation through the filing of paperwork in general. (If the term "lie" rankles you, we might agree on the phrase "presents a selective 'truth' out of many possibilities that is best for his or her client.") Utterly laughable.
Of course I'm not saying that lawyers never obfuscate or spin--or, as you put it, lie. But, as I've said above, the good ones wouldn't tell such a bald-faced and stupid lie in public. And good lawyers are hired by the best firms because they're good liars? That's the only part of your comment--aside, of course, from the facially silly comparison of Ruskin to Goebbels--that's "utterly laughable."
posted by monju_bosatsu at 1:07 PM on June 13, 2006
Of course I'm not saying that lawyers never obfuscate or spin--or, as you put it, lie. But, as I've said above, the good ones wouldn't tell such a bald-faced and stupid lie in public. And good lawyers are hired by the best firms because they're good liars? That's the only part of your comment--aside, of course, from the facially silly comparison of Ruskin to Goebbels--that's "utterly laughable."
posted by monju_bosatsu at 1:07 PM on June 13, 2006
Maybe it's a cultural thing. As delmoi kind of notes, to defend someone by saying they work for Patton Boggs as some sort of hallmark of unimpeachable virtue would get you laughed out of any dinner party in DC or NYC. Hallmark of unimpeachable lawyering? Certainly. And ne're the twain shall meet.
posted by bardic at 1:32 PM on June 13, 2006
posted by bardic at 1:32 PM on June 13, 2006
(And I'm not the one who brought up facials, mister. Although I've heard Rove throws a pretty good bukkake/clambake every Labor Day.)
posted by bardic at 1:34 PM on June 13, 2006
posted by bardic at 1:34 PM on June 13, 2006
monju isn't saying he's a model of unimpeachable virtue, he's saying he's not stupid.
posted by delmoi at 1:48 PM on June 13, 2006
posted by delmoi at 1:48 PM on June 13, 2006
Who the fuck was Vince Foster?
posted by Artw at 10:31 AM PST
Wasn't he killed for knowing Leo Wanta?
posted by rough ashlar at 1:49 PM on June 13, 2006
posted by Artw at 10:31 AM PST
Wasn't he killed for knowing Leo Wanta?
posted by rough ashlar at 1:49 PM on June 13, 2006
Luskin says he was notified by Fitzgerald in the form of a letter. He would have to be totally insane to make all of this up.
It's over, folks. Rove is not going to be indicted. Move on.
posted by brain_drain at 2:15 PM on June 13, 2006
It's over, folks. Rove is not going to be indicted. Move on.
posted by brain_drain at 2:15 PM on June 13, 2006
Eh. I agree with kirkaracha's take. I'm not happy about it, and I hope the whole business gave Rove ulcers, but I wasn't very hopeful anything would come of the Plame business for some time. Either it'd go too low to affect things, or too high for anyone to do anything about. There's plenty of worse shit to be mad at the government about.
posted by furiousthought at 2:18 PM on June 13, 2006
posted by furiousthought at 2:18 PM on June 13, 2006
Rove could have ratted out Libby to save his own (and more imp. his buttboy Georgie's ) ass.
...
Although I've heard Rove throws a pretty good bukkake/clambake every Labor Day.
Why are these kinds of slurs ok when it comes to discussing Republicans? Because, you know, that's what they are.
And, as an enthusiastic participant in these sorts of activities myself, let me tell you, I really don't want to be imagining Karl Rove.
posted by me & my monkey at 2:18 PM on June 13, 2006
...
Although I've heard Rove throws a pretty good bukkake/clambake every Labor Day.
Why are these kinds of slurs ok when it comes to discussing Republicans? Because, you know, that's what they are.
And, as an enthusiastic participant in these sorts of activities myself, let me tell you, I really don't want to be imagining Karl Rove.
posted by me & my monkey at 2:18 PM on June 13, 2006
I'm discussing traitors who happen to be Republicans myself (with flair and panache, as usual).
posted by bardic at 2:22 PM on June 13, 2006
posted by bardic at 2:22 PM on June 13, 2006
but I wasn't very hopeful anything would come of the Plame business for some time.
DID YOU FORGET THE FACT THAT LIBBY WAS INDICTED?
posted by delmoi at 2:36 PM on June 13, 2006
DID YOU FORGET THE FACT THAT LIBBY WAS INDICTED?
posted by delmoi at 2:36 PM on June 13, 2006
much of anything, then. I don't think Libby really counts, screamy.
posted by furiousthought at 2:38 PM on June 13, 2006
posted by furiousthought at 2:38 PM on June 13, 2006
Nice try, Allexandros! We all know that Vince Foster was killed by Hillary Clinton's lesbian lover to cover up the UFO conspiracy's ties to the Yakuza weathermachine that's run by the Russian mob.
I see you've clearly left out the shadowy influence of Art Bell, John Candy and Dr. Malachi York, because the Yakuza and Russian mafiosos are convenient scapegoats!
posted by Alexandros at 2:57 PM on June 13, 2006
I see you've clearly left out the shadowy influence of Art Bell, John Candy and Dr. Malachi York, because the Yakuza and Russian mafiosos are convenient scapegoats!
posted by Alexandros at 2:57 PM on June 13, 2006
Vince Foster's murder was solved, thanks to Republican "Watermelon" Dan Burton.
posted by bardic at 3:05 PM on June 13, 2006
posted by bardic at 3:05 PM on June 13, 2006
Twas the night before Fitzmas and all through the blogs,Read the rest...
Not a creature was stirring, not even the firedogs.
The indictments were sealed at the courthouse with care
In hopes that Karl Rove soon would be there.
Lefty bloggers were snuggled all safe in their beds
While visions of frog-marches danced in their heads.
posted by Steven C. Den Beste at 3:23 PM on June 13, 2006
Yes, I forgot about those, and the Waco+Ruby Ridge connection, CARNIVORE, ECSHELON, black UN helicopters, and so on and on ...
Forgetting about parts of the conspiracy proves it exists, right?
posted by Jos Bleau at 3:24 PM on June 13, 2006
Forgetting about parts of the conspiracy proves it exists, right?
posted by Jos Bleau at 3:24 PM on June 13, 2006
Now Rove can go find the REAL leaker.
/just a joke, baby. I don’t know whether he provably did anything or not. I know I wouldn’t screw him with Gannon’s dick though.
“Valerie Plame was a Secret Agent is the new Vince Foster was killed by Bill Clinton”
I’ll get right on caring when all the “conservatives” who were bitching about things like this and saying we should (to quote G. Gordon) shoot around the body armor start bitching about the same thing under this administration.
(4 a.m. - Tactical assault team - 80 year old man - bruised ribs - think about that for a second).
Divorce the politics from this and it’s obvious a crime was committed. End of story. Whether Rove had anything - provably - to do with it, I’m sure Fitzgerald knows better than any of us. (And that guy is solid).
Besides, lots of goofy things about Bill Clinton if you get into it.
posted by Smedleyman at 3:25 PM on June 13, 2006
I'm just grateful that we have a presidential advisor who escaped being indicted on conspiracy charges unlike a prominent vice presidential advisor. With standards like that, America will boldly advance into this wonderful new century.
posted by bardic at 3:28 PM on June 13, 2006
posted by bardic at 3:28 PM on June 13, 2006
“Why are these kinds of slurs ok when it comes to discussing Republicans?” -posted by me & my monkey
Making fun of/slurring homosexuals - wrong.
Making fun of/slurring people who make fun of/slur homosexuals - meh.
Making fun of/slurring people who make fun of/slur homosexuals who hypocritically ARE homosexuals - comedy gold.
Reminds me of Chappelle’s piece on the blind black KKK leader.
/Pretty much any hypocracy = comedy gold.
posted by Smedleyman at 3:32 PM on June 13, 2006
Making fun of/slurring homosexuals - wrong.
Making fun of/slurring people who make fun of/slur homosexuals - meh.
Making fun of/slurring people who make fun of/slur homosexuals who hypocritically ARE homosexuals - comedy gold.
Reminds me of Chappelle’s piece on the blind black KKK leader.
/Pretty much any hypocracy = comedy gold.
posted by Smedleyman at 3:32 PM on June 13, 2006
UrineSoakedRube> I can't see any room for weaselling in Luskin's statement. I guess Rove didn't make a deal after all.
EarBucket> I have seen an argument that differentiates between cutting a deal to plead down, and an agreement to testify in exchange for charges being dropped altogether. I think that's likely wishful thinking, but it's a possibility.
Okay, so here's the newest posting on firedoglake.com about Luskin's statement. Perhaps also worth reading is this comment, which argues that no deal per se was necessary, as they got all of the information out of Rove by the 5th time he was called before the Grand Jury and had to testify under oath.
I am not a lawyer, but this seems like wishful thinking to me. Can the transcripts of the Grand Jury testimony really be adequate? What if Rove is called by the defense (either in the Libby trial or in a hypothetical Cheney trial) and equivocates without out and out repudiating his previous statements? I would think that Fitzgerald would have to have a deal in place in order to use Rove as a prosecution witness.
But if firedoglake and the commenter are right, then I guess there was enough wiggle room in Luskin's statement to talkleft.com. I guess we'll see.
posted by UrineSoakedRube at 4:00 PM on June 13, 2006
EarBucket> I have seen an argument that differentiates between cutting a deal to plead down, and an agreement to testify in exchange for charges being dropped altogether. I think that's likely wishful thinking, but it's a possibility.
Okay, so here's the newest posting on firedoglake.com about Luskin's statement. Perhaps also worth reading is this comment, which argues that no deal per se was necessary, as they got all of the information out of Rove by the 5th time he was called before the Grand Jury and had to testify under oath.
I am not a lawyer, but this seems like wishful thinking to me. Can the transcripts of the Grand Jury testimony really be adequate? What if Rove is called by the defense (either in the Libby trial or in a hypothetical Cheney trial) and equivocates without out and out repudiating his previous statements? I would think that Fitzgerald would have to have a deal in place in order to use Rove as a prosecution witness.
But if firedoglake and the commenter are right, then I guess there was enough wiggle room in Luskin's statement to talkleft.com. I guess we'll see.
posted by UrineSoakedRube at 4:00 PM on June 13, 2006
Christian Conservatives don't care because there is no ejaculate involved. Dios doesn't care because he doesn't care about morality, right and wrong are immaterial for him. The right doesn't care because it's realpolitik, and IOKIYAR.
The people with half a brain do care because Valery Plame was the undercover director of operations for nuclear nonproliferation in the middle east, and frankly, I don't want the result of her outing to be mushroom shaped, if you get my meaning.
So, who got fired? Who got reprimanded? Whose to blame? I want to know, because if there is one thing i don't think we should fuck around with, it's nuclear non-proliferation in the middle east. Unless of course, it's not about safety it's about saving face, or playing partisan politics.
posted by Freen at 4:35 PM on June 13, 2006
The people with half a brain do care because Valery Plame was the undercover director of operations for nuclear nonproliferation in the middle east, and frankly, I don't want the result of her outing to be mushroom shaped, if you get my meaning.
So, who got fired? Who got reprimanded? Whose to blame? I want to know, because if there is one thing i don't think we should fuck around with, it's nuclear non-proliferation in the middle east. Unless of course, it's not about safety it's about saving face, or playing partisan politics.
posted by Freen at 4:35 PM on June 13, 2006
Move on.org
: >
I'm just grateful that we have a presidential advisor who escaped being indicted on conspiracy charges unlike a prominent vice presidential advisor. With standards like that, America will boldly advance into this wonderful new century.
Exactly--they should be proud of themselves. And what a lesson for the children of America, no? They've really restored honor and dignity to the White House--just like they promised--not.
I'm with you Urine--if Rove doesn't play ball about this, i'd bet he gets taken down. No one testifies that many times to a Grand Jury with no connection to the incident--wasn't it 5 times and counting?
posted by amberglow at 4:37 PM on June 13, 2006
: >
I'm just grateful that we have a presidential advisor who escaped being indicted on conspiracy charges unlike a prominent vice presidential advisor. With standards like that, America will boldly advance into this wonderful new century.
Exactly--they should be proud of themselves. And what a lesson for the children of America, no? They've really restored honor and dignity to the White House--just like they promised--not.
I'm with you Urine--if Rove doesn't play ball about this, i'd bet he gets taken down. No one testifies that many times to a Grand Jury with no connection to the incident--wasn't it 5 times and counting?
posted by amberglow at 4:37 PM on June 13, 2006
And don't forget Bush's promise (just one of many broken promises) that he would fire everyone involved in the leak---Rove is clearly involved--there's no question about it at all.
posted by amberglow at 4:42 PM on June 13, 2006
posted by amberglow at 4:42 PM on June 13, 2006
fourcheesemac--I'm not sure anything, certainly not democracy, is served by your hysteria. But carry on.
Will do, punk. It's only "hysteria" if it's wrong. It's not. But go ahead and keep dreaming happy dreams.
posted by fourcheesemac at 4:59 PM on June 13, 2006
Will do, punk. It's only "hysteria" if it's wrong. It's not. But go ahead and keep dreaming happy dreams.
posted by fourcheesemac at 4:59 PM on June 13, 2006
this is hysterical---...Now I’m sure plenty of people here will be appropriately outraged by the fact that an official paid by taxpayers is out there raising money for a felon’s legal fees.
But I’m too busy laughing at the shabbiness of the whole thing. $60,000?? Whoever heard of a Republican fund-raiser that produced $60,000? Aren’t we missing some zeroes here? $60,000 is the price of the car you drive to the Republican fund-raiser in. Not to mention, it’s not even a down-payment on the $3 million in legal fees stemming from the case.
And what’s Rove’s time worth these days? Shaking hands for $250? Isn’t this like the end of a "Behind the Music" or E! True Hollywood Story, where the celebrity gamely tries to make a comeback, playing small clubs or shaking hands for money at conventions of fans of his long-cancelled show?
posted by amberglow at 5:11 PM on June 13, 2006
But I’m too busy laughing at the shabbiness of the whole thing. $60,000?? Whoever heard of a Republican fund-raiser that produced $60,000? Aren’t we missing some zeroes here? $60,000 is the price of the car you drive to the Republican fund-raiser in. Not to mention, it’s not even a down-payment on the $3 million in legal fees stemming from the case.
And what’s Rove’s time worth these days? Shaking hands for $250? Isn’t this like the end of a "Behind the Music" or E! True Hollywood Story, where the celebrity gamely tries to make a comeback, playing small clubs or shaking hands for money at conventions of fans of his long-cancelled show?
posted by amberglow at 5:11 PM on June 13, 2006
this too is great: Boy, they must be partying at the White House today. ...
posted by amberglow at 5:29 PM on June 13, 2006
posted by amberglow at 5:29 PM on June 13, 2006
Metafilter: Turn up Mot the Hoople and dance, boys
posted by Smedleyman at 6:11 PM on June 13, 2006
posted by Smedleyman at 6:11 PM on June 13, 2006
As mentioned at least once up above, there is always the possibility that Rove DIDN'T DO ANYTHING WRONG. For those of you who are so vociferous in your condemnation of this news, why do you not give credence to that possiblity? After all, aren't "liberals" supposed to be all about forgiveness? So shouldn't some of you be properly apologetic to Rove for your hasty judgment?
posted by davidmsc at 6:14 PM on June 13, 2006
posted by davidmsc at 6:14 PM on June 13, 2006
amberglow> I'm with you Urine--if Rove doesn't play ball about this, i'd bet he gets taken down. No one testifies that many times to a Grand Jury with no connection to the incident--wasn't it 5 times and counting?(link)
Well, that's not exactly what I said, but I'm still trying to make sense of all of the information.
Here are 3 things we know: 1) Rove met with the Grand Jury 5 times, 2) his lawyers state categorically that he won't be indicted, and 3) his lawyers state categorically that there's no formal deal for his testimony.
Some possibilities spring to mind: A) Rove is fully in the clear as far as indictability is concerned, B) his lawyers are lying about 3, and he has made a formal deal to talk to avoid indictment, C) his lawyers are lying about 2, and there's an indictment.
I hate to say this, but choice A does seem most likely, because I can't see his lawyers lying outright. C seems very unlikely, but there is some chatter that there is a sealed indictment against him which is being held as leverage. B seems unlikely too, given the denial to talkleft.com. 1, 2, and 3 can be true and Rove's Grand Jury testimony could be used in a later criminal trial, with the threat of perjury charges if he backtracks later.
I guess that last one (the possibility you deal with in your comment) is possible, but there has to be some deal to ensure/insure that Rove plays ball, right? It is possible that Luskin is lying where he says there's no formal deal for Rove's testimony, but I'm not sure how Rove's testimony can be deemed reliable without one. Then again, I'm not a lawyer.
posted by UrineSoakedRube at 6:38 PM on June 13, 2006
Well, that's not exactly what I said, but I'm still trying to make sense of all of the information.
Here are 3 things we know: 1) Rove met with the Grand Jury 5 times, 2) his lawyers state categorically that he won't be indicted, and 3) his lawyers state categorically that there's no formal deal for his testimony.
Some possibilities spring to mind: A) Rove is fully in the clear as far as indictability is concerned, B) his lawyers are lying about 3, and he has made a formal deal to talk to avoid indictment, C) his lawyers are lying about 2, and there's an indictment.
I hate to say this, but choice A does seem most likely, because I can't see his lawyers lying outright. C seems very unlikely, but there is some chatter that there is a sealed indictment against him which is being held as leverage. B seems unlikely too, given the denial to talkleft.com. 1, 2, and 3 can be true and Rove's Grand Jury testimony could be used in a later criminal trial, with the threat of perjury charges if he backtracks later.
I guess that last one (the possibility you deal with in your comment) is possible, but there has to be some deal to ensure/insure that Rove plays ball, right? It is possible that Luskin is lying where he says there's no formal deal for Rove's testimony, but I'm not sure how Rove's testimony can be deemed reliable without one. Then again, I'm not a lawyer.
posted by UrineSoakedRube at 6:38 PM on June 13, 2006
Associated Press: "The decision not to charge Karl Rove shows there often are no consequences for misleading the public."
posted by ericb at 8:03 PM on June 13, 2006
posted by ericb at 8:03 PM on June 13, 2006
So, does no formal deal mean that there is no deal whatsoever, or that they just haven't signed anything yet? I don't quite understand why that word was injected into an otherwise simple statement.
posted by IronLizard at 8:24 PM on June 13, 2006
posted by IronLizard at 8:24 PM on June 13, 2006
Now maybe Rove can concentrate on tracking Iran's WMD programs. He can focus on keeping us safe without these petty distractions.
posted by homunculus at 9:26 PM on June 13, 2006
posted by homunculus at 9:26 PM on June 13, 2006
So, does no formal deal mean that there is no deal whatsoever, or that they just haven't signed anything yet?
Good point. Is a deal only 'formal' when entered into the court record and a judge approves said deal?
In which case, Libby has no 'formal' "deal" either.
posted by rough ashlar at 8:10 AM on June 14, 2006
Good point. Is a deal only 'formal' when entered into the court record and a judge approves said deal?
In which case, Libby has no 'formal' "deal" either.
posted by rough ashlar at 8:10 AM on June 14, 2006
ironlizard> So, does no formal deal mean that there is no deal whatsoever, or that they just haven't signed anything yet? I don't quite understand why that word was injected into an otherwise simple statement. (link)
That's my understanding of it, but the word formal is mine. When Luskin tells talkleft.com that there's no deal, I assume that he means there's no formal deal. I would think that there would have to be a formal deal for Rove's testimony to be useful, otherwise he could equivocate when it came time for the trial. Luskin is claiming that there has been no discussion of a deal whatsoever, if you check talkleft.com's posting.
posted by UrineSoakedRube at 8:34 AM on June 14, 2006
That's my understanding of it, but the word formal is mine. When Luskin tells talkleft.com that there's no deal, I assume that he means there's no formal deal. I would think that there would have to be a formal deal for Rove's testimony to be useful, otherwise he could equivocate when it came time for the trial. Luskin is claiming that there has been no discussion of a deal whatsoever, if you check talkleft.com's posting.
posted by UrineSoakedRube at 8:34 AM on June 14, 2006
I confess I keep coming back to this thread in hopes of a response to this. Sadly, one has not been forthcoming to this point.
posted by Fezboy! at 9:16 AM on June 14, 2006
posted by Fezboy! at 9:16 AM on June 14, 2006
hopes of a response to this. Sadly, one has not been forthcoming to this point.
Yea, good luck. He's not much of a 'responder' more of a 'post and run away' kinda guy.
posted by rough ashlar at 9:19 AM on June 14, 2006
Yea, good luck. He's not much of a 'responder' more of a 'post and run away' kinda guy.
posted by rough ashlar at 9:19 AM on June 14, 2006
After all, aren't "liberals" supposed to be all about forgiveness?
No, that's the Republicans. They're the Christians, after all.
posted by goethean at 9:30 AM on June 14, 2006
No, that's the Republicans. They're the Christians, after all.
posted by goethean at 9:30 AM on June 14, 2006
I confess I keep coming back to this thread in hopes of a response to this. Sadly, one has not been forthcoming to this point.
I'm waiting to hear a response, too. Given the initial belligerence of the one being asked for this particular response, I'm not optimistic we'll get an answer.
posted by Mr. Six at 10:39 AM on June 14, 2006
I'm waiting to hear a response, too. Given the initial belligerence of the one being asked for this particular response, I'm not optimistic we'll get an answer.
posted by Mr. Six at 10:39 AM on June 14, 2006
it is indeed quite telling that, lately, the only occasions for the usual suspects in warblogs -- and, sadly, here -- to start a massive gloatfest is when their guy doesn't get indicted. Bush's old plan to deface the Constitution with anti-gay graffiti isn't going anywhere, Iraq's civil war blissfully goes on unaware of the good news of Zarqawi's death and of Bush's talent as a leader.
hence:
"HAY GUYZ OUR GUY IS NOT GOING TO JAIL HEHEHEHE"
hilarity, ejaculations ensue.
I guess it beats counting the bodybags coming back from Iraq. and at least, the gloating for Rove keeps our friends -- at least temporarily -- away from the donuts and the creepy prepubescent manga
posted by matteo at 3:39 PM on June 14, 2006
hence:
"HAY GUYZ OUR GUY IS NOT GOING TO JAIL HEHEHEHE"
hilarity, ejaculations ensue.
I guess it beats counting the bodybags coming back from Iraq. and at least, the gloating for Rove keeps our friends -- at least temporarily -- away from the donuts and the creepy prepubescent manga
posted by matteo at 3:39 PM on June 14, 2006
I confess I keep coming back to this thread in hopes of a response to this. Sadly, one has not been forthcoming to this point.
I think we're at the point where dios has looked at the judge and said, "Your honor... c'maaaahn."
posted by shmegegge at 4:02 PM on June 14, 2006
I think we're at the point where dios has looked at the judge and said, "Your honor... c'maaaahn."
posted by shmegegge at 4:02 PM on June 14, 2006
« Older Music video for an imaginary song | Did He Leave It Running? Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by monju_bosatsu at 7:26 AM on June 13, 2006