“Don’t even go there” was a theme in the latest installment of the Lewis “Scooter” Libby litigation this morning. In a motion to dismiss the civil suit filed by Valerie Plame and Joseph Wilson, defense lawyers for Libby and his codefendants, Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, and Richard Armitage, argued repeatedly that Plame’s CIA work would be a major hindrance at trial.
They said that Plame’s former covert position stood in the way of her equal protection claims against the defendants, meaning that in order to proceed with the case the court might have to dig into the covert actions of the CIA.
“The courts just don’t go there,” said John Kester of Williams & Connolly and counsel to Cheney.
Judge John Bates presided over the motion in Federal District Court and only shook his finger once at the defense team, even though they exceeded their one hour time limit by at least 45 minutes, causing many in the courtroom to shift uncomfortably on the rock-hard benches.
The defense lawyers continued to use the qualified immunity argument, which only got a few pointed questions from Bates. But a couple of the defense lawyers argued that Cheney as vice president should get absolute immunity, a status that only the president of this fair country now holds. Kester, who was “talking from the point of view of the vice president of the United States,” made the assertion that the vice presidency was a “unique constitutional office.” Bates gave a heated definition of the word “unique,” saying that the Supreme Court argues using that word for the president - not the vice president - in considering absolute immunity. Cue finger wagging here.
The lawyer for the plaintiffs, Erwin Chemerinsky, whose voice took on the even lilt of a guidance counselor, defended the suit by saying that qualified immunity doesn’t apply when the government officials involved act outside the bounds of their offices and intentionally set out to do harm.
Other lawyers for Libby and Co. included Robert Luskin of Patton Boggs who represented Karl Rove, and Michael Waldman of Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson for Richard Armitage. Valerie Plame sat at the plaintiff’s table with her counsel from the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, but her husband did not attend the proceedings.
Libby co-operated, and now he's charged with lying. And convicted by a jury in the People's Republic of Columbia.
Richard Armitage, who was actually responsible for the leak, has not been charged, because he sided with the Left. But innocent people were invesitigated for months after the prosecutor knew the source of the leak.
Libby is being scapegoated by left-wingers trying to insure defeat in Iraq. "Defeat at any price": the new Democratic slogan.
Posted by: Annoyed | June 24, 2007 at 11:38 PM
Isn't it ironic that Mrs. Plame chose a nonprofit legal team who identifies itself with words like Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington while the Veep and Rove and co. hide behind what they believe is the best legal team their money can buy? Frankly, if they didn't think they had something to lose, they wouldn't take the steps that they are taking...
It is equally ironic that our President, a man who has proven to be a serial liar and who obfuscates every attempt to hold him at his word could have anything to say to anyone about ethical or moral behavior. His entire life is one botched coverup. He tanked every business he ever touched, he tried to hide his DUI and drug abuse, he tried to hide his sorry excuse for military service, he has tried to hide damn near everything anyone wanted to take a close look at.... And the VEEP is clearly bellicose and boorish and has all the charisma of a brick...
Ironically, neither of them are statemen or orators and neither have lifted a finger to do a single selfless act in their entire lives... they are greedy, self-serving and manipulative....
And somehow they claim power though we didn't elect them.... and now we let them run the reputation and the budget of the US into the ground so that they can set up their corporate cronies.
The only thing in Washington as stinky and distasteful as these men and their agenda is the vast majority of our elected officials who didn't stand up to them in the begining and now, out of fear of losing their offices, are "standing up to the administration". Oh, that's ironic... even more irony-y (see Team America) then the quagmire that Rumsfeld and Cheney created.
Impeach the Neoconmen, and hold all of our elected officials accountable for their lack of moral compass and intestinal fortitude when our reputation and our security are at stake.
Posted by: Nobody Knows | May 18, 2007 at 02:21 PM
I heard speculation round these here wired parts de udder day says dem Republicans may be not too nice folk. Think this might do be the case?
Posted by: Lord Andrew J. Andrews II | May 17, 2007 at 11:46 PM
Isn't it ironic that it was okay for Repulicans to impeach Clinton for getting a dirty with an intern (which killed no one) but that Democrats can't impeach Bush for taking us to war (which killed thousands)? No one is above the law and no one should have guarenteed immunity. If you do the crime, you do the time! It's that simple!
Posted by: Alex S. | May 17, 2007 at 10:25 PM
I could not have expressed my thoughts any better that the "ironic and scary" comments.
Kudos.
Posted by: Sunny | May 17, 2007 at 10:10 PM
Isn't it ironic that a trial which central charge was lying to an investigator didn't reveal the truth that the Administration had manipulated intelligence and squelched any critics on a matter no less grave than:
a) manipulating the United Nations
b) commencing an attack in violation of international law and disregard of the aforementioned UN resolution
c) progress of the Iraq campaign
Regardless of this Plame decision, the Bush Administration has acted and will continue to act with both immunity and impunity.
Long Live King George!
Now that's, ironic
Posted by: Walt Hutchens | May 17, 2007 at 09:14 PM
Isn't it ironic and scary that satire and irony are so often wasted on the siphylatic reader who cannot connect the dots between an international photo-op stunt including the pilotal codpiece of a president uttering his Zed-Lepplinish banter, 'Bring it on...'
and the conduct of politics of destruction by morality based lunatics on the fringe of empowering a nuclear acquisition bent jihadist nation... motivated entirely and soley on the immorality of the Decider?
Posted by: Buster Cherry | May 17, 2007 at 08:43 PM
Isn't it ironic that
a) The special prosecutor determined that leaking the information was not a prosecutable offense by him (even the woman who wrote the law stated that Plame did not qualify as one of the covert types covered by it), and Libby was let go from the administration as a degree of accountability, though convicted not of breaking that law but of lying to investigators, and
b) that public officials of some ranks were given immunity from before this country was founded -- it is only a question of whether that immunity applies as it most often does, and finally
c) that PH above wants to blame the insurgency on a leak made by Richard Armitage, established in the press to be gabby to a fault, and though a deputy of Colin Powell, not a particular ally of the Bush Admin's policies in Iraq. In fact, someone who opposed them and would not have logically outed Plame as part of any Bush admin. "vendetta".
In fine, not ironic, but absurd.
Posted by: Aeschyylus | May 17, 2007 at 06:59 PM
Isn't it ironic that Bush asserted his administration would punish 'anyone connected with the outing' and yet he remains defiant, unimpeached and our enemies were emboldened to begin an insurgency in Iraq because his weak morals showed over outing Valerie Plame?
Posted by: Kelly B. | May 17, 2007 at 06:46 PM
Isn't it ironic and scary that these slimy "public officials" want immunity for doing something patently illegal. They took an oath of office to unhold the constitution and laws of the country. Now they want immunity from denigrating the laws of the country that tried to defame a civil servant who was supposed to be in cognito.
Posted by: PHYLLIS B. | May 17, 2007 at 06:27 PM
Isn't it ironic and scary that these slimy "public officials" want immunity for doing something patently illegal. They took an oath of office to unhold the constitution and laws of the country. Now they want immunity from denigrating the laws of the country that tried to defame a civil servant who was supposed to be in cognito.
Posted by: PHYLLIS B. | May 17, 2007 at 06:26 PM