Glenn brought to my attention that Joseph Wilson has announced he may sue Bush and Cheney because of damage done to the career of his wife, the CIA agent who was outed courtesy of Karl Rove.
Does anyone have the SLIGHTEST doubt that the exact same conservative forces which stated–at the time of the Paula Jones civil suit–that a president should be able to be sued while in office, will now say that Bush simply cannot be allowed to be distracted by a civil suit?
PAD
• 
Or that the media will not point that out to them?
If the media doesn’t point out a 180 like that, then someone’s not doing their job.
PAD
So Wilson wants to sue 2 people that haven’t been proven to have anything to do with the issue. I’m not saying one or both don’t, but nothing has been proven. Not even by that brave reporter that went to jail to prevent giving out the name of her source (which she can’t remember anyway).
Seriously, if the Democrats expect to regain any power, they’ve got to come up with something more than flinging poo against the wall to see what sticks.
First, I’m not following. You’re saying that one shouldn’t sue someone if it hasn’t been proven that they had something to do with the issue at hand? Wouldn’t that pretty much put an end to all litigation? Isn’t the point to determine if Cheney and Bush did have anything to do with it? If they had prior knowledge, and approved, Rove’s actions?
Second, “the Democrats?” Where did I say the suit was being filed on behalf of the Democratic party?
Third, y’know, I heard much the same arguments back in 1974, when the GOP was trying to dismiss the notion of Nixon having anything to do with Watergate.
PAD
I’m saying wait until the criminal investigation is over, then go ahead and try to sue. If there are any facts that come out that either Bush or Cheney or even Rove and Scooter had anything to do with it, I hope they are tried and convicted of a criminal act. If they happen to get off, then by all means Wilson should go for the civil suit.
It just seems that the Democrats are looking for anything to try to hammer the Republicans. No rhyme or reason, just trying to throw one thing on top of another, no matter if it’s accurate or not.
Sure, let him sue.
I’m not so sure that one can actually just sue people just “to determine if (they) did have anything to do with it?” There has to be at least a reasonable, uh, reason, if you expect it to get very far. Otherwise anyone could just repeatedly sue their enemies over and over again for increasingly creative reasons. As I recall, Paula Jones had to go through a few hoops to get her lawsuit and I imagine that Wilson wil as well…assuming he is serious and not just keeping his name in the paper (I take this as seriously as the claim that Kerry is thinking about suing the Swift Boat Vets).
Since PAD knows that it was Karl Rove who did it one wonders why he was left out of the suit. And here I thought it was Libby who was the focus of attention.
I certainly don’t consider myself a “conservative force” so my not doing a reverse is no big but I’m guessing that in the unlikely event that Wilson goes ahead with this you might be surprised to find some big time conservatives positively salivating at the prospect of making him testify on his own behalf.
If the media doesn’t point out a 180 like that, then someone’s not doing their job
And this would be a surprise how, exactly? The media hasn’t been doing a proper job for at least as long as the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine.
TWL
I’m saying wait until the criminal investigation is over, then go ahead and try to sue.
So, no one should ever sue anyone until the criminal investigation is over? Is this just another one of those special rules that only apply for Bush?
It just seems that the Democrats are looking for anything to try to hammer the Republicans.
As Peter said, where does it say that the Democrats are behind this? From what he said, it looks like -unlike Paula Jones- Wilson is doing this all on his own.
No rhyme or reason, just trying to throw one thing on top of another, no matter if it’s accurate or not.
Well if they are, they learned it in the 90s from watching the Republicans throw everything they could think of at Clinton.
BTW,
It”>http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000087&sid=aIh7Ul2ZhzQE>It looks like Wilson is waiting until after the criminal investigation is over.
Okay, I must have screwed up the link HTML, so here’s the URL:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000087&sid=aIh7Ul2ZhzQE
Umm….isn’t Wilson a Republican?
Ummm, never mind….my mind was elsewhere.
THough the fact that Wilson worked with both Democratic and Republican presidents shouldn’t mean that it’s automatically a Democratic plot…
Oh, the Republicans will just use it as a reason to call for “tort reform”.
It’s not a Democratic plot. The Democrats are nowhere near that organized.
PAD
Does anyone have the SLIGHTEST doubt that the exact same conservative forces which stated–at the time of the Paula Jones civil suit–that a president should be able to be sued while in office, will now say that Bush simply cannot be allowed to be distracted by a civil suit?
Actually, if they’re smart, they’ll make a better argument: that a President cannot be sued for actions committed while President, and AS President. There are a variety of legal doctrines which preclude civil liability of governmental officials for their actions in their official roles, even if those roles are performed poorly. For instance, if President Bush were to drive an automobile and cause a wreck, he could be sued under the Clinton precedent. On the other hand, Iraqi civilians cannot sue him for wrongful death based on his ordering an invasion of Iraq, even if it were to be proved that he knew there were no WMDs and went to war on a pretext. Releasing the identity of one of his subordinates– a CIA officer– would be more like the latter than the former. I’d be very surprised if Wilson got anywhere with such a suit.
Also, even if you get past sovereign and official immunity, there’s a decent argument that Bush shouldn’t be sued unless or until evidence is uncovered that does link him directly to the leak. Before filing a lawsuit, an plaintiff has to have a good faith basis to believe the allegations in the complaint are true– you can’t just sue someone as a fishing expedition and hope to find something in discovery.
So yes, I have a doubt. I think the conservative forces would very calmly walk into court with their lawyers and win quickly and fairly.
Speaking of tort reform, Kevin Drum had a thought provoking entry that lawsuits are the inverse of governmental regulations. THey both serve the same purpose in acting as a check on large organizations.
PAD:
“Does anyone have the SLIGHTEST doubt that the exact same conservative forces which stated–at the time of the Paula Jones civil suit–that a president should be able to be sued while in office, will now say that Bush simply cannot be allowed to be distracted by a civil suit?”
I have no doubt whatsoever that a conservative will make such a statement. Whether or not the conservative in question has any clout is something else entirely.
The thing is that both Republicans and Democrats engage in this practice and, for that matter, many other practices that one will accuse the other of. That’s why neither party can win my vote. They look to me like clones wearing different causes.
PAD:
“It’s not a Democratic plot. The Democrats are nowhere near that organized.”
This fact is indisputable. Their handling of the last presidential election is evidence of their lack of organizational skills, which only served to further erode my confidence in the Democrat Party.
If the Democrats could choose a solid, forward thinking candidate they might win my vote. Which is sad because I’d far prefer to vote FOR something rather than AGAINST something.
As to the topic at hand Mr. Mulligan is correct when he says that person bringing suit must be able to make at least a Prima Facia case for the proceedings to… um, proceed.
If the Democrats could choose a solid, forward thinking candidate they might win my vote
Wesley Clark for president 2008
The question then, David, would be, is leaking the name of a CIA agent acting in the official capacity of the office of the presidency, or is the act of a politician trying to dig up dirt on someone who had to nerve to publicly criticize his propaganda?
I’d lean towards the latter.
“The question then, David, would be, is leaking the name of a CIA agent acting in the official capacity of the office of the presidency, or is the act of a politician trying to dig up dirt on someone who had to nerve to publicly criticize his propaganda?
I’d lean towards the latter.”
I’d agree. I don’t see any purpose in revealing the identity of a secret operative. Such an act, made by anyone, of an active operative on mission would be an act of treason. The only saving grace here is she was not on assignment, but her outing has essentially eliminate a security asset of the country. The President serves the country, he doesn’t own it, and he has the same obligations to observe the integrity of our security agencies that any other citizen has. If Bush knew about, or gave the order for the outing, that was any act of “presidenting,” that was the act of a bitter politician getting retribution for what he percieved as a yapping dog. If true, then it amounts to him not being able to touch the man making the comment, so he gets to him the only way he can…by ending the career of the man’s wife. Which, y’know, if that’s true…what a spineless move.
On the other hand, I do think you need more to personally name him than just “he’s at the top of the totem pole.” There’s not enough to implicate Cheney, and I doubt there will ever be any substantial evidence to implicate Bush. He’s proven far too effective at not creating any ties of liability for pretty much anything he does, a trait he and Clinton (with a few spotty exceptions) share.
Seriously, if the Democrats expect to regain any power, they’ve got to come up with something more than flinging poo against the wall to see what sticks.
And yet, that’s exactly how the Republicans got into power, lead us to Iraq, and in trying to change things such as Social Security.
Actually, if they’re smart, they’ll make a better argument: that a President cannot be sued for actions committed while President, and AS President.
Well, guess what? The president isn’t above the law.
Also, even if you get past sovereign and official immunity, there’s a decent argument that Bush shouldn’t be sued unless or until evidence is uncovered that does link him directly to the leak.
Well, apparently, the phrase “the buck stops here” no longer applies to the Bush Administration, if it ever did.
Bush has already flip-flopped on what he would do to anybody that leaked info in his White House, so why would he ever take responsibility for anything at this point?
“Bush has already flip-flopped on what he would do to anybody that leaked info in his White House, so why would he ever take responsibility for anything at this point?”
He’s not going to. He probably has lived a life of avoiding responsibility. Why start now?
If he did somehow screw up and put in writing somewhere, or utter the command in the presence of someone not loyal to him, that’s the only way a court would be able to force responsibility on him. And even then, unless it’s in writing and absolutely no doubt that he was the source of the writing, I don’t know that it would be a good precedent to be able to unseat a president based on “he said, he said” testimony. In fact, I think that would be pretty much the end of any real power the office of the President holds.
Wasn’t Truman the one who coined the phrase, “The buck stops here”? Maybe that’s why the Republicans don’t believe in it. 🙂
And Bobb, “probably”? Bush has been dancing his way out of every jam his entire life.
Seriously, I don’t there’ll ever be a direct connect found to Bush. This will play out just like Irancontra, where some mid-level functionary will be designated the “loose cannon” and take the fall. “Scooter” seems to be the leading candidate since Turdblossom is too valuable in his role as Bush’s brain. Scooter will get one of those special end-of-term pardons that all presidents give out and get his own talk radio show.
“Brownie” sure did a heck of a job taking that FEMA bullet, didn’t he?
Craig quoted, um… someone:
Seriously, if the Democrats expect to regain any power, they’ve got to come up with something more than flinging poo against the wall to see what sticks.
Then he replied:
And yet, that’s exactly how the Republicans got into power, lead us to Iraq, and in trying to change things such as Social Security.
If you mean the Republicans got into power because the Democrats seem insistent on doing nothing but slinging poo with sticks, I agree entirely. I have been desperately hoping the Democrats would learn from that and start trying to come up with real plans to address the issues, but they apparently like the poo-slinging plan too well.
Seriously, there are a whole lot of people like me who are dismayed at a good number of things that Bush is doing, but who don’t see a good alternative with the Democrats. I’m not quite ready to go all doom-and-gloom, but if we don’t get a third party or someone to reform one of these two parties into a fiscally-responsible, freedom-loving party (and soon), I’ll be very, very pessimistic about the future of this country.
Fiscally responsible and freedom loving? You mean like the last Democratic administration that ended deficit spending and didn’t try to or talk about limiting freedom of religion and speech? That was only about using justified, limited force where and when needed? That party?
If you mean the Republicans got into power because the Democrats seem insistent on doing nothing but slinging poo with sticks, I agree entirely.
Actually, that’s how the GOP has managed to stay in power, but up until 1994, the Democrats were still a party about ideas: Healthcare reform, “reinventing government”, etc. It’s only after they lost power that they gave up on ideas.
I have been desperately hoping the Democrats would learn from that and start trying to come up with real plans to address the issues, but they apparently like the poo-slinging plan too well.
They see how well it works for the GOP, so they try to copy it. Unfortunately, they are torn between a desparate desire to score some kind of domestic victory against Bush and a fear of appearing weak on defense. Until they figure out how to put some real counter issues on the table, they are going to remain the minority party.
Right now their strategy appears to be wait until the Bush administrations incompetence and cronyism becomes unbearable to all but the most diehard GOP supporters and then rush on a white horse like a shining knight to save the day.
But the knight isn’t worth much without his lance.
Problem is, unless Cheney decides to try and run, we won’t be voting for the Bush administration next time around. The GOP has already started to distance itself from this adminstration, setting the table for a clean GOP slate come next election.
I doubt Cheney will run. His bad ticker aside, he’ll probably be ready to start counting the value on his Haliburton stocks in his “blind” trust. It’ll depend on who wins the GOP nomination. If it goes to someone perceived as a close Bush ally, like Frist or (God forbid) Santorum, they’ll have to contend with accusations that they will be continuation of the cronyism and incompetence of the Bushites. Their best bet maybe to go outside the beltway and nominate another governor.
I think Frist is toast after his stock sale, and the Rove machine is far too occupied to try and clean him up. If the GOP was stupid enough to nominate Santorum, they’d more than deserve the ášš-whuppin’ that even Kucinich could give that lunatic. It will probably be someone like Giuliani, OR if they are smart the party will try and mend fences with McCain.
“Wesley Clark for president 2008”
Michael: As the volunteer head of the Clark campaign in my county, I couldn’t agree more.
Sorry, Michael. I should have said, “…former volunteer head of the Clark campaign in my county…”
Thing about Frist and Rove is, most people that voted for them will probably pull a totally hypocritical “so what” and vote for them again. Frist sold stock that he knew was going down in value? There’s a lot of people that think that laws against that are stupid…despite that it’s cheating. And Rove, his actions increased GOP power in Texas. GOP voters are going to see this as a bad thing, despite the fact that he essentially defrauded/cheated? Assuming both actually did what they are accused of. It’s not like either of them killed someone, so there are going to be a lot of people that will write this off as ticky-tack technical “mistakes” at worst, and partisan witch hunting at best. In other words, part and parcel for the kool aide drinkers.
People wonder why there’s such a division in the country today, it’s because people and voters keep ignoring the basic facts of reality, and voting for their “team.”
“Does anyone have the SLIGHTEST doubt that the exact same conservative forces which stated–at the time of the Paula Jones civil suit–that a president should be able to be sued while in office, will now say that Bush simply cannot be allowed to be distracted by a civil suit?”
Whether they use this argument or not, I don’t think that such a suit should proceed. Hypocritical as it would be to make that argument, I agree with it…just like I agreed with it back when the Paula Jones suit was forced through. I always believed that that her suit should have been forced to wait until after President Clinton left office.
Don’t get me wrong. I hate that George Bush is President and would be hard pressed to think of anything that he’s done that I agree with in years, but I think that the Constitution should cover him, barring impeachment.
Just my two cents.
“Frist sold stock that he knew was going down in value? There’s a lot of people that think that laws against that are stupid…despite that it’s cheating.”
Accounts that I’ve read say that anyone who was actually watching that stock would have seen the reports that insiders were selling off their interests (prior to Sen. Frist’s sale) and dumped their interests as well. I think that if Frist actually used insider info on that sale, it will never be proved, because he didn’t need insider info to make that huge money-saving decision.
Accounts that I’ve read say that anyone who was actually watching that stock would have seen the reports that insiders were selling off their interests (prior to Sen. Frist’s sale) and dumped their interests as well. I think that if Frist actually used insider info on that sale, it will never be proved, because he didn’t need insider info to make that huge money-saving decision.
Except for the fact that the stock was supposedly in a blind trust, which Frist wasn’t supposed to know how much he owned or instruct the trustees to sell any of it. The fact that he has admitted to ordering the sale of the stock for whatever lame reason he gave, already shows a lack of ethics.
“Accounts that I’ve read say that anyone who was actually watching that stock would have seen the reports that insiders were selling off their interests (prior to Sen. Frist’s sale) and dumped their interests as well. I think that if Frist actually used insider info on that sale, it will never be proved, because he didn’t need insider info to make that huge money-saving decision.”
I’m not sure that would matter. Trading laws are funny things…not sure how far from the source you have to be before your information doesn’t count as “insider” for you to get burned. If it was that blatant, I’m a little surprised that trading in that stock wasn’t frozen.
I was going to say that I understood blind trusts to mean that you were unable to exercise any control over what was sold, not sold, etc. while they were in said trust.
“Brownie” sure did a heck of a job taking that FEMA bullet, didn’t he?
Not really, since he was hired back as a consultant and every other word out of his mouth is to blame someone else.
If you mean the Republicans got into power because the Democrats seem insistent on doing nothing but slinging poo with sticks,
pardon the digression, but i’m amused that we’ve gone from “flinging poo against the wall to see what sticks” to “slinging poo with sticks.”
it’s kind of like that game where you line people up and pass a message down the line whispering in each other’s ears then see how much it’s changed by the end of the line.
Bobb said:
“but her outing has essentially eliminate a security asset of the country”
Something that I heard a radio commentator mention (mentioning the absense of info on), is not only did it eliminate her as an asset, but there’s also all of her contacts and resources who have now also been eliminated…and a number of them, likely in the realist sense of the word.
Let’s not forget that these áššëš also revealed the identity of a highly-placed mole in Al-Queda, thereby pìššìņg away more security assets for the sake of a news soundbite.
Robin S says “there are a whole lot of people like me who are dismayed at a good number of things that Bush is doing”
Then Robin S is part of the problem. Robin S is just as guilty as Bush. Robin S is aware of what they do wrong but enables them to do it by not standing up against them. If they’re doing wrong, it’s your party, take it back.
As for Frist…apparantly Senate rules say that you can know about what’s in the blind trust, but you can’t have direct control…but if you were to tell a friend to tell the broker to sell your stocks, that, by the letter of the law, is fine. And that’s what it’s going to come down to is that he defiled the spirit of the law, acted unethicly, but by following to the very letter of the rules, he’ll get off.
It’s not like either of them killed someone, so there are going to be a lot of people that will write this off as ticky-tack technical “mistakes” at worst, and partisan witch hunting at best.
Gosh, this sounds alot like Clinton’s impeachment, doesn’t it? Witch-hunting and all.
But that didn’t stop the Republicans from pursuing that course of action, so I won’t say that the Democrats shouldn’t do the same with Bush’s head on the chopping block.
Oh, and the best irony of it all.
White House under investigation.
House Majority leader under investigation.
Senate Majority leader under investigation.
All Republicans.
Yeah, I think we have a problem with morals as well as ethics in the highest ranks of our government.
Makes you wonder what happened to that guy we elected to “restore honor” to the White House, doesn’t it?
“Makes you wonder what happened to that guy we elected to “restore honor” to the White House, doesn’t it?”
Two things:
1) I sure as hëll didn’t elect him, and…
2) The honor to be restored is currently being held in a blind trust.
If the GOP was stupid enough to nominate Santorum, they’d more than deserve the ášš-whuppin’ that even Kucinich could give that lunatic.
Where on Earth did this idea of Santorum gwtting the nomination start? Were people at Moveon.org taking the brown acid? He’s not even going to win relection to the Senate. Every poll I’ve seen of voters hopes for the next nomination have had him in teh single digits, assuming 0 counts as a single digit. Ain’t. Gonna. Happen.
As for whether the Democrats will be able to capitalize on teh Republicans problems the way the Republicans did back in 1994…I’d assume they should be able to. About the only thingthat holds me back from predicting a Democratic rout in 2006 is the fact that their supporters are so unenthusiastic about their team. It amuses me no end tyhat when the party goes down in flames Democrats curse the voters, impugn their intelligence, etc. yet look at how they describe their own party– phrases like “incompetant” “gutless” “hopeless” “couldn’t find their áššëš with both hands and a flashlight”. I mean, given the choice why would the uncommitted voter NOT go withthe team that has actual supporters, not the one who has a cheerleading section that is effectively shouting “Rah Rah Ree, the other side sucks marginally more than we do!”
Where on Earth did this idea of Santorum gwtting the nomination start? Were people at Moveon.org taking the brown acid? He’s not even going to win relection to the Senate. Every poll I’ve seen of voters hopes for the next nomination have had him in teh single digits, assuming 0 counts as a single digit. Ain’t. Gonna. Happen.
That’s really the point I was making, Bill.
Here’s the thing about the Democrats (as I see it): The reason we bìŧçh about our party is because we’ve watched the national leadership operate at varying levels of both incompetence (like being unable to mount a legitimate challenge to a very challenged presidential candidate) and sycophantic stupidity (like signing on to various like the PATRIOT Act that they later piss and moan about). We’ve got a lot to bìŧçh about. One would hope that the uncommitted voter would look at the candidate, not the party which has the largest number of “yes” men.
Scavenger wrote:
Then Robin S is part of the problem. Robin S is just as guilty as Bush. Robin S is aware of what they do wrong but enables them to do it by not standing up against them. If they’re doing wrong, it’s your party, take it back.
1.) While I voted for Bush, he’s not really part of “my party”. I’m registered Democrat, and I tend to identify as independent.
2.) Other than speaking out when I think he’s doing something stupid, exactly what do you propose I do? It’s not like I can call a campaign office or write a letter threatening to withhold a vote, since Bush isn’t worried about votes anymore.