* attaturk gives a run-down of Bivens. In brief:
"No matter how I look at it, I just cannot see Big Time making it to the discovery phase. I know that sucks, I join you in "wishing" that wasn’t true, but sometimes the law wins out over what we desire (and in my line of business that happens a depressing amount of time). I just cannot see a court allowing a civil suit against a sitting Vice President for acts he committed while he was Vice-President. I foresee no "Cheney Exception", much as we might want one.* talkleft:
Now, as for Libby and Rove, that gets a lot more interesting, and I think there’s a good shot they’ll be around for a while."
"Pending in U.S. District Court in San Francisco is a suit against AT&T accusing it of collaborating with the Justus Department in the illegal surveillance of U.S. Citizens.* wapo ed:
Thursday, Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) introduced a bill to remove that case and any like it to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review in Washington where it could be heard in secret and only the Justice Department could be heard."
"SENATE JUDICIARY Committee Chairman Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) has cast his agreement with the White House on legislation concerning the National Security Agency's warrantless surveillance as a compromise -- one in which President Bush accepts judicial review of the program. It isn't a compromise, except quite dramatically on the senator's part. Mr. Specter's bill began as a flawed but well-intentioned effort to get the program in front of the courts, but it has been turned into a green light for domestic spying. It must not pass.* william kristol via glenn:
[]
This week a remarkable congressional debate began on how terrorists should face trial, with Congress finally asserting its role in reining in overbroad assertions of presidential power. What a tragedy it would be if at the same time, it acceded to those powers on the fundamental rights of Americans."
"The right response is renewed strength--in supporting the governments of Iraq and Afghanistan, in standing with Israel, and in pursuing regime change in Syria and Iran. For that matter, we might consider countering this act of Iranian aggression with a military strike against Iranian nuclear facilities. Why wait?
But such a military strike would take a while to organize. In the meantime, perhaps President Bush can fly from the silly G8 summit in St. Petersburg--a summit that will most likely convey a message of moral confusion and political indecision--to Jerusalem, the capital of a nation that stands with us, and is willing to fight with us, against our common enemies. This is our war, too."
4 comments:
Question:
With regard to the statute(s) of limitations, where there is continuing whitewash activity by the usual GOP talking heads, and indeed, the Wilsons are still under attack by those same talking heads and others, can the point be made that the conspiracy aspect of the case (at least) does not constitute a point or points in time passed, but is indeed still ongoing?
"VP-ishness"
Good one! Alert Dictionary.com. Lukery's house is becoming a hotbed of vocabulary evolution!
Now, about the statute of limitations . . .
If a person runs a red light and smashes their car into another vehicle, the police report and citations, if any, pretty much nail down the time period allowed for the injured party to file claims for property loss or personal injury.
In some other kinds of cases, it can begin to run when an offending act is discovered. When a criminal investigation has produced evidence of a conspiracy that, in turn, led to the event that caused the losses to the victims, we may have more information about when the offending conduct was planned. But, does that necessarily mean the victims of the plan should have an abbreviated window in which to file?
The Wilsons certainly had no reason obvious to us to believe anyone was leaking the facts about Valerie's NOC and classified employment to any members of the press up until the date the wretched Novak's column appeared in print. The Wilsons would not have suffered any harm at all if the leakers had never found a willing publisher.
It seems odd to me that an otherwise valid claim could be tossed out of court because the lawyers didn't file the claim prior to the anniversary date of the legal and non-tortious act of one of the victims - the publishing of Joe Wilson's op-ed in the NY Times.
Just my 2 cents . . .
Thanks, oldschool!
I wonder how much of the strategerizing over timing was influenced by Fitz's goals on the criminal side of this event. I have serious doubts that the Wilsons' attorneys just slapped this thing together late Wednesday afternoon. There must have been a fair amount of discussion around the issue of choosing the exact day.
No doubt the defendants will be treating us all to serious acrobatics as they use every theory they can muster - or create from thin air - to move for dismissal.
It will be interesting to see how it plays out. I'm hoping for some kind of nifty fireworks that leave Shooter, Scooter, TurdBlossom (and the assorted "Does", whoever they are) fuming 'round about the end of October.
oldschool and leeb - thanks for that.
very interesting.
i can only presume/hope that leeB is correct and that they had everything covered (re the timing).
re VP-ishness, oldschool makes a good argument. let's hope that sticks.
Post a Comment