George W. Bush Outed CIA Agent Valerie Plame
SEE VIDEO:==========================
BREAKING: 11/20/07 - CNN EXPOSE' "LEAKGATE"
AUDIO:
http://www.apfn.net/pogo44/L001I071120-232A.MP3Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982 (50 U.S.C. 421 et seq.)
(governing disclosures that could expose confidential Government agents)
http://foi.missouri.edu/bushinfopolicies/protection.htmlThe Joseph and Valerie Wilson Legal Support Trust
http://www.wilsonsupport.org/
HTTP://WWW.APFN.ORG/APFN/LEAKGATE.HTMThe President is wrong to shield Vice President Cheney from scrutiny. In our system of government, even the Vice President should be accountable for his actions.
The President’s action raises an obvious question: Why is the President preventing responsible congressional oversight of the Vice President? If the Vice President did nothing wrong, what is there to hide?
A letter that the Committee received this morning from the Attorney General to the President also raises questions about the President’s involvement. According to the Attorney General, the documents being withheld summarize conversations held directly with the President. The subjects discussed in the withheld documents include the preparation of the 2003 State of the Union address, the accuracy of the claim that Iraq was trying to obtain uranium from Niger, and the decision to send Ambassador Joe Wilson to Niger.
The White House misled the nation about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction. On the eve of the war, the Vice President said: “we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons.”
White House officials then misled the nation about their involvement in leaking Ms. Wilson’s name. One top official, Mr. Libby, was convicted of perjury.
Yet now that the Committee is trying to find out what really happened, the President has blocked the Committee’s inquiry by asserting executive privilege over key documents.
Although I have grave reservations about the validity of the President’s action, I will not ask the Committee to act on the contempt resolution at this time. All members deserve the opportunity to review the President’s claim. Moreover, I want to consult closely with Ranking Member Davis about the Committee’s next step.
The Committee will be deliberative in responding to this surprising assertion of executive privilege. But we will also be determined. The President’s actions have darkened the cloud over the Vice President and left important questions unanswered.
As the Committee considers its next steps, I hope the President and the Vice President will also consider theirs. Congress and the American public are entitled to know what role the President and the Vice President played in the despicable outing of Ms. Wilson.
On Friday May 9th 2008, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit heard the appeal by Valerie Plame Wilson and Joseph Wilson in their suit against I. Lewis Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, and Richard Armitage. The suit alleges that the defendants acted in concert to destroy Valerie Plame Wilson's career in retaliation for Joseph Wilson revealing falsehoods in the President's 2003 State of the Union Address.
In July 2007, the federal district court dismissed the suit saying that the plaintiffs could not sue under the Constitution because Congress in passing the Privacy Act in 1974 meant to foreclose such suits. Also, the district court said that the suit risked the disclosure of confidential information.
On appeal, the Wilsons' lawyers argued that no statute provides them a remedy or even applies and that therefore the district court erred in dismissing the suit. The Privacy Act does not apply to the offices of President or Vice President, and besides has no application to claims for violation of the First Amendment or denial of equal protection. Moreover, Wilson's lawyers argued that there is little risk of disclosing confidential information and it is wrong to dismiss the entire case because of speculation that this might occur.
Erwin Chemerinsky, a law professor at Duke University, argued for the Wilsons and Jeffrey Bucholtz, an attorney at the United States Department of Justice, argued for all of the defendants. The judges were Chief Judge David Sentelle, and Circuit Judges Karen Henderson and Judith Rogers. The judges aggressively asked questions of both sides and the Wilsons' lawyers were cautiously optimistic at the end of the hearing.
[ Back ]
javascript:history.go(-1)
|
