Court Will Not Revive Plame Lawsuit Against Cheney, Libby, Armitage

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court will not revive a lawsuit that former CIA operative Valerie Plame brought against former members of the Bush administration.

The court on Monday refused to hear an appeal from Plame and her husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson.

A lower court last year threw out the lawsuit in which Plame and Wilson accused former Vice President Dick Cheney and several former high-ranking administration officials of revealing her identity to reporters in 2003. Plame and Wilson said that violated their constitutional rights.

The lawsuit named former presidential adviser Karl Rove; Cheney's former top aide, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby; and former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit said that Plame and Wilson did not meet the legal standard for constitutional claims, in part because the lawsuit hinges on alleged violations of the Privacy Act _ a law that does not cover the president or the vice president's offices.

Armitage was the original source for a 2003 newspaper column identifying Plame as a CIA officer. At the time, her husband was criticizing the Bush administration's prewar intelligence on Iraq and had become a thorn in the side of the White House. Rove also discussed Plame's employment with reporters.

The leak touched off a lengthy investigation that resulted in Libby's conviction for obstruction and lying to investigators. Jurors found that he told reporters about Plame and lied about it to the FBI and a federal grand jury. President George W. Bush commuted Libby's sentence before he ever served a day in prison.

Nobody was ever charged with the leak itself and Plame's lawsuit is one of the last remaining legal issues associated with the case.

The case is Wilson v. Libby, 08-1043.

Comments

[Timray]

10:50 PM on 06/23/2009

this should lock up the Nobel Peace Prize.....­.

[AtomicSplash]

10:14 AM on 06/23/2009

It doesn't bother republican­s that they threw national security under the bus to save their sorry lying a$$es

[connorin]

12:38 PM on 06/23/2009

Armitage a holderover from the Clinton admin is hardly a republican or backer of W

[research]

08:29 PM on 06/23/2009

Armitage is a loyal conservati­ve and a found member of the PNAC neocon crowd, you liar!

[research]

08:32 PM on 06/23/2009

1998, Armitage signed "The Project for the New American Century" letter (PNAC Letter) to President Bill Clinton. He's a loyal Neocon.

[gino618]

09:50 AM on 06/23/2009

SO, someone please tell me - if your wife is some super-secr­et covert operative whose life may be in danger if she's ever revealed to work for the government­.....

Why do you publish an op-ed in the NY Times - one of the most highly read newspapers in the world - which contradict­s the President of the United States?

Did Joe Wilson honestly think that just because he and his wife have different names, that people can't do their own research? That someone, anyone with an interest, couldn't investigat­e him and follow his wife as she drove every day to Langely?

Why put yourself (and your family) under the spotlight?

[AtomicSplash]

10:12 AM on 06/23/2009

ok, a former ambassador posts an op ed in the NYT that contradict­s the president. Who in their right mind immediatel­y thinks his wife works for the CIA?

[american-dolt]

09:17 AM on 06/23/2009

Cheney is guilty of Treason.

[connorin]

09:25 AM on 06/23/2009

"Armitage was the original source for a 2003 newspaper column identifyin­g Plame as a CIA officer. "

Yeah that Cheney is guilty of treason because Armitage gave out Plame's name!

Meanwhile this was ok?: http://new­sbusters.o­rg/blogs/m­itchell-bl­att/2009/0­6/22/nyt-w­ill-name-c­ia-interro­gators-not­-captured-­journalist­s

[JakeMontero]

09:09 AM on 06/23/2009

somebody call a waaaaaaamb­ulance.

[research]

03:54 AM on 06/23/2009

Valerie was spying on the Iranian Nuclear program.

I guess Cheney didn't want us to know what Iran really is doing.

Cheney is a war criminal several times over.

[JoeJokester]

05:29 AM on 06/23/2009

What, Valerie was disguising herself as an Iranian Scientist? Which GET SMART episode was THAT on?

[research]

02:56 PM on 06/23/2009

do you know an good jokes?

[Villagelight]

03:42 AM on 06/23/2009

Welcome to the real world, Valerie.

[NoSillyName]

01:21 AM on 06/23/2009

Civil Suit?

[NoSillyName]

01:19 AM on 06/23/2009

Disgusting­.

What they did was ILLEGAL and dangerous.

But, oh well, if the Supremes say so.

Gimme a break.

[kareemachan]

03:26 AM on 06/23/2009

Exactly.

[BigAl72]

11:55 PM on 06/22/2009

So Treason is o.k. now?

[rattler99]

12:06 AM on 06/23/2009

guess so - nobody prosecuted Sandy Berger for stealing Clinton memos from the archives

[marco01]

12:26 AM on 06/23/2009

Uh, yeah he was prosecuted­.

"Berger eventually pleaded guilty to a misdemeano­r charge of unauthoriz­ed removal and retention of classified material on April 1, 2005. Berger was fined $50,000 [16], sentenced to serve two years of probation and 100 hours of community service, and stripped of his security clearance for 3 years."

And it wasn't treason.

[JohnIII]

11:22 PM on 06/22/2009

Maybe it was just a flimsy case.

[rattler99]

12:07 AM on 06/23/2009

not flimsy - nonexisten­t - a waste of courts' time - they should be sued for court costs

[marco01]

12:29 AM on 06/23/2009

Non existant? Maybe in winger fantasy world but Bush's former CIA Director Hayden (no lib he) confirmed Plame's status as a cover CIA agent. I think he would know.

http://new­s.aol.com/­elections-­blog/2007/­03/16/cia-­director-h­ayden-vale­rie-plame-­was-covert­-agent/

"This will be a bitter pill for some conservati­ves to swallow. CIA Director Michael Hayden personally reviewed and okayed Henry Waxman's opening statement for Valerie Plame's testimony today. Furthermor­e, Hayden took pains to set the record straight: Plame was indeed a covert agent up until the day Robert Novak revealed as much to the public."

Let me emphasize the juicy part in case your eyes glazed over - "PLAME WAS INDEED A COVERT AGENT"

[marco01]

12:44 AM on 06/23/2009

Of course we know cons really don't care about the country. They place ideology over country.

[DustinTime]

11:04 PM on 06/22/2009

They wouldn't hear the Cuban 5 case and now this...

A Court of Supreme Sellouts, folks.

[biglefty]

11:16 PM on 06/22/2009

can you imagine what the republikla­ns would have done if Clinton outed a CIA operative? Can you say Treason?

[gino618]

09:46 AM on 06/23/2009

They NY Times did..... where's your outrage for them?

[poster1122]

11:01 PM on 06/22/2009

The lawsuit was never going to go anywhere.

What judge in his/her right mind is going to make the audacious claim that the Privacy Act was ever intended to strip the Executive Branch with its power to classify and declassify material. That's really what you would be saying if you allowed this lawsuit to proceed.

It is and has always been a fundamenta­l power of the Presidency to decide what is classified and what is not. Period. That means he can release informatio­n because it's under that branches auspices that informatio­n was classified to begin with. That means Obama or any sitting President can choose to disclose that we are spying on China with so and so satellite or we had secret talks with Cuba or whatever, as his judgment sees fit.

Are you seriously proposing to strip away that basic and important power because you don't like the judgment used in this case?

[marco01]

11:03 PM on 06/22/2009

But was it Bush who disclose Plame's covert status or Cheney (or some other actor) acting on his own?

My money's is on Bush not knowing and Cheney orchestrat­ing the whole thing.

[poster1122]

11:58 PM on 06/22/2009

Here's the rub. For the suit to be plausible, you would have to make a showing that Bush did not give Cheney the security clearance to handle this informatio­n. The problem with this argument is that it's pretty clear that Bush gave Cheney carte blanche and full access.

[ObamAtomic]

11:06 PM on 06/22/2009

You are so wrong!!!!!­!!
You have a right to your own wrong opinions! oh well!

[poster1122]

11:20 PM on 06/22/2009

The Executive does not have the right to declassify informatio­n?! That's one of the most basic prerogativ­es of the office.

If Obama decided tomorrow to say that we will no longer have spy satellites over other countries as a matter of policy, he can reveal our assets. That's his prerogativ­e. He'd catch hell for it, but he can still do it until the next President reverses it.

It's the same exact issue with the torture/ab­use photos. It's up to the Executive to declassify or not. Congress cannot do it, no matter how much they scream. It is the responsibi­lity/power of the Executive Branch. Right now, Obama refuses. The left is trying to get him to change his mind. The ball to classify/d­eclassify is totally in his court.

At least until/unle­ss the laws regarding security clearances changes.

[rattler99]

12:08 AM on 06/23/2009

what a bunch of uneducated airheads!

[DeloresT]

10:54 PM on 06/22/2009

There's nothing "Supreme"a­bout this court. It's a disgrace! I wonder: Can the couple file a financial law suit in a court of their "peers"?

[disgusted48]

10:43 PM on 06/22/2009

justice denied yet again. hopefully kharma will prevail, and there will be several openings on the court in the next few years.