Melanie Sloan, Legal Counsel for Joe and Valierie Wilson, Responds to Dismissal of Civil Suit

Washington, DC -- Earlier today, District of Columbia District Court Judge John D. Bates dismissed Joe and Valerie Wilsons' civil suit against Vice President Dick Cheney, presidential aide Karl Rove, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby and Richard Armitage. While Judge Bates recognized that the Wilsons' claims "pose important questions relating to the propriety of actions undertaken by our highest government officials," he dismissed their suit on a threshold legal issue: that there is no constitutional remedy available to them.

While the Wilsons' lawyers are reviewing the decision, they anticipate filing an appeal. Melanie Sloan, executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington ("CREW"), one of the Wilsons' lawyers, said today, "While we are obviously very disappointed by today’s decision, we have always expected that this case would ultimately be decided by a higher court." Sloan continued, "We disagree with the court's holding and intend to pursue this case vigorously to protect all Americans from vindictive government officials who abuse their power for their own political ends."

Stay updated at: http://www.wilsonsupport.org/

Judge John D. Bates is a very loyal Bushie. He was the judge who decided Cheney's refusal to turn over to the General Accounting Office (GAO) -- Congress’ investigative arm -- the names of individuals he, and other members of the energy task force, met with last spring as they formulated the administration’s position on energy matters according to Renee L. Giachino, General Counsel, Center for Individual Freedom.

Claiming that the legislative branch is intruding into the executive branch’s deliberative process, the Vice President argues that releasing the names would have a "chilling effect" on the President’s ability to get honest advice without having to worry about disclosure. President Bush echoed that sentiment, saying the GAO’s demand is "an encroachment on the executive branch’s ability to conduct business."

According to the GAO, the White House is hiding behind a vague privilege of confidentiality as a stall tactic while at least 10 congressional committees investigate the Enron debacle. Critics pushing for disclosure argue that the list of individuals will most likely reveal internal conflicts of interest that will prove domination by special interests in the formulation of energy policy. Critics further maintain that President Bush established the energy task force, chaired by the Vice President and comprised of full-time government employees, in an effort to avoid the open meetings and public access requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act ("FACA"). FACA exempts from its broad disclosure requirements an advisory committee comprised of government individuals. This exemption can be negated, however, if the role played by non-government individuals changed the make-up of the energy group.

Access disputes have a long history in American politics, dating back to President George Washington’s debate with the First Congress over the extent to which the House of Representatives could call for papers and persons. While most previous such disputes have resulted in compromise, this one appears to be heading for a legal showdown over the proper role of the legislature balanced against the President’s power to withhold information pursuant to some privilege. At the moment, the White House has not yet claimed "executive privilege," but rather is relying on the common law deliberative process privilege or the "privilege of secrecy." The stakes are obviously much higher if the constitutionally-based executive privilege is invoked.

The doctrine of executive privilege, while not explicitly stated in the Constitution, is founded upon the basic principles contained within Article II, Section 1, Clause 1 that provides the President with the right to receive confidential communications from his aides and advisors. This privilege, which belongs to the President, can be asserted by the Vice President in response to written instructions from the President. A U.S. Court of Appeals has extended the executive privilege to White House staff and presidential advisors "in the course of preparing advice for the President." In re: Sealed Case, 121 F.3d 729, 752 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (involving then-Secretary of Agriculture, Mike Espy).

The power of Congress to attempt to gain access to sensitive executive branch information follows from the system of checks and balances favored by the framers of the Constitution. History and precedent recognize Congress’ power to oversee and investigate matters and the Constitution, "by no means contemplates total separation of each of these three essential branches of Government." Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 121 (1976). The Supreme Court has been careful to limit Congress’ power as well. In one of the first cases to examine Congress’ investigative powers, Kilbourn v. Thompson, 103 U.S. 168 (1881), the Court found that Congress must have a valid legislative purpose for conducting the investigation.

The Supreme Court has never been called upon to decide whether executive privilege can overcome a congressional demand for information. The Court has recognized the existence of executive privilege in United States v. Nixon, a case involving a dispute between the executive and judicial branches. In that case, the Court found that the privilege is not absolute, noting that

"[t]he expectation of a President to the confidentiality of his conversations and correspondence, like the claim of confidentiality of judicial deliberations, for example, has all the values which we accord deference for the privacy of all citizens and, added to those values, is the necessity for protection of the public interest in candid, objective, and even blunt or harsh opinions in Presidential decisionmaking. A President and those who assist him must be free to explore alternatives in the process of shaping policies and making decisions and to do so in a way many would be unwilling to express except privately . . .. The interest in preserving confidentiality is weighty indeed and entitled to great respect. However, we cannot conclude that advisers will be moved to temper the candor of their remarks by the infrequent occasions of disclosure because of the possibility that such conversation will be called for in the context of a criminal prosecution." 418 U.S. 683, 708, 712 ((1974) ("Nixon I").

Ultimately, the Supreme Court held in this case and one other that the President must disclose confidential, privileged information when presidential right is outweighed by other constitutional needs. (In Nixon I, the Court ruled that the privilege must give way to disclosure when the evidence is needed in a criminal case when it compelled President Richard Nixon to surrender audio tapes from the White House that were relevant to the Watergate scandal. In Nixon II, Nixon v. Administrator of General Services, 433 U.S. 425 (1977), the Court held that the public’s need for knowledge may overcome the privilege.)

The filing of the lawsuit will be the first time the GAO has sued to enforce access rights against a constitutional officer or president.

[Posted February 21, 2001]

For more on the Cheney Energy involvement, read: Cheney Suppressed Evidence in California Energy Crisis

Judge Bates was appointed in 2/06 to serve on the FISA court:

http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2006/03/judge_john_d_bates_appointed_t.h...

And he "served as Deputy Independent Counsel to the intensely partisan Whitewater investigation".

How can one man, even if he is the president, break the law,time after time and keep getting away with ? The President, vice president,scooter libby, department of justice, on and on. Thinking back about all the serious lies and killing our boys and girls with the most outrageous lie of all, it all makes me very ill.
We are forced to watch them , with their arrogant smiles and behavior know ing no one can touch them.
Well, there is a higher power taking notes, you can believe that. njsbengals

Our only justice will come from impeachment, yet our democratic legislators sit on their hind quarters collecting their corporate paybackies. 

I can't park on my owned damned grass without being fined.  I can't talk on my phone without being eavesdropped on by my government because I might be a subversive after all these years.  Hell, I can't even feed a damned prairie dog without being fined.  However, corporations can feed cattle hormones so that I might get cancer from the beef and these guys can get by with murder while our legislators just sit there doing the ceremonial tsk tsk by holding session all night and accomplishing nothing.  

What good are they?

It is surprising how upset i have been over this administration. Just when i think that the truth will set us freeand even when it comes out, all of the Bush Administration continues to go on as if no wrongs have been committed.
I know the democrats don't seem strong but they are. I wouldn't want to be a part of the lieing, hateful republicans. They give out the message that the dem. havn't got anything done. ha! ha! They have been there 6 years with a repubican president. The dem.s have been in charge for 6months--with a republican president. Let's face it whether it be the polls lieing about Clinton or how weak we are. We must stick together and let go and let GOD!!! njsbengals

Who is going to stop them? Maybe some investigations with all the evidence put out in the public domain.

What the bu$hnazis don't realize is that all this unchecked power will go on to the next real president, a Democrat. I'll bet we'll be hearing some whining about executive power when that happens.

IMPEACH THEM NOW!

OH, wait. The Dems still don't have any balls yet. Damn!

BUCK FUSH !!!

Many years ago, I wrote that when we elect a president, we don't just elect a party, we elect the federal judiciary system. This is especially true with this president, as we are seeing over and over again. Could Ms. Plame have gotten a better deal by filing in NYC rather than DC? I don't know. Her lawyers probably knew the odds were against them. By the time an appeal is decided, the case will have become stale history, unfortunately. If the Democrats had any spine, they would have begun (even if unsuccessfully) impeachment proceedings years ago -- and they would have spoken out against the PATRIOT Act and other Presidential abuses much more vigorously.

Judge John D. Bates, one of many Bush puppets should have opted out of hearing the case of Valerie Plame. Judge Bates, a loyal Bush and Cheney man, in my opinion knew how he would rule before he heard the case. Have to protect King Bush and Prince Cheney, after all. When did the people of this country become such non-thinking, fools; to frightened of terrorists to stand up for our constitution! The laugh is on us because we now living under the rule of a dictator, a man who spies on us and wisks people offto secret prisons at a whim.

Bob:

In 2000 I submitted pieces covering Rheinquist's 1964 criminal tampering with voter registration and a comparison of the 2000 stolen presidential election to that of the Hayes theft. Less than a year later, I emailed you my views implicatng Bush and Cheney in the September 11 attacks - something that you replied you were not prepared to accept. I expressed the belief that you were naive, grossly underestimating this team, and living in denial. I stopped corresponding for several years.

 It is now 2007 and my question to you is - after a second stolen election, yet another military invasion of a sovereign nation based on lies (and this one "preemptive"), murder of its head of state, the treasonous outing of an American CIA agent, torturous interrogation of detainees, firing of U.S. attorneys for political reasons, and numerous other high crimes - are you now prepared to accept how criminally ruthless is this regime whose actions daily become more chillingly similar to those of the 1930s Nazis during Hitler's rise to power?

Look at the January no-bid contract awarded Halliburton to build domestic internment camps. Consider Bush's May Executive Directive nullifying the 1996 National Emergency Act and illegally conferring upon himself absolute dictatorial power without congressional or court recourse to suspend elections, round up dissidents, dissolve or nullify Congress, and set aside the Constitution should he determine that events so warrant. Recognize, if you will, how blithe is this executive who commutes the sentence of a criminal administrative aide, unconcerned about its impact on future elections. And, let us regard the recent Homland Security warnings that another massive terrorist attack appears imminent. And now, this abuse of judicial authority sanctioning his administration's treason, of which the underlying message is that it reinforces Herr Bush's power to act with impunity to abolish the Constitutional rights of those who dissent. There is a pattern here, and Bates is playing his part in implementing its stages.

 FYI, I'll repeat my post of last week:

"Once more, just as in the appointment of George W. Bush to the presidency in 2000 by a partisan majority of Supreme Court Justices, the judicial fix is in.  Bush appointee, administration lackey, and rightwing ideologue, U.S. District Judge John Bates in Washington, today dismissed Valerie Plame’s civil lawsuit against Vice (P)resident Dick Cheney, Undersecretary of State Richard (as in CIA narcotics trafficker) Dick Armitage, and White House aide Lewis "Scooter" Libby.

Bates, we may recall, is the same judge who:

· served Special Prosecutor Kenneth Starr’s rightwing witchhunt,1997-99, as Deputy Independent Counsel in the feckless multimillion-dollar Whitewater investigation of President Bill Clinton;

· was subsequently appointed by George W. Bush to the U.S. District Court in December 2001;

· threw out a case in 2002 regarding the release of Cheney's 2001 Energy Taskforce records in Walker v. Cheney, ruling that a congressional agency, the General Accounting Office, has “no standing to obtain a court order compelling disclosure of information concerning meetings of the energy task force chaired by the Vice-President.”

· ruled in 2004 that lead plaintiff Representative Dennis Kucinich and 31 other Members of the House of Representatives had “no standing” to challenge President Bush’s withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty without congressional approval, ruling that the case presents a “political question” not suitable for resolution by the courts;

· in January 2005, ruled against separation of church and state in the case of Michael A Newdow, who requested the banning of prayers during Bush’s second inauguration ceremony

· in August, 2005 ruled against Voices in the Wilderness, a Chicago-based humanitarian aid group seeking an end to the war In Iraq as well as and sanctions against Iraq. Ruling in favor of the Treasury Department’s imposition of a fine imposed for transporting "medicine and toys" to Iraq "absent specific license or other authorization."

· was named in March 2006 to a secret court – the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA) set up to oversee domestic spying shortly after reports surfaced in the news about the Bush administration circumventing the court to eavesdrop on American citizens.

In short, John Bates is Bush’s “fix-it man” in U.S. District Court. Dub-yah has his man at the subordinate level lest matters should be appealed to the Supreme Court (that appointed Bush) for determination as to whether or not cases even warrant their review.

Supporting this claim is Bates’ shameful actions in the Walker vs. Cheney case. Lest we forget, Bates served as judge hearing the arguments of Deputy Solicitor General Paul Clement, who had served as a law clerk to Judge Laurence Silberman of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit from 1992 to 1993. Silberman, another rabid rightwing Republican, (a Reagan/Bush appointee, he ruled for George W. Bush’s Attorney General John Ashcroft in the wiretapping ban case), had served as a go-between with Ted Olsen to Ken Starr, the Watergate prosecutor, for whom Bates worked as Special Prosecutor. Moreover, Silberman’s wife, Ricky, upon leaving the EEO Commission, co-founded the Independent Women's Forum and approached Ken Starr to file a friend-of-the-court brief in the Paula Jones case as payback for the Anita Hill case against Judge Clarence Thomas. According to author David Brock, “she thought, wouldn't it be delicious that Clinton would now be accused of sexual improprieties in the same way that Clarence Thomas had been? Judge Silberman played an absolutely key role at a critical juncture.” Thus the prior Starr association between Bates, Clement and Silberman constituted an egregious conflict of interest that should have resulted in Bates’ judicial censure or dismissal for not recusing himself.

In the latest of Bates’ knee-jerk genuflections to self-declared voice-from-God, George Bush and Company, citizen recourse against treasonous administration vengeance upon critics of its war policy is now nullified. Worse yet, is the fact that this ruling now sets the stage for even more egregious action. Judge Bates earlier ruled for the Bush administration in its prosecution of antiwar humanitarian aid organization Voices in the Wilderness. As Z-Net reporter David Smith-Ferri observed at the time, “We now live in a society where the law of the land asserts that delivering aspirin and antibiotics to a pediatrics ward where children are dying from diarrhea is a criminal offense. Likewise handing a plastic harmonica to a child suffering from leukemia. And there are federal judges who will bring the gavel down and sign on the dotted line.” Now, however, instead of a mere $20,000 fine, the Bush regime has arbitrarily imposed via yet another Executive Order, a scorched-Earth policy against such peace groups.

In a White House Press Release dated July 17. 2007, George Bush has conferred upon himself dictatorial power to block the “property and interests in property of . . . persons, that are in the United States, that hereafter come within the United States, or that are or hereafter come within the possession or control of United States” or any “entity” (defined as “a partnership, association, trust, joint venture, corporation, group, subgroup, or other organization” that may, through its actions be determined to be engaged in “undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq or to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people.” Thus, if any antiwar group is viewed to dissent from official U.S. policy by offering even humanitarian aid to those Bush declares to be enemy combatants or terrorists, he or she and their organization’s property and assets will now be “blocked and may not be transferred, paid, exported, withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in.” Indeed, under the terms of Herr Bush’s latest declaration, anyone seeking to come to the defense of anyone whose property and assets have been frozen, will likewise be regarded as aiding the enemy and suffer the same fate.

Sounds similar to VP Dick Nixon's actions in 1954 as chairman of the National Security Council's 5412 subcommittee, when he had Aristotle Onassiss' U.S,. assets frozen (along with his ships strafed and his assassination by the CIA ordered) following the shipping magnate's securing the "Jiddah Agreement" - monopolisitc routing out of Mid-East oil to the world's (then) seven major petro-chemical conglomerates. Obviously as Bush / Cheney seek approval of Iraq's constitutional provision to provide 70% of its oil to foreign (U.S.) oil companies, any person or entity that supports the Iraqi opposition will doubtless suffer Onassis' fate.

Yet, if there is a feeling of Déjà vu among some Americans, perhaps it more appropriately may be a sense of World War II when U.S. citizens of Japanese ancestry had their property seized by the federal government even as they were rounded up for internment behind barbed-wired in detention camps. And, we should recall, the Bush administration awarded in January, a no-bid $285 million contract to ex-Ceo Cheney’s company, Halliburton, to secretly construct massive internment camps across America.

This does not augur well for Americans opposed to war and concerned that new attacks will presage suspension of constitutional law in America. The Bates' rulings already portend such loss."

 - W.A.R.

Bill,

Thanks for your message. Look, well before our bruha-ha, I too, signed the impeachment petition – not that I thought it would do much good. I wish I was wrong. The problems, as I see them, are (with apologies for the length) these:

Democrats in the House do not want to jeopardize what they believe to be a tenuous hold on their majority status by being viewed as vengefully partisan via impeachment proceedings. They know they will be largely crucified by corporate mainstream media. And with Hillary as the leading Democrat for the 2008 nomination, rightwing radio and mainstream news would crucify her owing to the G.O.P.’s impeachment of her husband. I agree wholeheartedly that the present matter would not, in reality, be payback for Clinton’s impeachment (over semantics concerning a BJ) which was a tit-for-tat hit for the Anita Hill / Clarence Thomas outing – but Congressional Democrats fear that a partisan-led impeachment of Dubya would be viewed as just another vengeance procedure. They feel they have a better chance winning a solid 2/3rds majority bringing their case before the court of public opinion against Bush’s “high crimes and misdemeanors.”

 Myself? I haven’t trusted election results for over a decade, and my skepticism has in fact, been proven justified in court by such cases as Beverly Harris vs. Diebold, wherein software engineers proved to the court’s satisfaction that 12 separate sets of hidden software commands were throwing the results to Bush & party.

However, let us say that Bush, Cheney, and their 4th Reich regime commit further crimes so egregious that even Republican die-hards feel compelled to support impeachment. What is the likely outcome? Has the nation ever impeached both a president and vice president? No. And doing so would bring into power the House Speaker, a Democrat and woman, so neither Congressional Republicans nor Hillary Clinton and her Democratic supporters are going to support this.

 Removing Bush brings on Cheney – the power behind the throne anyway. And then either Cheney, or his hand-picked successor as vice president has incumbency with which to re-position before November 2008.

If it is Cheney who goes, then Bush can likewise pick a replacement, possibly Rudy or another G.O.P. star who then has incumbency, higher status, media support, and a veritable clean slate with which to oppose the Democratic candidate.

Moreover, if Bush was impeached, I have little doubt that before a vote reached the Senate, another “terrorist” attack would occur and he would then ride out his term and them some – for a relatively indeterminate length, as Commander-in-Chief, whose warnings and actions were then “justified” (ala Lincoln’s despotic and unconstitutional actions as a wartime president intent on saving the Union) by the heinous attack against America.

And what if the “attack” appears to be Al-Quaida from their newest lair, Iran? Let’s face facts: Afghanistan had nothing to do with September 11, 2001. But when Unocal pulled out of the trans-Afghani pipeline project in 1998 because the political situation in Afghanistan was viewed as unstable and Enron came in with a $400 million bribe to the Taliban, followed by Cheney’s firm, Halliburton buying DSDN ASA, the Norwegian undersea pipeline manufacturer, suddenly trillions of dollars in oil and gas reserves at stake, were ripe for U.S. oil and military-related industries, pending an excuse to subjugate the region militarily.

Likewise, there were no WMDs in Iraq, but there is an estimated $4 trillion in oil and gas reserves to be routed out. We are beating hell out of Iraqi legislators to force them to sign constitutional provisions that allocate 70% of their nation’s oil to foreign (U.S.) companies. Iran’s reserves dwarf those of Iraq. Iran holds the world’s third largest known oil reserves, 132.5 billion barrels, and the second largest natural gas reserves, about 971 trillion cubic feet. The Caspian Sea holds at least $5 trillion in oil and gas reserves. Bill, we are talking here about something referred to a century ago as “the Great Game” – the question as to which nation would eventually control the world’s vast oil and gas reserves housed beneath the sands and soil of the Middle East.

You asked a very good question: “Do you really believe that the neocons are stupid enough to risk that possibility? (i.e., civil unrest, etc.) Do you believe that their corporate sponsors would allow them to risk a potential indefinite shutdown of most commerce, and an economic meltdown?” My answer: most definitely. Bush would not have granted Halliburton a $285 million contract to build domestic internment centers if he didn’t believe that they might be necessary. He would not have conferred upon himself unprecedented, arbitrary, unilateral and absolute Emergency powers, unless he and his regime felt that they might be needed. I don’t believe they fear civil unrest. I fear that they welcome it. Moreover, considering the immense economic damage they have already done to the vast majority of American consumers much to the benefit of the wealthiest 1% - especially those with military, petro-chemical, pharmaceutical, wireless communication and other war-related industries investments  – Bush and company have no compunction whatsoever in terms of inconveniencing or damaging other businesses, consumers, and the economy overall. This is about raw greed and the use of power by any means necessary to fulfill an agenda. These people have little regard for law, life, liberty, or perceived legitimacy.

Bill, I know nothing about you other than your posts and your self-description as a “Liberal Democrat.” I considered myself a Liberal Democrat in 1964. I believed in my government and was aghast that our beloved President had been assassinated by a misfit. Then I bought the 26 volumes of the President’s Commission and began to study what happened. Forty-four years of in-depth research, interviews, investigation, analysis, and troubled thought have taught me not only the fallacy of believing “it can’t happen here,” but to anticipate the possibility – based upon early warning signs of what our Founding Fathers termed “a long train of abuses and usurpations” that much worse can and indeed will occur unless “We, the People” put a stop to it. It's why, when I first had my disagrement with Bob Fertig, I predicted that Bush would have us in a war before his first term was ended. I was wrong. Even I was naive. He had us in two. What we are winessing is a criminal regime unprecedented in American history. Its closest parallel is 1930s Nazi Germany - and lest we forget, Bush's heirs, grandfather Prescott, and his father-in-law, Herbert Walker, were instrumental along with the Dulles brothers (according to Senate investigative and FBI reports) in helping to finance Nazi militarism before and during World War II.

A number of Democrats attribute to our party’s fonder, Thomas Jefferson, the warning that “Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty,” but in fact, it issued from Wendell Phillips in a speech in Boston before the Anti-slavery Society. I’d like to conclude by quoting it in its fuller version:

 “Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty—power is ever stealing from the many to the few…. The hand entrusted with power becomes … the necessary enemy of the people. Only by continual oversight can the democrat in office be prevented from hardening into a despot: only by unintermitted Agitation can a people be kept sufficiently awake to principle not to let liberty be smothered in material prosperity.”

Bill, I truly believe that, whether or not we are able to remove Bush and Cheney from office via impeachment, we should prioritize our actions by first removing from his official duties, the power to arbitrarily and unconstitutionally assume absolute power via his May 9th directive. If we do not first do this, then he, as Commander-in-Chief holds the trump card over Congress, the Constitution, and the people of this country. With trillions of dollars at stake, these criminals will stop at nothing.  (Incidentally, some time ago I sent Senator Feinstein a nasty reply when she opted out of supporting impeachment on the excuse that it would "only further divide our country." This rationale - from a woman named "Feinstein."  Imagine!)

Kindest regards,

Will