Skip to main content

View Diary: The Latest: First Look at Plame/Wilson Complaint (Update IV) (112 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Dont Get Your Hopes Up (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    As I noted below, the Supreme Court has clearly held that the President of the USA has ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY from civil suit for actions occruing while he was President and at all related to his official duties.  Lower courts I believe have extended this to the VP -- so Cheney will be dismissed from this lawsuit very soon.  I don't like that law, but I am not a federal judge.  Don't shoot the messenger.  It is arguable that this absolute immunity would apply to Rove and Libby too as close and intimate advisors to the VP and POTUS.  Don't be shocked if this whole thing gets thrown out by the end of the year on absolute immunity grounds --- i.e., not on the merits.  Note that absolute immunity only aplies to civil suits, that is why Libby can get criminally charged.

    NOTE: JOnes v. Clinton concerned pre-Presidential conduct --- that's the difference.  The Supreme Court case giving absolute immunity to the POTUS for acts while he was in office is from the 1970's and was about Nixon screwing over some CIA agent (shocker, I know).

    New Right Wing Motto: W, better than Stalin

    by NewDem on Thu Jul 13, 2006 at 01:51:43 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Perhaps outing Plame doesn't qualify (0+ / 0-)

      I know I'm grasping at straws here... but perhaps Plame/Wilson can arguet that the outing, since it clearly violated at least one law, can not be construed as "official duties," and is therefore actionable?

      "You don't punch down. If you're in my position, you punch upwards." -- Kieth Olbermann

      by MonkeyDog102 on Thu Jul 13, 2006 at 02:06:17 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Wouldn't work unfortunately (0+ / 0-)

        Just about anything is an official duty -- this is very broad.  There are some outrageous cases on what are "official duties."  For example, in a case concerning a judge's absolute immunity -- a judge's ex parte order not authorized by any state law to have a 14 year old girl's uterus removed was held to be done pursuant to the judge's official duties.  It was a 5-4 decision, and one of the most astounding decisions of the US Supreme Court ever (from the mid-80's) ---- real judicial activism (no joke).

        New Right Wing Motto: W, better than Stalin

        by NewDem on Thu Jul 13, 2006 at 03:13:04 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  it's part of his official duties to (0+ / 0-)

      put government CIA agents in danger and ruin their careers?

      mcjoan is the new Armando

      by TeresaInPa on Thu Jul 13, 2006 at 02:38:45 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yes unfortunately (0+ / 0-)

        "Official duty" does not mean authorized duty -- it just means he was "on the job."  See my post above.  Not saying this is a good thing or a correct interpretation of the law, it just is the law.  The case with Richard Nixon was basically just as outrageous -- I forget what Nixon was alleged to have done, but it was to ruin some guy's career for speaking out.

        New Right Wing Motto: W, better than Stalin

        by NewDem on Thu Jul 13, 2006 at 03:14:40 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I was under the impression that (0+ / 0-)

          the defense of Presidential immunity for civil suits  did't work for Clinton, who was sued while busy balming the Balkans.

          Clinton argued that it would interfere with his job attending to national security.

          Special preosecutor Starr's followers retorted :Wag The Dg. And Clinton and Hillary both wound up in front of the Grand Jury.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site