From
Pensito Review via
Democratic Underground.
In 1997, the U.S. Supreme Court said in a unanimous ruling that neither Clinton "or any other official has an immunity that extends beyond the scope of any action taken in an official capacity."
Plame Attorney to Use Paula Jones Precedent to Force Cheney to Testify
Posted by Jon Ponder | Aug. 16, 2006, 11:12 am
The biggest travesty wrought by the Supreme Court in the 1990s was its unanimous decision that Paula Jones could sue Pres. Clinton while he was in office. (This was followed by their biggest travesty perhaps ever but certainly of the millenial decade, in December 2000, when they voted along party lines to give George W. Bush the presidency over Al Gore.)
How the worm might turn, over the flip...
In 1997, the U.S. Supreme Court said in a unanimous ruling that neither Clinton "or any other official has an immunity that extends beyond the scope of any action taken in an official capacity."A lawyer plans to use a legal precedent that allowed President Bill Clinton to be sued while in office to force Vice President Dick Cheney and presidential adviser Karl Rove to testify in a lawsuit brought by former CIA operative Valerie Plame and her husband.
California attorney Joseph Cotchett said he will ask a federal court to order Cheney, his ex-chief of staff Lewis "Scooter" Libby and Rove to testify in depositions about their role in disclosing her classified status.
The civil lawsuit accuses them and others of conspiring to publicly identify Plame as a CIA agent to punish her husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, for writing in an op-ed piece that the Bush administration twisted intelligence about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction in the run-up to the Iraq war.
Cotchett, who took over as trial counsel in Plame's case on Tuesday, said legal precedent for whether Cheney and the others could claim legal immunity in the case comes, in part, from Paula Jones' sexual harassment case against Clinton.
Irony mixed with karma is a stone cold b*tch isn't it?
Vyan