Tweet
Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Who cares?
Who cares?
We were talking about Bush getting impeached, remember?
Bueller?
-
Not really, but I didn't bring Slick Willie up in this thread.
We were talking about Bush getting impeached, remember?
Bueller?
-
I disagree. However, please feel free to convince me otherwise.Originally posted by Ellyllions
Nick if I gave you a blow job today, it would be SEX.
ROTH ARMY MILITIA
Originally posted by EAT MY ASSHOLE
Sharky sometimes needs things spelled out for him in explicit, specific detail. I used to think it was a lawyer thing, but over time it became more and more evident that he's merely someone's idiot twin.Comment
-
It doesn't matter.
Perception is reality in this case.
Everybody except for diehard Clinton lovers and attorneys believes he lied.
Comment
-
Wonder if he got legal advice from OJ Simpson?"If our country is worth dying for in time of war let us resolve that it is truly worth living for in time of peace." - Hamilton FishComment
-
I hope Ms. Plame will have the decency to pose naked for us or even better yet come out in a porno.Comment
-
...ewww shut your mouth!
Have you looked at this woman? I mean really LOOKED at her?"If our country is worth dying for in time of war let us resolve that it is truly worth living for in time of peace." - Hamilton FishComment
-
Yeah I know she is a hagatha but nowadays it's just the natural order of things when you are an attention whore.Originally posted by Ellyllions
...ewww shut your mouth!
Have you looked at this woman? I mean really LOOKED at her?Comment
-
Her life is so destroyed she's appeared on almost every magazine cover she can get her mitts on.Originally posted by jcook11
Yeah I know she is a hagatha but nowadays it's just the natural order of things when you are an attention whore.Comment
-
Hello sig!!Originally posted by Ellyllions
That lie/no lie thing makes me sick. It was nothing more than the smart ass attorney coming out in him. Yeah, that's honest.
Nick if I gave you a blow job today, it would be SEX.
He tried to exploit the definition and lost.
Comment
-
She's "gone sour," but I'm thinking she was once very, very hot.Originally posted by Ellyllions
...ewww shut your mouth!
Have you looked at this woman? I mean really LOOKED at her?
She still has an attractive face at least...Comment
-
I knew you'd like that....Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Hello sig!!
"If our country is worth dying for in time of war let us resolve that it is truly worth living for in time of peace." - Hamilton FishComment
-
She reminds me too much of Anne The Man for some reason.Originally posted by Nickdfresh
She's "gone sour," but I'm thinking she was once very, very hot.
She still has an attractive face at least...
By the way, somebody throw the bitch a couple of sandwiches...she is grotesquely thinny.
Comment
-
\Originally posted by Warham
All more worthwhile than impeachment hearings.
I'll bet you didn't miss a second of Clinton's impeachment hearings....were they worthwhile?Last edited by blueturk; 07-14-2006, 08:52 PM.Comment
-
That was like porn for him...Originally posted by blueturk
\
I'll bet you didn't miss a second of Clinton's impeachment hearings....were they worthwhile?Comment
-
July 14, 2006
Ex-C.I.A. Officer Holds News Conference on Suit
By NEIL A. LEWIS
WASHINGTON, July 14 — Valerie Wilson and her husband, Joseph C. Wilson IV, filed suit on Thursday against Vice President Dick Cheney, Mr. Cheney’s former top aide and the senior presidential adviser Karl Rove, charging they had conspired to violate their constitutional rights.
The lawsuit, filed in Federal District Court, accused Mr. Cheney, Mr. Rove and the former Cheney aide, I. Lewis Libby Jr., of conspiring to destroy Ms. Wilson’s career by leaking her identity as an undercover C.I.A. operative to the press. It says the three men had conspired to punish Mr. Wilson for his public assertions that the Bush administration had twisted intelligence to justify the invasion of Iraq.
Speaking today, Ms. Wilson said, “I would much rather be continuing my career as a public servant than be a plaintiff in a lawsuit.”
“But I feel strongly, and justice demands that those who acted so harmfully against our national security must answer for their shameful conduct in court.”
Ms. Wilson made her remarks during a news conference at which her husband and a lawyer also spoke.
The civil lawsuit, which does not specify any amount of damages being sought, is the latest chapter in a complicated legal and political story that began when Valerie Plame, Ms. Wilson’s unmarried name, first appeared publicly in a newspaper column by Robert D. Novak on July 14, 2003.
The fallout from that disclosure led to an investigation by a special prosecutor into whether the leak violated any laws and whether Ms. Wilson’s name was leaked as part of a campaign to punish Mr. Wilson, a former ambassador, for his criticism of the White House.
The prosecutor, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, did not bring any charges in connection with laws that prohibit the willful disclosure of the identity of a Central Intelligence Agency officer. But he did indict Mr. Libby, also known as Scooter, on perjury and obstruction of justice charges, saying he had testified untruthfully to a grand jury and federal agents when he said he learned about Ms. Wilson’s role at the C.I.A. from reporters rather than from several officials, including Mr. Cheney.
Mr. Libby’s trial is scheduled to begin in February. The judge has narrowed the issues in the case to whether Mr. Libby lied and has excluded almost all evidence about the politics surrounding the leak of Ms. Wilson’s name.
As a result, the Wilsons’ suit has the potential to keep alive those issues in a civil case, which generally allows a wider scope of evidence.
But the suit is also likely to face major hurdles, notably the issue of whether the officials have any immunity for their actions. The general standard from a 1982 Supreme Court case is that federal officials may be sued for violating someone’s constitutional rights if a reasonable person would believe they had violated “clearly established law.”
The pretrial motions in the Libby case have not, as yet, produced evidence that there was any willful effort to leak Ms. Wilson’s identity.
The lawsuit says the officials’ actions have led to “gross invasions of privacy” for the Wilsons and caused them to fear for their children’s safety because Ms. Wilson is now a target for those who hate the United States. The suit says the officials violated the couple’s right to privacy, freedom of speech and equal protection of the laws.
Mr. Cheney’s spokeswoman, Lea Anne McBride, declined to comment on Thursday, noting that the issues were before a court in the Libby trial. Robert D. Luskin, Mr. Rove’s lawyer, said in an interview: “The allegations are without merit. We may comment further when we have an opportunity to review the complaint.”
Barbara Comstock, a spokeswoman for Mr. Libby, declined to comment.
John Holusha contributed reporting from New York for this article.
Copyright 2006 The New York Times CompanyComment
Comment