U.S. District Judge John D. Bates dismissed the case on jurisdictional grounds and said he would not express an opinion on the constitutional arguments. Bates dismissed the case against all defendants: Cheney, White House political adviser Karl Rove and former White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby.

Liberal outrage in 3 ..., 2 ..., 1 ...,

(by the way, a pardon for Libby wouldn't upset me, at this point).

Good, sound decision by the Judge. The only crime here is the lie that's been perpetuated by the Wilsons and their cohorts, the Democrats.

Personally, I'd like to see Joe & Val continue to push this thing. Why? Because the more their case sees the light of day, the more it will be revealed as the worst sort of political opportunism: the continued self-promotion of an ambitious couple that fancies themselves muckrakers, but are really nothing more than self-promoting dilettantes . After all, Sally Quinn said in her Washington Post column at the story's break that Joe Wilson was not be believed, as he had blabbled to all and sundry for years about how his wife worked for the CIA.

Does the nit wit Paul actually ever read what he's talking about? The merits of their case were in no way addressed by the dismissal and they are not prevented from pursuing their remedy by the dismissal. Before the Whiznuts start giggling, you might try actually reading the opinion which Paul obviously did not read.

CNN:

U.S. District Judge John Bates ruled that the lawsuit raises "important questions relating to the propriety of actions undertaken by our highest government officials" -- but in a 41-page decision, Bates found the Wilsons failed to show the case belongs in federal court.

JFO demonstrating the decorum one would expect from the left: non-existent.

Granted, the judge did state a Federal court not the proper venue for such; but, if not there, then where? A civil case doesn't lead to big bufo at the box office, and certainly won't sell more books.

Essentially, the judge said that they can't do what they've wanted to do with this since the outset, which is to make a federal case of the whole affair.

Face it, man, Dennis the judge came by and ruined the party over at Mr. Wilson's.

Game. Set. Match.

Yo:

Like Paul you either don't read or your reading comprehension is questionable. There are remedies left for them to pursue. Here's one, straight from the Judge's pen.

"The Court also finds that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over the tort claim because plaintiffs have not exhausted their administrative remedies under the Federal Tort Claims Act, which is the proper, and exclusive, avenue for relief on such a claim."

Simply put, they still have their Torts Claims Act Remedy pursue if they so choose.

Notwithstanding the merits of this lawsuit (none), it's wrong to say there was no attempt to smear Wilson. The Bush Administration very much wanted to discredit Wilson, and for good reason, to make him look the idiot and liar that he is.

Hey JFO

While you are going around quesitoning folks reading comprehension, you might want to go pull out your trusty Funk & Wagnalls dictionary and look up the word "exclusive". Then go read the Federal Tort Claims Act if you can read above a sixth grade level, and then report back to us on what you have found.

Moron.

Nelson Muntz: "HA HA!"

Yo,

You could, I don't know, read the opinion. It would make you better informed, if you could understand it.

The merits of plaintiffs' claims pose important questions relating to the propriety of actions undertaken by our highest government officials. Defendants' motions, however, raise issues that the Court is obliged to address before it can consider the merits of plaintiffs' claims. As it turns out, the Court will not reach, and therefore expresses no views on, the merits of the constitutional and other tort claims asserted by plaintiffs based on defendants' alleged disclosures because the motions to dismiss will be granted.

For the reasons explained below, the Court finds that, under controlling Supreme Court precedent, special factors -- particularly the remedial scheme established by Congress in the Privacy Act -- counsel against the recognition of an implied damages remedy for plaintiffs' constitutional claims. The Court also finds that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over the tort claim because plaintiffs have not exhausted their administrative remedies under the Federal Tort Claims Act, which is the proper, and exclusive, avenue for relief on such a claim.

There was no attempt to smear Wilson. A smear requires false accusations.

Joe Wilson was the liar. The White House was merely pointing this out.

JFO -

My comprehension is just fine, thank you. What you fail to understand is that without a slam dunk legal hearing in the Wilsons favor, the public will just give up on them.

They didn't get what they needed, and most of the folks who were pulling for them are going to walk away because they have better things to do with their time than follow the detailed legalese that could follow.

In essence, the Wilsons over-played their hand and the public has little patience for litigious do-overs.

There's law, and then there's the reality of perception.

Did her a favor.

Looks like her vulturs just got plucked

This is a very sad day for the liberals on this site. The whole "get Cheney or Rove" life style is falling apart. We all know where this is going, NOWHERE. I am eagerly looking forward to Kim's assessment on this. Where are you??? ww

A Judge saying that a law suit raises "important questions" in a preamble to an opinion, does not mean what several lefty commenters seem to think it means. He did not say he found anything on those questions and that the law basically says these things must be dealt with exclusively in an administrative claim process. Calling something important is much different that finding after considering evidence that it is meritorious. Sorry to burst your bubble, I know you are looking for something to hold on here since Liar Joe told you what a great case they had.

The Wilsons went for the big headline federal lawsuit instead of seeking remedies via established procedures. In brief, they wanted to short-circuit the system to sell their books and their movie deal.

They were too greedy for publicity and their claims of wanting 'justice' ring hollow, by their trying to go for all the marbles at once.

Now THIS is ironic....

Like Paul you either don't read or your reading comprehension is questionable.

JFO you nitwit, if you follow the link you will see I quoted the story in it's entirety. The quote you are cutting came out AFTER the story I linked.

The story I linked was posted at 02:53 it was basically the first thing posted on the internet. My post was a whopping 11 minutes later INCLUDING my commentary which was longer than the news story.

In other words JFO your reading comprehension ain't worth a shit. Ironic huh?

Comment from Little Green Footballs posting:

This is going to drive the Nutroots insane. (It's a short drive.)

Now that is funny.

Paul:

In other words JFO your reading comprehension ain't worth a shit. Ironic huh?

Ironic?

Shouldn't that read "iconic" as in iconic troll?

Anyway, think of this decision and the thought process the plame/wilson lawyers went thru in deciding to take their case to this venue.

One of two conclusions can be drawn, they have the competency of Nifong OR as others said they went for the "whole enchillada" hoping for the media splash....

and got a "plop" instead.

The statute of limitations in the Federal Tort Claims Act is two years from date of alleged injury. Hmmm.

What this decision means is that the Wilson's lawyer is incompetent and didn't know the proper procedures for this type of lawsuit.

How unsavory!!!!

While Bates did not address the constitutional questions, he seemed to side with administration officials who said they were acting within their job duties. Plame had argued that what they did was illegal and outside the scope of their government jobs.

"The alleged means by which defendants chose to rebut Mr. Wilson's comments and attack his credibility may have been highly unsavory, " Bates wrote. "But there can be no serious dispute that the act of rebutting public criticism, such as that levied by Mr. Wilson against the Bush administration's handling of prewar foreign intelligence, by speaking with members of the press is within the scope of defendants' duties as high-level Executive Branch officials."

JFO,

I can confirm that what Paul quoted was the entire article, initially. They've been updating pretty quickly since.

Hey lefties! read this if your reading comprehension is any good at all:

U.S. District Judge John D. Bates said that Cheney and White House aides cannot be held liable for the disclosure of information about Plame in the summer of 2003 while they were trying to rebut criticism of the administration's war efforts levied by her husband, former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV. The judge said such efforts were certainly part of the officials' scope of normal duties.

"The alleged tortious conduct, namely the disclosure of Mrs. Wilson's status as a covert operative, was incidental to the kind of conduct that defendants were employed to perform," Bates wrote in an opinion released this afternoon."

Lifted from the DNC's wholly own subsidiary the Washington Post, so I am sure it biased if anything towards your position.

Sounds like the Washington Post has found some lefty blogger seriously lagging in reading comprehension skills. What a shock.

scotty:

What this decision means is that the Wilson's lawyer is incompetent and didn't know the proper procedures for this type of lawsuit.

Not really... from the link in my last post:

Plame's attorneys had said the lawsuit would be an uphill battle. Public officials are normally immune from such lawsuits filed in connection with their jobs.

They apparently knew it was a losing proposition as the filed the papers.

They went ahead based not on legality but politics and fueled by high shyster retainer fees that are being paid via multi-million dollar book/movie deals and not so incidentally, the buffoons that gave up their cash to this.

The Wilson's did indeed overplay their hand. It was more important to them and their lawyer (who no doubt had visions of national exposure) to take this to a court that would garner the most publicity. It's par with everything else they've done thus far, granting themselves more significance and reverence than they're due. Their conceit and self-aggrandizing seems to know no bounds.

A tort claim somehow just doesn't sound as glamorous, does it?

Fitz knew that Armitage was the leaker, but he obviously didn't find that any law was broken. Otherwise, Fitz would have prosecuted Armitage. So this whole "outing a CIA agent" seems to be another lie from the left. Joe Wilson and Plame should be put under oath for their lies.

mantis, since you're reading this thread and not the "Fact or Fiction" one, could you go to that thread and explain the point that I am too stupid to understand?

Thanks.

The jurisdictional grounds were that the defendants were doing what they do in office, i.e., respond to Press inquiries and explain what the government, i.e. the CIA, was doing sending Mr. Plame-Wilson to Africa.

Jesus H. Christ it is so lame, the "lawsuit" and the Plame Game.

Sorry, that should be the grounds for immunity.

I think this decision will preempt another Vanity Fair cover spread.

Tom... the Master of Satirical comments:

I certainly hope the timing of this dismissal doesn't hurt any of the Wilson's book and media deals.

marc:

When I say the lawyer is incompetent I don't mean that he was uneducated or stupid but that he bypassed the proper procedural steps (probably for the political and shysterism reasons you indicate). In fact the quote you supplied shows that he knew about the immunity issues and so he should have taken the first step in getting the Federal Tort Claims decision. But that would, as others have stated, not been glamorous enough for the Wilsons'.

Alas the lefty trolls vanished due to lack of rebuttal. No one likes a sore loser. Wilson's circle of friends is getting smaller. Only a matter of time before Hillary distances herself from this lying ego. ww

BTW, can any of the asute readers of Wizbang (Blur authors excluded) confirm a rumor about the plame/wilson movie epic?

"Reportedly" Val will be played by Paris Hilton and Joe is being played by Alex Baldwin.

With stunts being performed by the recently resurrected Three Stooges.

From wilsonsupport.org: "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."

All of this started with Joe Wilson's politically motivated vindictiveness. Who will protect us from the Joe Wilson's of the world?

I read that the movie will be loosely based on the Wilsons, but mostly steeped in fiction.

Kinda' like the real thing.

Art imitating life imitating art, ad nauseum.

Basically the court dismissed because the Plame's complaint did not specify a cause of action under Federal law. Another brilliant job of lawyering by Chemerinsky.

Where did all those possessed with superior comprehension skills go?

Come back we are going to have a party.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha!

"U.S. District Judge John D. Bates said that Cheney and White House aides cannot be held liable for the disclosure of information about Plame in the summer of 2003 while they were trying to rebut criticism of the administration's war efforts levied by her husband, former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV. The judge said such efforts were certainly part of the officials' scope of normal duties."

"Lifted from the DNC's wholly own subsidiary the Washington Post, so I am sure it biased if anything towards your position."

It's always amusing to see the right wing knee jerk response to the media. The WaPo is hardly a left leaning publication, and only someone who knows nothing about the paper would claim that it is. The Post has run lead editorials condemning the Dems troop pullout bill (calling it the "retreat bill," attacking Pelosi for going to Syria, calling Joe Wilson a liar and blaming him for the outing of Valerie Plame and endorsing the nominations of Roberts and Alito). Sounds more like NewsMax than "the DNC's wholly own (sic) subsidiary". Hey GMax, next time don't be such a retard and actually read the paper before you offer your opinions.

As for the quote from the ruling, the judge was relying on precedent that said, essentially, that Libby et al can't be said to have been exceeding the scope of their employment by outing Plame, because they did it in conversations with reporters, and talking to the press is part of their jobs. He ddn't say that outing Plame was part of their jobs, but that talking to the press was.

And Paul, you triumphantly declare JFO a nitwit for not realizing that your original comments were based on an AP report that contained almost no information. So your explanation is that you can't be held accountable for what you wrote, because in the absence of facts you were just pulling the post out of your ass? Glad to see you're being a little more open about where your ideas come from.

ChrisO,
WashPost is definitely less liberal than the NYT. IT is about 90% liberal compared to the NYT 99% liberal. Comparing Washpost to newsmax is an exageration at best.

ChrisO houseboy at the Hamster wheel shows up to call someone a retard. How very liberal of you. and I say that in the most sincere meaning of the word. In other words a hypocrite and a closet hater.

Another howler going on about the WaPO being a conservative rag. Well they aint the NYT, but then their subscription rate also aint in freefall. Just means they have a few editors that aren't so close to retirement that they let unfettered commentary go through in every news story. They are most decidedly liberal, which is even more damning when they call Joe Wilson the liar that he is.

I think Rosie should play Plame and Michael Moore play Wilson.

Oh, and Chris O, the judge also said that the administration CAN answer criticisms through the press. Oh boy. The party's over. Everyone but the lefties knew it though. Their hope is eternal. Em...I meant their HATE is eternal. ww

Are frogs in short supply this year? snicker snort

No ChrisO... please learn to read.

I simply said he gave it no respect. Which was evident by the fact he dismissed it.

Please... reading really isn't that hard.

Oyster said:

Who will protect us from the Joe Wilson's of the world?

Hillary! will protect you. Hillary! also wants you and Love America Immigrant to bring your tax returns and supporting documentation to IRS Headquarters, Room 337, in Washington, DC at 9am on Wednesday, January 21, 2009. Ask for Mr. Javert.

This is a real SHAME. I was actually looking forward to this civil case. It had the makings of a complete replay of the Alger Hiss/ Nixon drama; replete with lying Leftists who avoided criminal prosecution only to be hoist on their own petard when they doubled down in a civil suit and risked perjury and prison.

I really wanted to see Val explain all three acts of her fictional drama depicting how Joe found himself in Niger. And the subplot was just as compelling, with Lying Joe defending his fifteen minutes of fame in the NYT while explaining the findings of the 9/11 commission.

A real cynic might speculate that this whole lawsuit was doomed to fail, yea so verily with the foreknowledge of the plaintiffs, who filed suit only to save face and curry favor with the nutroots, to whom they are servants indentured.

I don't believe any of the commenters have read the entire decision. The government was justified in talking to the press (and actually required to bebut the lies) when Wilson and Plame lied about the trip to Niger. It's in there. Lefties, save what dignity you have, quit lying to protect other liars.

Question: Who would pay money to watch a movie about two lying assholes?

Answer: The same dipshits who who pay to watch the fatass Michael Moore Crockumentories.

Asshole moonbats taking money from more asshole moonbats. What a hoot!

Moonbats blinded by their hatred don't see the greed of the assholes taking their money.

Now that's entertainment!

What happened to the Leftist Trolls on this'n here website????

Helloooooooooo! Can you hear me now!

The Asshat Pied Pipers of the Leftists, Mr. and Mrs. Plame, secret agents extaordinaire, are vanquished!

Hee, hee.

I am honestly saddened by this.

I wanted to see Wilson, Plame, and Armitage deposed under oath in a court of law, and then cross-examined rigorously.

It would have shown what liars they are.

Oh, well, guess I'll have to comfort myself with the frothing of the lefties who just had their Fitzmas ruined again

Honestly, I doubt the Wilsons pursue this through a trial. I expect that it will be dropped at some point for some specious reason so that they can still milk the charade...

Of course they won't pursue it all the way, Mike. Imagine what would be brought to light during the discovery phase!

Check the "blue" page. Not a word about this from wee wee. Notice he and larkin and the rest are "strangly" absent. lol

The reason the judge threw the case is that you can't really sue the White House, including individual staff members, which is essentially what Plame tried to do. The bottom line is that despite endless BS nonsense from the right claiming otherwise, Plame had been indeed a covert agent and she was indeed outed as a side effect of an over the top White House/GOP against her husband because of this article he wrote for the NY Times.

-BC

If rosie odonnel and mikael moore had sex could you imagine the smells they would produce? OH YUCK!

"The bottom line is that despite endless BS nonsense from the right claiming otherwise,"

What your warped and BDS damaged brain calls "endless BS nonsense" just happens to be the "TRUTH" backed up by the "FACTS".

Fact is if we actually enforced the laws on the books and executed the democrat traitors , they might think twice before they put cash into the hands of the terrorists to kill our Troops.

RobLaCal wrote:

What your warped and BDS damaged brain calls "endless BS nonsense" just happens to be the "TRUTH" backed up by the "FACTS".

Really? You're claiming Plame wasn't covert? That she was the one who sent her husband to Niger despite her having no such authority to do so and Wilson having done work prior to that in Niger, still classified, for the CIA? That there was no coordinated attempt to smear Wilson over that NY Times piece? That Libby, Rove, Armitage and other White House folk weren't blabbing to the media about Wilson and Plame's CIA job?

It that what you're claiming? When a right winger invokes "BDS" -- does that actually mean "Brainlessly Defending Stupidity"?

Also I made an HTML typo in that last posting that messed up some links: This link has info about the origin of the smear campaign, and this one has Wilson's original NY Times piece that upset the White House and GOP.

-BC

BC, you keep using strawmen arguments. No one claims that Valerie Plame had the authority to send her husband to Niger, just that she suggested it. Which is established by the published email.

Your claim that there was an attempt to "smear" Wilson is a flat out lie as clearly shown by what it was that was being told to reporters. What was being told to reporters was that Wilson was not sent by the White House or the VP as implied by Wilson's comments to Corn and implied by his oped. The comments about his connections to the CIA through his spouse were not smears but truthful explanations of how he ended up in Niger.

Plame's covert status under the statute has simply never been proven no matter how indignant - and fact free - your sputterings are.

Robin Roberts wrote:

BC, you keep using strawmen arguments. No one claims that Valerie Plame had the authority to send her husband to Niger, just that she suggested it. Which is established by the published email.

No she didn't and there is no such email "establishing" such a thing. The CIA itself has said that Plame had no say in the decision. The confusion comes from the 3 Republican stooges who were on the Senate Select Committee: Orrin Hatch, Christopher Bond, and Chairman Pat Roberts. These sorry, embarrassing excuses for US Senators tried mightily to tow the party line and insert smears and whatever else they could to discredit Wilson in the Senate report. While the bulk of their nonsense was kept out of the main report and put into a separate "Additional Views" supplement, they did manage to insert the assertion that Plame had "offered up" Wilson for the Niger mission. But it turned out that this "info" came from someone not privvy to what happened. Likewise with the memo (not email) you're referring to -- that was just Plame describing her husband's qualifications when the option of sending him was being discussed. And as I keep pointing out and which keeps getting ignored -- that trip was not Wilson's first CIA mission to Niger: he had gone there a couple of years earlier, again in behalf of the CIA, and supposedly on matter related to uranium. So it would appear that he was a logical consideration at the very least for that second mission.

Your claim that there was an attempt to "smear" Wilson is a flat out lie as clearly shown by what it was that was being told to reporters. What was being told to reporters was that Wilson was not sent by the White House or the VP as implied by Wilson's comments to Corn and implied by his oped. The comments about his connections to the CIA through his spouse were not smears but truthful explanations of how he ended up in Niger.

WTF, dude -- do you know how to even click on a link, nevermind Google? Wilson, who was considered a hero by Bush's dad, was sent to Niger by the CIA, not Plame, and this was in response by an inquiry by Cheney's office regarding very dubious rumors of Hussein trying to buy yellowcake uranium ore from Niger. Wilson went there and used his sources to determine that no such thing was happening. When Bush restated the now discredited uranium rumor in his State of the Union address several months later, Wilson first tried to see what was the deal, was supposedly blown off, and then finally he wrote that NY Times piece that got the White House and GOP upset and into smear mode.

Them's are the real facts. Your stuff is more like the tales Republicans tell their kids at night to help them go to sleep.

Plame's covert status under the statute has simply never been proven no matter how indignant - and fact free - your sputterings are.

Umm, didn't I point out before that you are again wrong on this? Perhaps you just get your "news" from lousy, incompetent, and -- not to mention -- lying ass sources.

You should at least think about doing something about that.

-BC

Wilson, who was considered a hero by Bush's dad, was sent to Niger by the CIA, not Plame, and this was in response by an inquiry by Cheney's office regarding very dubious rumors of Hussein trying to buy yellowcake uranium ore from Niger. Wilson went there and used his sources to determine that no such thing was happening. When Bush restated the now discredited uranium rumor in his State of the Union address several months later, Wilson first tried to see what was the deal, was supposedly blown off, and then finally he wrote that NY Times piece that got the White House and GOP upset and into smear mode.

All false. No one claims that Plame sent Wilson, only that she recommended him and later denied it. Wilson did not establish that Iraq was not trying to obtain uranium - that misrepresents his so-called findings which were at best that he believed that they would not ultimately succeed. His oped was a partisan attack that misrepresented the actual events and his own findings.

No one smeared Wilson - that is a flat out lie since nothing said about Wilson was a 'smear' by any definition.

Lastly, when it comes to "lying ass sources", don't take the word of a lying sock puppet like Greenwald. That link alone discredited you more than you seem capable of even imagining.

Robin Roberts wrote:

All false. No one claims that Plame sent Wilson, only that she recommended him and later denied it.

Ya think? From this:

Rove told Cooper that Wilson's trip had not been authorized by "DCIA"--CIA Director George Tenet--or Vice President Dick Cheney. Rather, "it was, KR said, wilson's wife, who apparently works at the agency on wmd [weapons of mass destruction] issues who authorized the trip."

And likewise with this:

No one smeared Wilson - that is a flat out lie since nothing said about Wilson was a 'smear' by any definition.

Go Google "Wilson lied" -- you might see familiar names and web sites pop up. Everyone calling Wilson a liar or claiming that the Senate Committee report discredited him is party to the smear campaign. While on this topic, I should give special mention to Orrin Hatch, Stephen Hayes, and every regular conservative commentator on Fox News for being lying asses in regards to all this above and beyond the call of duty.

-BC

Truthful statements are not smears, BC, a problem you should consider more carefully.

Robin Roberts wrote:

Truthful statements are not smears, BC, a problem you should consider more carefully.

Trust me -- I consider all this stuff very carefully. My main issue is not specifically with right blogs or even with the right wing mediasphere in general -- I just see them as being symptomatic of a greater problem with journalism and how news in general is "gathered," selected, and presented. When the Wilson/Plame issue was hot news, the amount of misinformation was appalling. I turn on a Sunday morning news talk show and there would be someone like Orrin Hatch making utterly lying-ass comments along the lines of how that Senate Select Committee he was on somehow discredited Wilson, and whatever numbnutted group there, supposed news reporters and whatnot, would just let it slide.

This lack of accountability and little or no journalistic skepticism is royally screwing this country because it evens out legitimate and bogus news sources. The end result is massive ignorance about what's really going on. Is Bush a liar and grossly incompetent? Are we helping or hurting worldwide terrorism? How strong is our economy and what do illegals and foreign outsourcing really have to do with it? Is your Senator or Representative any good? Do we really have a serious, human-caused global warming problem? Were those Killian memos really forged? Are we really grossly overpaying for a poor health system? If so, why? How secure is that PC you're reading this on? Is bigotry and discrimination still a big social problem?

It goes on and on. While there are certainly points to debate, when there is a fundamental lack of good, credible information to work with, debates become no more than p*ssing matches. And who is responsible for this increasing lack of good, credible information that's needed to make any sort of informed decision?

-BC