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?