Rove was the source of the Plame leak... so it appears

since i got no reply the first time on this, i'll repost it. just in case lash didn't see it the first time...

DontTreadOnMe wrote:

Lash wrote:
DTOM-- If you REALLY want to read about the phone call that Wilson neglected to follow up on, you can subscribe to the WaPo. My link expired.

no, i don't want to subscribe to the wapo and no, i don't want to read an op-ed.

what i want, is for you to provide the title, link and text of an official report that states that "wilson was given a contact phone number and he did not bother to call it".

ya see, i just finished reading the text of the senate committee report, specifically the sections on "the ambassador" and "niger" and the conclusions of the sections related to niger and the "16 words".

and there is not one single referrence to wilson having been given any phone numbers.

he was given "talking points", which i take to mean as a list of questions. but no referrence to any phone numbers is made. nor does the report in any way scream "wilson lied".

so unless you can provide the things i've asked you for, i will have to conclude that either there is no official referrence to the alleged phone number provided and that it is simply part of a partisan hit piece. or that you just made it up

so which is it ?

edited for puncts

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

I don't think he'd characterize Timber that way . . .

ROTFLMAO - punctuated with wiping coffee spray from my monitor Laughing

0 Replies

kuvasz wrote:

However, the brief, along with its reasoning was rejected by the Supreme Court as evidence of the illegitimacy of the Grand Jury insisting that miller divulge her sources. The Court refused even to hear the case.

That means that the Court did not believe the "evidence" in the brief stating that Plame had been outed before under the relevant statutes.

The Court's ruling denies that the evidence in footnote # 7, detailing Gertz's article and comments on the soviets and later the CIA having outed Plame rose to the level of denying the Grand Jury of its legitimacy.

What is the basis for your belief that by refusing the hear the case the Supreme Court has decided the matter on the merits?

0 Replies

DontTreadOnMe wrote:

tico is a republican, but he isn't stupid. that much i'm sure of. and, he digs pink floyd, so he can't be all bad. bet he even likes animals.

Of course I like animals. It's not my favorite ... but I like it.

Hey, I just d/l "One Of These Days" from the Live At Pompeii concert/movie. Awesome.

0 Replies

Because the Supreme Court doesn't waste their time with things that are crystal clear under law and legal interpretation.

0 Replies

Plame security breach? It just ain't so, Joe

July 17, 2005

BY MARK STEYN SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST

Karl Rove? Please. I couldn't care less. This week finds me thousands of miles from the Beltway in what I believe the ABC World News Tonight map designates as the Rest Of The Planet, an obscure beat the media can't seem to spare a correspondent for. But even if I was with the rest of the navel-gazers inside the Beltway I wouldn't be interested in who ''leaked'' the name of CIA employee Valerie Plame to the press. As her weirdly self-obsesssed husband Joseph C. Wilson IV conceded on CNN the other day, she wasn't a ''clandestine officer'' and, indeed, hadn't been one for six years. So one can only ''leak'' her name in the sense that one can ''leak'' the name of the checkout clerk at Home Depot.

Back when Woodrow Wilson was running for president, he had a campaign song called ''Wilson, That's All.'' If only. With Joe Wilson, it's never all. He keeps coming back like a song. But in the real world there's only one scandal in this whole wretched business -- that the CIA, as part of its institutional obstruction of the administration, set up a pathetic ''fact-finding mission'' that would be considered a joke by any serious intelligence agency and compounded it by sending, at the behest of his wife, a shrill politically motivated poseur who, for the sake of 15 minutes' celebrity on the cable gabfest circuit, misled the nation about what he found.

This controversy began, you'll recall, because Wilson objected to a line in the president's State of the Union speech that British intelligence had discovered that Iraq had been trying to acquire ''yellowcake'' -- i.e., weaponized uranium -- from Africa. This assertion made Bush, in Wilson's incisive analysis, a ''liar'' and Cheney a ''lying sonofabitch.''

In fact, the only lying sonafabitch turned out to be Yellowcake Joe. Just about everybody on the face of the earth except Wilson, the White House press corps and the moveon.org crowd accepts that Saddam was indeed trying to acquire uranium from Africa. Don't take my word for it; it's the conclusion of the Senate intelligence report, Lord Butler's report in the United Kingdom, MI6, French intelligence, other European services -- and, come to that, the original CIA report based on Joe Wilson's own briefing to them. Why Yellowcake Joe then wrote an article for the New York Times misrepresenting what he'd been told by senior figures from Major Wanke's regime in Niger is known only to him.

As I wrote in this space a year ago, an ambassador, in Sir Henry Wootton's famous dictum, is a good man sent abroad to lie for his country; this ambassador came home to lie to his. What we have here is, in effect, the old standby plot of lame Hollywood conspiracy thrillers: rogue elements within the CIA attempting to destabilize the elected government. If the left's view of the world is now so insanely upside-down that that's the side they want to be on, good for them. But ''leaking'' the name of Wilson's wife and promoter within the CIA didn't ''endanger her life'' or ''compromise her mission.'' Au contraire, exposing the nature of this fraudulent, compromised mission might conceivably prevent the American people having their lives endangered.

Here's the thing: They're still pulling body parts from London's Tube tunnels. Too far away for you? No local angle? OK, how about this? Magdy el-Nashar. He's a 33-year old Egyptian arrested Friday morning in Cairo, and thought to be what they call a ''little emir'' -- i.e., the head honcho in the local terrorist cell, the one who fires up the suicide bombers. Until his timely disappearance, he was a biochemist studying at Leeds University and it's in his apartment the London bombs were made. Previously he was at North Carolina State University.

So this time round he blew up London rather than Washington. Next time, who knows? Who cares? Here's another fellow you don't read much about in America: Kamel Bourgass. He had a plan to unleash ricin in London. Fortunately, the cops got wind of that one and three months ago he was convicted and jailed. Just suppose, instead of the British police raiding Bourgass' apartment but missing el-Nashar's, it had been the other way around, and ricin had been released in aerosol form on the Tube.

Kamel Bourgass and Magdy el-Nashar are real people, not phantoms conjured by those lyin' sonsofbitches Bush and Cheney. And to those who say, "but that's why Iraq is a distraction from the war on terror," sorry, it doesn't work like that. It's not either/or; it's a string of connections: unlimited Saudi money, Westernized Islamist fanatics, supportive terrorist states, proliferating nuclear technology. One day it all comes together and there goes the neighborhood. Here's another story you may have missed this week:

''Iran will resume uranium enrichment if the European Union does not recognize its right to do so, two Iranian nuclear negotiators said in an interview published Tuesday.''

Got that? If you don't let us go nuclear, we'll go nuclear. Negotiate that, John Kerry. As with Bourgass and el-Nashar, Hossein Moussavian and Cyrus Nasseri are real Iranian negotiators, not merely the deranged war fantasies of Bush and Cheney.

The British suicide bombers and the Iranian nuke demands are genuine crises. The Valerie Plame game is a pseudo-crisis. If you want to talk about Niger or CIA reform, fine. But if you seriously think the only important aspect of a politically motivated narcissist kook's drive-thru intelligence mission to a critical part of the world is the precise sequence of events by which some White House guy came to mention the kook's wife to some reporter, then you've departed the real world and you're frolicking on the wilder shores of Planet Zongo.

What's this really about? It's not difficult. A big chunk of the American elites have decided there is no war; it's all a racket got up by Bush and Cheney. And, even if there is a war somewhere or other, wherever it is, it's not where Bush says it is. Iraq is a ''distraction'' from Afghanistan -- and, if there were no Iraq, Afghanistan would be a distraction from Niger, and Niger's a distraction from Valerie Plame's next photo shoot for Vanity Fair.

The police have found the suicide bomber's head in the rubble of the London bus, and Iran is enriching uranium. The only distraction here is the pitiful parochialism of our political culture.

Source

0 Replies

DontTreadOnMe wrote:

now, a side question. i got an email saying that, in august, mars is going to be closer to earth than it has been in something like 65,000 years. it will be nearly as visable as the full moon. do you know anything about this ? is it true ? should i make time in my busy schedule ???

Akshully, Mars and Terra were at their closest in around 50,000 yerars 2 years ago, in late summer of '03, and much then was made of the event. The current email concerning Mars' impending Halloween "Closest Approach" is, to put in very few letters, B.S.

Be not dismayed, however; even though nothing especially out of the ordinary, this autum's Mars viewing will be very good. Already, with a decent 'scope (mine's a Meade DS 114 with AutoStar - a nice, if somewhat dated, reflector) and good viewing conditions, one can make out Mar's polar caps, other gross terrain features, and discern relative differences in size and albedo of her 2 major moons, Phobos and Deimos.

0 Replies

Yeah, I thought it was last year about Mars. Much ado about not much at all, if I remember correctly.

0 Replies

Quote:

Plame security breach? It just ain't so, Joe

July 17, 2005

BY MARK STEYN SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST

A perfect example of a real issue being treated as a non-issue by a conservative columnist (can't call him a journalist) who is in a snit because this is an issue that has legs.

A perfect example of what passes for political discourse now. If I had to point to all that's wrong with contemporary politics in the US at the moment then this would be it. "They're lining up the Right on this one so we have to diffuse attention".

The perfect rant from the perfect 'neo-con ranter'.

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

kuvasz wrote:
However, the brief, along with its reasoning was rejected by the Supreme Court as evidence of the illegitimacy of the Grand Jury insisting that miller divulge her sources. The Court refused even to hear the case.

That means that the Court did not believe the "evidence" in the brief stating that Plame had been outed before under the relevant statutes.

The Court's ruling denies that the evidence in footnote # 7, detailing Gertz's article and comments on the soviets and later the CIA having outed Plame rose to the level of denying the Grand Jury of its legitimacy.

What is the basis for your belief that by refusing the hear the case the Supreme Court has decided the matter on the merits?

Upon what criteria other than merits are Supreme Court decisions to take a case made?

0 Replies

http://radio.weblogs.com/0001015/images/2002/05/25/gump.gif

no apologies, little boys and girls, I'll call a gump a gump when I see one.

You might note that I have not been one on the left eviscerating Karl Rove. Scores of pages ago I offered that whoever had classified data and passed it on to the press first hand or passed it to someone else who then gave it to the press was in trouble. That was not necessarily throwing stones at Rove.

The only way Rove could have known about the allegations of Plame sending Wilson to Niger was to have had seen or heard of a report written by a State Dept staffer who erroneously wrote it in the report that was forwarded to Colin Powell before his trip to Africa whilst accompanying Bush in the Spring of 2003.

The CIA has vehemetely denied Plame sent Wilson to Niger and has shown that whover wrote the report was not involved in the decision to send Wilson to Niger.

This is the memo which stated that Valerie Plame (identified as 'Valerie Wilson' in the memo) had recommended or arranged for Joe Wilson to make the fact-finding trip to Niger. And Fitzgerald's office appears to believe that that memo was the ultimate source of the information that eventually made its way into print in Robert Novak's column.

I have spent most of the time here denying the fundamental artifice of the weirdo universe the right wing has attempted to construct that ignores the facts about Wilson and have been submitting facts that debunk the erroneous accusations leveled at him. Repeatedly the right wingers here have posted the same accusations without responding to the data presented that undermines their own accusations. It is all just ignored and the claim "Wilson lied" rings out repeatedly. That is the understandable, yet goofy part of the deal from the right-wingers here.

It is essential for the White House to discredit Wilson. Discredit Wilson then what he has to say about the bush administration ignoring evidence refuting African Uranium sales to Iraq is discredited. Defending the Bush administration and its rush to war is paramount in their eyes since admitting that they ignored data indicating Iraq was not acquiring uranium shows them as liars in the run-up to the Iraqi invasion.

That is the whole ball game and the Bush administration knows it.

Oddly even posted are allegations that Wilson wanted desperately to go to Niger. Absurd on its face, yet posted as gospel, without a nod to the reality of how crazy such an allegation actual is.

We have arrived at a point where as Paul Krugman points out:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/15/opinion/15krugman.html?

Quote:

[W]e're not living in the America of the past, where even partisans sometimes changed their views when faced with the facts. Instead, we're living in a country in which there is no longer such a thing as nonpolitical truth. In particular, there are now few, if any, limits to what conservative politicians can get away with: the faithful will follow the twists and turns of the party line with a loyalty that would have pleased the Comintern.

We shouldn't underestimate the stakes here.

A primary point in the Republican defense of the criminal leaks is that Plame was not covert. Therefore, the exposure of her identity is not an act of political revenge, but a mistake. If public opinion holds to the belief that Plame's covert status was revealed as a retaliatory response to Wilson's attacks on the Bush Administration, then one can conclude Wilson hit a sensitive spot with the Bush Administration, one they do not want contested.

But how do the republicans explain the following facts?

1. After conducting an investigation, the CIA formally requested that the Justice Department begin a criminal investigation;

2. After the Justice Department investigation had begun gathering evidence, Attorney General Ashcroft found it neccessary to recuse himself;

3. The Justice Department felt that it was neccessary to appoint a special prosecutor;

4. The special prosecutor's investigation has gone on for many, many months;

5. Various media organizations filed briefs in the Cooper/Miller case arguing that no crime was committed because Plame was not covert, but the Court of Appeals did not accept that argument; and

6. Judge Tatel's concurring opinion in the Court of Appeals decision in the Cooper/Miller case referred to:
a. "criminal leaks,"
b. "the crime,"
c. "the plot against Wilson,"
d. the leak at issue being "harmful to national security," and
e. identifying the leakers is "essential to remedying a serious breach of public trust."

It seems odd that no one in the CIA, the Justice Department, the Attorney General's office, the special prosecutor's office, the District Court overseeing the grand jury, or the Court of Appeals would bother to check to see whether the status of Valerie Plame fell within the statute. It must be "hard work" to check something like that.

It is an indication of how weak the republican case is that they focus on such a flawed argument in defense of Bush and his criminal minions. After all, arguing that no crime was committed because Plame was not covert is a tacit admission that the leaks occurred and that those accused of leaking were responsible. Evidently, to Bush and his followers, restoring honor and dignity to the White House means using a legal loophole to avoid indictment.

0 Replies

Today's New York Times wrote:

WASHINGTON, July 18 - Faced with growing questions about the role of his close adviser Karl Rove in the C.I.A. leak case, President Bush said on Monday that he would fire any member of his staff who "committed a crime."

These were Mr. Bush's first comments about Mr. Rove since he emerged within the last several days as a critical source for two reporters who wrote about the identity of a C.I.A. officer, Valerie Wilson. She is the wife of Joseph C. Wilson IV, a former diplomat who publicly questioned the evidence behind Mr. Bush's accusation in the 2003 State of the Union address that Saddam Hussein had tried to obtain uranium in Africa.

The president's answer to a question at a news conference on Monday, however brief, articulated a standard for keeping or dismissing members of his staff that appeared to differ from some past statements made both by him and by the White House spokesman.

At one point last year, Mr. Bush said yes when asked whether anyone involved in leaking such information about a C.I.A. officer would be dismissed. Another time, in 2003, he said that anyone who had violated the law against such leaks would be "taken care of."

The full article is here

I interpret this as Mr. Bush raising the threshold at which he is willing to fire the person who outed Valery Plame. He will fire any staff member who "committed a crime". But if a staff member has only leaked the information and managed not to commit a crime in the process, the president would keep him. By itself, outing a CIA agent for partisan gain appears to seem insufficiently improper to the commander in chief for firing the person who did it.

0 Replies

thomas

It was the parsing option most clearly available to him. Note too how he held off on enunciating this new version of reality until the ground troops had been spreading the same notion ("where's the crime?!") for a week previous.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

Palme invited counterattack when she proposed her husband for the investigation of the Niger matter - an evident conflict of interest, and an action quite obviously taken with a political agenda in mind - as Wilson's analysis of the Niger matter so clearly demonstrated.

With the benefit of hindsight, we know today that Mr. Bush's and Mr. Powell's talking point about Iraq buying uranium in Niger was indeed false. We also know that when Mr. Wilson, Ms Plame's husband, went to Niger and checked the story before Powell's and Bush's now infamous speeches, his "analysis of the Niger matter so clearly demonstrated" exactly that. Even so, his superiors then decided to run with their bogus story anyway. Bearing all this in mind, what makes you think, George, that "the political agenda in [the] mind" of Ms Plame and Mr. Wilson was anything more sinister than finding out the truth and reporting it? After all, it's exactly what Mr. Wilson did.

blatham wrote:

thomas

It was the parsing option most clearly available to him. Note too how he held off on enunciating this new version of reality until the ground troops had been spreading the same notion ("where's the crime?!") for a week previous.

I agree. Meanwhile, A2K features a vibrant thread asking, "does the left honestly support our troops?" And many posters I respect and like dignify with their presence this slander masquerading as a question. <Sigh>

0 Replies

Great pulling stuff together, kuvasc.

Now for Shakespearean comedic relief (and not so funny at the same time), for the reading pleasure of some of you, see below.

I normally ignore columnists, and certainly don't go looking for them. This fell into my lap, as it were. I laughed, so I thought I would share it.

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/12165077.htm

Perfect project: Rove deserves a Rove makeover

BY FRED GRIMM

[email protected]

Imagine what Karl could do with Karl.

Oh, what a spectacle that'd be. Karl Rove has transformed three war heroes into a fake, a stoolie and a terrorist sympathizer. He remade a Texas grandma into a low-down lesbian. Just think what Karl could do with a sleazy miscreant like Karl Rove for outing a CIA agent.

Oh, Momma! That'd be more fun than all-night mud wrestling.

Karl vs. Karl would just about be the ultimate political smackdown, displacing the former world champion political fantasy (around since 2004): What utter nastiness could Karl have wreaked on the reelection of a former coke-snorting, drunk-driving, military-duty-shirking rich-boy candidate like George W. Bush?

Of course, there would been no W. to run for reelection without his evil genius. Rove was Bush's chief political operative in the 1994 Texas gubernatorial election when incumbent granny-governor Ann Richards was made out to be a lesbian activist.

McCAIN MAKEOVER

In 2000, Karl's unsavory machinations were behind the undoing of John McCain after he won the New Hampshire Republican primary, putting the Bush campaign into an eyepoppin' apoplectic panic.

By the primary election in South Carolina, McCain, a prisoner of war during the Vietnam War, had received the famous Karl Rove make-over. Yet another whisper campaign transformed McCain into an informer on fellow prisoners back in Hanoi, and a nut case whose war ordeal had left him too wobbly to be prez.

Past prescription drug problems of McCain's wife were dredged up from a subterranean campaign. And Republican voters were targeted by a telephone poll with a Jim Crow hypothetical: Would voters still support the senator if they learned he had fathered a black love child. Yes or no? Must have caused quite a buzz among Carolina rednecks when they saw photos of McCain and his wife with the dark-skinned Bangladeshi child they had adopted from Mother Teresa's orphanage.

Vets champ McCain was also attacked in South Carolina by a previously unknown veterans group for supposedly betraying them on the issue of Agent Orange. A false charge. But false charges, with Karl Rove behind the scenes, are as effective as live grenades.

A couple years later, it was Georgia Sen. Max Cleland, who lost three limbs in Vietnam, running for reelection against a Rove candidate. Cleland's image quickly evolves from war hero to close buddy of Osama bin Laden.

ROVE DOES KERRY

Everyone knows, of course, that against Karl Rove, John Kerry's war medals devolved into a political liability -- even though he was running against a party boy who ducked the war in the Texas Air National Guard and even then didn't finish out his six-year obligation.

Imagine what Karl, who can wreak so much damage with only salacious rumors, could have done to George.

Better yet, imagine what Karl could do with the current Washington scandal, implicating one Karl Rove as the fellow who let reporters in on the (national security) secret that former Ambassador Joe Wilson's wife was a CIA spy.

Karl would have made short work of the Republicans who went around Washington last week arguing that Karl never actually said the name Valerie Plame. Only ''Joe Wilson's wife.'' Gracious. Imagine what Karl could have done with that and other low-rent Clintonesque word-parsing by Karl's defenders.

The scandal would have been over by Friday. Karl would have chased Karl clean back to Texas.

No, I take that back.

Karl would keep Karl around awhile longer, turning on the skewer, knowing that a summer scandal more than a year away from the next congressional election, is of no practical use to a smear-artist's political agenda.

Karl would wait until the next political season before giving Karl his famous makeover.

0 Replies

kuvasz wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:
kuvasz wrote:
However, the brief, along with its reasoning was rejected by the Supreme Court as evidence of the illegitimacy of the Grand Jury insisting that miller divulge her sources. The Court refused even to hear the case.

That means that the Court did not believe the "evidence" in the brief stating that Plame had been outed before under the relevant statutes.

The Court's ruling denies that the evidence in footnote # 7, detailing Gertz's article and comments on the soviets and later the CIA having outed Plame rose to the level of denying the Grand Jury of its legitimacy.

What is the basis for your belief that by refusing the hear the case the Supreme Court has decided the matter on the merits?

Upon what criteria other than merits are Supreme Court decisions to take a case made?

It's purely discretionary. The Court takes certiorari not as a matter of right, but as a matter of unfettered judicial discretion. It grants only 3 percent of private petitions for cert, and it makes almost all denials of certiorari without explanation. Chief Justice Rehnquist has said, "whether or not to vote to grant certiorari strikes me as a rather subjective decision, made up in part of intuition and in part of legal judgment."

Supreme Court Rule 10 doesn't control or fully measure the Court's discretion, but refers by way of example to cases where there's a "conflict with a decision of another federal court of appeals on the same important matter." In its current form, Rule 10 states that the Court will not ordinarily take a case where the asserted error, "consists of the misapplication of a properly stated rule of law." In other words, where the applicable rule of law is settled, the Court will not review the proper application of said rule to particular facts and circumstances, nor will the Court grant certiorari to review "erroneous factual findings."

So, I'm trying to figure out how you have been able to determine that by declining to review this case the Supreme Court has effectively decided the case on the basis of an underlying Amicus Brief, and its denial constitutes a rejection of the arguments in said brief? Do you have some insight into the internal deliberations of the current Supreme Court that the rest of us don't have?

Quote:

SUPREME COURT OF THE U.S. - RULES
..Part III. Jurisdiction on Writ of Certiorari
Rule 10. Considerations Governing Review on Writ of Certiorari

Review on a writ of certiorari is not a matter of right, but of judicial discretion. A petition for a writ of certiorari will be granted only for compelling reasons. The following, although neither controlling nor fully measuring the Court's discretion, indicate the character of the reasons the Court considers:

* (a) a United States court of appeals has entered a decision in conflict with the decision of another United States court of appeals on the same important matter; has decided an important federal question in a way that conflicts with a decision by a state court of last resort; or has so far departed from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings, or sanctioned such a departure by a lower court, as to call for an exercise of this Court's supervisory power;
* (b) a state court of last resort has decided an important federal question in a way that conflicts with the decision of another state court of last resort or of a United States court of appeals;
* (c) a state court or a United States court of appeals has decided an important question of federal law that has not been, but should be, settled by this Court, or has decided an important federal question in a way that conflicts with relevant decisions of this Court.

A petition for a writ of certiorari is rarely granted when the asserted error consists of erroneous factual findings or the misapplication of a properly stated rule of law.

0 Replies

Tico asked:

Quote:

So, I'm trying to figure out how you have been able to determine that by declining to review this case the Supreme Court has effectively decided the case on the basis of an underlying Amicus Brief, and its denial constitutes a rejection of the arguments in said brief?

When the court declined to consider the case and hear arguments, did it give a reason for this decision?

0 Replies

thomas wrote:

Quote:

Meanwhile, A2K features a vibrant thread asking, "does the left honestly support our troops?" And many posters I respect and like dignify with their presence this slander masquerading as a question. <Sigh>

Of all the roadbumps threatening my cognitive axle here, this baby (and its other nationalist variants) competes for number one. I've dignified the question myself, most recently, about half an hour ago. It's not just the nature of the question (Do you still attack your wife with a hatchet, sir?) that is egregious, but even moreso, I think, the unreflective obsequiousness to authoritarian civic structure that sits below. That's a particularly ugly windmill. Tilt.

0 Replies

sumac wrote:

Tico asked:

Quote:
So, I'm trying to figure out how you have been able to determine that by declining to review this case the Supreme Court has effectively decided the case on the basis of an underlying Amicus Brief, and its denial constitutes a rejection of the arguments in said brief?

When the court declined to consider the case and hear arguments, did it give a reason for this decision?

In a word, "NO". The Supremes, declining to hear the Amicus brief, letting stand the apeals court decision, said nothing beyond that they would not hear the appeal. No other comment was offered , nor was there any dissent statement. Effectively, by witholding comment, The Supremes were saying that, in their opinion, there was no "There" there.

0 Replies

sumac wrote:

Tico asked:

Quote:
So, I'm trying to figure out how you have been able to determine that by declining to review this case the Supreme Court has effectively decided the case on the basis of an underlying Amicus Brief, and its denial constitutes a rejection of the arguments in said brief?

When the court declined to consider the case and hear arguments, did it give a reason for this decision?

They very rarely give a reason for declining to take a case. Here you go:

Quote:

Judith Miller, Petitioner v. United States.

No. 04-1507.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

2005 U.S. LEXIS 5190

June 27, 2005, Decided

PRIOR HISTORY: In re Grand Jury Subpoena (Miller), 397 F.3d 964, 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 2494 (D.C. Cir., 2005)

JUDGES: Rehnquist, Stevens, O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, Souter, Thomas, Ginsburg, Breyer.

OPINION: Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit denied. Justice Breyer took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.

Cite: 2005 U.S. LEXIS 5190, *

0 Replies

Rove was the source of the Plame leak... so it appears

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know