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

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.

I think anybody with a brain or sense of fair play now knows that Karl Rove did not intentionally 'out' Valierie Plame for political or any other reasons. In fact, he didn't 'out' her at all. His remarks was not improper, illegal, or unethical.

There is another way to interpret the President's words. Initially when this came up, the question "would he fire anyone who leaked. . .", the implication was 'illegally, improperly, or unethically leaked' and that is what was in his mind when he said he would fire anyone who did that. No names (other than Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame) had been suggested at that time.

I think anybody with a brain or sense of fair play now knows that Karl Rove did not intentionally 'out' Valierie Plame for political or any other reasons. In fact, he didn't 'out' her at all. His remarks was not improper, illegal, or unethical.

There is another way to interpret the President's words. Initially when this came up, the question "would he fire anyone who leaked. . .", the implication was 'illegally, improperly, or unethically leaked'

But "properly and ethically leaked"? Really?

And there's the exact salience here, of course. When a government official commits an actual crime, he should resign, obviously. But since when has the bar been set that high (or low, rather)?

Well, as it turns out, Rove might indeed still turn out to have legally leaked Plame's name - thats why Bush is falling back to this line, after all.

Of COURSE he Intentionally 'outed' Plame. They were doing a hit on Wilson, remember? Rove doesn't even deny this point.

NOTHING has turned out. This is Rove's only lame defense. IMO , I don't think Rove will be charged under the IIPA, they may get him and others for conspiracy, perjury, obstruction of justice, and lying to the FBI though.

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.

the appeals court decision was left standing.

you can twist it any other way your right wing heart desires but you are going to have to accept that the Supreme Court decided that the appeals court decision was decided correctly. otherwise, they would have stepped in and taken the case.

by not accepting the case, the Supreme Court found the of the circumstances illustrated by the amicus brief filed by the media lawyers without merit vis-a-vis the legitimacy of the Grand Jury.

that is why the Appeals Court sent Miller to jail. the fact that Miller sits in a jail today is prima fascia evidence that the Supreme Court concurred with the Appeals Court that there as sufficient evidence that a crime had been committed. it rejects the argument that Plame was no longer covered by the law Fitzgerald was using to sit the Grand Jury.

Wall Street Journal enters Rove fray: State Dept. memo made clear info 'shouldn't be shared'
RAW STORY


A classified State Department memo that may be pivotal to the CIA leak case made clear that information identifying an agent and her role in her husband's intelligence-gathering mission was sensitive and shouldn't be shared, according to a person familiar with the document, the (paid-restricted) Wall Street Journal reports Tuesday. Excerpts follow.

News that the memo was marked for its sensitivity emerged as President Bush yesterday appeared to backtrack from his 2004 pledge to fire any member of his staff involved in the leaking of the CIA agent's name. In a news conference yesterday that followed disclosures that his top strategist, Karl Rove, had discussed Ms. Wilson's CIA employment with two reporters, Mr. Bush adopted a different formulation, specifying criminality as the standard for firing.

The memo's details are significant because they will make it harder for officials who saw the document to claim that they didn't realize the identity of the CIA officer was a sensitive matter. Patrick Fitzgerald, the special prosecutor, may also be looking at whether other crimes -- such as perjury, obstruction of justice or leaking classified information -- were committed.

On July 6, 2003, former diplomat Joseph Wilson wrote an op-ed piece for the New York Times, disputing administration arguments that Iraq had sought to buy uranium ore from Africa to make nuclear weapons. The following day, President Bush and top cabinet officials left for Africa, and the memo was aboard Air Force One.

The paragraph in the memo discussing Ms. Wilson's involvement in her husband's trip is marked at the beginning with a letter designation in brackets to indicate the information shouldn't be shared, according to the person familiar with the memo. Such a designation would indicate to a reader that the information was sensitive. The memo, though, doesn't specifically describe Ms. Wilson as an undercover agent, the person familiar with the memo said.

According to the person familiar with the document, it didn't include a distribution list. It isn't known if President Bush has seen the memo.

The piece also reveals a response from Ari Fleischer:

Mr. Novak attempted to reach Ari Fleischer, then the White House press secretary, in the days before his column appeared. However, Mr. Fleischer didn't respond to Mr. Novak's inquiries, according to a person familiar with his account. Mr. Fleischer, who has since left the administration, is one of several officials who testified before the grand jury.