Teh Outed CIA Agent Scandal Thread

[Ramo]

I see no inference that Wiggy claimed proper or improper behavior.

Wiggy was clearly impugning the credibility of Plame:

and therefore nothing she has alleged stands up in court.

Which, of course, in no way follows from the ruling. Quite the opposite, actually.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Ramo, No.

Wiggy said "nothing she alleged stands up in court." Technically true regardless of any hypothetical decision. If they have no standing and/or the courts have no jurisdiction ... then there is no case.

Hence... Nothing she alleged stands up in court b/c ....

wait for it......


There is no case.

and for the record Wiggy was improperly impugning her hottiness. Definitely Valerie is hittable.

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by LordShiva
Stop threadjacking my thread,

[Ramo]

It's true in only the most technical sense. Not in any colloquial interpretation of what he said. If we used your interpretation, Wiggy sentence was a complete tautology. This is a ridiculous argument.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe


To quote the judge from a better article




You may continue your whimsical surface skimming of the article subtitles rather than reading substance.







Liny - CNN

So public officials generally have no civil liability for acts at least marginally connected with the performance of their official duties. That a very broad shield against liability exists does not imply that the underlying conduct is not tortious. By the same reasoning, Cheney and friends could have claimed Plame and Wilson were under investigation in connection for a child sex slave smuggling ring.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

@ Ramo.


Not really. This was the first mention on these boards of the dismissal of the Plame suit. His words were technically correct. His statement was more a declarative rather than an interpretation save his clear lack of taste regarding women.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by LordShiva

Make us.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat



So public officials generally have no civil liability for acts at least marginally connected with the performance of their official duties. That a very broad shield against liability exists does not imply that the underlying conduct is not tortious. By the same reasoning, Cheney and friends could have claimed Plame and Wilson were under investigation in connection for a child sex slave smuggling ring.

Take it up with the judge. I merely pointed to it as commentary that contradicted fallacious article subtitles.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
Not really. This was the first mention on these boards of the dismissal of the Plame suit. His words were technically correct. His statement was more a declarative rather than an interpretation save his clear lack of taste regarding women.

A dismissal on grounds of immunity from suit isn't the same as a dismissal on factual grounds (i.e. disposition by MSJ, directed verdict, etc.) or normal legal grounds (non-suit, demurrer).

In this type of case involving the goverment or a particular public official, there is always a legal question of how far does the alleged conduct have to go to lose immunity for performance of official duties. The legal question isn't whether the conduct is tortious or not, it's whether the conduct is so far outside the boundary of official conduct that the normal rule granting immunity to public officials doesn't apply.

Nixon was a tad over the line. McCarthy wasn't.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe


Take it up with the judge. I merely pointed to it as commentary that contradicted fallacious article subtitles.

I think some people are getting ~500 an hour to take it up with the appellate court.

The subtitles weren't that fallacious, since the judge never addressed the substance of the case.

Say if a child molestation case was provable, but the statute of limitations had run, so the case was dismissed. Does that mean the perv didn't actually do it, or merely mean that he "got off on a technicality" as law and order, hang 'em high folks like to say?

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat

Say if a child molestation case was provable, but the statute
of limitations had run, so the case was dismissed. Does that mean the perv didn't actually do it, or merely mean that he "got off on a technicality" as law and order, hang 'em high folks like to say?

Really doesn't mean a whole hell of a lot one way or the other as the alleged claims will never be brought to judicial scrutiny.

Moreover the civil case (not criminal) had much to do with Plame's assertions that the administration officials were acting in capacities beyond their office responsibilities. The judge made clear his views on that matter as such the article subtitle was completely off base as (at least some) core arguments were indeed addressed by the judge's written opinion.

[Wiglaf]

Ogie

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe


Really doesn't mean a whole hell of a lot one way or the other as the alleged claims will never be brought to judicial scrutiny.

I'm sure if the accused perv was your new next door neighbor and you had kids around, there'd be a bit of a difference between factually "didn't do it" and legally "not prosecuted for reasons unrelated to the underlying facts of the case."

Moreover the civil case (not criminal) had much to do with Plame's assertions that the administration officials were acting in capacities beyond their office responsibilities. The judge made clear his views on that matter as such the article subtitle was completely off base as (at least some) core arguments were indeed addressed by the judge's written opinion.

So the judge has a broad view of official immunity.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


I'm sure if the accused perv was your new next door neighbor and you had kids around, there'd be a bit of a difference between factually "didn't do it" and legally "not prosecuted for reasons unrelated to the underlying facts of the case."

True enough but that doesn't mean anything with respect to

a) Having the square root of **** all to do with legality and court standing, which was the basis of the discussion or
b) How my actions would in any way change the legality of the situation save my own chance at being criminally prosecuted for taking matters into my own hands.

So the judge has a broad view of official immunity.

Again my point for the umpteenth time is I take no stance one way or the other on the applicability and rightness of the judge's ruling merely that the subtitle of the article was in error and was easily discernible by even a casual reader.

You want to argue the judge was incorrect? Fine, I'm not biting.

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


Make us.

Ooooooh

do you still have any banning powers going together with that executioner title of yours?