Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

What does Sibel Edmonds and Scooter Libby have in common???

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
OmmmSweetOmmm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-26-06 04:17 PM
Original message
What does Sibel Edmonds and Scooter Libby have in common???
I was listening to an interview this morning (on archive) from the Meria Heller Show (meria.net). She had on as her guest Sibel Edmonds, and the information in the below article is one of the things they discussed. The fix is in!

December 20, 2005 08:32AM EST

"Judge in Scooter Libby, Sibel Edmonds cases is redacted in action"

“Another judge was assigned to it, then, mysteriously and with no reason, it was transferred to ..."

By Bill Conroy

"What do two of the biggest national-security news stories of the century — the Valerie Plame leak scandal and the legal case of FBI whistleblower Sibel Edmonds — have in common?
They both are being presided over by the same federal judge in the District of Colombia, Reggie Walton, a Bush appointee to the federal court and a man who appears to have a few well-kept secrets of his own."

Keywords: War & Peace, Analysis, Local, Resource Wars,

Judge in Scooter Libby, Sibel Edmonds cases is redacted in action
By Bill Conroy,
Posted on Sat Dec 17th, 2005 at 06:14:22 PM EST

What do two of the biggest national-security news stories of the century — the Valerie Plame leak scandal and the legal case of FBI whistleblower Sibel Edmonds — have in common?
They both are being presided over by the same federal judge in the District of Colombia, Reggie Walton, a Bush appointee to the federal court and a man who appears to have a few well-kept secrets of his own.

All federal judges are required under ethics rules to file what is known as “financial disclosure reports.”

The disclosure statement filed by Walton, which was obtained through the dogged efforts of a conservative watchdog group called Judicial Watch, is curious in what it does not reveal. Remember, this judge is arguably handling two of the most sensitive and potentially far-reaching challenges to the free press and the public’s right to know of our times.

In the Plamegate case, a top White House aid, Scooter Libby, has already been indicted and additional indictments may be forthcoming (Karl Rove?). In addition, a bevy of insider journalists in the media-center establishment have been subpoenaed to testify in the case, and one, New York Times reporter Judith Miller, has already done jail time for her initial refusal to identify her sources on the story.

Edmonds was fired from her job as an FBI translator after blowing the whistle on alleged espionage being carried out by a fellow FBI employee. She was prevented from pursuing a whistleblower retaliation lawsuit filed in 2002 (based on alleged violations of her civil rights) because of the state-secrets privilege claim, a claim upheld by Judge Walton. That claim essentially shut down her ability to present evidence in the case under the smokescreen that it would jeopardize national security.

An appeal in the Edmonds case was recently rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court. She now has a separate case pending in federal court in Washington, D.C. Ironically, in both cases, Judge Walton was randomly assigned to hear her complaints at the District Court level. Walton also has randomly been assigned to hear the Plamegate case involving Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney’s former chief of staff.

So given the high-stakes poker being played in both these cases, one civil and one criminal, why has no one in the establishment press bothered to ask what is contained in Judge Walton’s financial disclosure statement? After all, his investments and financial backers would be of keen interest in gauging his ability to hear these cases in an unbiased manner, right?

Continued http://nyc.indymedia.org/en/2005/12/62134.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
goforit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-26-06 04:20 PM
Response to Original message
1. Why am I not surprised?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jus_the_facts Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-26-06 04:40 PM
Response to Original message
2. there's no such thing as unbiased...and total control of the gov't...
....and the courts will make their high crimes and treason justified...and that's the way it'll be made to sound in their controlled media. Heads literally need to ROLL and unless we the people aren't willing to make that happen and get rid of these fuckers once and for all...then they'll continue get away with their crimes....same as it ever was. :nopity:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 18th 2024, 07:29 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC