The big guys and gals have weighed in on the matter and Secret Service has come out on top.

The Supreme Court ruled Monday unanimously in favor of two Secret Service agents, saying they can’t be sued, according to the New York Times.

The court ruled against a Colorado protestor, who was suing the agents for violating his free speech and arresting him in 2006 after he made critical remarks to Vice President Dick Cheney.

The Times wrote of the Supreme Court ruling, which reversed a Court of Appeals decision:

The Supreme Court reversed the decision, saying the Secret Service agents could not be sued. They were entitled, (Clarence) Thomas wrote, to the qualified immunity available to government officials when the legal principle said to bar their conduct was not “clearly established.” The court did not decide whether the First Amendment in fact allows retaliatory arrests in such circumstances.

To read more click here.

Patrick Fitzgerald/doj photo

Former V.P. Dick Cheney isn’t always known for his diplomacy or finesse.

But Monday he was more careful than usual when it came to voicing his opinion. Usually he’s not so circumspect.

But he was when asked about Chicago U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald who prosecuted Cheney’s  Scooter Libby for perjury and obstruction of justice in the leak investigation into the outing of CIA operative Valerie Plame.

Radio station WBEZ reports that Cheney, who appeared Monday at the Union League Club of Chicago as part of his book tour, paused for nine second when asked about Fitzgerald.

“I obviously had some fundamental disagreements with him at one point in the past,” Cheney said.

Cheney called Libby a “very good man” who “did not deserve what happened to him.”

Libby was convicted on four of five felony counts. In 2007, he was sentenced to 30 months in prison, but President Bush subsequently commuted his 30-month sentence.

The legal battle goes on for two Secret Service agents in a case stemming from a 2006 visit to Colorado by Vice President Dick Cheney.

The Associated Press reports that the two agents are asking the Supreme Court to declare them immune from being sued in a First Amendment lawsuit.

The suit was filed by Steven Howards of Colorado, who was arrested by the agents after he touched Cheney on the arm and told him his Iraq war policies were “disgusting,” according to AP.

No fed charges were ever filed and the state charges were dropped. Howards alleged the arrest by agents Virgil D. “Gus” Reichle Jr. and Dan Doyle were in retaliation for criticizing Cheney.

The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver upheld Howards right to sue the agents.

The Justice Department has jumped into the fray to try and help two Secret Service agents from being sued in a case linked to former vice president Dick Cheney.

The Associated Press reports that the  Department of Justice filed documents in the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver siding with the agents –Virgil D. “Gus” Reichle Jr. and Dan Doyle — who asked that the court overturn the court’s  three-judge panel’s ruling that said Colorado resident Steven Howards could sue them.

AP reported that the Justice Department is arguing that the law protects agents when making split-second decisions when protecting a vice president and president.

AP reported that the Secret Service agents arrested Howards in 2006 after he allegedly approached Cheney at a mall outside of Denver and protested his Iraq policy and touched his shoulder.

Howards alleged in the suit that the arrest was done in retaliation. The feds never charged him and the state dropped charges.

The court panel ruled  last month  that Howards can sue agents on First Amendment grounds, the Associated Press reported. The court ruled that two other agents initially named in the suit are immune in the case.

Last month, Howard’s attorney David Lane said: “I fully intend on deposing the former vice president.”

By Allan Lengel

This could get interesting.

The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that Colorado resident Steven Howards can sue two Secret Service agents who arrested him after he touched Vice President Dick Cheney’s arm in 2006 and told him that his Iraqi war policies were disgusting, the Associated Press reported.

AP reported Howards’ attorney said he plans to subpoena Cheney to testify about the incident.

“I fully intend on deposing the former vice president,” attorney David Lane told The Associated Press. The Secret Service agents had argued that they were immune from being sued.

AP reported that a three-judge panel of the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Howards can sue agents Virgil D. “Gus” Reichle Jr. and Dan Doyle on First Amendment grounds. The court, did however rule that two other agents were immune in the case.

By Allan Lengel

Under the category of “not very surprising”, Dick Cheney was fuming when President Bush refused to pardon vice presidential aide I “Scooter” Libby after he was convicted of lying in the leak  investigation into the identity of CIA spy Valerie Plalme.

Appearing in an interview on NBC’s Today Show, said ex- George W. Bush said Cheney confronted him about his decision to commute Libby’s 30-month sentence, but not pardon him.

Bush, who is promoting his memoir, “Decision Points”, writes that  a furious Cheney told him: “I can’t believe you’re going to leave a soldier on the battlefield,” according to the Associated Press.

Bush said he was concerned the decision would damage his friendship with Cheney.

“I’m pleased to report we are friends today,” he said.

It sounds like a coverup. Or is it? Should we believe Cheney, the wily VP, who has been an outspoken critic of  the Obama Administration? Mmmm. I’m sure plenty people have opinions on whether he’s being on the up and up.

Dick Cheney/meet the press

By Barton Gellman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Former vice president Richard B. Cheney told a special prosecutor in 2004 that he was unable to recall his role in most of the pivotal events that led to the uncloaking of a clandestine CIA officer in the run-up to the Iraq war, according to newly released FBI records.

A question-by-question summary of Cheney’s May 8, 2004, interview with Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald, made public under court order after years of legal maneuvering to keep it secret, portrays a vice president in command of few clear memories about a case that led to great embarrassment for the White House and felony convictions for his chief of staff.

Fitzgerald declared in his closing arguments that I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby’s perjury and obstruction of justice left him unable to pierce “a cloud over the vice president.”

Cheney neither denied nor acknowledged any memory of directing Libby, his chief of staff, to tell reporters that Valerie Plame, the wife of a prominent war critic, was a CIA officer. Nor did he recall any conversation with Libby in which either man referred to their mutual suspicion that Plame had helped dispatch her husband, Joseph C. Wilson IV, on “a junket” to explore White House accusations that then-Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein had tried to buy uranium from Niger for a nuclear weapon.

Dozens of questions from Fitzgerald produced the same result.

For Full Story

Read FBI Document 1

Read FBI Document 2

We could use some more info to figure out exactly what happened in the Valerie Plame case. The Justice Department wants to keep some things under wraps. In this case, the right thing to do is to be transparent.

Dick Cheney/meet the press

By Ben Conery
Washington Times
WASHINGTON — A federal judge questioned Tuesday whether the Justice Department’s request to not release notes from an FBI interview with former Vice President Dick Cheney essentially would require the judge to create new law, something he said he couldn’t do.

The government asked Judge Emmett Sullivan to keep the notes from being made public because, officials say, revealing them may discourage top White House officials from cooperating with future investigations.

Judge Sullivan, however, said adopting the government’s reasoning would essentially create new limits for freedom of information laws.

“What the government is asking this court to do is to create another exemption, to legislate, something judges cannot do,” he said in federal court in Washington. “Why isn’t this a job for Congress? Why aren’t you before Congress asking them to carve out this additional category that you want me to create?”

For Full Story