Valerie Plame sues Dick Cheney, Scooter Libby & Karl Rove

Somebody's been watching too many Fox News legal "experts".

Here is what will happen, wagering dollars to donuts:

Defense counsel will get an extension of time to respond from plaintiffs (probably). Then they will file a motion to dismissand at the same time likely file a motion to stay discovery unless they have reason to believe that it will make the judge angry or something I can't figure out.

The motion to stay discovery will probably be granted due to the various thorny privilege issues that will likely make discovery into a nightmare for the judge/magistrate (or even a special master if they need one) though Plame/Wilson's counsel (Proskauer Rose, which is a big NY firm whose most famous regular clients are David Stern & the NBA, along with respected Duke professor Chermerinsky or whatever his name is) will argue strenuously that discovery should proceed.

The motion to dismiss will argue (based on the law, and taking all the facts as alleged as true as it must) there's no claim because Bivins doesn't apply, sovreign immunity, something administrative based about exhaustion maybe and waiver, and probably some other stuff. Briefing & argument on the motion will take a few months, and if this were an ordinary case the judge would take his sweet time and render a decision several months later. But given the scrutiny this time he/she would probably do it quickly.

The decision- I have no idea how it will go because I don't know much about Bivins cases, but this is likely a novel issue. Likely some claims, and possibly all will be dismissed with a chance to re-plead, so then the whole thing is done again.

If claims are left alive at some point and get past a motion, then discovery will probably start. At that point, expect the defense to take as narrow a position as possible as to the scope of discovery, which will work both ways according to the case of geese v. gander. So you can sit and fantasize about the discovery of Vince Foster's murder and missing WMD's but i wouldn't get my hopes up.

EDIT: I should also add that the ongoing Libby trial which involves a lto of th e same facts will also no doubt be a factor in if and when this case goes forward - likely it will be stayed at least till that is over.

I heard on the radio today that it was the 3-year anniversary of Bobby NOvak's patriotic gesture of being Libby and Rove's hatchet men, so I would guess (not certain) that the reason the suit was filed yesterday was to beat the statute of limitations, assuming it's 3 years (which I'm not sure of)

 

But not WMD.

 

Now this is hilarious:

As a result of defendants' actions, she just got a book deal.

 

Nor was that a part of the case, or alleged.

 

Free Joe and Valerie! Donate to the Plames' defense fund:
http://www.wilsonsupport.org/

 

Your Honor, she was wearing a really short skirt, and uh, was playing pinball in a real sexy way. We just gave her what she wanted, even though she kept saying "No!" So, as I see it, we're not guilty. And besides, she's been on Oprah and somebody wants to make a movie about her, which means she's got some money now, so, uh, we were really doing her a favor when we forced her on to the pool table.

 

So it is ok for you to poke fun at the Constitution if the Plame's do it? That is your position?

regardless ...who is responsible for said leak?

What happened to Republicans being the party for personal responsibility?

 

Former CIA officer: Cheney, Rove engaged in 'whispering campaign'
Plame alleges Bush administration officials ruined her career
Friday, July 14, 2006; Posted: 11:01 a.m. EDT (15:01 GMT)

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Former CIA officer Valerie Plame and her husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, said Friday they decided to sue Vice President Dick Cheney and presidential adviser Karl Rove because they engaged in a "whispering campaign" to destroy her career.

Plame told a news conference that "I and my former colleagues trusted the government to protect us in our jobs" and said it "betrayed that trust. I'd much rather be continuing my career as a public servant than as a plaintiff in a lawsuit."

Said Wilson: "We are under no illusions about how tough this fight will be. But we believe the time has come to hold those who use their official positions to exact personal revenge accountable and responsible for their actions." His wife said they decided to pursue the lawsuit with "heavy hearts."

In the suit filed Thursday in U.S. District Court, Plame and her husband said that Cheney, Rove and Cheney's former chief of staff, I. Lewis Libby, leaked her CIA status to reporters to punish Wilson for criticizing the Bush administration's motives in Iraq. (Watch Plame explain why they filed the lawsuit -- 2:14)

Plame's identity as a CIA officer was revealed in a July 14, 2003, article by syndicated columnist Robert Novak. At the time, Plame's job as an operations officer was classified information. Novak's column appeared eight days after Wilson alleged in an opinion piece in The New York Times that the Bush administration had twisted prewar intelligence on Iraq to justify going to war.

The lawsuit accuses Cheney, Libby, Rove and 10 unnamed administration officials or political operatives of putting the Wilsons and their children's lives at risk by exposing Plame, who left the CIA in January and is writing a book about what's happened to her.

At Friday's news conference, Wilson noted he had written an op-ed criticizing the administration's defense of going to war in Iraq, saying "I exercised my civil duty to hold my government to account."

"This attack was based on lies and disinformation and it included the compromise of Valerie's identity," he added. "I have confidence in the American system of justice and this suit is about the pursuit of justice."

The CIA had sent Wilson to Niger in early 2002 to determine whether there was any truth to reports that Iraq had made a deal to acquire yellowcake uranium from the government of Niger to make a nuclear weapon. Wilson discounted the reports, but the allegation that Iraq was trying to buy uranium from Africa ended up in President Bush's 2003 State of the Union address.

If the Wilsons' lawsuit survives the legal maneuvering that usually occurs in such cases, it could be embarrassing for Republicans in the next presidential election if Cheney and other top White House officials are forced to answer questions in depositions.

Mark Corallo, a spokesman for Rove, said, "Without even having had a chance to review the complaint, it is clear that the allegations are absolutely and utterly without merit."

Barbara Comstock, a Libby spokesman, declined comment.

Justice Department lawyers plan to review the lawsuit to determine how to respond, said Charles Miller, a department spokesman.

The Wilsons' lawyer said in the lawsuit that it "concerns the intentional and malicious exposure by senior officials of the federal government of ... (Plame), whose job it was to gather intelligence to make the nation safer and who risked her life for her country."

Instead of confronting Wilson on his criticism, the lawsuit said, the White House officials "embarked on an anonymous 'whispering campaign' designed to discredit ... (the Wilsons) and to deter other critics from speaking out."

The lawsuit alleges that Cheney, Libby and Rove "secretly spread rumors" that Plame used her position at the CIA to get her husband sent on the Niger trip. It accuses the White House officials of violating the Wilsons' constitutional rights to equal protection and freedom of speech. It also accuses the officials of violating the couple's privacy rights.

The civil lawsuit seeks unspecified damages, attorneys fees and costs.

Libby is the only administration official charged in connection with the leak investigation. He faces trial in January on perjury and obstruction-of-justice charges, accused of lying to FBI agents and a federal grand jury about when he learned Plame's identity and what he subsequently told reporters.

Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald told Rove's lawyer last month that he had decided not to seek criminal charges against Rove.

Copyright 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

 

This is so gonna be settled out of court.

 

It is all good. May the Wilsons spend Cheney's blood money with zeal.

 

Look upon the faces of these brave souls. Look at the agony, the pain, and the suffering that the neo-Nazi Herr Bush and his police state minions have inflicted upon these beautiful people. After seeing the barbarity, the cruelty, and the inhumanity, "you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags or some mad regime — Pol Pot or others — that had no concern for human beings,"

 

Next week . . . Why doesn't the Chronicle run a full page of
all the undercover drug operatives in Houston

then point out that they have a social lives else where

Rocket River

 

of course
their is the possibility that someone who she has secrets on
may want to put a bullet in her for revenge


Rocket River
" . . . she is CIA??? but i told her where I keep my Jewel encrusted Cumberbum" - The Brain

 

unless they slip them what the slipped Ken Lay

Rocket River

 

Does your whining have a point? You show a picture of them from a magazine. You show a quote from someone decrying inhumane treatment of prisoners, and then you make Bush/Hitler references. What does all this whining have to do with anything?

 

Dunno the first thing about the legal precedent here, but thought this was iteresting, if he's interpreting it correctly:

In any event, the Supreme Court, in 1875, held in Totten v. United States that, because of the obvious state-secrets concerns, lawsuits may not be premised on covert espionage employment agreements. Totten was not permitted to sue to enforce obligations he claimed the United States owed based on his activities as a Civil War era spy. The Totten doctrine was reaffirmed by a unanimous Supreme Court in 2005, in Tenet v. Doe (involving husband-and-wife spies who similarly claimed the government reneged on its commitments to them).

From former federal prosecutor (and very conservative, admitted) Andy McCarthy here: http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MzkxOTdjZjE5MzA0ODI1ZGYwMjBlNjdkZTVjYzg0NTk=

 

....to which the plaintiffs will argue that the suit is not for breach of an employment agreement but rather based on 1st & 5th amendment rights and
also that the actions complained of (Cheney, Scooter & Rove's conversations w/reporters) aren't covered by state secrets privilege.

 

How have their 1st Amendment rights been violated? They've written books, given speeches, and granted interviews all over the place.