Valerie Plame

[Rex Kickass]

Scooter Libby and Karl Rove too according to CNN.

[Balta1701]

Yahoo Biz Linky.

 

July 13, 2006--Valerie Plame Wilson, Ambassador Joseph Wilson and their counsel, Christopher Wolf of Proskauer Rose LLP, will hold a news conference at 10 AM EDT on Friday, July 14 at 10:00 AM at the National Press Club, 529 14th St. NW, 13th Floor, Washington, DC 20045, to announce the filing of a civil lawsuit against I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice-President Richard Cheney and Karl Rove.

[Balta1701]

Full Story.

 

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.

 

"This lawsuit 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," the Wilsons' lawyers said in the lawsuit.

 

Specifically, the lawsuit 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 lawsuit alleges that Cheney, Libby and Rove used Plame to punish Wilson for his public statements about the administration's portrayal of the intelligence on Iraq.

 

"As their chief method of punishment, the White House officials destroyed (Plame's) cover by revealing her classified employment with the CIA to reporters," the lawsuit said.

 

Instead of confronting Wilson on the issue, 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."

[samclemens]

it will be interesting to see what technicality this suit will be dismissed on.

[AbeFroman]

Hmm... the President enjoys immunity from civil suits while serving as president pursuant to Jones v. Clinton and a host of other well established cases. I wonder if the vice-president enjoys the same privilege.

[samclemens]

Hmm... the President enjoys immunity from civil suits while serving as president pursuant to Jones v. Clinton and a host of other well established cases. I wonder if the vice-president enjoys the same privilege.

 

i didnt know that, interesting. my guess would be that if the prez has it, so will the VP, but i dont have the motivation to check.

[Balta1701]

i didnt know that, interesting. my guess would be that if the prez has it, so will the VP, but i dont have the motivation to check.

From Salon.com, last October.

 

In some ways, the Paula Jones case clears the way for a lawsuit by Plame and Wilson. In 1997 the Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision giving the green light to Paula Jones' lawsuit against Clinton, despite the fact that he was a sitting president. The court ruled that Jones' allegations, which involved personal conduct during Clinton's years as a governor, were not protected by any claims of executive immunity. After much legal wrangling, Clinton finally settled with Jones in 1998 for $850,000, though he offered neither an apology nor an admission of guilt. (Clinton's top lawyer in that case was Robert Bennett, who is representing New York Times reporter Judith Miller in the CIA leak investigation.)

 

However, there is one constitutional defense that senior White House officials, or at least Bush, could attempt to use. In a 1982 case, Nixon v. Fitzgerald (no relation to the current special prosecutor), the Supreme Court found, in a split decision, that a president enjoys "absolute immunity from damages liability predicated on his official acts." It is not clear whether this immunity extends to the vice president or senior White House aides, or if the White House could claim that discussions of Plame's identity should be viewed as an "official act."

[Mplssoxfan]

Hmm... the President enjoys immunity from civil suits while serving as president pursuant to Jones v. Clinton and a host of other well established cases. I wonder if the vice-president enjoys the same privilege.

I think you're wrong, Abe. If the President enjoyed immunity from civil suits while serving, Paula Jones could not have moved forward with her suit, Clinton would not have had to testify, the perjury trap would not have been sprung, and that whole mess would have been avoided.

 

Except for the mess on the blue dress, of course.

[samclemens]

from what ive seen in this thread, and considering that there is a conservative court, my guess is the leaking will be found to be in the VP's executive capacity or something like that (rationalized as speaking to the press in an official capacity), and he'll be immune from this suit.

 

to me, its a little different than an act completely outside the scope of your employment, like banging trailor trash a.k.a. paula jones (p.s. dissappointing penthouse photo shoot, paula; very dissappointing). thats my take, for what it's worth.

[Balta1701]

from what ive seen in this thread, and considering that there is a conservative court, my guess is the leaking will be found to be in the VP's executive capacity or something like that (rationalized as speaking to the press in an official capacity), and he'll be immune from this suit.

 

to me, its a little different than an act completely outside the scope of your employment, like banging trailor trash a.k.a. paula jones (p.s. dissappointing penthouse photo shoot, paula; very dissappointing). thats my take, for what it's worth.

My instincts tell me sam is right here, but also that sam isn't going to be proven right until this hits the Supreme Court in 2 years, and by that point, Cheney will be so close to out of office that it won't really matter.

[AbeFroman]

I think you're wrong, Abe. If the President enjoyed immunity from civil suits while serving, Paula Jones could not have moved forward with her suit, Clinton would not have had to testify, the perjury trap would not have been sprung, and that whole mess would have been avoided.

 

Except for the mess on the blue dress, of course.

 

 

yup... I'm way off. completely wrong.

 

I remembered from law school that the president had immunity... guess I should have checked my facts a little more carefully

 

my apologies

[Cknolls]

Hopefully Pinocchio Joe tells the truth this time.

[Rex Kickass]

We hope the same from the administration.

 

I won't hold my breath though.

[Cknolls]

We hope the same from the administration.

 

I won't hold my breath though.

 

 

Did they lie about Wilson?

[Balta1701]

Did they lie about Wilson?

Many, Many times. Every time they say that his wife had anything to do with him being sent to Niger, for example.

[Rex Kickass]

When the President said he'd fire anyone to do with the leak. Karl Rove still has a job, and has now been publicly named as a source by the person who first printed it.

[FlaSoxxJim]

When the President said he'd fire anyone to do with the leak. Karl Rove still has a job, and has now been publicly named as a source by the person who first printed it.

 

And of course now that the content of the President's 2004 testimony to Fitzgerald has been released, we also know he should have fired himself for giving clear (if non-specific) marching orders to pull out all the stops in neutralizing Wilson's negative effect on the White House war push.

[Cknolls]

Many, Many times. Every time they say that his wife had anything to do with him being sent to Niger, for example.

 

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...4-2004Jul9.html

 

A source you cannot impugn.

 

 

Once again, we return to the SSCI report, which makes it clear that Plame had not only suggested her husband for the trip, she campaigned for it and then facilitated the briefing session:

 

Some CPD officials could not recall how the office decided to contact the former ambassador, however, interviews and documents provided to the Committee indicate that his wife, a CPD employee, suggested his name for the trip. The CPD reports officer told Committee staff that the former ambassador's wife "offered up his name" and a memorandum to the Deputy Chief of the CPD on February 12, 2002, from the former ambassador's wife says, "my husband has good relations with both the PM [prime minister] and the former Minister of Mines (not to mention lots of French contacts), both of whom could possibly shed light on this sort of activity." This was just one day before CPD sent a cable DELETED requesting concurrence with CPD's idea to send the former ambassador to Niger and requesting any additional information from the foreign government service on their uranium reports. The former ambassador's wife told Committee staff that when CPD decided it would like to send the former ambassador to Niger, she approached her husband on behalf of the CIA and told him "there's this crazy report" on a purported deal for Niger to sell uranium to Iraq.

The former ambassador was selected for the 1999 trip after his wife mentioned to her supervisors that her husband was planning a business trip to Niger in the near future and might be willing to use his contacts in the region ...

 

On February 19, 2002, CPD hosted a meeting with the former ambassador, intelligence analysts from both the CIA and INR, and several individuals from the DO's Africa and CPD divisions. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the merits of the former ambassador traveling to Niger. An INR analyst's notes indicate that the meeting was "apparently convened by [the former ambassador's] wife who had the idea to dispatch [him] to use his contacts to sort out the Iraq-Niger uranium issue." The former ambassador's wife told Committee staff that she only attended the meeting to introduce her husband and left after about three minutes.

 

Joe and Val :puke

 

How many people have been charged with outing Val?

 

 

 

That's right. Zero.

[Balta1701]

Interestingly, I'm afraid it's a source I'm going to have to impugn, because of who actually wrote the report that Post article is citing. Why? Because the post article is not based on the bipartisan report coming out of the commission. It is instead based on an addendum to the report added in by Chairman Pat Roberts of the committee doing the report. The Bipartisan report took no position on that issue, and Chairman Roberts' addendum was only signed onto by 2 other of the Republicans on the committee. In other words, that entire report is based on a statment of 0 of the 8 Democrats and 3 of the 9 Republicans on the committee.

 

Furthermore, there was testimony on the other side which was seemingly not heard by the Committee, despite the fact that they could not agree on what Roberts insisted upon. For example, the LA Times in 2004 quoted an unnamed CIA Official Saying

 

The Senate committee report questioned Wilson's account on several issues. Wilson has maintained that his wife did not suggest him for the mission to Niger, but the committee found that she did, noting that another CIA official said she ``offered up his name.''

 

``That's just false,'' Wilson said in a telephone interview on Wednesday. He said he is preparing a written rebuttal to the Senate report.

 

A senior intelligence official said the CIA supports Wilson's version: ``Her bosses say she did not initiate the idea of her husband going. . . . They asked her if he'd be willing to go, and she said yes,'' the official said

[Cknolls]

Interestingly, I'm afraid it's a source I'm going to have to impugn, because of who actually wrote the report that Post article is citing. Why? Because the post article is not based on the bipartisan report coming out of the commission. It is instead based on an addendum to the report added in by Chairman Pat Roberts of the committee doing the report. The Bipartisan report took no position on that issue, and Chairman Roberts' addendum was only signed onto by 2 other of the Republicans on the committee. In other words, that entire report is based on a statment of 0 of the 8 Democrats and 3 of the 9 Republicans on the committee.

 

Furthermore, there was testimony on the other side which was seemingly not heard by the Committee, despite the fact that they could not agree on what Roberts insisted upon. For example, the LA Times in 2004 quoted an unnamed CIA Official Saying

 

 

Let me guess, the senior intelligence official is none other than the non-partisan Larry Johnson.

[Balta1701]

Let me guess, the senior intelligence official is none other than the non-partisan Larry Johnson.

Beats me, he hasn't been named.

[Cknolls]

Beats me, he hasn't been named.

 

Shocking. Another anonymous source.

[Balta1701]

Shocking. Another anonymous source.

If they're good enough to lead us into Iraq...

[Cknolls]

I've got to give the Wilson's credit. Since Val lost her first book deal, and Fitz not charging anyone with her

 

leaking, the value of her story plummeted. So, they are doing their best to hype

 

their story.

[mr_genius]

don't worry guys, i heard Dan Rather just printed out some official documents that'll totally burn the president this time.... totally.