home

Joseph and Valerie Wilson Sue Cheney, Libby and Rove

By Jeralyn, Section Valerie Plame Leak Case
Posted on Thu Jul 13, 2006 at 12:05:15 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

On July 14 at 10:00 am Joseph and Valerie Plame Wilson will announce the filing of civil lawsuit against I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice-President Richard Cheney and Karl Rove. Via Christy at Firedoglake.

Update: Here is the Wilson's latest press release, the lawsuit has been filed, you can read the complaint here.

Also, if you'd like to lend them a hand.

Contributions to the Joseph and Valerie Wilson Legal Support Trust can be given here or sent to P.O. Box 40918, Washington, D.C. 20016-0918. [link fixed]

Some excerpts from the complaint:

"The lawsuit concerns the intentional and malicious exposure by senior officials of the federal government of one such human source at the CIA, Valerie Plame Wilson, whose job it was to gather intelligence to make the nation safer, and who risked her life for her country."

"The Defendants reached an agreement to discredit, punish, and seek revenge against the Plaintiffs . . . . Said agreement was motivated by an invidiously discriminatory animus towards those who had publicly criticized the administration's stated justifications for going to war with Iraq."

"The Defendants chose not to address publicly, directly, and on the merits why they may have thought Mr. Wilson was wrong or unfair in his statements on the President's misstatements. Rather, they embarked on an anonymous 'whispering campaign' designed to discredit and injure the Plaintiffs and to deter other critics from publicly speaking out."

"But for Mr. Wilson coming forward, it is unlikely that the Administration ever would have acknowledged its error. The fact that the administration had to admit its mistake is one likely reason why the Defendants chose to attack the Wilsons"

"The Defendants fraudulently concealed the existence of the Plaintiffs' cause of action . . . by, among other things, giving false or misleading testimony to federal law enforcement personnel and/or the federal grand jury empanelled to investigate the unlawful publication of Plaintiff Valerie Plame Wilson's classified CIA employment . . . ."

< Is Bush Pulling a Fast One on NSA Warrantless Surveillance? | New Iraq War Website >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Joseph and Valerie Wilson Sue Cheney, Libby and Rove | 80 comments (80 topical)
    Re: Joseph and Valerie Wilson Sue Cheney, Libby an (none / 0) (#1)
    by cmpnwtr on Thu Jul 13, 2006 at 12:14:35 PM EST
    Loud Applause And as per prior Supreme Count decision, let the discovery proces go forward!

    Re: Joseph and Valerie Wilson Sue Cheney, Libby an (none / 0) (#2)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jul 13, 2006 at 12:26:37 PM EST
    Make the depositions pay per view!!!!

    Re: Joseph and Valerie Wilson Sue Cheney, Libby an (none / 0) (#3)
    by scribe on Thu Jul 13, 2006 at 12:37:27 PM EST
    What a great moneymaking idea - Deadeye Dick testifies under oath, the DVD! No law against it.

    Re: Joseph and Valerie Wilson Sue Cheney, Libby an (none / 0) (#4)
    by roy on Thu Jul 13, 2006 at 12:41:15 PM EST
    I know there are serious legal and political implications to this, but all I can think about is how great the Daily Show will be during the procedings.

    Re: Joseph and Valerie Wilson Sue Cheney, Libby an (none / 0) (#5)
    by Dadler on Thu Jul 13, 2006 at 12:43:18 PM EST
    Good for them. PBRman, in his deluded state, can do the deposition and get his ass handed to him.

    Re: Joseph and Valerie Wilson Sue Cheney, Libby an (none / 0) (#6)
    by Deconstructionist on Thu Jul 13, 2006 at 12:46:38 PM EST
    They have to get by 12 (b) (1) and (6) or there will be no depositions. That's far from a sure thing.

    Re: Joseph and Valerie Wilson Sue Cheney, Libby an (none / 0) (#7)
    by Dadler on Thu Jul 13, 2006 at 01:04:22 PM EST
    Decon, No doubt, but I still think the PBRman should get the chance to have his ass handed to him.

    Re: Joseph and Valerie Wilson Sue Cheney, Libby an (none / 0) (#8)
    by Slado on Thu Jul 13, 2006 at 01:07:01 PM EST
    I can see it now. Joe Wilson crumbling on the stand when he is forced to defend his false statments, lies and general craziness. The left is delusional if they think the Joe wilson has a leg to stand on. A 3year unlimited federal investigation resulted in no crime. Now Wilson will actually have to defend his actions in court and he's supposed to win? Bring it on.

    Re: Joseph and Valerie Wilson Sue Cheney, Libby an (none / 0) (#9)
    by Dadler on Thu Jul 13, 2006 at 01:10:15 PM EST
    Slado, If Joe Wilson doesn't have a leg to stand on, how did any of this start in the first place? The liberal mainstream media? Can you for a second play devil's advocate with you own mind and consider that maybe, just maybe, this very educated and accomplished man went over there to investigate something he felt deeply about, regardless of his "partisan" politics? (since, no partisan whiffery arose around mr. wilson until AFTER this all came out, he had no history of being some loose cannon.)

    Re: Joseph and Valerie Wilson Sue Cheney, Libby an (none / 0) (#10)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jul 13, 2006 at 01:15:49 PM EST
    hi talkleft! sorry for going off topic, but i didn't see an open thread... it's skippy's 4th blogiversary, and we give you thanks first of all in our long litany of supporters who deserve credit for helping us. thanks so much for your continued encouragement!

    Re: Joseph and Valerie Wilson Sue Cheney, Libby an (none / 0) (#11)
    by ras on Thu Jul 13, 2006 at 01:15:55 PM EST
    Rightie: Why are you banging your head on that wall, Leftie? Leftie: Feels good when I stop. Rightie: Um, you haven't stopped. Go, Joe Wilson, go. Bang away.

    Re: Joseph and Valerie Wilson Sue Cheney, Libby an (none / 0) (#12)
    by beefeater on Thu Jul 13, 2006 at 01:16:42 PM EST
    Charlie Brown meet Lucy, She's going to hold this football for You, just run up and kick it!

    Re: Joseph and Valerie Wilson Sue Cheney, Libby an (none / 0) (#13)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jul 13, 2006 at 01:18:22 PM EST
    At the very least, this Plame/Wilson lawsuit will force Rove, Libby, Cheney, et al to testify under oath, something that can only bring either some of the truth to light or see yet more perjury charges. Bring it on, indeed!

    Re: Joseph and Valerie Wilson Sue Cheney, Libby an (none / 0) (#14)
    by Dadler on Thu Jul 13, 2006 at 01:22:00 PM EST
    ras, see my question to slado and try to answer rationally.

    Re: Joseph and Valerie Wilson Sue Cheney, Libby an (none / 0) (#15)
    by nolo on Thu Jul 13, 2006 at 01:29:48 PM EST
    The absence of a crime doesn't mean that no civil recovery is possible; see, e.g., the Robert Blake and O.J. Simpson cases. Plus, I'd like to see how Cheney, et al., can mount a 12(b)(1) defense (let alone a 12(b)(6) defense) in the wake of the law made by Paula Jones in the course of her civil suit against President Clinton.

    Re: Joseph and Valerie Wilson Sue Cheney, Libby an (none / 0) (#16)
    by Deconstructionist on Thu Jul 13, 2006 at 01:38:43 PM EST
    That's true, but a case against a public official premised on a violation of a statute must establish first that the statute creates a private cause of action and is not barred by governmental immunity(doubtful in this case and an adverse finding could lead to pre-discovery dismissal of at least some of the claims.) Assuming this hurdle is met and it found that the statute creates a duty enforceable in a private cause of action, the plaintiff still has to prove the duty of the official to abide by the statute was breached. Of course, if it gets that far she'll at least get discovery and i think we all know that's what they really want. I don't see where Joe Wilson has any remote possibility of establishing he has stated a claim upon which relief can be granted, but Plame might have an outside shot. Then assuming, a private cause of action is found to exist

    Re: Joseph and Valerie Wilson Sue Cheney, Libby an (none / 0) (#17)
    by nolo on Thu Jul 13, 2006 at 01:45:28 PM EST
    Decon, you're assuming the claims would be based on statutory violations alone. As for Joe Wilson, I'm thinking of the standard derivative claims that can be made by a spouse in tort actions.

    Re: Joseph and Valerie Wilson Sue Cheney, Libby an (none / 0) (#18)
    by nolo on Thu Jul 13, 2006 at 01:52:30 PM EST
    In any event, I expect we'll see the complaint just about any minute now.

    Re: Joseph and Valerie Wilson Sue Cheney, Libby an (none / 0) (#19)
    by Deconstructionist on Thu Jul 13, 2006 at 01:53:16 PM EST
    Loss of consortium? Yeah, sure but that's a pretty lame basis for him to trumpet he is suing administration officials. (I'm suffering because you messed up my wife and she isn't as good in bed anymore, and doesn't cook me dinner etc.) If he has that little shame I think he will be ridiculed beyond belief. Plus, if you're going to assert such a claim you subject yourself to some pretty intense personal scrutiny. I

    Re: Joseph and Valerie Wilson Sue Cheney, Libby an (none / 0) (#20)
    by nolo on Thu Jul 13, 2006 at 01:55:49 PM EST
    Decon, I suggest we wait to see the complaint. Speculation is a waste of time.

    Re: Joseph and Valerie Wilson Sue Cheney, Libby an (none / 0) (#21)
    by Deconstructionist on Thu Jul 13, 2006 at 01:56:58 PM EST
    As for Plame what claims not based on statute would she have? Is there a common law duty not to tell a third person someone is/was a spy?

    Re: Joseph and Valerie Wilson Sue Cheney, Libby an (none / 0) (#22)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jul 13, 2006 at 01:58:08 PM EST
    Slado, " A 3year unlimited federal investigation resulted in no crime." Ah, but was the federal "investigation" free and honest? Unlimited implies neither.

    Re: Joseph and Valerie Wilson Sue Cheney, Libby an (none / 0) (#23)
    by Deconstructionist on Thu Jul 13, 2006 at 02:03:08 PM EST
    I think the complaint will the standard kitchen sink variety asserting every conceivable theory they can dream up under statute and common law. I think it will do the Wilson's no good in terms of legal relief. (but, will undoubtedly extend their 15 minutes of fame and further enhance their money making ability) As for the defendants. it will do nothing more than annoy them and cost them some time and money. Finally, in all likelihood have only negative effect, if any, on the political fortunes of Administration opponents. If one was going to create a really bad person to cast in the lead role in opposition to Bush, Wilson would be a good model. Also, and apropos, in light of the Skakel thread, don't overlook statutes of limitation as a huge hurdle.

    Re: Joseph and Valerie Wilson Sue Cheney, Libby an (none / 0) (#24)
    by nolo on Thu Jul 13, 2006 at 02:09:12 PM EST
    For those who want to make up their own minds, TPM has the complaint here.

    Re: Joseph and Valerie Wilson Sue Cheney, Libby an (none / 0) (#25)
    by scribe on Thu Jul 13, 2006 at 02:11:07 PM EST
    Ok, I've read the complaint, which is posted here and here, the latter being part of their Legal Support Trust. A few of my quick notes and opinions: (1) It's a pretty straightforward complaint; followers of the saga will know pretty much all of the facts. (2) The causes of action are about four counts of violations of civil rights, brought as a Bivens actions, violations of First and Fifth Amendment rights by depriving of equal protection of the laws, violating privacy and by depriving plaintiffs of rights in property without due process, Conspiracy to deprive of civil rights, Neglect to prevent violation of civil rights, Public Disclosure of Private Facts, etc. I'm not going to analyze these as (a) these sorts of causes of action are very subtle and (b) no one will agree on much of anything about this case anyway but will rather chew on this like my dog does with a bone, so why bother. (3) A real "ouch" allegation is in paragraph 71, where they allege defendants gave false or misleading testimony to federal law enforcement personnel and/or the grand jury, which didn't become known to them before Scooter's indictment. (4) They're suing the defendants in their individual capacities and saying their activities were outside the scope of their employment, both important legal issues which will be tussled over at length. Interesting....

    Re: Joseph and Valerie Wilson Sue Cheney, Libby an (none / 0) (#26)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jul 13, 2006 at 02:17:07 PM EST
    What say you Jeralyn? How much merit does the suit have?

    Re: Joseph and Valerie Wilson Sue Cheney, Libby an (none / 0) (#27)
    by Deconstructionist on Thu Jul 13, 2006 at 02:20:45 PM EST
    "3) A real "ouch" allegation is in paragraph 71, where they allege defendants gave false or misleading testimony to federal law enforcement personnel and/or the grand jury, which didn't become known to them before Scooter's indictment" The purpose of that is to establish a basis for arguing the SOL was not missed. where knowledge of the accrual of a cause of action is concealed from plaintiffs by defendants, a defendant can argue the statute of limitiations should not begin to run from the date f injury but from the date of discovery. (That seems incredibly far-fetched here given the known facts)

    Re: Joseph and Valerie Wilson Sue Cheney, Libby an (none / 0) (#28)
    by Deconstructionist on Thu Jul 13, 2006 at 02:23:51 PM EST
    It appears they are suing the defendants in BOTH their official capacities (which is necessary to sustain an allegation they acted under color of law) and their individual capacities (which to sustain they must prove they were acting outside the scope of their official duties).

    Re: Joseph and Valerie Wilson Sue Cheney, Libby an (none / 0) (#29)
    by scribe on Thu Jul 13, 2006 at 02:28:18 PM EST
    obsessed - sorry, but IMHO you're not going to get a one-word answer as to "merit" (I'm sure you weren't punning on TL, either) because it's just too complex and subtle to say in a word, phrase, sentence, or paragraph. What can be said is, to most peoples' eyes, the complaint seems pled well-enough, that it lays out causes of action which lie somewhere within the realm of "been accepted in court", and that what we all will see is a huge effort to stall, extend, and dissemble from the defendants. They will have several weeks to answer or move to dismiss (the first of many tries they'll make), and IMHO there will be no result on the case for at least two years, maybe more. And that's not counting time for appeals - and these defendants will appeal everything. The first thing we're likely to see, after a motion to dismiss, is a motion by Scooter to stay proceedings in this case (including discovery) until after the conclusion of his criminal case, because it might prejudice his defense. My intuition tells me that motion will probably be granted, as to Scooter at least (and maybe as to all defendants, because even though they're not defendants they're all likely to be witnesses in the criminal case, and everyone though Rover was indicted last month, anyway), so it may be that this case will just sit there for the next six or seven months without anything substantial happening. So, then there will be discovery disputes, motions, and appeals, fights over classified information, more appeals, and Make it more like three years at least.

    Re: Joseph and Valerie Wilson Sue Cheney, Libby an (none / 0) (#30)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jul 13, 2006 at 02:28:43 PM EST
    Dadler writes:
    Slado, If Joe Wilson doesn't have a leg to stand on, how did any of this start in the first place?
    Well, you see Joe wrote this NYT article in which he made a bunch of claims, but never mentioned the fact during his visit, he was told that Iraq had tried to purchase yellowcake.....although he did report it to the CIA. That seems kinda wrong to me. Link
    ) The CIA's DO gave the former ambassador's information a grade of "good," .....He said he judged that the most important fact in the report was that the Nigerien officials admitted that the Iraqi delegation had traveled there in 1999, and that the Nigerien Prime Minister believed the Iraqis were interested in purchasing uranium, because this provided some confirmation of foreign government service reporting.


    Re: Joseph and Valerie Wilson Sue Cheney, Libby an (none / 0) (#31)
    by scribe on Thu Jul 13, 2006 at 02:33:42 PM EST
    Decon - what's the tort statute of limitations in D.C.? In some states it's two years, some six, and some states (like NY) it depends on what sort of tort you're suing over. No coincidence, IMHO, that Novak came out with his story yesterday, and none that the complaint was filed today (3 yrs....). As to the personal/official capacity, in some contexts persons acting outside their official capacity can be liable for civil rights violations; the civil rights laws were intended for such a purpose (e.g. Klansmen riding at night may have been local sheriffs by day, but few would argue leading a lynching was part of that day job). This is a really knotty area of law and really is not susceptible of discussion in a comments thread.

    Re: Joseph and Valerie Wilson Sue Cheney, Libby an (none / 0) (#32)
    by Deconstructionist on Thu Jul 13, 2006 at 02:34:00 PM EST
    The bottom line is if it ever gets that far they have to prove the defendants acted UNLAWFULLY in retaliating for Wilson's public statements. The defendants have First Amendment rights too. It's not enough to allege they said something bad about Wilson and Plame and that caused them harm (Yeah right-- like it wasn't the best thing that ever happened to them, but that really doesn't matter). Unless they can prove a statute made it illegal to disclose Plame's status and that the statute creates a private cause of action, they have no claim upon which relief can be granted. If Plame can establish the IIPA establishes a private cause of action ve a shot and the SOL has not expired she might have a shot. It's easier to prove something by a preponderance of the evidence than beyond a reasonable doubt. However, courts are hesitant to find implied private causes of action and the statute clearly does not expressly create one.

    Re: Joseph and Valerie Wilson Sue Cheney, Libby an (none / 0) (#33)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jul 13, 2006 at 02:36:31 PM EST
    Slado writes:
    I can see it now. Joe Wilson crumbling on the stand when he is forced to defend his false statments, lies and general craziness.
    Uh, I don't see him crumbling, but I suspect he doesn't really understand that he'll be put under oath and that the wiggle room has just disappeared. (There's a difference betwen understanding and understanding.)

    Re: Joseph and Valerie Wilson Sue Cheney, Libby an (none / 0) (#34)
    by Deconstructionist on Thu Jul 13, 2006 at 02:36:34 PM EST
    I'm pretty sure the D.C. SOL for torts other than wrongdul death and med mal is 3 years, but i'll have to look it up.

    Re: Joseph and Valerie Wilson Sue Cheney, Libby an (none / 0) (#35)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jul 13, 2006 at 02:38:21 PM EST
    Deconstructionist, if you are going to give legal analysis in the comments section, I think you should use your real name so that we can see where it's coming from. Or at least say whether you are a practicing attorney, a prosecutor or defense lawyer, current or former government counsel or a current or retired judge or law professor.

    Re: Joseph and Valerie Wilson Sue Cheney, Libby an (none / 0) (#36)
    by nolo on Thu Jul 13, 2006 at 02:38:48 PM EST
    Some of us give the occasional scrap of legal analysis in your comments but leave our names out of it because we do not want our law firms held to account for our humble opinions. If you'd rather I didn't, then I won't.

    Re: Joseph and Valerie Wilson Sue Cheney, Libby an (none / 0) (#37)
    by Deconstructionist on Thu Jul 13, 2006 at 02:42:52 PM EST
    I'm not going to give my name. Feel free to give my posts whatever credibility you think they deserve. I will say I am a practicing attorney whose practice involves mostly criminal defense and constitutional law. I'd also advise you NOT to make credibility determinations solely on whether one is a lawyer. Some non-lawyers can be knowledgable and insightful and some lawyers don't have a clue.

    Re: Joseph and Valerie Wilson Sue Cheney, Libby an (none / 0) (#38)
    by nolo on Thu Jul 13, 2006 at 02:45:41 PM EST
    Myself, I'm a practicing attorney, formerly with the litigation section of a firm not unlike Proskauer Rose. I now practice with a plaintiff's personal injury firm.

    Re: Joseph and Valerie Wilson Sue Cheney, Libby an (none / 0) (#39)
    by Deconstructionist on Thu Jul 13, 2006 at 02:46:46 PM EST
    It is 3 years in DC, and the SOL for claims under federal civil rights acts are generally determined by reference to the state SOL where the underlyinmg wrong was alleged to have been committed.

    Re: Joseph and Valerie Wilson Sue Cheney, Libby an (none / 0) (#40)
    by Deconstructionist on Thu Jul 13, 2006 at 02:52:54 PM EST
    Thinking about it, I think Plame has a good argument that the SOL should not be determined by reference to when the disclosures were made but from 7/14/03 when by virtue of Novak's article she knew or should have known that a claim might exist. Since she met that, I don't think she necessarily has to establish any basis for tolling it beyond 7/14/03.

    Re: Joseph and Valerie Wilson Sue Cheney, Libby an (none / 0) (#41)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jul 13, 2006 at 02:54:53 PM EST
    Nolo, I was only addressing Deconstructionist who first appeared in the comments here in late June and has posted more than 60 comments since then, filled with legal analysis. TalkLeft doesn't give legal advice and I don't know Deconstructionist nor do I have time to read all of his/her comments to see if I agree with his/her analysis or not. I want to make it clear that his/her analysis is not endorsed by TalkLeft and that I don't know what biases he may bring to the discussion. I do not want mainstream media or other blogs to reprint his/her comments as being the view of TalkLeft.

    Re: Joseph and Valerie Wilson Sue Cheney, Libby an (none / 0) (#42)
    by Deconstructionist on Thu Jul 13, 2006 at 02:56:08 PM EST
    I had been expecting FTCA claims and those require that an administrative claim be filed within 2 years to preserve the right to bring a civil action if the agency outcome is adverse. There appear to be no FTCA claims. (Although it is certainly conceivable the defendants might argue some or all claims are only cognizable under FTCA. Some lawyers on both sides will make some good coin in any event but they are likely to be the only ones directly enriched by the legal proceedings.

    Re: Joseph and Valerie Wilson Sue Cheney, Libby an (none / 0) (#43)
    by scribe on Thu Jul 13, 2006 at 02:56:45 PM EST
    FWIW, TL, you are aware I am a practicing attorney and that I've done defense of civil rights cases in the past (and a lot of other tort work). I've been trying to be cautious. I'm trying to avoid giving any advice other than recognizing out loud that there are so many issues presented by this complaint it ain't even funny. IMHO, there are probably enough issues presented here to make up several bar examinations' worth of questions. That, and that this is a complex, knotty area of law not susceptible of capsule summary. As to a lot of these putative issues they're thorny because civil rights law is, in a phrase, "a doctrinal mess" arising out of decades of court decisions interpreting complex statutes, made worse by policy fights among different courts and exacerbated by the need, in many places, to refer to state law to provide part of the rule of decision. So, let's all take a deep breath and buy stock in the popcorn company, because this is for the long haul.

    Re: Joseph and Valerie Wilson Sue Cheney, Libby an (none / 0) (#44)
    by Slado on Thu Jul 13, 2006 at 02:56:57 PM EST
    I'm not a lawyer. But I am a conservative. Or could you guess? What is Joe Wilson actually saying? He he claiming that Cheney, Libby and Rove commited a crime when they exposed his wife? My questions would be. Isn't their evidence that other people other then the defendents knew her identity? isn't thier evidence that Joe Wilson himself contributed to the outing of his own wife? Doesn't he have to prove that Cheney, Libby and Rove all worked together or is he suing each of them individualy? Doesn't he have to proove that hey knowingly outed his wife not just inadvertently and doesn't he have to proove if that is prooved that his wife was indeed covert or undercover. Not just pulling a desk job when she was exposed? Seems like a lot to me but again i'm not a lawyer. Would a lawyer give a quick recap of what he's claiming and how he can actually win. If he's got a case he's got a case.

    Re: Joseph and Valerie Wilson Sue Cheney, Libby an (none / 0) (#45)
    by nolo on Thu Jul 13, 2006 at 02:58:34 PM EST
    TL, understood.

    Re: Joseph and Valerie Wilson Sue Cheney, Libby an (none / 0) (#46)
    by Deconstructionist on Thu Jul 13, 2006 at 02:59:57 PM EST
    That's fine and I don't see how anyone else could conceivably conclude my opinion is one for which you are vouching. I do think you are being disingenuous and are perturbed I pointed out some problems with your analysis on some issues. the ultimate issue is not my credentials but whether i was correct when I identified them. I could be a truck driver and be right or Sandra Day O'Connor and be wrong. If you wish to stick to the actual issues and offer reasonms to believe my analysis is flawed go right ahead.

    Re: Joseph and Valerie Wilson Sue Cheney, Libby an (none / 0) (#47)
    by Deconstructionist on Thu Jul 13, 2006 at 03:03:27 PM EST
    "Doesn't he have to prove that Cheney, Libby and Rove all worked together or is he suing each of them individualy?" Only as to conspiracy claims and only in part. to sustain a conspiracy allegation you have to show 2 or more people had an agreement to break a law or violate a right. Any 2 would suffice including 1 named and 1 "John Doe" (of course the others would not be liable for any damages awarded for a conspiracy claim where they were not found to be a member).

    Re: Joseph and Valerie Wilson Sue Cheney, Libby an (none / 0) (#48)
    by scribe on Thu Jul 13, 2006 at 03:08:35 PM EST
    Slado - we've been going back and forth on whether they can win, and I think reviewing the comments will show the answer is "maybe". Just a little clarification - sometimes a plaintiff in a civil suit can sue for the violation of a criminal statute, and sometimes not. Sometimes there are situtations where the existence of a violation of a criminal statute can help prove a civil case, and sometimes it matters not. Sometimes there are civil causes of action which have names close to (or the same as) violations of criminal statutes - like the conspiracy allegations in the complaint here. In short - Wilson does not have to prove a crime was committed. And even if he could prove that one was, he might not want to. The Wilsons are suing for money, and proving a defendant committed a crime might make it that that defendant had no insurance. Buy popcorn....

    Re: Joseph and Valerie Wilson Sue Cheney, Libby an (none / 0) (#49)
    by Sailor on Thu Jul 13, 2006 at 03:13:40 PM EST
    Joe Wilson crumbling on the stand when he is forced to defend his false statments, lies and general craziness.
    sluggo, if you can't provide links to facts then STFU.
    I'd also advise you NOT to make credibility determinations solely on whether one is a lawyer.
    You're the prime example of why some lawyers have no credibility. You are doing nothing but carrying water for the admin. I'd be curious to see your IP#, but I'm sure Jeralyn already knows it and was just trying to be polite by asking you, not outing you. BTW, INAL, but doesn't ruining someone's career count as 'damage?'

    Re: Joseph and Valerie Wilson Sue Cheney, Libby an (none / 0) (#50)
    by Deconstructionist on Thu Jul 13, 2006 at 03:17:36 PM EST
    Scribe: To prevail in a tort action, a plaintiff must prove a duty that was owed him existed and was breached. Sure, often that does not require showing a statute was violated (let alone a crime committed). The common law creates many duties that require no statutory support, but IN THIS CASE I do not see a common law duty that is applicable. The only "wrong" that isn't merely window dressing is the disclosure of Plame's status as a present or recent overseas covert agent. I do not believe any court is likely to find the common law can be construed to create a duty for one person not to tell a third person that the second person is a spy. Thus, it seems essential to establish both that the statute creates a private cause of action and that it was violated.

    Re: Joseph and Valerie Wilson Sue Cheney, Libby an (none / 0) (#51)
    by scribe on Thu Jul 13, 2006 at 03:22:56 PM EST
    Decon - in some states, if one sues for a civil conspiracy, it becomes a matter of aggravation, such that all the persons involved are jointly and severally liable for all the damages stemming from or related to the conspiracy. In some states, it's a separate tort. And the precise definition varies from state to state, though the general principles seem to stay the same. The general principles definition I like is that a conspiracy is (1) an agreement between two or more persons (2) to either (a) commit a lawful act by unlawful means, or (b) commit an unlawful act (i.e., a crime or a tort) by any means, and (3) at least one of the persons takes some outward step in furtherance of the agreement. Also, there may be choice of law issues lurking in here, so we can't assume there's any sort of chance of unanimity on which law will apply anyway. Yet. Let's all dial it back - this is not going to be resolved in a day, week or hour. This thing's been going on for three years now, so one more day won't make a difference. Take a deep breath, whatever. I'm gonna go home, walk the dog, and think OT, about Jose Padilla's 57 videotaped interrogations while held incommunicado in a brig as an alleged enemy combatant, and how the gov't intends to try to get them into evidence.

    Re: Joseph and Valerie Wilson Sue Cheney, Libby an (none / 0) (#52)
    by Deconstructionist on Thu Jul 13, 2006 at 03:23:31 PM EST
    Where do people come up with nonsense such as I am carrying water for the Administration. It is this sort of knee-jerk anti-itellectualism with which I have no patience. First, I do not in any way shape or manner support, let alone have any connection to the Administration. Second, the problem is exactly the opposite 0-- with people who only want to view everything throught the filter of extreme political bias and thus fail to appreciate the law and how it applies to facts. I don't like ignorance anymore when it comes from other democrats than I like it from Republicans. i will say i'd rather discuss things with an intelligent and open-minded Republican than with a close-minded Democrat who rejects all information that does not support his preconceived biases. You can be liberal without being ignorant and intolerant. Try it.

    Re: Joseph and Valerie Wilson Sue Cheney, Libby an (none / 0) (#53)
    by Deconstructionist on Thu Jul 13, 2006 at 03:27:11 PM EST
    "Decon - in some states, if one sues for a civil conspiracy, it becomes a matter of aggravation, such that all the persons involved are jointly and severally liable for all the damages stemming from or related to the conspiracy." Only if they are found to be a member. A member who played a very small role can be held liable for all the damages flowing from the conspiracy and the plaintiff can collect all his damages from that less culpable party (who then would have to seek contribution from then other liable defendants). but, NOWHERE, can one be held liable even in part for satisfying a claim for which he is not at all liable and to be liable for damages caused by a conspiracy you have to be a member of it.

    Re: Joseph and Valerie Wilson Sue Cheney, Libby an (none / 0) (#54)
    by Sailor on Thu Jul 13, 2006 at 03:54:36 PM EST
    Where do people come up with nonsense such as I am carrying water for the Administration.
    Have you ever made a comment that DIDN'T support the admin? If so I missed it. And I'd be happy to apologise if you can provide one.
    You can be liberal without being ignorant and intolerant. Try it.
    My better angels will just ignore the insult and repeat my 1st query.

    Re: Joseph and Valerie Wilson Sue Cheney, Libby an (none / 0) (#55)
    by Deconstructionist on Thu Jul 13, 2006 at 04:03:44 PM EST
    I've never made a single comment in any way shape or manner supporting the Administration. Pointing out flaws in the knowledge and reasoning of people who just happen to be opposed to the Administration does not make me a supporter of the Administration, just an opponent of people saying things that are wrong. We don't need to be misleading and misrepresent things to make our case against the Administration. We don't need to believe joe Wilson is either truthful, virtuous or has a good claim to believe the war is wrong, that the Administration misled people to gain support for it and has conducted it inan indefensible manner. Believe it or not mature and responsible people think it is BETTER to base opposition on actual facts, sound judgment and with some slight degree of intelligence. Those of you who choose empty-headed sloganeering and falsity simply help the Administration by making it easier for it to convince all its opponents are like that. The best friends this Administration has is the rabid Far Left and it predilection for saying foolish things. It takes the focus off the foolish things the Administration is saying and doing.

    Re: Joseph and Valerie Wilson Sue Cheney, Libby an (none / 0) (#56)
    by ras on Thu Jul 13, 2006 at 04:58:01 PM EST
    Dadler, I did try what you suggested, from the get-go, as a matter of habit, and maybe a lot longer than you realize. But even with my "Mr. Spock" hat on, the conclusions are the same because the empirical evidence is what it is. A trial will backfire on Wilson et al, and so I rather expect him to string it out publicity-wise till till November for propaganda value, then drop it shortly (and quietly) thereafter before the real testimony can begin and he has to fess up to his own machinations. But we'll see.

    Re: Joseph and Valerie Wilson Sue Cheney, Libby an (none / 0) (#57)
    by Sailor on Thu Jul 13, 2006 at 05:00:43 PM EST
    I've never made a single comment in any way shape or manner supporting the Administration
    So you can't cite facts, but just continue with personal attacks, I will assume you are just 'pounding the table.' e.g.
    The opinion is eminently reasonable and Jefferson's and the Bipartisan committee committee's positions were based on nothing but naked arrogance.
    You are completely blinded by CONTEMPORARY and TRANSIENT partisan bias
    And:
    I think it will do the Wilson's no good in terms of legal relief. (but, will undoubtedly extend their 15 minutes of fame and further enhance their money making ability)
    And:
    Unless they can prove a statute made it illegal to disclose Plame's status
    Are you really that ignorant of the law? (BTW, it's PL97-200, 50 U.S. Code Secs. 421-426) So your SOP is to attack folks who disagree with you, and who the admin disagrees with, but not offer any anything but your opinion that they are wrong. In that regard you are no better that ppj or PBRman. And you also stated "I'd also advise you NOT to make credibility determinations solely on whether one is a lawyer." But you are attempting to do the same thing. Your credibility is suspect because you have nothing but what I consider specious opinions, and somehow thay all support bushco. I'm sure that is just a coincidence.

    Re: Joseph and Valerie Wilson Sue Cheney, Libby an (none / 0) (#58)
    by Slado on Thu Jul 13, 2006 at 05:22:13 PM EST
    So even though I'm not a lawyer I read the complaint and to me it seems pretty weak. The part about his life being in danger is absurb. Come on TL at least comment on that. Was he in danger when they shot for Vanity Fair, attending the WHPC dinner or appeared multiple times on MSNBC, CNN, FoxNews etc... making his case? The other complaints are all pinned on if Rove, Libby, Cheney conspired to "out" Wilson on purpose. That obvioulsy couldn't be proven criminaly. Hell we don't even really know what Plame's status was do we? This thing might drag out but it will end with a wimper once Wilson is forced to explain how he was in danger while driving a convertible on a two page center fold puff picture in Vanity Fair magazine. Come on.

    Re: Joseph and Valerie Wilson Sue Cheney, Libby an (none / 0) (#59)
    by Sailor on Thu Jul 13, 2006 at 05:26:35 PM EST
    Believe it or not mature and responsible people think it is BETTER to base opposition on actual facts, sound judgment and with some slight degree of intelligence.
    So why didn't this commenter cite facts? He's always insulting people but can never seem to find a link to support his case. All he has offered are his opinions and when challenged on them resorts to insults. Since he is so keen to offer legal opnions, perhaps he should deal with my original questions: doesn't ruining someone's career count as 'damage?' and Have you ever made a comment that DIDN'T support the admin?

    Re: Joseph and Valerie Wilson Sue Cheney, Libby an (none / 0) (#60)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jul 13, 2006 at 05:44:17 PM EST
    In the Senate Intelligence Committee Report on the U.S. Intelligence Community's Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq (July 7, 2004) there is a discussion of Amb. Willson's trip to Niger. See the Niger section

    Re: Joseph and Valerie Wilson Sue Cheney, Libby an (none / 0) (#61)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jul 13, 2006 at 06:01:40 PM EST
    Deconstructionist, I'm not an attorney, but I work for a firm that does defense work in PI cases and I can assure that loss of consortium is very often used if the plaintiff(s) are married.

    Re: Joseph and Valerie Wilson Sue Cheney, Libby an (none / 0) (#62)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jul 13, 2006 at 06:31:15 PM EST
    Decon:
    The best friends this Administration has is the rabid Far Left and it predilection for saying foolish things.
    You do not actually say this, but your comment implies that you are reading posts by the so-called "rabid Far Left" at this blog. If that is not what you meant, then your comment is irrelevant, and the characterization is just a gratuitous insult. Please apologize and answer the questions being asked of you by reasonable people. If on the other hand you do mean to imply that it is your opinion that posters here represent the so-called "rabid Far Left", then your own bias as a member of the extreme right is revealed. So why are you trying to pretend that you are not a rabid administration supporter?

    Re: Joseph and Valerie Wilson Sue Cheney, Libby an (none / 0) (#63)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jul 13, 2006 at 06:36:45 PM EST
    Decon said: The best friends this Administration has is the rabid Far Left and it predilection for saying foolish things. It takes the focus off the foolish things the Administration is saying and doing. As an occasional rightie commenter here - am in total agreement. And to the person who supported Joe Wilson's veracity. Go back to the Kerry Campaign and find out why they dumped Joe.

    Re: Joseph and Valerie Wilson Sue Cheney, Libby an (none / 0) (#64)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jul 13, 2006 at 06:38:57 PM EST
    Cymro, The urge to purge strikes again. That is no way to win elections.

    Re: Joseph and Valerie Wilson Sue Cheney, Libby an (none / 0) (#65)
    by Sailor on Thu Jul 13, 2006 at 06:47:24 PM EST
    Apparently Deconstructionist only comments when he's on the clock. I guess he's never heard this joke.

    Re: Joseph and Valerie Wilson Sue Cheney, Libby an (none / 0) (#66)
    by jondee on Thu Jul 13, 2006 at 06:48:36 PM EST
    The characterization "rabid far left" can be heard everyday on Rush and Hannity, along with references to "loonies" and "fever swamps" etc Decon adopts the rhetoric of the far right, (along, I believe, with it's reality framing) in order, we are supposed to believe, to bring the left around to addressing the concerns of average Americans - which have also been framed by the right.

    Re: Joseph and Valerie Wilson Sue Cheney, Libby an (none / 0) (#67)
    by Che's Lounge on Thu Jul 13, 2006 at 06:50:49 PM EST
    I've never made a single comment in any way shape or manner supporting the Administration. You're too busy eating up bandwitdth attacking "intolerant liberals". Do us a favor. Stay off our side.

    Re: Joseph and Valerie Wilson Sue Cheney, Libby an (none / 0) (#68)
    by dutchfox on Thu Jul 13, 2006 at 07:08:32 PM EST
    Hey people, I'm no attorney. What are 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) defenses?

    Re: Joseph and Valerie Wilson Sue Cheney, Libby an (none / 0) (#69)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jul 13, 2006 at 07:15:00 PM EST
    Sailor - It was an enjoyable thread until you, at 04:13PM wwrote:
    sluggo, if you can't provide links to facts then STFU.
    Read backwards, Sailor and you will see that while we were having an sharp interchange of ideas, there were no vuglar conments, and no personal attacks. You were the first to yell STFU. Congratulatios on defining yourself. Che - He's a liberal. He's not on your side.

    Re: Joseph and Valerie Wilson Sue Cheney, Libby an (none / 0) (#70)
    by squeaky on Thu Jul 13, 2006 at 07:19:24 PM EST
    dutchfox-I am not a lawyer either but I did a google search and this seems the most coherent, after a quick skim. link It is a bit initmidating.

    Re: Joseph and Valerie Wilson Sue Cheney, Libby an (none / 0) (#71)
    by squeaky on Thu Jul 13, 2006 at 07:47:09 PM EST
    When you call someone "fair game" in an conspiracy meant to ruin them, you also have to expect that you yourself will equally become "fair game" Good luck, Joe and Valerie Wilson.

    Re: Joseph and Valerie Wilson Sue Cheney, Libby an (none / 0) (#72)
    by Sailor on Thu Jul 13, 2006 at 08:03:52 PM EST
    Sailor - It was an enjoyable thread until you, at 04:13PM wwrote:
    Just like DeCon, ppj has only personal attacks. Next!

    Re: Joseph and Valerie Wilson Sue Cheney, Libby an (none / 0) (#73)
    by scribe on Thu Jul 13, 2006 at 08:05:24 PM EST
    dutchfox, squeaky re: 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) You're right, it can be intimidating. And squeaky's link goes to the commentary on the Rule. Ok, to begin with, technically, these are not "defenses" qua defenses, rather, they are objections to the court even hearing the case - matters of avoidance. But, everyone calls them defenses anyway and understands them as such, so let's just leave that aside. 12(b)(1) refers that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure which states a defendant may make a motion to the Court, immediately after being served with the complaint and prior to the case going further, to have the Court dismiss the complaint for lack of "subject matter jurisdiction". Simply, alleging a lack of subject matter jurisidiction means that the defendant alleges and argues the Court does not have the power to hear this kind of case. If the Court does not have the power to hear this type of case, the only thing it can do is dismiss the complaint. A 12(b)(6) motion on the other hand is a motion to dismiss the complaint for "failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted". In short, what this means is that the defendant alleges and argues that, even if everything the plaintiff says in the complaint is true (and drawing all the inferences in favor of the plaintiff), the law does not provide for the plaintiff to get any relief, therefore the complaint must be dismissed. If this is the case, then the plaintiff usually gets the chance to re-plead the complaint, but if the Court decides that, even if the plaintiff re-pleads the case, the cause of action does not exist, then the case can be dismissed. In both situations, the dismissals don't usually come on these motions because lawyers tend to check the law before filing and make sure (A) the Court has subject matter jurisdiction and (B) that the causes of action exist and are properly pleaded. Sometimes, when challenging a complaint for the plaintiff lacking standing, the motion is made under 12(b)(1), and sometimes under 12(b)(6). The important thing to remember in either situation is that the facts stated in the complaint are taken as true - whether the allegations in a certain paragraph are true or not is irrelevant at this stage - and all inferences are drawn in favor of the plaintiff. That, and a motion to dismiss is good for a couple of months delay before discovery gets going.

    Re: Joseph and Valerie Wilson Sue Cheney, Libby an (none / 0) (#74)
    by squeaky on Thu Jul 13, 2006 at 08:28:09 PM EST
    Wow scribe, nice job at translating the legalese. As always your writing is clear concise and comprehensible. Refreshing considering how some lawyers seem to reflexively obfuscate matters . You are a real asset around here. Thanks.

    Re: Joseph and Valerie Wilson Sue Cheney, Libby an (none / 0) (#75)
    by Repack Rider on Thu Jul 13, 2006 at 10:53:17 PM EST
    PBRMan
    since the Bush tax cuts took effect revenues have increased dramatically, and the treasury can afford it.
    You mean we have a surplus again?
    What the lawsuit does accomplish is that it keeps Joe on television, which he can scarcely do without, and it marginally increases the value of their book deal prospects.
    Joe Wilson was happily anonymous until attacked by the office of the president, and he has every right to be pissed. The PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES ruined his wife's career. Joe Wilson is no coward. When Saddam threatened his life, Wilson, then Ambassador to Iraq for Bush 41, took to wearing a hangman's noose for a necktie, and said, "If you want to hang me, I brought the rope." Bush 41 considered Wilson one of the most valuable assets to his administration. It is ironic that people who are unworthy to carry Wilson's sweaty jock think they have the moral authority to criticize a guy like this. If America had a thousand more Joe Wilsons we would be better off for it, but this is not the kind of guy that there are a lot of.

    Re: Joseph and Valerie Wilson Sue Cheney, Libby an (none / 0) (#76)
    by Che's Lounge on Thu Jul 13, 2006 at 11:08:42 PM EST
    Yes Scribe I second Squeaky's comment. Thanks. (With a bow to the host also)

    Re: Joseph and Valerie Wilson Sue Cheney, Libby an (none / 0) (#77)
    by Deconstructionist on Fri Jul 14, 2006 at 06:01:42 AM EST
    PBR: "If any court has ever held that a violation of PL97-200, 50 U.S. Code Secs. 421-426 creates a private right of action in tort, I will eat my hat." You can keep your hat for another day, but just because no court has done it does not mean no court will do it. I haven't researched it, but I'm not aware of any court ever being asked to decide the issue. Certainly, it is rare for a federal court to find a statute creates a private cause of action by implication where the purpose of the statute appears to be protecting a public interest as opposed to private rights and the statute does not expressly state it is intended to create a private cause of action but it can be and has been done on occasion. Plame can make a reasonable argument that the court should consider that Congress passed the law not only to protect national security and prevent interference with intelligence operations but also to protect the person whose status is involved. Plame does not appear to be one of them, but some spies could certainly be put in grave jeopardy upon disclosure. "This case is going nowhere, the Wilsons know it is going nowhere, and the folks at Proskauer, Rose (though they have never been accused of being the most illustrious firm in D.C.) undoubtedly have told them it's going nowhere." I agree that is very unlikely that any recovery of damages will ever result, and I agree that it is likely Wilson, Plame and the lawyers all realize that. That's not thre same as "going nowhere." sometimes suits are brought for reasons other than collecting damages but one has to allege them to have a basis for the suit. This is POLITICS. The motives are political. The plaintiffs are willing to take a shot at sustaining the suit long enough to be entitled to discovery (as I have said even that is far from a sure thing but it could happen) and using discovery for political purposes. Personally, I doubt the political damage will be very great even if they succeed simply because the countyry has become so unfortunately partisan (on both sides). The "bad" disclosures about the Administration are unlikely to be any worse than WHAT PEOPLE WHO ALREADY DISLIKE AND DISTRUST THE ADMINISTRATION ALREADY BELIEVE and it's a safe bet the disclosures will not change the minds of any who like and trust the Administration. The people who matter-- those in the middle-- are likely not to view this as much more than a fight between opposing groups of political hacks and at most it will likely make think worse of all of them without causing any shift in voting or political support, especially since it's a virtual certainty that neither Bush, Cheney or anyone else involved will be running for office ever again. At most, it might make it more difficult for Rove and a couple of others to find employment with government or political campaigns in the future (And, frankly, that would be a great thing).

    Re: Joseph and Valerie Wilson Sue Cheney, Libby an (none / 0) (#78)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Jul 14, 2006 at 07:23:12 PM EST
    Lawsuits seeking remedies for violation of individual rights to privacy and property interests protected by the Constitution can me as much, or more about Justice as about money.

    Re: Joseph and Valerie Wilson Sue Cheney, Libby an (none / 0) (#79)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Jul 14, 2006 at 07:44:47 PM EST
    PBRMan It is extremely difficult to maintain an action against a government official for anything he does in carrying out the duties of his office. If it has any official character at all, he's immune. A federal official may or may not be accorded individual immunity by a court under the provisions of the Federal Tort Act for his acts or omissions. If his acts or omissions are outside the scope of authorities and duties or his federal job, a court can deny immunity and hold the official individually liable for damages if a plaintiff is successful in a tort action brought against the official.

    Re: Joseph and Valerie Wilson Sue Cheney, Libby an (none / 0) (#80)
    by Che's Lounge on Sat Jul 15, 2006 at 07:36:45 AM EST
    The people who matter-- those in the middle-- That's frightening, but true.

    Joseph and Valerie Wilson Sue Cheney, Libby and Rove | 80 comments (80 topical)