“Judge Dismisses Plame Lawsuit”:
A federal judge today dismissed a lawsuit filed by former CIA officer Valerie Plame and her husband against Vice President Cheney and top administration officials over the disclosure of Plame’s name and covert status to the media.
U.S. District Judge John D. Bates said that Cheney and White House aides cannot be held liable for the disclosure of information about Plame in the summer of 2003 while they were trying to rebut criticism of the administration’s war efforts levied by her husband, former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV. The judge said such efforts were certainly part of the officials’ scope of normal duties.
“The alleged tortious conduct, namely the disclosure of Mrs. Wilson’s status as a covert operative, was incidental to the kind of conduct that defendants were employed to perform,” Bates wrote in an opinion released this afternoon.
Bates also ruled that the court lacked the power to award damages for public disclosure of private information about Plame. The judge said that was because Plame and Wilson had failed to exhaust other remedies in seeking compensation from appropriate federal agencies for the alleged privacy violations.
This decision was completely predictable — or at least, it should have been, though you can never tell how courts will rule these days — and will hopefully put an end to any positive press given the mendacious Joe Wilson and the (covert) spy who loves him.
Well, after the inevitable appeal fails, I mean.
The only regret many of us have is that the two will now not face cross examination from government lawyers, meaning that they can pretend from now until the end of time that they were wronged, and that the only thing that saved Cheney, Rove, et al., is “immunity” — likely to be spun as a privilege that puts them above the law.
For those interested, you can find the ruling here.
Now, the crowning irony. Joe Wilson responds:
“This case is not just about what top government officials did to Valerie and me […] We brought this suit because we strongly believe that politicizing intelligence ultimately serves only to undermine the security of our nation. Today’s decision is just the first step in what we have always known would be a long legal battle and we are committed to seeing this case through.”
Joe Wilson lied about the significance, scope, and impetus of his own fact-finding mission for the express purpose of undermining the President (and, it is fair to speculate, with hopes of securing a prominent position in a Kerry administration).
His wife, a CIA agent, recommended him for the job — the conclusions from which he published in an op-ed. Wilson claimed he was sent by the VP’s office — another lie — and when members of the Bush administration supplied the context for all these machinations and motivations on background, Joe Wilson, caught in the tangle of his own lies, half-truths, and shoddy fact-finding work, knew exactly what to do: claim victim status and run screaming into the arms of the anti-Bush crowd, many of whom are so filled with a desire to see the administration brought to its knees that they will embrace any charlatan who comes along, provided s/he is saying the right things, and can present a problem for the President.
It has always troubled me that those who embraced Wilson and Plame — even if they actually believed there was wrongdoing on the part of the administration (and I’m convinced many of them don’t believe it for a second, but rather find the shadow they’ve contrived to throw over the administration as a result of Wilson’s allegations useful) — never bothered to distance themselves from what follow-up investigations kept proving was Wilson’s cynical, deceitful, and self-serving behavior.
Instead, they embraced him as a hero — a kind of whistleblower — and he, in turn, has moved comfortably into the part of aggrieved patriot.
To hear him chirp about how bothered he is by the politicization of intelligence is so rich in irony that, were irony a donut, the center could not possibly hold, and we’d soon be left staring at a breakfast table suddenly become home to a donut-sized black hole.
(h/t Dan Collins)
OK, you highlighted another portion, but this:
Is he saying they STILL won’t go quietly into that good night????
What the hell else are they gonna try and pull?
Oh yeah, the book and the movie.
They need a few more minutes on stage.
TW:unwonted desires
WTF? Seriously.
Glad Jeff linked to the WaPo story. The AP story, filed by the usually solid Matt Apuzzo, claims that:
The opinion actually concludes:
So the AP got that one 80% wrong.
Like writing intelligence “exposes” on the OpEd page of the New York Times, Joe?
Judge John D. Bates: “So Ms. Plame, were you a covert agent that required you to remain undercover and have your identity remain secret during the time period in question?”
Plame:”Well, not really.”
Judge John D. Bates:”Then why the hell are you in here wasting time in my courtroom? Case dismissed. Get the hell out of my court please.”
But, but, but, you’re missing the nuance…
As Nina Totenberg was so quick to point out on her top of the hour NPR neswblather, Judge Bates is a Bush appointee.
Great. Now I can’t get Nelson Muntz out of my head.
TW: differed any. From his report to the CIA? Yes, I think so.
As Nina Totenberg was so quick to point out on her top of the hour NPR neswblather, Judge Bates is a Bush appointee.
And if Bates crosses Bush, he’ll be invited to go hunting with Cheney, right?
Its almost hilarious about how Wilson lies about what his own suit was even about. He can’t sue for the politicalization of intelligence, regardless of whether it happened or not. This lawsuit was a political stunt by political hacks ( especially Chemerinsky – king hack ).
But they’re still going to make a killing on their legal fund.
So, that’s money that John Edwards might have been getting.
Required reading for this recent development is the recent Armitage bit with Hugh Hewitt-
http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/g/2d73295a-8c11-44bb-a261-6b7e761e8e26
You see, the Dems cannot imagine a scenario where one of their appointees would follow the law rather than the politics. As such, they assume that anybody that they did not appoint, will simply follow politics as well. That is why it they go around pointing out who appointed a judge – if s/he rules with them, they are a rebel, a maverick, and followed the law, and if they do not, they were playing politics.
Fuck Wilson/Plame. Fuck ’em.
Isn’t “Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington” psrt of the pack of George Soros’ running dogs?
BTW, when the nutroots/NPR want to start impugning Judge Bates, it should be noted that the AP got another part of the story right:
tw: divorce lifted? Say it ain’t so, Joe!
Posts like this is why I am backing the Burge-Goldstein ticket. I’d like to be able to stay awake and engaged during pressers.
Egregious error on page 3 of the decision, where the judge states that Plame’s identity was classified because her name appeared in a paragraph portion-marked S//NF. Untrue, as anyone who has ever worked with classified documents (except Larry Johnson, who has forgotten anything he might have learned) will tell you.
I thought Downward Dog was a cartoon character.
Slartibartfast, I just skimmed it but I thought he was repeating an allegation of the complaint that was deemed a fact just for the purposes of deciding the motion. I’ll have to look back and see if I remember correctly.
That’s a much more innocent explanation than the one I came up with.
Robin – I believe you are correct. If memory serves, the Judge is supposed to view the allegations in the light most favorable to the moving party. I believe this is the Federal equivalent of Summary Judgement.
See, when I read stuff like that in a paragraph entitled “Background”, I expect it to attain the status of fact.
Could be that IANAL, though. It certainly seems as if it’s being treated as the truth.
TW: Article distrust; I kid you not.
On a Motion to Dismiss the judge MUST take the facts as stated by the party opposing the motion. And he did. These “facts” aren’t really the facts, but even giving Wilson and Plame the benefit of THEIR facts, the judge ruled they had no case.(That’ll be $5 or a contribution to Burge-Goldstein)
I prefer to think about what could happen if the three Brazilian girls with the walnut oil were doing the downward dog.
Steve G – I think that position is referred to as Upward Dog After 17 Seconds of Bliss.
That 17 seconds sure went by fast… maybe we should try the macadamia oil
Karl said:
“Glad Jeff linked to the WaPo story. The AP story, filed by the usually solid Matt Apuzzo, claims that:
U.S. District Judge John D. Bates dismissed the case on jurisdictional grounds and said he would not express an opinion on the constitutional arguments.
The opinion actually concludes:
For the reasons given above, plaintiffs have failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted with respect to their four causes of action asserted directly under the Constitution. Furthermore, this Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ claim for public disclosure of private facts.
So the AP got that one 80% wrong.”
Karl, I’m just a second year law student and all, but lacking “subject matter jurisdiction” is ruling on jurisdictional grounds. I think you highlighted the wrong part. I think the part you wanted to quote was this:
“But there can be no serious dispute that the act of rebutting public criticism, such as that levied by Mr. Wilson against the Bush administration’s handling of prewar foreign intelligence, by speaking with members of the press is within the scope of defendants’ duties as high-level Executive Branch officials,” Bates said.”
I mention this not to be pedantic, but to point out that if one can reads that without nodding one’s head in agreement, then one is either on the Plame/Wilson legal team or a complete partisan hack.
I think this part highlights the difference between what is right and what is legal: “Bates stressed in his ruling that the couple’s allegations “pose important questions relating to the propriety of actions undertaken by our highest government officials…”
Amen, brother
Geez, timmah!, it’s right there:
Slartibartfast, not picking on you my friend, its an obscure procedural point. JD, motions under Rule 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) are not summary judgment but motions on the sufficiency of the complaint. Its far too early for summary judgment. Essentially the motion under 12(b)(6) say that even if the claims in the complaint are true, they don’t plead a valid cause of action. So the judge assumes the factual allegations in the complaint are true, and goes from there.
timb, if you are in law school, you need to learn to read opinions. Obviously you haven’t done so here.
Because Pablo, they don’t have jurisdiction to bring a claim. Jesus, that wasn’t even the point. The point was about how stupid the lawsuit was, even if it survived the jurisdictional challenge, it would have failed the 12(b)(6) hurdle. See, genius, I was agreeing with you that they had no case.
robin, I never said I read the opinion, (or, in your immortal words, “skimmed it”). I’m quoting from the Washington Post article and the AP articles.
The day, however, I take advice from you re: the law will be the day I’m officially anointed a Republican partisan hack. Jesus, at least Karl commands respect. You are Pablo with a J.D. You have the temerity to take a shot at one of the top 3 Constitutional lawyers in America, because his politics are different than yours, but you can’t even read one of my posts in good faith. Maybe you just skimmed it.
At least Karl can be respected. He’s reasoned, smart, and his blog is much more interesting, given that it’s not exclusively about shooting shit with big ass guns. Instead of sniping at me here, perhaps you could go to your blog and provide more mail-order forms so I can purchase cool shotgun ammo, etc. In fact, maybe you should give up the shingle and just be the official blogger for Soldier of Fortune. Here’s where you can apply:
http://www.sofmag.com/news/index.html
For the reasons given above, plaintiffs have failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted with respect to their four causes of action asserted directly under the Constitution. Furthermore, this Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ claim for public disclosure of private facts.
That seems fairly straightforward to me, timmah.
Robin – You are most certainly correct, about SJ and timmah not being the sharpest knife in the drawer. Having said that, it does not take too much skill to teach a client how to say “my neck hurts”. I cannot wait to see his advertisements in the Yellow Pages, and on the benches at the Bus Stops downtown.
“one of the top 3 Constitutional lawyers in America”
To whom are you referring, timmah? Gleen Greenwald?
timb, I’ve despised Erwin Chemerinsky for more than a decade. He is a partisan hack and a lousy scholar. Any list that has Erwin as one of the “top 3” constitutional lawyers is a joke. I can think of more than 3 better at Duke alone. The court’s analysis of the Bivens claim alone demonstrates the falsity of that. More importantly there are only scores of constitutional scholars more respected than Chemerinsky.
You meanwhile are showing that you lack the basic talent to be an attorney. I suggest you rethink your plans before wasting another year of law school tuition.
The 4 Constitutional claims were without merit, and the Court had no subject matter jurisdiction over a public disclosure of private facts. Seems pretty straight forward to me.
szee above on when I take your advice, hack
Although it must be said you type better than I do. perhaps, Robin, you could my paralegal while you are blogging for SOF?
Frankly, timb, you have a bit to go before you will match my paralegal students.
Goddamn, you’re a dense one, Timmah! Read the entire quote Karl cut again, and then look up “Furthermore” and note the words that come after it. Or, you could just read JD’s #33.
Jules Crittenden understands the dismissal better than timb: “Technically, it was just the dismissal of a disgruntled former employee’s nuisance lawsuit. In fact, it was the dismissal of an entire political genre of Bush Derangement Syndrome: …”
I dunno, I can see that the phrase
can be read as:
As in: can be granted by this court.
But as I said, IANAL. And no, Robin, I don’t feel picked upon; I completely expect the law to baffle and annoy me. It’s not that law escapes me, it’s that it’s actually constructed in such a way that it defies lay understanding; to me, such a construct is not evidence of (cough) intelligent design (/cough). I expect the law is formed in much the same way that barnacles adhere in layers on the hulls of ships.
Not trying to be insulting to you law-types; just noting that I’m temperamentally unsuited to being a lawyer.
He doesn’t say “by this court”. He simply says that they’ve failed to state a claim for which relief can be granted, and then he seperates the jurisdictional problem and notes that it is applicable to just one portion of the relief the suit seeks. If he meant to say that he had no jurisdiction at all, he’d have said that. But he didn’t. He said they failed to state a claim.
Part of the problem is that among the criteria for what is called a “Bivens” claim ( named after the court case that established the right to sue for money for violations of the Constitution ) is that Congress has not established an alternative scheme for remedy for the violation(s). Some of that discussion is expressed in language of “jurisdiction” as well, but it is really a discussion of the merits of the form of complaint.
Well said, Slartibartfast. Just wanted to make sure you understood that I consider you a buddy and wasn’t trying to pick on you. I’m going to steal the barnacle analogy.
“and that the only thing that saved Cheney, Rove, et al., is “immunity† likely to be spun as a privilege that puts them above the law.”
Exactly. Next Democrats will be trying to spin the ideas that rain can get you wet and that it gets dark when the sun goes down.
Barnacles. I considered describing it as layers of shit encrusted inside of a barroom toilet that never gets cleaned, but I thought that was too harsh, maybe.
In any event, I appreciate not being ripped for my ignorance, which is, as the song goes, deep and wide.
TW, believe it or not: “The rough-shod”