Search






Jeff's Amazon.com Wish List

Archive Calendar

November 2024
M T W T F S S
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
252627282930  

Archives

“Former CIA Officer Valerie Plame and Husband Sue Dick Cheney, Scooter Libby, Karl Rove Over Leak”

From ABC News:

The CIA officer whose identity was leaked to reporters sued Vice President Dick Cheney, his former top aide and presidential adviser Karl Rove on Thursday, accusing them and other White House officials of conspiring to destroy her career.

In a lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court, Valerie Plame and her husband, Joseph Wilson, a former U.S. ambassador, accused Cheney, Rove and I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby of revealing Plame’s CIA identity in seeking revenge against Wilson for criticizing the Bush administration’s motives in Iraq.

Several news organizations wrote about Plame after syndicated columnist Robert Novak named her in a column on July 14, 2003. Novak’s column appeared eight days after Wilson alleged in an opinion piece in The New York Times that the administration had twisted prewar intelligence on Iraq to justify going to war.

The CIA had sent Wilson to Niger in early 2002 to determine whether there was any truth to reports that Saddam Hussein’s government had tried to buy yellowcake uranium from Niger to make a nuclear weapon. Wilson discounted the reports, but the allegation nevertheless wound up in President Bush’s 2003 State of the Union address.

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.

I eagerly await any and all cross-examination of Plame, Wilson, former CIA agents like Larry Johnson, etc.

And of course, the question we have to ask is, if Cheney, et al., had truly “outed” Plame, why did not Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald bring indictments against them?

But I’m going to shut up and let Tom Maguire sort this all out for me (here’s his recent post after the Novak revelations).  Which, I’ll be honest, is what I’ve been doing all along with respect to this story.

Although I will say that this suggests to me that Fitzgerald’s investigation is over.  And if he couldn’t find the requisite proof to indict, it’s possible that Plame and Wilson have decided to pursue this as a way to create the appearance of scandal where none exists.  In the run-up to elections.  Taking one for the “team,” as it were.

But I could be wrong.  So take all this with a grain of salt.

(h/t Darleen)

****

update:  Via Stephen Meyer, here’s Mark Levin’s take:

So, Valerie Plame is suing the vice president and Lewis Libby.  Yes, it will be a distraction to the vice president, but it will also be a great opportunity for Cheney and Libby’s lawyers to pursue aggressively discovery.  Plame, and her detestable husband Joe Wilson, may well have blundered.  To the extent possible, through depositions and document production, Cheney and Lewis’s lawyers should get to the bottom of the real scandal, e.g., who exactly is Valerie Plame, what was her role in sending her husband to Niger, who were all of her contacts, what media sources did she speak to, what politicians did she speak to, and on and on.  And the same with her husband.

UPDATE:  Here’s a self-serving release from the Plame side. Notice a left-wing law professor is among her lawyers.  The suit also names Karl Rove.

The world is at war and these fools bring this lawsuit.  Another 15 minutes of shame.

Nice rundown by Allah, as well.

85 Replies to ““Former CIA Officer Valerie Plame and Husband Sue Dick Cheney, Scooter Libby, Karl Rove Over Leak””

  1. alppuccino says:

    The collective stiffy over at Court TV made my satellite signal pixel out a little.

  2. mojo says:

    Oh, brother.

    Well, discovery ought to be…interesting.

    SB: basic

    common sense, lack of

  3. Squid says:

    “…conspiring to destroy her career.”

    Destroy her career?!  She went from Desk Jockey Third Class to Cover Girl in what—a month?

    Mr. Rove?  Mr. Libby?  Couldja throw a little career-destruction my way?  Pretty please?

  4. Dan Collins says:

    Jeff–

    I think it’s certain, then, that Fitzgerald’s done.

    Why would they do this, when it’s liable to end up so badly for them?  I dunno.  Go ask Dr. Frisch.

  5. Pablo says:

    Discovery ought to be hilarious. And of course, this should net us the story of exactly how Joe got sent to Niger, and how he managed to get cleared to write an Op-Ed in the NYT.

    Also, moonbats will throw lots of dope money away on this, which is terribly funny.

  6. Dan Collins says:

    how Joe got sent to Niger

    Walter Mitty had a prior obligation.

  7. kelly says:

    Well Fitzmas was one big fucking bust for the moonbats.

    Keep hope alive, guys!

    TW: press. No shit, man.

  8. Molon Labe says:

    Too bad we don’t have a regular commenter with expertise in decision-making to help us understand this gambit. Maybe one with a psychology background.

    tw: man: not exactly who I had in mind.

  9. Chris says:

    Sidney Blumenthal needs to call Joe Wilson and let him know how exactly these things go.

  10. Pony. Keep digging. Pony. Hand me that brace, will ya, so I can shore up all this horseshit. Pony. Haul that backhoe over here. Pony. I can’t stop digging ‘til I find that pony.

    Hey, everybody! Look! Look, look, look! I found the pony!

    Oh, wait a minute, that’s just another horse’s ass. Move over, Leopold, this is my part of the pile.

    Pony. Keep digging…

  11. Dan Collins says:

    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.

    Hustler: Valerie Plame Exposed!

  12. McGehee says:

    Fitzmas has become Grinchmas, and now they’re gonna gamble on Denny Crane’s mad (cow) lawyering skillz.

    Good thing “Boston Legal” is on hiatus so Denny’s free to help out.

  13. Dan Collins says:

    Hey, y’know . . . maybe they’ll be gunned down by some operative working for Oliver Stone.

  14. Paul says:

    What did Kristoff know, and when did he know it?

  15. Big Bang Hunter says:

    – I’ve let go of the idea that the Dem leadership any longer has control over its own party. Also gone is the idea that the Dems are smart enough to know when to quit digging in the good brown soil. I assume they’re thinking they can run this “trial” under Liberal control, in a Liberal state, with a Liberal judge, and the jury, hand picked moonbats from Ashbury, Portland, or Walthem. Your article didn’t mention which Court circuit they filled in, but at any rate here’s the bottom line. I would gladly kick in some jack if the Loons come up short just to see Wilson on the stand under cross. Couple this with the flag drapped “Most excellant” polito-crap ad they thought would be “coolies”, and you get some idea of what sort of idiocy is cranking through the adalpated brains of the Left, as we move closer to election time. Its almost like they’ve decided they know they can’t come close to a majority on vote day, so damn if they’re not going to guarentee that the 15% of crazies in moon base #8 are their’s, all their’s.

  16. Dan Collins says:

    For actus:

    http://media.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YzVmZmEzNTUxMzMwZGY5ODZiNDg5OGJiNTUxMzQ4MDc=

    Don’t say I never did anything for you, man.

    BBH–

    I figure they’re going to try to roll Ted Olson and find out just how much he got for letting the Bush administration get his wife killed to provide camouflage for the 9/11 inside job.

    TW: really

  17. Forbes says:

    “intentional and malicious exposure”

    Is there an attorney (not actus) that can explain what tort is alleged in such a claim?

  18. Pablo says:

    Hustler: Valerie Plame Exposed!

    Awright, somebody subpoena Flynt. And email the pictures to me.

    /Valmas for Fitzie

  19. Meg Q says:

    OMG, even though I think this will be thrown out, I’d love to see Joe (and Valerie!) on cross-ex – in their own suit!

    Hey, maybe “Fitzmas” is coming after all – for us right-wingers!  wink

  20. Big Bang Hunter says:

    – Short version – Since Wilson is the one who entered his wifes name in several national registries, and thats the only source of her name according to Novak, then he sould be named as one of the defendents. Did I get that right?

    – BTW – Novak has a history of tweeking the Dems, so when he says a high ranking official was the other source, beside Harlow at the CIA, I wouldn’t be surprised if he is intentionally leaving out the modifier “ex” when he says that. Would’nt that be a splash of camel piss in the Dems cornflakes if Novaks other source turns out to be a former Clintonite.

  21. LoafingOaf says:

    it’s possible that Plame and Wilson have decided to pursue this as a way to create the appearance of scandal where none exists.  In the run-up to elections.  Taking one for the “team,” as it were.

    I could be wrong, but something tells me this will backfire on Wilson the liar and, more generally, keep Democrats distracted with their non-scandals.

    I confess I haven’t paid as close attention to this scandal as many people because I’m happy that this CIA agent was outed and don’t think much of the law they were trying to say people had violated (as it turned out they hadn’t violated it).  I tend to think British intel was more serious about concerns that Saddam had interest in uranium from Niger than some assclown with a political agenda. 

    Unrelated:  Get a load of Sullivan today endorsing Greenwald’s hit on Instapundit.  Wasn’t Sullivan complaining about people excommunicating him a few days ago?  Now he’s excommunicating Instapundit from libertarianism via Greenwald’s oh-so fair treatment of Instapundit.

  22. commander0 says:

    My first question on hearing this was “Who’s paying the bill?” Proskauer Rose doesn’t seem to be a partisan whacko firm so that means these boys are going to generate some truly beauteous fees.  The professor is listed as “of counsel”.  So the whacko is probably free, but these other boys are no joke.  I hope they spurt all their issue on this windmill.

    bac

    Just who the hell made the “decision” to fund this joust?

  23. Vizsla says:

    Jeff, does this mean Truthout just got so far ahead of the “Rove Indicted” story that he confused “indicted” with “sued”?  How long until we see truthout peddle that line?

  24. KM says:

    High hurdle to clear before anyone gets to hear any testimony: Nixon v. Fitzgerald.

  25. Pablo says:

    My first question on hearing this was “Who’s paying the bill?”

    They’re hoping you’ll do it. This is going to hurt some pot dealers. And probably George Soros.

  26. commander0 says:

    There’s the magic name I was looking for.  Vegas puts it at 3-2.

  27. Phil Smith says:

    “Back, and to the left.

    Back, and to the left.

    Back, and to the left.”

    Can’t really think of a way to shoehorn that in, here, but it seems appropriate.

  28. Pablo says:

    Think of it as a BDS Telethon.

  29. actus says:

    I eagerly await any and all cross-examination of Plame, Wilson, former CIA agents like Larry Johnson, etc.

    And of course, the question we have to ask is, if Cheney, et al., had truly “outed” Plame, why did not Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald bring indictments against them?

    I don’t know this Johnson Character, but the court probably won’t allow these questions, as they don’t have personal knowledge.

  30. Natty says:

    actus, are you Jewish?  Or Italian?

    I’m Scottish myself.  kiss

  31. actus says:

    Short version – Since Wilson is the one who entered his wifes name in several national registries, and thats the only source of her name according to Novak, then he sould be named as one of the defendents. Did I get that right?

    Aw man. Have you not yet figured out, throughtout this entire Plame kerfuffle, that the problem wasn’t that people might know Wilson had a wife. And what his wife’s name was. The problem was, allegedly, disclosing that she was some sort of covert agent. You really haven’t gotten this far in your understanding of the issue?

  32. Natty says:

    Aw man. Have you not yet figured out, throughtout this entire Plame kerfuffle, that the problem wasn’t that people might know Wilson had a wife. And what his wife’s name was. The problem was, allegedly, disclosing that she was some sort of covert agent.

    I agree!

    You really haven’t gotten this far in your understanding of the issue?

    LOL!!!

  33. stoo says:

    The problem was, allegedly, disclosing that she was some sort of covert agent.

    One wonders how she covertly traveled from her home to her desk at CIA HEADQUARTERS every freakin’ day.

    Assuming of course, her alleged covertiness.

  34. Jeff Goldstein says:

    actus writes:

    Aw man. Have you not yet figured out, throughtout this entire Plame kerfuffle, that the problem wasn’t that people might know Wilson had a wife. And what his wife’s name was. The problem was, allegedly, disclosing that she was some sort of covert agent. You really haven’t gotten this far in your understanding of the issue?

    Evidently, he missed this from my post:

    And of course, the question we have to ask is, if Cheney, et al., had truly “outed” Plame, why did not Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald bring indictments against them?

  35. Jim in KC says:

    The problem was, allegedly, disclosing that she was some sort of covert agent.

    The problem is, she obviously wasn’t.  Not when her name was revealed in conjunction with the fact that she worked at CIA.  Otherwise the CIA (and presumably her husband and herself) would have made at least some effort to keep this info from being published.  Remember that Fitzgerald was supposed to determine whether any law had been broken as well as who had broken it, and the lack of charges (aside from Libby being charged for a bad memory, or something like that) speaks for itself.

  36. actus says:

    Evidently, he missed this from my post:

    Seeing as how I quoted that earlier. But its why I added allegedly.

    The issue—unresolved—is not that Wilson has a wife. Or her name. Its supposedly, that her covert status was let out. I mean, thats even what your question is about! The issue in the case, the supposed outing of an agent. Not the supposed finding out of what the name of Joe Wilson’s wife is.

  37. actus says:

    See BBH? Jim in KC and Jeff both understand the issue: covert status and disclosure. Not her name. Or who she was married to.

  38. Additional Blond Agent says:

    Not the supposed finding out of what the name of Joe Wilson’s wife is.

    [humming sound of empty Coke bottle…]

    tw: movement… Heh.

  39. BreezecJ says:

    <blockquote>The CIA had sent Wilson to Niger in early 2002 to determine whether there was any truth to reports that Saddam Hussein’s government had tried to buy yellowcake uranium from Niger to make a nuclear weapon. Wilson discounted the reports, but the allegation nevertheless wound up in President Bush’s 2003 State of the Union address.

    So ABC News has sided with Wilson’s version of events?  It states as fact that Wilson “discounted” the Niger claim, and dispite this President Bush included this “false” info in his State of the Union address.  This is classic rewriting of history by the MSM.

  40. B Moe says:

    I think I read somewhere that it is only a criminal act if the leaker knowingly outs a covert agent.  Could be the Plame’s are thinking that the leaker got off under this loophole, and it may not protect him in a civil suit.

    Either that or they are just publicity sluts having a little more fun.

  41. Semanticleo says:

    Is Goldstein a lurker @ JOM, or is he engaging in the latest bit of cowardice embraced by the minions of WingNut Nation; posting under an alias?

    The explanation could be due to the rampant paranoia about Lefty sites deleting and banning.  It escapes me how the threat of banning is undermined by the use of aliases.  But I digress from the substantive posts proffered by our serious host.

    Just one thing; Rove and co-sonspirators will find

    civil proceedings a little less dependent on ‘reasonable doubt.’ A ‘preponderance’ is all that is needed for a judgement in behalf of the plaintiff.

  42. topsecretk9 says:

    Look! They have a Legal Defense Fund…hmmm, they didn’t like when Libby did that,,,but their first bullet point, and well, necessity is

    • Counseling them for their potential witness testimony during the upcoming trial of Scooter Libby;

    first things first of course…think they need some dough for the big guns?

    Oh and they invasion of privacy, violations of Freedom of speech, future income prospects? how gauche on the same day?

    “Ex-CIA Officer Finds New Memoir Publisher

    Thursday, July 13, 2006

    BY HILLEL ITALIE, AP National Writer

    NEW YORK — Former CIA officer Valerie Plame, whose outing led to the indictment of a White House official, has agreed to write her memoirs for Simon&Schuster, weeks after a reported seven-figure deal with the Crown Publishing Group fell through.

    “It will be a very interesting book by a key figure of our time,” Simon&Schuster spokesman Adam Rothberg said Thursday.

    Financial terms were not disclosed and no publication date has been set. In early May, Crown announced that it would publish Plame’s book, but the two sides could not agree on a final contract.”

    Certainly make me want to donate.

  43. B Moe says:

    Just one thing; Rove and co-sonspirators will find

    civil proceedings a little less dependent on ‘reasonable doubt.’ A ‘preponderance’ is all that is needed for a judgement in behalf of the plaintiff.

    How much is needed for an indictment?

  44. Jim in KC says:

    Not the supposed finding out of what the name of Joe Wilson’s wife is.

    Well, she’s not “outed” until her name is combined with the other info at hand, namely that she’s Wilson’s wife who works at CIA and got him this sweet little junket to Niger. Novak interviews someone who lets that little tidbit about the sweet little junket slip, then looks up Wilson in Who’s Who and finds his wife’s name there for all to see.

    So publishing her name in Who’s Who is either a: almost irretrievably stupid; or b: pretty good evidence that she wasn’t covert.

  45. topsecretk9 says:

    Plaintiff’s have to prove the claims

  46. CraigC says:

    Please.  This is the very definition of a frivolous lawsuit. It will go nowhere, but Lyin’ Joe will reinforce the impression in the public’s mind that Rove did something wrong.

  47. topsecretk9 says:

    So publishing her name in Who’s Who is either a: almost irretrievably stupid; or b: pretty good evidence that she wasn’t covert.

    And not mitigating damages!

  48. corvan says:

    Say what you will about this action, it is going to be great, great fun.

  49. Jaibones says:

    Meg Q:  I’m sayin’!  I can see the defense boys and girls arm wrestling to see who gets to cross-x first.

    Btw, let’s keep Val in the limelight a little longer for more glam photos; she’s pretty hot for a dyed blond beltway Mommy.  (Gay divorcee Joe, on the other hand, is one tired-looking old D.C. liberal.  Do they all look alike?)

  50. corvan says:

    By the time this is over the same media outlets that have been showering Joe with passionate kisses will have turned on him like snakes.

  51. DrSteve says:

    Hard to add to Allah’s post title:  14:59. 

    I question the timing.  This is just to keep the Joe and Valerie train rolling down the tracks for another few months. 

    I don’t understand Semanticleo’s odd little innuendo about Jeff, and of course I’m always amused when liberals admit a fondness for a diminished standard of proof relative to criminal cases.  That’s some unflinching commitment to procedural justice you’ve got there, folks.  And don’t worry, I understand the distinction—certain people should just be easier to beat in court, right?

  52. Jeff Goldstein says:

    I think semanticleo is saying because s/he hasn’t seen me comment much over at JOM, I must be posting there under an alias.

    When in point of fact, I don’t have much time to comment on other sites.  So I rarely do.

    Not as exciting as the conspiracy theory bubbling through semanticleo’s clearly soft mind, but there you have it.

  53. Ira says:

    a few random thoughts whilest drinking at work (and some have added comments while I was pecking away here):

    1 – people continue to refer to Bush saying in the 2003 State of the Union speech that Saddam H was trying to buy yellowcake ore in Niger. He said that Saddam (according to British intelligence) was trying to buy uranium ore in Africa. (Last I heard, the Brits are still sticking to their guns on this.) This is the equivalent of the left’s ending repeating the nonsense aboug the plastic turkey.

    2 – as some of the other commenters may have said, this has much to do with this year’s election: this kind of lawsuit might carry for months before anything actually happens, but in the meanwhile the Dems and their many remaining media flacks can talk about what Dick Cheny did to this woman.

    3 – some might point to the successful lawsuit against O J Simpson that followed his acquital; or some may point to the fact that the Paula Jones lawsuit was allowed to proceed while Clinton was in office. I’m no legal expert, but I recall that Jones had on her side the fact that Clinton was being accused of something he did before becoming president, and while OJ was acquitted, he was indicted

    4 – and as some have already said, boy would I like to see Wilson and the Mrs called to the witness stand – one can almost smell the perjury indictments waiting in the antechamber…

  54. Lurking Vet says:

    By the time this is over the same media outlets that have been showering Joe with passionate kisses will have turned on him like snakes.

    What about the missus? Will they be all over her like Snakes on a Plame?

    /ducking and running

    TW:labor – That’s one labored pun….

  55. Semanticleo says:

    “I think semanticleo is saying because s/he hasn’t seen me comment much over at JOM, I must be posting there under an alias.”

    No, I’m saying you must be a lurker if you don’t comment, but if you comment, it must be with an alias. So…you’re a lurker?

  56. Jeff Goldstein says:

    I read the posts.

    I’m a reader.

  57. MarkD says:

    More ammunition for those of us who favor making the loser pay the winner’s legal fees.

  58. McGehee says:

    Semanty, there’s a word for what you’re bringing.

    It’s called paranoia.

    Get medication.

  59. Denny Crane says:

    Which is the “left wing law professor?” Chemerinsky?

    I’ve known him for nearly 20 years–he ain’t that bad.  He tilts left, but I’ve never considered him to be a moonbat or anything close thereto.  I’ve always respected him, although sometimes I disagree with him.

    Perhaps life at Duke has changed him–we’ll see.

    On this case, I hope he loses BIG time!  Sorry, Erwin!

  60. Jane says:

    “Its supposedly, that her covert status was let out. I mean, thats even what your question is about! The issue in the case, the supposed outing of an agent. Not the supposed finding out of what the name of Joe Wilson’s wife is.”

    The word “covert” is not in this lawsuit.  So I think the Wilson’s have pretty much given up that campaign.

  61. Good Lt says:

    I hope they enjoyed their few million. They’re gonna need it.

    LOL

    TW: It really does make you wonder, doesn’t it?

  62. actus says:

    Well, she’s not “outed” until her name is combined with the other info at hand

    I’d say she’s outed once you link her job to her. And by her, you can say ‘joe wilson’s wife’. Thats her. Its no secret who joe wilson’s wife is. The issue is that its supposedly a secret what her job was.

    So publishing her name in Who’s Who is either a: almost irretrievably stupid; or b: pretty good evidence that she wasn’t covert.

    BBH, I have to change my mind. Jim in KC doesn’t get it.

  63. gahrie says:

    Thats her. Its no secret who joe wilson’s wife is. The issue is that its supposedly a secret what her job was.

    Then why the hell was it common knowledge on the D.C. cocktail circuit?

    By the way, can we stop calling that idiot the former ambassador to Iraq? He was briefly the highest ranking diplomat in Iraq simply because we recalled all the diplomatic staff from Iraq that counted, and he was the one left behind to answer the phones.

  64. The_Real_JeffS says:

    One wonders how she covertly traveled from her home to her desk at CIA HEADQUARTERS every freakin’ day.

    Doubtless she disguised herself as a clueless law student.  Who would take that sort of person seriously?

  65. actus says:

    Then why the hell was it common knowledge on the D.C. cocktail circuit?

    Though I live in DC, and have my share of cocktails—and must admit i’m more of a draft beer man—I don’t think I’m party to the “DC cocktail circuit.” Whatever that means.  Does it include Lauriol Plaza and Smith Point, or is it more of a private affair?

    Anyway, I can’t really address the merits of this argument.

    He was briefly the highest ranking diplomat in Iraq simply because we recalled all the diplomatic staff from Iraq that counted, and he was the one left behind to answer the phones.

    I heard he showed up to a meeting or a press conference with a noose around his neck. Thats pretty diplomatic. But maybe thats what the guy that’s left behind has to do to get americans out of a country.

  66. Big Bang Hunter says:

    Gee actus….I guess I stand corrected. How about this instead:

    – Short version – Since Wilson is the one who entered his wife’s name, and the fact she worked at the agency on his web site, where it remained for a year until the Novak column appeared, at which point he frantically removed the info, then he should be named as one of the defendents. Did I get that right?

  67. actus says:

    Short version – Since Wilson is the one who entered his wife’s name, and the fact she worked at the agency on his web site, where it remained for a year until the Novak column appeared, at which point he frantically removed the info, then he should be named as one of the defendents. Did I get that right?

    that makes more sense, because it addresses the issue of her job, rather than her name.

  68. Big Bang Hunter says:

    Lets face it actus. This is going to end up being another “Old Man and the Sea” story in a long series, where the Left goes to incredible lengths to drag the carcus back to the harbor, only to end up with an empty “hook”, no catch, and a whole lot of bad press.

    – But I’ll tell you what, at this point I’m thinking a lot of Dems quietly wish this would all go away. Problem is they ran a guy out front in this scam that’s shown himself to be almost the equal of Kerry in self bloated importance, ego to the rafters, and an misguided missle-mouth even they can’t control.

    – In the end I may have to give Rove/Bush 3 points on this one, because they’re firing nothing but nets from way beyond the circle, not even getting their sneekers dusty.

  69. McGehee says:

    In the end I may have to give Rove/Bush 3 points on this one, because they’re firing nothing but nets from way beyond the circle, not even getting their sneekers dusty.

    Heh. They’re scoring ‘em without even coming out of the locker room.

  70. I don’t think there was a crime committed. Not only does Plame simply not meet the specific criteria of the law for being an “undercover” operative, but I just don’t believe Rove is that smart. He’s good at organizing campaigns and getting church people to vote, but not much else. I don’t think he was ever cognizant of Plame until Novak asked about her.

    Yet still I can’t help but worry that somehow Cheney et. al. are going to fuck this up. They’re going to insist on some meaningless piece of evidence remain “classified” that will wind up casting a shadow over the whole affair, or something equally stupid. And then I will have to listen to the Enemies of Bushâ„¢ piss and whine and moan and whistle about it until I’m finally compelled to put a bullet in my brain to spare myself from the inanity.

    At least with Clinton, peckers were getting waxed and hot young broad-faced interns were getting poked with cigars. And the US military was being used to distract the domestic public from the President’s domestic issues with international incidents. This President is so goody-two-shoes he just absolutely bores the piss out of me.

    T/W: need. I need a break from this stupid story about nothing.

    yours/

    peter.

  71. Daryl Herbert says:

    Forget cross-exam, his depo will be the real make-or-break moment.  The cross is just where the drama finally explodes, but 90% of how the cross will turn out is determined at the depo.  Unlike in Washington politics, where a pol can change his tune on a weekly basis (and other pols, the media, voters, etc. don’t care), judges actually hold you to the things you said at deposition months before!  It’s a real shock to someone unfamiliar with the legal system.

    Joe Wilson doesn’t strike me as naive re: our legal system.  So he knows what he’s in for (discovery requests, deposition, culminating in his cross).

    I haven’t followed this closely enough to know to what extent his integrity has been compromised, but I’d be surprised if no right-wing bloggers have put together lists of his supposed untruths, exaggerations, etc.  If those accusations are true, Joe Wilson should know his credibility is going to take a hit in court.  There are two possibilities, IMHO:

    1 – Joe Wilson is counting on a partisan, sympathetic judge (and jury?) who would choose to overlook his lack of credibility because they hate BushCo/Rove/etc.

    2 – Joe Wilson is arrogant enough to think he can come out of the deposition unscathed.  Maybe he thinks Rove’s lawyers will be as toothless as the mainstream media reporters’ anything-goes attitude (maybe he’s been suckered in by the Kos Krowd and his own sense of narcissism/victimhood/sainthood to believe that the media is actually largely right-wing, and has been working against him).

    TW: deep, as in don’t file a lawsuit if can’t afford to get deep into discovery

  72. Pablo says:

    and must admit i’m more of a draft beer man

    Well, there goes the gender ambiguity.

    So, I guess I just did an outing, huh? Hi Thirsty!

  73. Pablo says:

    Is Goldstein a lurker @ JOM, or is he engaging in the latest bit of cowardice embraced by the minions of WingNut Nation; posting under an alias?

    Did your mother name you “semanticleo”, dipshit?

    COWARD!!!!

  74. topsecretk9 says:

    that makes more sense, because it addresses the issue of her job, rather than her name.

    Wilson did say last July

    Jamie Gangel: It’s now public that President Bush’s top adviser, Karl Rove, did talk to at least one reporter about your wife. But Rove insists he never used her name and that he did not know that she was undercover. That he did not knowingly give her up.

    Wilson: My wife’s name is Wilson. It is Mrs. Joseph Wilson. It is Valerie Wilson. And he named her. He identified her. So that argument I don’t believe stands the test of — stands the smell test.

    and

    WILSON: My wife was not a clandestine officer the day that Bob Novak blew her identity.

    So…

  75. topsecretk9 says:

    Incidentally, does anyone know how Wilson gets around this statement

    Wilson: My wife’s name is Wilson. It is Mrs. Joseph Wilson. It is Valerie Wilson. And he named her. He identified her. So that argument I don’t believe stands the test of — stands the smell test.

    but listing Mrs. Joseph Wilson, Valerie Wilson as Valerie Elise Plame in his own who’s who and various other bio’s?

  76. Big Bang Hunter says:

    Peter – In general you would be correct, that normally you’d think something this mundane and bloodless in a national story would have died a quiet death a long time ago. that is except for the aspect of how fascinating it can be watching Liberals gnawing away at their own political foot.

    – The whole thing reminds me of that scene where the fat man, Sydney Greenstreet, chips away frantically at the Maltese Falcon with a pocket knife in the climax of the movie, suddenly horrified to realize it was all a shame from the beginning, but unable too stop even though he can see plainly that he’s been sold a lead bird.

    – Dairy of the Left on this one. They’ve been sold a lead bird. (gotten the bird?)

    TW: In the words of Sigourney Weaver….”Are you happy now…..was it everything you dreamed it would be?”

  77. Karl says:

    If I was Joe Wilson, Chemerinsky is definitely someone I would have hired for this particular lawsuit.  The PR sheet lists him as a “Constitutional law scholar” because that sounds impressive, but more relevant here is that he’s the author of a leading hornbook on federal jurisdiction that addresses suits against government officials generally and Bivens claims in particular.  It’s his area of expertise, not that you would know this from his TV work.  I would especially want him on board if creative lawyering was going to be required on these particular claims, if you catch my drift.

  78. alppuccino says:

    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.

    And don’t forget:  They’re suing FOX News for showing them laughing at Stephen Colbert at the Press Banquet.  Will they ever again be able to go to a swanky dinner without looking over their shoulders?

  79. Jim in KC says:

    but listing Mrs. Joseph Wilson, Valerie Wilson as Valerie Elise Plame in his own who’s who and various other bio’s?

    I imagine actus will tell you it doesn’t matter, but it’s the crux of the whole issue, really.  Either CIA and Wilson don’t give two shits about operational security or she wasn’t covert. 

    actus, the reason why it’s so important is that if she was covert or her employment at CIA was classified, putting her name and the fact that she worked at CIA in Who’s Who or on a website allows someone (Novak, say) to confirm classified information through an unclassified, publicly available source.  “Loose lips sink ships” and all that.

  80. mojo says:

    Just one thing; Rove and co-sonspirators will find civil proceedings a little less dependent on ‘reasonable doubt.’ A ‘preponderance’ is all that is needed for a judgement in behalf of the plaintiff.

    How much is needed for an indictment?

    Owww! That’s gonna leave a mark…

    SB: anyone

    got the Vegas line?

  81. actus says:

    actus, the reason why it’s so important is that if she was covert or her employment at CIA was classified, putting her name and the fact that she worked at CIA in Who’s Who or on a website allows someone (Novak, say) to confirm classified information through an unclassified, publicly available source

    Putting the bolded part somewhere is different than putting the italicized part somewhere. Thats the point I’m making.

  82. Big Bang Hunter says:

    – Why is it that every one of actus’s comments leave me with the impression that the TTP has a whole shelf on his wall dedicated to a half dozen stuffed manilla folders explaining what the meaning of “is” is?

  83. actus says:

    Why is it that every one of actus’s comments leave me with the impression that the TTP has a whole shelf on his wall dedicated to a half dozen stuffed manilla folders explaining what the meaning of “is” is?

    Its really not that nuanced. They are different pieces of information. Her name and her work.

  84. McGehee says:

    Actus, walk with me.

    His name is Joe Wilson.

    In his Who’s Who entry he named her as Valerie Plame.

    How many IQ points does it take to find out where Valerie Plame and/or Valerie Wilson works?

    If you find that where she works, officially happens to be a well-known CIA “cover,” and that she commutes to Langley, how hard is it to put two and two together and get four?

    If Wilson had given a damn about protecting his wife’s employment from public disclosure, what he needed to do was NOT BE SUCH A GODDAMN MEDIA WHORE.

    Period.

  85. Juliette says:

    In his Who’s Who entry he named her as Valerie Plame.

    I scanned and posted the 2002 Who’s Who entry of Joseph Wilson last year.

    TW: real.  Yes, it is.

Comments are closed.