Former CIA Officer Sues Cheney Over Leak

[Dave Lane]

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=2188879

By TONI LOCY

WASHINGTON Jul 13, 2006 (AP)— 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

[Donger]

Did her book deal fall through or something?

[Iowanian]

She doesn't look like Michael Jordan at all.

[dirk digler]

Maybe this is her of way of getting them to testify about what they said and didn't say.

[Brock]

Maybe this is her of way of getting them to testify about what they said and didn't say.

I'm sure it isn't about money.

[dirk digler]

I'm sure it isn't about money.

Sorry I figured the money part was obvious

[Nightwish]

I'm sure the money is a big part of it, but they're also probably trying to keep the door open on Rove, to achieve some sort of moral victory in the wake of Fitzgerald's announcement that he wouldn't indict Rove. Kind of like the post-trial civil suit against OJ.

[dirk digler]

I'm sure the money is a big part of it, but they're also probably trying to keep the door open on Rove, to achieve some sort of moral victory in the wake of Fitzgerald's announcement that he wouldn't indict Rove. Kind of like the post-trial civil suit against OJ.

Yep that was what I was thinking as well. The standard for losing is alot lower in civil court, I think it is the preponderance of the evidence instead of reasonable doubt.

[Radar Chief]

Come on guys, do your conspiracy theories some justice.
I think they’re get’n paid by the DNC to keep this topic out front and in the news, ‘till at least the midterm elections. This is just their latest attempt to do so. ;)

[dirk digler]

Come on guys, do your conspiracy theories some justice.
I think they’re get’n paid by the DNC to keep this topic out front and in the news, ‘till at least the midterm elections. This is just their latest attempt to do so. ;)

Thanks TJ. :thumb:



:p

[Nightwish]

Come on guys, do your conspiracy theories some justice.
I think they’re get’n paid by the DNC to keep this topic out front and in the news, ‘till at least the midterm elections. This is just their latest attempt to do so. ;)
That's probably true, too. And it might not be a bad strategy, if enough people believe Rove was complicit. But if too many people believe Rove is being unfairly singled out, it could also backfire and make them look petulant. But keeping the opposition's liabilities out in front is usually a good strategy. The problem with the Dems, though, is that in addition to keeping the GOP's liabilities out in front, they also need to put their own strengths out in front, and I haven't seen much of that.

[sedated]

Former CIA Officer Sues Cheney Over Leak


dead body in 3...2...1...



I think Cheney will have another guest on his next hunting trip

[StcChief]

dead body in 3...2...1...



I think Cheney will have another guest on his next hunting trip
We could only hope so....invite the husband too.

[Cochise]

That's probably true, too. And it might not be a bad strategy, if enough people believe Rove was complicit.

The average voter does not know or care who Karl Rove is. If I didn't read Chiefsplanet, I wouldn't know he was anything other than some administration suit. You have to be in the blogosphere or somewhere that you can run into the far left before you find out that he's the left's emperor palpatine.

As much as some people hope, the average voter is not going to decide their vote on some byzantine scandal involving some people they have barely even heard of where no charges were even filed.

[Brock]

Who's going to play Ms. Plame in the movie? My bet is Nicole Kidman.

[Nightwish]

The average voter does not know or care who Karl Rove is. If I didn't read Chiefsplanet, I wouldn't know he was anything other than some administration suit. You have to be in the blogosphere or somewhere that you can run into the far left before you find out that he's the left's emperor palpatine.

As much as some people hope, the average voter is not going to decide their vote on some byzantine scandal involving some people they have barely even heard of where no charges were even filed.
Perhaps not on one issue regarding one man alone. But it is another straw on the camel's back.

[Dave Lane]

Heres an interesting commentary I read online that is obviously slanted but interesting none the less...


Our Wilson-bashing friends also don't seem to have thought through what's
likely to happen in plaintiffs' discovery. Libby and Rove are going to have to
answer the same questions in deposition they answered in front of the grand
jury. Only this time it will be on the public record. And of course their
ability to prevaricate is limited by the threat of perjury charges if the two
stories don't match. In addition, Robert Novak is going to have to come clean,
again in public, or face contempt charges.


But that's not the best of it. Rove will be asked whether it's true, as Murry
Waas reported, that GWB personally ordered him to reveal classified information
in order to discredit Joseph Wilson. And when he says "yes," as he presumably
will, plaintiffs will then have a strong basis for deposing Mr. Bush himself.
[Yes, I'd rather "depose" him in the other sense of that term, but you take what
you can get.]


Or they might just amend the complaint to name GWB as a defendant. (The
Republicans may yet come to regret the Paula Jones precedent.) Either way, that
deposition should be lots and lots of fun.


Footnote: The Waas story provides a possible explanation for the lack of any
"substantive" indictment in the Plame case: Rove and Libby could have claimed
that they were acting under orders, and that the Presidential instruction gave
them reason to believe that any information released pursuant to it would not
damage the national security, thus refuting the scienter required by the
Espionage Act. Fitzgerald might well have concluded that he couldn't disprove
that claim beyond reasonable doubt.


Interesting, no? The legal beagles have all been batting around a number of theories
on why things have shaken out as they have ? and this one, I think, has some legs, and
is worth some discussion and more thought. (I definitely welcome your thoughts on
this. It's multi-dimensional chess, but it's awfully intriguing.) Also, Jeralyn has
some great information at TalkLeft for your perusal. As does the Muck. And I'll be
getting back to this later today, as I get time.


But for the moment, I'm going to grab another cuppa coffee, work on my suit analysis
and try to eat some breakfast before the presser at 10 am ET. It's gonna be a busy
day?on a scale of one to ten, how grumpy is Lynn Cheney this morning, do you think?


(This is the distillation of the whole case in one, fantastic cartoon, which was inked
on 10/19/05. If you haven't checked out The Daily Scribble, get thee to the web page.
This is some of the smartest, sassiest and spot-on editorial cartooning that I have
ever seen. And it makes me laugh, even on dismal days. Well worth a browse ? for an
hour or two?)

[Lurch]

Heres an interesting commentary I read online that is obviously slanted but interesting none the less...


Our Wilson-bashing friends also don't seem to have thought through what's
likely to happen in plaintiffs' discovery. Libby and Rove are going to have to
answer the same questions in deposition they answered in front of the grand
jury. Only this time it will be on the public record. And of course their
ability to prevaricate is limited by the threat of perjury charges if the two
stories don't match. In addition, Robert Novak is going to have to come clean,
again in public, or face contempt charges.


But that's not the best of it. Rove will be asked whether it's true, as Murry
Waas reported, that GWB personally ordered him to reveal classified information
in order to discredit Joseph Wilson. And when he says "yes," as he presumably
will, plaintiffs will then have a strong basis for deposing Mr. Bush himself.
[Yes, I'd rather "depose" him in the other sense of that term, but you take what
you can get.]


Or they might just amend the complaint to name GWB as a defendant. (The
Republicans may yet come to regret the Paula Jones precedent.) Either way, that
deposition should be lots and lots of fun.


Footnote: The Waas story provides a possible explanation for the lack of any
"substantive" indictment in the Plame case: Rove and Libby could have claimed
that they were acting under orders, and that the Presidential instruction gave
them reason to believe that any information released pursuant to it would not
damage the national security, thus refuting the scienter required by the
Espionage Act. Fitzgerald might well have concluded that he couldn't disprove
that claim beyond reasonable doubt.


Interesting, no? The legal beagles have all been batting around a number of theories
on why things have shaken out as they have ? and this one, I think, has some legs, and
is worth some discussion and more thought. (I definitely welcome your thoughts on
this. It's multi-dimensional chess, but it's awfully intriguing.) Also, Jeralyn has
some great information at TalkLeft for your perusal. As does the Muck. And I'll be
getting back to this later today, as I get time.


But for the moment, I'm going to grab another cuppa coffee, work on my suit analysis
and try to eat some breakfast before the presser at 10 am ET. It's gonna be a busy
day?on a scale of one to ten, how grumpy is Lynn Cheney this morning, do you think?


(This is the distillation of the whole case in one, fantastic cartoon, which was inked
on 10/19/05. If you haven't checked out The Daily Scribble, get thee to the web page.
This is some of the smartest, sassiest and spot-on editorial cartooning that I have
ever seen. And it makes me laugh, even on dismal days. Well worth a browse ? for an
hour or two?)You realize this suit will likely be thrown out, don't you? It's civil court: what's the tort? Answer? There is none. The longshot of divulging classified information? Guess again. President's right to declassify info renders the point moot. I think Bush is a scumbag politician, just like all the rest. But good luck getting any of this garbage to stick. This is purely politics as usual; to keep the Republicans squirming--and payback for the 90s.

[Radar Chief]

Heres an interesting commentary I read online that is obviously slanted but interesting none the less...


Our Wilson-bashing friends also don't seem to have thought through what's
likely to happen in plaintiffs' discovery. Libby and Rove are going to have to
answer the same questions in deposition they answered in front of the grand
jury. Only this time it will be on the public record. And of course their
ability to prevaricate is limited by the threat of perjury charges if the two
stories don't match. In addition, Robert Novak is going to have to come clean,
again in public, or face contempt charges.


But that's not the best of it. Rove will be asked whether it's true, as Murry
Waas reported, that GWB personally ordered him to reveal classified information
in order to discredit Joseph Wilson. And when he says "yes," as he presumably
will, plaintiffs will then have a strong basis for deposing Mr. Bush himself.
[Yes, I'd rather "depose" him in the other sense of that term, but you take what
you can get.]


Or they might just amend the complaint to name GWB as a defendant. (The
Republicans may yet come to regret the Paula Jones precedent.) Either way, that
deposition should be lots and lots of fun.


Footnote: The Waas story provides a possible explanation for the lack of any
"substantive" indictment in the Plame case: Rove and Libby could have claimed
that they were acting under orders, and that the Presidential instruction gave
them reason to believe that any information released pursuant to it would not
damage the national security, thus refuting the scienter required by the
Espionage Act. Fitzgerald might well have concluded that he couldn't disprove
that claim beyond reasonable doubt.


Interesting, no? The legal beagles have all been batting around a number of theories
on why things have shaken out as they have ? and this one, I think, has some legs, and
is worth some discussion and more thought. (I definitely welcome your thoughts on
this. It's multi-dimensional chess, but it's awfully intriguing.) Also, Jeralyn has
some great information at TalkLeft for your perusal. As does the Muck. And I'll be
getting back to this later today, as I get time.


But for the moment, I'm going to grab another cuppa coffee, work on my suit analysis
and try to eat some breakfast before the presser at 10 am ET. It's gonna be a busy
day?on a scale of one to ten, how grumpy is Lynn Cheney this morning, do you think?


(This is the distillation of the whole case in one, fantastic cartoon, which was inked
on 10/19/05. If you haven't checked out The Daily Scribble, get thee to the web page.
This is some of the smartest, sassiest and spot-on editorial cartooning that I have
ever seen. And it makes me laugh, even on dismal days. Well worth a browse ? for an
hour or two?)

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/07/vals_lawsuit.html

July 17, 2006
Val's Lawsuit
By Jed Babbin
So Glam Gal Val and Uncle Joe Whatsisname sued Scooter Libby, Karl Rove, Dick Cheney and "John Does No. 1-10" to keep alive the Plame Name Blame Game. After Bob Novak's recent revelations, it's their last best hope to stay anywhere near a tv camera, a front page, or a columnist's word processor. But now, for the first time, they will be subjected to the critical cross-examination they deserve. Not one media person who has interviewed them has asked the tough questions they need to answer. (Infighting among the lawyers for Libby, Rove and Cheney for the privilege and incredible fun of taking Val and Joe's depositions will reach the bloodletting stage very quickly. In every firm I've ever been in, that rivalry would have led to pistols at twenty paces.)
One of the great things about a lawsuit is that you have to support your allegations even before you go to trial. The other side gets to see what papers you have and ask you questions under oath about everything relevant to the case. Having tried a few hundred cases myself over the past 33 years, may I suggest a starting point?
How about Defendants' First Request for Production of Documents? Just for starters (these lists usually go on into the hundreds of items), it should include all documents (a term defined under the federal rules to encompass every recorded human communication including pictures of smoke signals) which contain information related to, referring to or comprising any of the facts alleged in the complaint, including:
1. all communications between or among either or both of the plaintiffs and any employees or columnists of the Washington Post, the New York Times, the LA Times, CBS, NBC, ABC, BBC and whatever other bits and pieces of the MSM the defense lawyers can think of;
2. all communications to or from members of Congress and/or their staffs;
3. all communications between and among the plaintiffs and Patrick Fitzgerald or any of his staff;
4. all communications between either or both of the plaintiffs and employees of either the CIA or the Justice Department regarding the referral of the "leak", alleged in paragraph 18 of the complaint to the Justice Department for criminal investigation;
5. all documents related to conversations between either of the plaintiffs and any of the following persons regarding Plaintiff Joseph Wilson's trip to Niger dated on or before the time Wilson departed for Niger:
a. George Tenet;
b. the CIA deputy director;
c. CIA director of operations;
d. Richard Armitage, Deputy Secretary of State;
e. Mary McCarthy;
f. Plaintiff Plame Wilson or any other employee of the CIA directorate concerned with WMD;
g. any employee of official of the US Department of State not named above;
h. any employee of the United Nations;
i. any nation's representative to the United Nations or any employee of any national delegation; and
j. anyone who is now or has ever been a citizen of France.
And there are all sorts of juicy questions that flow from these documents. Heck, I'd fight anybody for the privilege of taking Val's or Ol' Joe's deposition. This is enough to make practicing law fun again.
Jed Babbin was a deputy undersecretary of defense in the George H.W. Bush administration. He is a contributing editor to The American Spectator and author of Showdown: Why China Wants War with the United States (with Edward Timperlake, Regnery 2006) and Inside the Asylum: Why the UN and Old Europe are Worse than You Think (Regnery 2004).



:hmmm:

[mlyonsd]

Would one of you lawyer types explain to me why Joe Wilson himself is named in the lawsuit?

I thought this was about Valerie being outed.

[jettio]

Would one of you lawyer types explain to me why Joe Wilson himself is named in the lawsuit?

I thought this was about Valerie being outed.

Probably best to read the complaint.

http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/iraq/wilsonlibby71306cmp.html

I suppose he could prove some damages if he proved his allegations. I don't know if the bases for the claims have ever been tried before. Usually, bringing a civil rights case involves some clearly established constitutional law, and I don't know if there is any established law that would have put the defendants on notice.

My predictions are that you would have to prove a very high amount of malice for the claims as pled to hold up.

My guess is that some claims would survive motions to dismiss, discovery would proceed under protective orders requiring strict confidentiality, and that summary judgment would be granted on the claims that survived motion to dismiss.

Appeals would be taken if whoever is paying their lawyers wants.

[jettio]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/07/vals_lawsuit.html




:hmmm:

That guy may have more legal experience than me, according to his article, but I don't think he is making much sense. I doubt that the Wilsons would want to hide their communicatons with anyone about any of those topics. I don't see them sweating any of those requests for documents.

And he is further foolish in thinking that there would not probably be a joint protective order barring both sides from breaching confidentiality. You know that the defendants would want one. They would not be able to go begging to the judge for a protective order and then have their lawyers trying to leak anything learned from the plaintiffs.

[Lurch]

Probably best to read the complaint.

http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/iraq/wilsonlibby71306cmp.html

I suppose he could prove some damages if he proved his allegations. I don't know if the bases for the claims have ever been tried before. Usually, bringing a civil rights case involves some clearly established constitutional law, and I don't know if there is any established law that would have put the defendants on notice.

My predictions are that you would have to prove a very high amount of malice for the claims as pled to hold up.

My guess is that some claims would survive motions to dismiss, discovery would proceed under protective orders requiring strict confidentiality, and that summary judgment would be granted on the claims that survived motion to dismiss.

Appeals would be taken if whoever is paying their lawyers wants.
You were doing well, till you started "guessing." LOL

Seriously though, what possible "claims" could survive? Where is the tort?

[banyon]

You were doing well, till you started "guessing." LOL

Seriously though, what possible "claims" could survive? Where is the tort?

The standard for claims to survive dismissal is very low. Basically, factual allegations have to be read in the light most favorable to tha plaintiff.

Once it goes to trial, though, then it's proof by a preponderance of the evidence.

Questions of law, however, can be decided on a level basis during the motion to dismiss.

[Lurch]

The standard for claims to survive dismissal is very low. Basically, factual allegations have to be read in the light most favorable to tha plaintiff.

Once it goes to trial, though, then it's proof by a preponderance of the evidence.

Questions of law, however, can be decided on a level basis during the motion to dismiss.
What is the tort here? Seriously.

[banyon]

What is the tort here? Seriously.

Not to defend the merits, but I would think intentional infliction of emotional distress or negligence.

[Mr. Kotter]

Not to defend the merits, but I would think intentional infliction of emotional distress or negligence.:rolleyes:

It might stand a chance filed in DC. I'd still bet, it's gonna get tossed. Public figure.

Wilson, anyway.

[Lurch]

Not to defend the merits, but I would think intentional infliction of emotional distress or negligence.

Can you say frivolous lawsuit? LOL

[Radar Chief]

That guy may have more legal experience than me, according to his article, but I don't think he is making much sense. I doubt that the Wilsons would want to hide their communicatons with anyone about any of those topics. I don't see them sweating any of those requests for documents.

And he is further foolish in thinking that there would not probably be a joint protective order barring both sides from breaching confidentiality. You know that the defendants would want one. They would not be able to go begging to the judge for a protective order and then have their lawyers trying to leak anything learned from the plaintiffs.

It’s an obviously biased article with the sole subject be’n how to make the Wilson’s squirm, much the same way Dave Lanes article is similarly biased and solely ‘bout make’n teh Debil’s minions squirm. That’s why I quoted Dave’s article. Same coin, opposite sides.
Beyond that, I don’t really know the validity of what he’s say’n. I’m not a blood suck’n leach on societies a…..er, uh….lawyer ;), though I assumed some of you lawyer types would show up and clarify. :thumb:

[jettio]

It’s an obviously biased article with the sole subject be’n how to make the Wilson’s squirm, much the same way Dave Lanes article is similarly biased and solely ‘bout make’n teh Debil’s minions squirm. That’s why I quoted Dave’s article. Same coin, opposite sides.
Beyond that, I don’t really know the validity of what he’s say’n. I’m not a blood suck’n leach on societies a…..er, uh….lawyer ;), though I assumed some of you lawyer types would show up and clarify. :thumb:

Ironically enough that fellow Jed Babbin was on MSNBC this morning along with Pat Buchanan and he made Buchanan look like a moderate when talking about the Middle East.

He seems to be much more of a hack now than a lawyer.

[Baby Lee]

Plame Out - The ridiculous end to the scandal that distracted Washington. (http://www.slate.com/id/2148555)
I had a feeling that I might slightly regret the title ("Case Closed") of my July 25 column on the Niger uranium story. I have now presented thousands of words of evidence and argument to the effect that, yes, the Saddam Hussein regime did send an important Iraqi nuclear diplomat to Niger in early 1999. And I have not so far received any rebuttal from any source on this crucial point of contention. But there was always another layer to the Joseph Wilson fantasy. Easy enough as it was to prove that he had completely missed the West African evidence that was staring him in the face, there remained the charge that his nonreport on a real threat had led to a government-sponsored vendetta against him and his wife, Valerie Plame.

In his July 12 column in the Washington Post, Robert Novak had already partly exposed this paranoid myth by stating plainly that nobody had leaked anything, or outed anyone, to him. On the contrary, it was he who approached sources within the administration and the CIA and not the other way around. But now we have the final word on who did disclose the name and occupation of Valerie Plame, and it turns out to be someone whose opposition to the Bush policy in Iraq has—like Robert Novak's—long been a byword in Washington. It is particularly satisfying that this admission comes from two of the journalists—Michael Isikoff and David Corn—who did the most to get the story wrong in the first place and the most to keep it going long beyond the span of its natural life.

As most of us have long suspected, the man who told Novak about Valerie Plame was Richard Armitage, Colin Powell's deputy at the State Department and, with his boss, an assiduous underminer of the president's war policy. (His and Powell's—and George Tenet's—fingerprints are all over Bob Woodward's "insider" accounts of post-9/11 policy planning, which helps clear up another nonmystery: Woodward's revelation several months ago that he had known all along about the Wilson-Plame connection and considered it to be no big deal.) The Isikoff-Corn book, which is amusingly titled Hubris, solves this impossible problem of its authors' original "theory" by restating it in a passive voice:

The disclosures about Armitage, gleaned from interviews with colleagues, friends and lawyers directly involved in the case, underscore one of the ironies of the Plame investigation: that the initial leak, seized on by administration critics as evidence of how far the White House was willing to go to smear an opponent, came from a man who had no apparent intention of harming anyone.

In the stylistic world where disclosures are gleaned and ironies underscored, the nullity of the prose obscures the fact that any irony here is only at the authors' expense. It was Corn in particular who asserted—in a July 16, 2003, blog post credited with starting the entire distraction—that:

The Wilson smear was a thuggish act. Bush and his crew abused and misused intelligence to make their case for war. Now there is evidence Bushies used classified information and put the nation's counter-proliferation efforts at risk merely to settle a score. It is a sign that with this gang politics trumps national security.

After you have noted that the Niger uranium connection was in fact based on intelligence that has turned out to be sound, you may also note that this heated moral tone ("thuggish," "gang") is now quite absent from the story. It turns out that the person who put Valerie Plame's identity into circulation was a staunch foe of regime change in Iraq. Oh, that's all right, then. But you have to laugh at the way Corn now so neutrally describes his own initial delusion as one that was "seized on by administration critics."

What does emerge from Hubris is further confirmation of what we knew all along: the extraordinary venom of the interdepartmental rivalry that has characterized this administration. In particular, the bureaucracy at the State Department and the CIA appear to have used the indiscretion of Armitage to revenge themselves on the "neoconservatives" who had been advocating the removal of Saddam Hussein. Armitage identified himself to Colin Powell as Novak's source before the Fitzgerald inquiry had even been set on foot. The whole thing could—and should—have ended right there. But now read this and rub your eyes: William Howard Taft, the State Department's lawyer who had been told about Armitage (and who had passed on the name to the Justice Department)

also felt obligated to inform White House counsel Alberto Gonzales. But Powell and his aides feared the White House would then leak that Armitage had been Novak's source—possibly to embarrass State Department officials who had been unenthusiastic about Bush's Iraq policy. So Taft told Gonzales the bare minimum: that the State Department had passed some information about the case to Justice. He didn't mention Armitage. Taft asked if Gonzales wanted to know the details. The president's lawyer, playing the case by the book, said no, and Taft told him nothing more.

"[P]laying the case by the book" is, to phrase it mildly, not the way in which Isikoff and Corn customarily describe the conduct of the White House. In this instance, however, the evidence allows them no other choice. But there is more than one way in which a case can be played by the book. Under the terms of the appalling and unconstitutional Intelligence Identities Protection Act (see "A Nutty Little Law," my Slate column of July 26, 2005), the CIA can, in theory, "refer" any mention of itself to the Justice Department to see if the statute—denounced by The Nation and the New York Times when it was passed—has been broken. The bar here is quite high. Perhaps for that reason, Justice sat on the referral for two months after Novak's original column. But then, rather late in the day, at the end of September 2003, then-CIA Director George Tenet himself sent a letter demanding to know whether the law had been broken.

The answer to that question, as Patrick Fitzgerald has since determined, is "no." But there were plenty of senior people who had known that all along. And can one imagine anybody with a stronger motive to change the subject from CIA incompetence and to present a widely discredited agency as, instead, a victim, than Tenet himself? The man who kept the knowledge of the Minnesota flight schools to himself and who was facing every kind of investigation and obloquy finally saw a chance to change the subject. If there is any "irony" in the absurd and expensive and pointless brouhaha that followed, it is that he was abetted in this by so many who consider themselves "radical."

[penchief]

Can you say frivolous lawsuit? LOL

Yes, I'm sure it has much less merit than the Paula Jones suit.

[patteeu]

Yes, I'm sure it has much less merit than the Paula Jones suit.

Any comment on the Hitchens column that Baby Lee posted or the revelation that the Plame disclosure came from Colin Powell's deputy, Richard Armitage in general?

[jettio]

So apparently Novak confirmed Plame's identity with the former "capitol hill staffer" whose motives were pure, and who did not mean to react to the editorial by Joe Wilson.

Even if they were confirming Novak's information, the purpose of confirming it and including it in the article was to keep more stupid people on board with the dumbazz and immoral war in Iraq, by using a personal attack.

The fact that Scooter Libby managed to lie his way into an indictment, and that Rove had to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to avoid an indictment himself says plenty about just how extraordinarily f*cked up this White House is.

What is Hitchens point? That the administration that he embraced is too stupid to be truthful on those rare occasions when the truth bails them out. Is that what he is trying to say?

[patteeu]

Even if they were confirming Novak's information, the purpose of confirming it and including it in the article was to keep more stupid people on board with the dumbazz and immoral war in Iraq, by using a personal attack.

Novak was against the war from the beginning. You're going to have to try to something else to revive this sorry conspiracy theory. I'm afraid it's beyond hope.

[penchief]

Any comment on the Hitchens column that Baby Lee posted or the revelation that the Plame disclosure came from Colin Powell's deputy, Richard Armitage in general?

The fact that Armitage may have had his own motives (maybe even in line with the rest of the bunch) has no bearing on the behavior of other would-be conspirators.

It could just as easily imply that the conspiracy was as broad as many already believed, with little to offer in the way of exoneration for the likes of Rove, Libby, or Cheney.

[patteeu]

The fact that Armitage may have had his own motives (maybe even in line with the rest of the bunch) has no bearing on the behavior of other would-be conspirators.

It could just as easily imply that the conspiracy was as broad as many already believed, with little to offer in the way of exoneration for the likes of Rove, Libby, or Cheney.

I'd imagine that Plame could have outed herself and you'd still be singing the same tune. :shake:

You realize that we're talking about a State Dept. official who was against the Iraq war disclosing Plame's identity to a reporter who was against the Iraq war don't you? That's an unlikely pair to be advancing a conspiracy in support of the Iraq war isn't it?

[Chief Henry]

So let me get this right:

Carl Rove, Vice President Dick Cheney and President Bush are not going to be sent to jail or impeached because of this...but, but, but, but,but
the MSM said they were GUILTY!!!

The news media once again gets it WRONG. They're predictions
are as bad as most weathermen.


ROFL

[jettio]

Novak was against the war from the beginning. You're going to have to try to something else to revive this sorry conspiracy theory. I'm afraid it's beyond hope.

Novak's position on the war has somehow not prevented Scooter Libby from an indictment and Karl Rove from a big lawyer bill.

I thought the White House and CIA already conceded that the State of the Union Speech contained a quote that had been edited out of prior speeches due to its unreliability.

I think it is pretty clear that the White House was playing PR and that in the course of that several reporters were told information that was not supposed to be disclosed.

It all boils down to dishonesty and incompetency, your two favorite attributes of the adminsitration.

Congratulations on the revival of Jeff George. At least one of your beloved incompetents named George once had some potential.

[go bowe]

Would one of you lawyer types explain to me why Joe Wilson himself is named in the lawsuit?

I thought this was about Valerie being outed.joe is a plaintiff in the case and is alleging that he has been harmed in some way or the other by the acts and/or conversations in the white house about him and with him...

i haven't read the complaint yet, but i'm sure that it alleges some sort of tortious conduct by various officials in the white house...

i suspect that there will be enough facts in dispute to get past the summary judgement stage and to a jury...

but it would be intersting to read the complaint...

[mlyonsd]

joe is a plaintiff in the case and is alleging that he has been harmed in some way or the other by the acts and/or conversations in the white house about him and with him...

i haven't read the complaint yet, but i'm sure that it alleges some sort of tortious conduct by various officials in the white house...

i suspect that there will be enough facts in dispute to get past the summary judgement stage and to a jury...

but it would be intersting to read the complaint...

when you read the complaint let me know exactly how joe was harmed.

is joe harmed because someone messed up his hair?

is it because now that the CIA is exposed he can't travel the world on junkets paid for by the US government? Yea, that would be a pretty hard gig to lose.

is it because he himself has been exposed as a POS he'll never hold another honest job?

I'd argue all of those claims are false because the dip shits from moveon.org will pay his severence. At least thru the next election anyway.

[Brock]

This whole thing was a lot of noise with no substance from the beginning. As predicted, it's ending with a whimper.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/31/AR2006083101460_pf.html

[Bootlegged]

You have it all wrong. Rove has been indicted - its just under wraps right now. Cheney will be frog marched into jail once the TRUTH is revealed. Just wait - jAZT you wait.