The Wilsons have filed a civil suit, accusing Cheney, Rove and Libby by name and leaving room for ten more defendants to be named later. Get your informed commentary here:
Christy Smith (2)
SusanG
Tom Maguire
Steve Benen
Matt Stoller
Steve Soto
For me the most relevant question is whether the Plame case will go forward at all. Sooner or later the Jones v. Clinton precedent will kick this up to the Supreme Court. If the 1997 ruling stands then we can look forward to a three-ring circus of deposed officials and embarrassing revelations. If not, and remember that the poor soothsayers who wrote the Jones v. Clinton decision declared that a civil suit should not interfere too badly with the president’s job, then everybody can pretty much put away their toys and go home. God knows Jones interfered with the White House’s day-to-day operations (and then some), so until we know one way or another it won’t pay to get too worked up about this suit.
Anderson
Jones is irrelevant; the conduct alleged here occurred during the defendants’ time in office, not before.
Your Steve Benen link points to a couple of articles from last year that speculate on the pitfalls of a civil suit against Rove. Anyone who’s interested in the legalities of the case (and not mindless “wasn’t covert!”/”was too!” iterations) should start there.
My dim recollection is that the court has to resolve qualified-immunity determinations before the merits can be addressed, and that whatever the (Republican, Starr veteran) judge rules on those, there’ll be an interlocutory appeal to the D.C. Circuit before anything can happen on the merits of the case.
Steve
Jones v. Clinton was different in two important ways:
1) It involved the President, who is significantly more special than other officials; and
2) It involved conduct prior to taking office.
The threshold legal issue, I expect, will be whether any of the defendants are entitled to immunity because the acts were, arguably, conducted in an official capacity. It’s pretty clear that if they sued President Bush over this, even if you could show he’s involved, he’d have absolute immunity from suit. It’s unclear whether the Vice-President gets the same deal. And it’s not clear whether Libby and Rove and whoever else are entitled to qualified immunity, which government officials can sometimes claim if their acts weren’t clearly in violation of the law.
This will probably be the first issue the court has to confront in the context of a motion to dismiss. And what’s interesting is, when the issue is immunity you get to take an appeal right away if you lose, as opposed to waiting till the end of the case. So it’s entirely possible we’ll spend the next 1-2 years waiting for the courts to sort through this legal issue, before we can even think about exciting things like depositions of Rove and Wilson.
jg
Plame is rather striking IMO.
Barry
Tom Maguire?!?!?!?!?!??!!
chopper
If not, and remember that the poor soothsayers who wrote the Jones v. Clinton decision declared that a civil suit should not interfere too badly with the president’s job, then everybody can pretty much put away their toys and go home. God knows Jones interfered with the White House’s day-to-day operations (and then some)
the difference here is, this president is fighting a war on tear. terr. war on tehrr. however he pronounces it.
demimondian
I expect a lot of blood on the tracks over this one, particularly in light of the Constitutional rights questions. That’s going to light up the netroots like nothing else on Earth. (Except maybe Hurricane Mother Katrina Sheehan, but that’s a different story.)
Keep in mind that from a political vendetta standpoint, typing Rove up in knots — and he isn’t protected by any reading of _Jones_, particularly in a politcal advisor capacity — is amost as good as bankrupting him.
WHo’s up for starting RoveToFreedom.org?
Punchy
No offense, Tim, but this shit is SO June 2006…
Tom in Texas
In other news Pete Coors was arrested for drunk driving. In his driveway. at .008% over the legal limit. Oops.
Pb
Whoops–now we get the Plame thread! I’d like to request that my comment in the previous thread be considered stricken from the record and instead be inserted into the record here, replacing this comment in its entirety.
</Parliamentary Procedure>
DougJ
The comments at Tom Maguire are positively Scrutatious, e.g.
Pb
The pictures from Bush’s current European Vacation are hilarious…
Perry Como
Is Bush back on the sauce? Anyone care to identify the type of beer in that pic?
Sojourner
Depends on who the judge is. If it’s a Bush appointee who believes the Bushies are above the law, the case will be dismissed early.
Stormy70
Dream on, Plamies. When Lawrence O’Donnell thinks the case is weak, then you are in trouble. He is a Huffer and the left of the left. She just needs something to pump up her coming book, since Fitzmas was cancelled. I can’t wait for the deposition.
This will be great. Wilson will have to explain the literary flair he took with his leaks to the NYTs. This will be fun, but it will probably be laughed out of court.
Slide
Now, what I don’t understand is if Wilson is, as the right wingnuttia claims him to be, a big liar and his story is just bogus, why on earth would he want it to be examined in a court of law. Courts are VERY good at getting to the truth in such matters. Would he really want the high priced lawyers of Cheney, Libby and Rove to be able to go after his “lies” in open court. You know. All the lies like his wife being a glorified file clerk and not a covert agent. Like it was Ms. Plame that got Wilson the boondoggle of a job. Like Wilson was unqualified to go to Niger for the CIA. Like Wilson saying that it was Cheney that sent him to Niger. Like the Niger trip actually showed it MORE likely that Iraq was trying to purchase Uranium from Niger.
wow, that Wilson has got to be crazy to initiate a process that will expose him and all his lies. Hmmmmm… makes one wonder doesn’t it? Lol
CaseyL
The judge is a Bush II appointee, and has ruled in favor of Bush II in other cases.
But the Wilsons very deliberately chose a Bevin-based lawsuit, one alleging civil rights violations rather than tortious conduct. I don’t know if that’s a harder case to just dismiss out of hand or not; I hope their lawyer is canny to the nth degree.
Pooh
Whatever actually happens, this is going to produce the perfect storm of uninformed (and probably worse, partially informed) (thank you Stormy, for that preemptive demonstration BTW) idiocy from most involved in the discussion.
Because after the NSA thing, what we really need is another blogstorm of legally illiterate commentary. I wonder how long until Hinderaker is caught selective quotation of relevant authority which is notheless swallowed whole by right blogistan.
I’m bored of this story already, other than to say that Valerie is indeed something of a dish – cue jokes about what she really did at CIA…
Perry Como
In wignuttia, faith trumps logic (and sometimes Feith). Did you hear the Joe Wilson may be prosecuted?
Sojourner
On the other hand, it is fun watching righties like Stormy sell their country’s national security out to defend their boy, W. Looks like John Dean is right about authoritarian leaders and followers. Poor Stormy.
DougJ
You all owe it to yourself to check out the JustOneMinute thread. They’re making Blogs For Bush sound like The Nation.
Krista
Scrutatious? I didn’t realize that an adjective had been created out of that place.
rachel
That’s true, but loony, self-damaging lawsuits do happen sometimes. Consider the SCO case.
(Short version: Santa Cruz Operation and IBM had agreed to work on developing some software together. IBM changed its mind and dropped the project. Santa Cruz Operation was taken over by new management and was re-named SCO. Said new management accused IBM of violating its IT rights as well as their previous contract by releasing SCO software that it had acquired for the defunct project into Linux under the GPL (an accusation that was foolish in too many ways to go into here), and threatened to sue unles IBM made nice (=pay lotsa $$$). IBM said, “you must be joking,” SCO sued, IBM sicced their
Nazgullawyers onto them, and the whole mess has been working its way through the Utah legal system ever since with SCO claims being routinely whittled down smaller and smaller as it goes. Great fun for those who enjoy legal trainwrecks; not so great for SCO shareholders.)IMHO, the Wilsons have a case, but I’m not a judge.
DougJ
That’s true, but loony, self-damaging lawsuits do happen sometimes.
Tell it to the Little Green Footballs.
rachel
I don’t really pay attention to them because they’re too depressing, but I’ll bite; Why?
DougJ
That’s weak trolling, Rach.
Richard Bottoms
Chickens. Roost.
Perry Como
I like how Valerie Wilson is nothing but an analyst, but had the ability to send her husband on a trip to Nigeria.
rachel
Especially since it’s not trolling at all. In plain English please: What lawsuit did LGF start that hurt themselves? You hinted there was something of the sort, and–as I said before–I know nothing about it because I don’t pay attention to what that crowd does.
Pb
rachel,
Ah, Groklaw, I remember it well. I still check in every once in a while just to verify that effectively nothing is happening in the SCO cases…
Ancient Purple
I think you are slightly off here.
According to the think tank that is the right wing, Fitzgerald is going to indict Wilson.
Isn’t that right, Stormy?
kl
Yeah, Tim, how about some balance?
Richard 23
Maybe this will be decided on penalty kicks.
Zifnab
It’s always funny to see right-wingites work themselves into a tizzy over a ruling by one of their own judges. After Hinkraker and company pump them so full of bullshit legal analysis and the courts mysteriously come to a completely different conclusion, its a small wonder the right-wing base absolutely despises the judicary. That, and the fact that inevitably everyone has to sue under a given new law if they expect it to be enforced.
Slightly off topic:
Clarify first, troll rate later. I honestly am not sure what LGF has to do with anything in either direction – except for them being classic ring-wing-o-philes.
rachel
Pb:
A few weeks ago Judge Wells dismissed 2/3 of SCO’s case and sent Brent Hatch & the rest of their legal team off with fleas in their ears. :) They’re appealing her decision; that’s the last I heard.
DougJ
Okay, I supposed Rachel isn’t a troll. But the line about “That’s true, but loony, self-damaging lawsuits do happen sometimes” sounds trolly to me. Clearly, this is not a loony lawsuit. The Wilsons are quite well-connected and you can bet this was vetted by some pretty solid legal minds.
Richard 23
DougJ, isn’t it obvious:
* That Joe and Valerie Plame are just drumming up publicity for her upcoming book and Hollywood movie?
* That the fundraising website is a front for accepting unlimited funds from Soros and other rich liberals with anonymity?
* That they are only attempting to dig up dirt on the evil Bush cabal using discovery?
* That they will drop the case after the election.
* That Joe Plame is so narcissitic he thinks he can somehow win a case against the Bush Administration despite the fact that he’s a serial liar?
Because that’s the impression I get from reading the right wing blogs. And they seem to have so much invested in this they must really know….
Richard 23
“narcissistic” — whatever.
Zifnab
Hahaha. “Why do you listen to him when all he says are lies? And don’t let him try to disagree with me, those are lies too. Why does he even talk? Everyone knows he’s a big liar. I hear he lies in his sleep. And if he denies it, you know its true, cause he’s always with the lies and the lying. I bet he’s off somewhere lying right now.”
rachel
DougJ: Did you miss the part where I said that I thought the Wilsons has a case?
ppGaz
DougJ is a figment of our imagination.
Pooh
Seperating these two points out A) yes people sue over stupid shit all the time (anyone see the one about the Michael Jordan ‘lookalike’ (he’s black and bald…) suing for $800 mil for harrasment?) B) Given the legal minds on their side (from what I gather) this probably isn’t that. Which was, I think, rachel’s original point…
Pb
rachel,
Thanks for the update, sounds like not much has changed in the past three weeks then.
Gotta love it…
Barry
rachel: “That’s true, but loony, self-damaging lawsuits do happen sometimes. Consider the SCO case.”
IIRC, SCO filed that suit (and a large number against linux-using companies in general) after negotiations with Microsoft. IOW, they agreed to act as barrators for Microsoft against Linux.
rachel
Barry: Ya think? But it doesn’t seem to be doing Microsoft much good. I know I decided that I wanted to give Linux a try because of all the hoo-hah. Anything that threatens M$ that much has got to have something to it.
Pb: Pffff! Of course. :p
Pb
rachel,
ROFL… good for you! :)
DBL
The complaint in this case is a poster child for frivolous lawsuits. The only interesting legal question it raises is whether the defendants will be able to recover their attorneys’ fees from Wilson and Plame under FRCP 11.
Why did Mr. & Mrs. Wilson bring a suit that has zero prospect of success? My guess: (1) to hype the value of their brand new book deal, and (2) to benefit the Democratic party in the fall elections by keeping their story in the news. They may succeed on both accounts. That is why it is so important that the court enforce Rule 11 by making them pay for the defendants’ attorneys’ fees.
Tom
and why are Joe and Peg Bundy using their next door neighbor- an attorney who specializes in internet law?
Can we say “We have no chance in hell but hey, he’ll work cheap and for the publicity”? Nawwww…