A Wilson Civil Suit?
ABC News tells us that Joe and Valerie Wilson have filed a civil suit against Cheney, Libby, Rove, and others in the Bush Administration over the Plame leak:
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.
...
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.
Joe Wilson had hinted at this lawsuit when we learned that Rove would not be indicted, and I had been adamant that this lawsuit would not happen - my bad.
[Where did I go wrong? Good question - I had this:
Joe Wilson can remain a hero to his audience for years to come simply by threatening to bring this suit... someday.
However, I see that they filed because there is a three year statute of limitations on some of their causes of action. How about that? And we don't want to fail to promote Valerie's new book deal:
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.]
Well - I stand by my position that the plaintiffs will have huge problems gathering (presumably classified) evidence and recreating secret grand jury testimony, not to mention establishing damages and demonstrating that the defendants were not simply acting in their capacity as public officials. And a number of commenters focused on the problems the Wilson's might face as they dealt with defense discovery requests (Mark Levin can't wait).
But this lawsuit will certainly help keep Joe's star ascendant in the lefty firmament, so there is some clear motivation.
I am trying to run down the filing - I am not registered at Businesswire, and I can't find it on Pacer. [But there is always The Smoking Gun, via Drudge].
MORE: THE CRITICAL, MISSING LINK - did the defendants even know Ms. Plame's status was classified?
From the civil suit (at Smoking Gun), p. 16:
34. On information and velief, the principal means of punishing Mr. Wilson for his public statements, both oral and written, was to disclose to selected reporters the classified CIA identity of his wife, Plaintiff Valerie Wilson... An integral part of their scheme was the identification of Mrs. Wilson as a classified CIA employee.
That would be a bit more convincing if there was evidence showing that Libby or the others knew that Ms. Plame's status had been classified. None of the reporters who were leaked upon were told that her status was classified (we deal with Novak's use of "operative" here).
And per court filings the defense tells us (see "MORE") that Libby "testified to the grand jury unequivocally that he did not understand Ms. Wilson’s employment by the CIA to be classified information." If Special Counsel Fitzgerald had evidence to contradict that, that would have made a substantial perjury charge; no such charge appears in the indictment.
However, Fitzgerald did say this in explaining (in Aug 2004) the potential significance of Judy Miller's testimony:
To date, we have no direct evidence that Libby knew or believed that Wilson's wife was engaged in covert work.
Nor did he get that evidence from Ms. Miller.
Did Dick Cheney know whether Ms. Plame was covert? Murray Waas took us to this dead end:
Cheney told investigators that he had learned of Plame's employment by the CIA and her potential role in her husband being sent to Niger by then-CIA director George Tenet, according to people familiar with Cheney's interviews with the special prosecutor.
Tenet has told investigators that he had no specific recollection of discussing Plame or her role in her husband's trip with Cheney, according to people with familiar with his statement to investigators.
I'm sure Mr. Tenet remembers getting a Medal of Freedom. Regardless, it does not appear that Fitzgerald was able to conclude, after a two year investigation, that Libby knew Ms. Plame had classified status. It's hard to believe that in a civil suit, the Wilson's will have more luck.
CAUSE OF ACTION: I see a problem in the fifth and sixth causes of action - here is point 61 (essentially repeated at 67):
Pursuant to, and in furtherance of, this common scheme, defendants Rove and Libby unlawfully disclosed to members of the press Plaintiff Valerie Wilson's classified CIA employment.
Riddle me this - if they acted "unlawfully", what law did they break? And don't tell me, tell Fitzgerald, because he forgot to charge them.
IRRESISTIBLE CHEAP SHOT: Loking at the bio of Joe Wilson's attorney, I see that he is in the "ORDER OF THE COIF". That should serve him well with an important-hair client like Joe. But seriously...
A VERY WEAK CASE: Stephen Spruiell catches lefty Lawrence O'Donnell with a pin for each Olbermann balloon.
A QUESTION: Can the Wilsons "file and forget" this suit, or do they actually have to start deposing witnesses and doing legal stuff? I ask because thay may have filed it just to beat the statute of limitations clock, rather than with any real hope of moving forward.
CAN'T BOTH BE RIGHT? Is there a lefty blogger worried about a Wilson lawsuit misfiring? A righty blogger not gleeful? One side is very wrong here. (It's the other side...)

Check your comments, TM -- the Novak Speaks thread is all abuzz, including several different links to the filing, and to the "legal defense" fund that the Wilsons are setting up to fleece the KosKids.
cathy :-)
Posted by: cathyf | July 13, 2006 at 06:26 PM
Here is a link to the story and the complaint.
I'd say the Wilsons face long odds of winning.
Posted by: Fredrik Nyman | July 13, 2006 at 06:28 PM
(Note: annoying registration required to get to the 5MB PDF. bugmenot can help).
Posted by: Fredrik Nyman | July 13, 2006 at 06:31 PM
I dunno, I registered and still couldn't download it.
Posted by: Crank | July 13, 2006 at 06:35 PM
But then, NRO has it in PDF
Posted by: Crank | July 13, 2006 at 06:37 PM
Kos has it, too.
Posted by: clarice | July 13, 2006 at 06:40 PM
"Joe Wilson had hinted at this lawsuit when we learned that Rove would not be indicted, and I had been adamant that this lawsuit would not happen - my bad."
Don't woory Tom. It's impossible to overestimate the audacity and hubris of somebody with Narcissistic Personality Disorder, which Joe seems to be a text book example of.
Posted by: Barney Frank | July 13, 2006 at 06:43 PM
"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."
Wilson put his wife at risk the moment he signed his New York Times article. All the world's intelligence agencies read the article and assumed he is CIA or CIA connected. They also presumably all have "Who's Who in America." I can testify for the defense on this matter, I have rudimentary spy-novel reading experience and my conclusion is a no-brainer.
But the discovery will be fun, fun, fun! Joe, did you meet with Kerry in 2003? Joe, that picture of your wife in pajamas...why, why, why!? Joe, you ever work for any foreign power, like...France? Joe, I instruct you not to answer question with literary flair!
Posted by: Javani | July 13, 2006 at 06:43 PM
Hmmmm.
I expect the discovery process to be even crazier than the one for the Duke rape case.
Is extending a momentary fame worth risking everything? Couldn't Cheney, Rove & Libby coutner-sue?
Posted by: ed | July 13, 2006 at 06:46 PM
Well, didn't Scary Larry get an invitation to a deposition when he went on Democratic Underground and said Joe Wilson had sources that Rove was indicted? Oooohhhh!
Posted by: topsecretk9 | July 13, 2006 at 06:58 PM
Mara Liason on the panel just summed this up to a tea. She said "this is politics by lawsuit."
Posted by: ordi | July 13, 2006 at 07:01 PM
I read the complaint.
It is the most egotistical complaint I have read.
Also, abuse Freedom of Speech? Ha, ha. Joe has a "newsworthiness" problem, he was working on the Kerry campaign. Fifth amendment property right abridgement? Lol.
Posted by: Javani | July 13, 2006 at 07:02 PM
"Mara Liason on the panel just summed this up to a tea. She said "this is politics by lawsuit."
That's a good one.
Another Q: for Joe: "Did you set up Josh Marshall with that French asset Rocco?" "You're quite the jokester aren't you?"
Posted by: Javani | July 13, 2006 at 07:10 PM
What a coincidence--there is a new book deal--and it was announced on the same day as this suit:
"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."
I have to think Fitz does not like this one bit.
Posted by: clarice | July 13, 2006 at 07:11 PM
OK, I have to read the entire thing but AJ Strata - reading it, found some things about Grossman and says it sounds like Grossman is apart in some way -- either new info on him or lifted from the Libby indictment -- but they are hanging there hat on the 1x2x6 source...Also, Retire05 commenter at AJ makes an excellent point...since they are the plaintiffs and the burden is on them to prove all their wild crap... just how are they going to prove crap that the SP couldn't??? It's up to them to prove all theses causes of action...Amend or defend...
Posted by: topsecretk9 | July 13, 2006 at 07:12 PM
WaPo website has an article from 5:54p today by Daniela Deane that flatly says:
"Fitzgerald has described a 'concerted action' by 'multiple people in the White House' to 'discredit, punish or seek revenge against' Wilson. Fitzgerald in court papers pointed to Cheney as the man at the center of that campaign."
I don't recall hearing about these filings by Fitzgerald.
Posted by: drifter | July 13, 2006 at 07:12 PM
J Podhoretz is celebrating as many other rightwing bloggers are. Allahpundit, protein wisdom, Mark Levin, and so on.
Man, donja think that KOS, DU, and other leftwing sites are scratching their heads because the rightwingers are celebrating - just the opposite of what they probably expected.
Thanks for the John Doe response as SOP (in other thread).
Posted by: lurker | July 13, 2006 at 07:14 PM
Guess I won't be retiring this screenname just yet!
What an insufferable, narcissistic gasbag is Joe Wilson.
Posted by: Wilson's a liar | July 13, 2006 at 07:14 PM
Claricce...someone needs to send him a case of alka seltzer...on the day they file a suit for invasion of privacy, violating their freedom of speech and hurting their future employment prospects AND set up a legal FUND!!! they announce a book deal...stunning!
Posted by: topsecretk9 | July 13, 2006 at 07:15 PM
Para. 12 speaks of "political operatives." Operatives? How Novakian.
No claims to being "covert." Just that she was "classified." What is the context of that term? Aren't all CIA employees "classified" to some degree
Posted by: Javani | July 13, 2006 at 07:18 PM
Wilson's lawyer
If you want to know something about Wolf....
Posted by: lurker | July 13, 2006 at 07:18 PM
The Smoking Gun has the filing:
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0713062plame1.html
Posted by: Gaius Obvious | July 13, 2006 at 07:19 PM
Check paragraph 12. It seems it's not just Dick, Karl, and Scooter named by there are TEN "John Does" working either for the White House or in general GOP operatives. Oh please tell me Mary Matalin and Katherine Harris are among the 10!
Posted by: pgl | July 13, 2006 at 07:19 PM
And Javani beat me to the punchline - TWICE. Yes, "political operatives" was a funny.
Posted by: pgl | July 13, 2006 at 07:20 PM
"Turn the machines back on! Turn the machines back on!"
Posted by: Wilson's a liar | July 13, 2006 at 07:26 PM
I don't imagine that the plaintiffs will be calling Clarice as a character witness.
Posted by: Marcel | July 13, 2006 at 07:36 PM
Check out the post on the Plames at the Media Blog at NRO. LOL!
Posted by: Wilson's a liar | July 13, 2006 at 07:38 PM
We'll see how Rove and Co. do in civil court where the standard is a little different from 'reasonable doubt'. Physical evidence will not be necessary when a cornucopia of witnesses
are readily available.
Posted by: Semanticleo | July 13, 2006 at 07:39 PM
Marcel,
No, but they are calling Jeff as an expert witness.
Posted by: PeterUK | July 13, 2006 at 07:41 PM
“The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.”
i hereby declare the penalty for using the term "sixteen words" is to write the actual sixteen words out longhand 1000 times so that the user of the term can appreciate how stupid it is to call it a lie. starting with the writers of the lawsuit.
no matter what joe found out on his trip to africa, i find it incredibly unlikely for him to be in a position to disprove what the british government learned. he'd be on the wrong continent for starters...
Posted by: stomper | July 13, 2006 at 07:42 PM
Septicleo,
On both sides cherub,articles,videos...
Posted by: PeterUK | July 13, 2006 at 07:42 PM
This lawsuit;
from the sublime to the ridiculous.
Fred Barnes says all this does is make them look foolish and shows their true colors.He stands by what was discovered and related by Novak. Called Plame a CLERK.
Posted by: maryrose | July 13, 2006 at 07:43 PM
I think this is just another gaunlet thrown down by the rogue folks that brought us the "wilson gambit". Congressman Hoekstra must have shaken their tree. Me thinks this is all connected with the rogues,the DNC, Joe and our Pal Val.
Posted by: ordi | July 13, 2006 at 07:44 PM
The first appearance of the angle that the administration was trying to get revenge on critic Joe Wilson by "outing his wife" was from David Corn in the Nation Magazine. This was also the first time it was suggested that any laws had been broken by "outing" a CIA "operative". Who was the source for David Corn's story? Joe Wilson.
Posted by: Richard Palmer | July 13, 2006 at 07:44 PM
Sem., you're right, the standards are different.
But you got to fit the tort. Is there one for "discrediting" opponents? Maybe Val can fashion one in privacy law or regs.
Point out Para. K on p. 9 wherein it is recorded Joe accused the Administrion of lying "flat out lie". So, the Administation can't respond?
Posted by: Javani | July 13, 2006 at 07:46 PM
..on the day they file a suit for invasion of privacy, violating their freedom of speech and hurting their future employment prospects AND set up a legal FUND!!! they announce a book deal...stunning!
And.....attend a DNC policy conference.
Posted by: owl | July 13, 2006 at 07:47 PM
Who was the source for David Corn's story? Joe Wilson.
We will find out, won't we?
----
I can't wait when Wilson is asked about the misquotes and misattributions -- and then they get to ask Pincus and Kristof about their shoddy journalism --- but mostly, can't wait for them to explore exactly what Wilson means when he says "Literary Flair"...that's gonna be a transcript worth paying for.
Even though I don't thin it will ever get that far...but those are gifts I tell you.
Posted by: topsecretk9 | July 13, 2006 at 07:50 PM
Perhaps Val is going to be Kerry's new running mate for '08!!! It will be an unbeatable combination - The distinguished, battleworn Vietnam Veteran and the spy who risked it all for her country only to be betrayed by the evil Cheney, Rove cabal. I can see the headlines. tee hee
Posted by: sad | July 13, 2006 at 07:50 PM
Two questions:
1. If this case is tried in DC and DC makeup is heavily democratic, how will the lawyers for the defendants build the jury (assuming this goes far enough)?
2. If this case is assigned to a judge with the democratic leanings, would it be harder to get the case tossed out? Guess the lawyers for the defendants can file a motion to move it out of DC?
Would it be wise for the lawyers for the defendants to move this case forward as quickly as possible?
Posted by: lurker | July 13, 2006 at 07:52 PM
Hey Cementhead: I can tell that you are no lawyer. A good lawyer will chew up and spit out the Wilson's. I say that based on thirtyfive years of big ticket litigation. The suit is an invitation to destroy them. If you were a little less of a partisan knee-jerk you would know that. All the best...
Posted by: Festus | July 13, 2006 at 07:53 PM
You don't suppose...I mean..was it she who accompanied him on the super secret trip to Cambodia at Christmas? Oh . My. God. Now it all comes together............
Posted by: clarice | July 13, 2006 at 07:55 PM
The lawyers for Rove and Lewis are top-notch lawyers. Luskin was able to get the Cowles case tossed out.
I'm sure Cheney's lawyers are just as good.
Posted by: lurker | July 13, 2006 at 07:55 PM
I suspect that the lawsuit is timed so that the MSM can make it page one just before the November electiosn, then forget about it when the case is lost or dismissed after the election.
Posted by: Siergen | July 13, 2006 at 07:57 PM
pgl,
One last time; the John Doe stuff is in virtually every lawsuit ever filed. It protects the plaintiffs right to add more people to the suit if the evidence in discovery warrants. It does not mean anyone else will be named. Someone may, but that language is in every lawsuit.
Posted by: Barney Frank | July 13, 2006 at 07:59 PM
**You don't suppose...I mean..was it she who accompanied him on the super secret trip to Cambodia at Christmas? Oh . My. God. Now it all comes together............**
Think about it Clarice!! The hat, the quick way Joe was dropped from the 04 campaign when Teraaazzza figured it all out. I dare say there are a ton of connections just waiting to be made if one has the courage to give voice to them....
Posted by: sad | July 13, 2006 at 08:00 PM
"So, the Administation can't respond?"
Sure they can. But the question re:torts could be as simple as 'reckless endangerment'.
Posted by: Semanticleo | July 13, 2006 at 08:00 PM
Shoot. I've been posting in the wrong thread. ::grin:: Oh well, anyone interested in my very well thought out and informative posts can view them at the other thread. ::grin::
Posted by: Sue | July 13, 2006 at 08:01 PM
All this piffle about outing Plame, while an Italian newspaper outed 26 CIA agents.... Cough.
Posted by: Seixon | July 13, 2006 at 08:01 PM
Fester;
Everybody hits it right, at least once. Pity your clients won't know 'till it's too late.
iamnotalawyer.com
Posted by: Semanticleo | July 13, 2006 at 08:05 PM
Good catch Seixon.
Posted by: clarice | July 13, 2006 at 08:07 PM