Memeorandum


Powered by TypePad

« Mumbai, India, and Kashmir | Main | Snark Is A Tell »

July 13, 2006

Comments

Jane

Mike,

That sort of falls into the hopes and dreams department.

sbw

Clarice, don't stop smoking. Stopping smoking is traumatic. When something traumatic happens, you want a cigarette.

Instead, next time you want a cigarette, wait five minutes before smoking it. If you still want it, smoke it. Over time, the needed cigarettes get farther apart. In my case, with this method, my last cigarette was in the 1980s. I'm still a smoker. I just don't smoke. Good luck.

Neo

I watched Joe and Val's news conference this morning. I was left with an unmistakable impression.

Ms. Flame (AKA Val, Ms. Wilson etc.) should join the Steve McQueen School of Acting (some former students include Chuck Norris). There is one basic tenet (no pun intended) of the Steve McQueen School .. keep your mouth shut, do it all with your presence.

I was struck by how good this mother of two looked, but when she opened her mouth .. well, some how a half peeled potato comes to mind. They may like her in Hollywood but she won't be doing an leading roles.

Bruce Hayden

One thing that I have a big problem with is that July 14, 2003 was the date of the Novak piece, and there was nothing in the complaint tying Novak to Cheney, Rove, or Libby. We do know that Rove did corroborate to Novak when asked that he understood that Plame worked for the CIA. But that is all the tie in with Novak.

The problem I see there (beyond the causation problem I mentioned earlier) is that if there is a 3 year statute of limitations issue, the only thing that they really allege that any defendant did on or after 7/14/03 was Rove supposedly telling Chris Matthews that Plame was "fair game".

Also, someone above I think mentioned MD law. Why would that be applicable for the state law claims? DC law would seem more appropriate.

Neo

This is so .. that I can only give a link to link.

clarice

Only slightly off topic:
"July 14, 2006 -- Just as the Vietnam Veterans Legacy Foundation attorneys were preparing to depose key VVAW "winter soldiers" to ask them about all those war crimes, the VVAW's Kenneth Campbell has abruptly dropped his twin lawsuits against the VVLF and Stolen Honor producer Carlton Sherwood. VVLF attorney Robert Clothier thinks the surprise decision "suggests a great trepidation about what would come out at the depositions." No kidding.

Perhaps the VVLF's lawsuit against John Kerry and Anthony Podesta will prove more successful at getting a few of these "winter weasels" on the record, under oath.

See Still Battling by Shannon P. Duffy of The Legal Intelligencer Online for all the details."

email from VVLF

Redcoat

MikeLucca

Neither will his involvement with the murder of Vince Foster.

I have to ask,for the same reason people slow down to look at car accidents, I imagine.

What,exactly,does Joe Wilson have to do with Vince Foster?

I apologize in advance.

Bruce Hayden

I should add to my previous post that D.C. law appears to have a 3 year limitation on most actions (DC ST § 12-301).

Jane

>They may like her in Hollywood but she won't be doing an leading roles.

My guess is Susan Sarandon would kill to play her.

Brent Richardson

The Plame lawsuit may be dismissed for failure to file an administrative claim under the Federal Tort Claims Act. The DOJ will move to substitute the name of the United States as defendant because the actions occurred in the individual defendant's scope of employment. The Westfall Act provides federal employees with absolute immunity and the DOJ will probably certify that the defendants were acting in scope. The federal court can have a hearing on the scope issue, but iff the govt prevails, the Court would dismiss for failure to file the prerequisite claim. The govt then has six months to investigate before a lawsuit can be filed under the Federal Tort Claims Act. An FTCA lawsuit would be subject dismissal due to the intentional torts exceptions of the Act. In addition, as a federal employee herself, Ms Plame would have to exhaust her administrative remedies prior to any lawsuit.

Redcoat

Jane

My guess is Susan Sarandon would kill to play her.

Isn't she playing Cindy Sheehan?

That would be a great Moonbat Double Feature.

lurker

Regarding VVLF deposing VVAW winter soldiers, well, that's very interesting! Sounds like a countersuit of some sort.

Brent, that's interesting, too. Sounds like Ms. Plame has not exhauseted all of her administrative remedies at this point.

So, if this is the case, where does this leave Joe Wilson?

clarice

Well, I hadn't considered that, Brent.It's an interesting point.

lurker

Think this is becoming a SOP between corporations and employees these days.

topsecretk9

--7/14/03 was Rove supposedly telling Chris Matthew's that Plame was "fair game".--

I am interested in the context of "fair Game" because it has only been communicated through a Joe Wilson narrative...and ahem, we know what that means.

IIRC, it was Chris Matthew's who called Rove and so for Rove to say Wilson's wife is "fair game", Matthew's would have had to ask -- this was AFTER Novak's article, so it sounds like to me the issue of Wilson's wife suggesting the Niger trip was "fair game"

Wilson, of course leap in glee that he could conflate circumstances ( I went at the behest of Cheney, I debunked the niger claim, the names were wrong, the date were wrong) that as always, and Matthew's spit some more and high fived Wilson...

But it seems clear that Fitzgerald, AGAIN, concluded no problem... and then of course Chris Matthew's will be deposed....

clarice

BTW re any defamation counts, the law in D.C.provides for a one year Statute of Limitations.

cathyf

Back to the statute of limitations question...

Since they didn't mention Novak, and everything they did mention happened before July 13, 2003, it appears that the SOL has been exceeded for the Wilson's lawsuit. What sort of limitations would apply to a countersuit? Are all of Wilson's shenanigans before July 17, 2003 now safe from claims, or did the act of filing their lawsuit put any of that stuff back in play for a countersuit?

cathy :-)

MikeLucca

Is there any way that Rove et al. could sue Matthews for character defamation? That's a suit I'd like to see. I wouldn't mind seeing ole Chris get waterboarded at deposition, personally.

sad

Legalities and proprieties be damned!! The Wilson/Plames have a piggy bank set-up for themselves to cover current legal issues and have re-revved the faithful to assure that speaking engagements continue to be proffered. They'll be able to repeat this pattern for years. No need to give up the Armani.

Jane

Isn't she playing Cindy Sheehan?

Well it will be interesting to see if val wears as badly as Sheehan has. I just saw a snippet from her press conference. She looked like she had been beaten up.

Brent,

What is the SOL for an action under the Federal Tort Claims act?

Cathy,

The filing of a lawsuit tolls the statute, so if the complaint is filed on time the counterclaims can be brought after. Local rules probably dictate for how long, but at least until the end of discovery.

If the Plame suit was dismissed and Rove et al wanted to bring a separate claim against the Wilson's they would have to bring it within the 3 year period (I assume we have established that there is a 3 year statute)
So for example if the claim was for defamation, it would be 3 years from the date of the defamation.

Brent

The administrative claim must be filed with the appropriate government agency within two years from the date of the incident. This is a jurisdictional prerequisite. The scope of employment issue is decided according to the law of the place where the incident occurred. Plame will argue that the actions were outside the scope of their duties, but it will be tough to argue that talking to the press is not part of their duties. The defendants have to ask for Dept of Justice representation and their supervisors will have to sign affidavits that they were acting within scope.

clarice

I am beginning to think that sealed vl sealed was really leaked to JL to pump up the contract price for the book deal which went flat when JL was exposed..And this stunt is to once again drive up the bid on Plam'ess negotiations with another publisher.

JL is a true dope, and TruthOut foolish for not outing their sources which are certainly Wilson and Johnson.

Kate

A lot of what was going on the last couple months was related to Plame's book. It's sad that Libby was caught up in this nonsense.

I feel badly for him. But the mystery man is Fitzgerald. There were early signs that the Wilsons were flakes and the case was weak, why did a serious prosecutor like Fitzgerald ignore all the signs and plow ahead.

owl

July 14, 2006 -- Just as the Vietnam Veterans Legacy Foundation attorneys were preparing to depose key VVAW "winter soldiers" to ask them about all those war crimes, the VVAW's Kenneth Campbell has abruptly dropped his twin lawsuits against the VVLF and Stolen Honor producer Carlton Sherwood.

This is related to what I have been thinking about ever since I watched the Val & Joe Show. They were covered by FOX/MSNBC and partly by CNN. They were covered as they walked into the National Press Club and I have been watching clips all day on FOX. So, I do not agree that they are not being given full press coverage.

Now.....did anyone try to watch the Swifties do a press conference? I did. You had 250+ sworn & signed with many of our most decorated veterans accusing a presidential candidate of betrayal.

The DNC's media refused to cover. It was pitiful. And boy does that steam my azzzz when I look at this. Hell, Nightline had to send a team to Vietnam instead of crossing the street to talk to those Swifties.

This is a DNC/media attack and who knows who else? Regardless of who is running it...DNC is up to elbows. I expect full TV circuit/book/movie. They follow a pattern. Sure wouldn't want a little thing like war to get in their way.....

I expect to see her played as a virgin in white in the movie.

maryrose

clarice;
Say it ain't so that you smoke! Washington is a stressful town but you are one tough cookie. My dad quit cold turkey after smoking 2 packs of Camels a day for 40 years. It extended his life 20 years so he could enjoy his 15 grandchildren. Your article at AT was excellent- The truth is coming out much to the embarassment of those persons trying to get leverage off of false facts.
Val had a bad hair today-hey it happens to all of us-As for Wilson- he of the very important hair-he lokked perfectly coiffed. Then he opened his mouth to say how difficult his endeavor will be and false empty, vitrolic words followed. Sucks to be Joe and Val Plame.

owl

Oops...did not make it clear. No joke, I think there really will be a movie and it is tied to the book deal.

Jane

>why did a serious prosecutor like Fitzgerald ignore all the signs and plow ahead.

Because he could.

maryrose

owl;
Their culture of corruption and America We can do better are two big fat flops. The Val and Joe Pony Show is Plan B for dems-too bad they were blown off the screnn by the "hello dems" REAL war on Terror. Some of us live in the real world-alas Joe and Val Fantasy Land. They must have visited Disneyland-one time too many.Val still thinks she's Snow White and Joe is the Dopey dwarf.

MikeLucca

Some of us live in the real world-alas Joe and Val Fantasy Land. They must have visited Disneyland-one time too many.

The irony is that if the Islamofascists came in, people like Val and Joe would be the first up against the wall. We're literally fighting for their freedom. And yet they see fit to undermine the war effort at every turn. Go figure....

Extraneus

I didn't see the press conference, only heard a quote from Val on the radio, but can we stop giving her the benefit of the doubt and blaming suave Joe for manipulating his innocent wifie into unknowingly advancing his nefarious schemes now?

Bruce Hayden

Brent,

Does that all apply to Cheney too? Does he have to get Bush to sign that he was acting w/i the scope of his employment? I am just thinking about the next step - what happens if the President is named in such a suit, who would sign for him. Besides, since Cheney is elected in his own right, and isn't subject to removal by his boss, both would seem to be somewhat a special case here. But then, I would think that their determination of what was within the scope of their jobs would receive a bit more deference than would that of most anyone else.

I can see though the logic of why they would want to substitute the U.S. It would totally change the complexion of the case - to what it really is, which is critics of the Administration trying to get at some of the top members thereof over what are really policy issues.

Bruce Hayden

I noted the D.C. statute of limitations earlier. However, most of the Wilsons' claims are federal, and the general federl SOL is four years (see 28 USC § 1658).

I am far from an expert here, so, anyone with more experience in this area, please correct me if I err here.

Tom Maguire

My two cents on the statute of limitations - somewhere I read that it was three years from the time the plaintiffs became aware of the plot, or harm, or whatever, not necessarily three years from when the evil deed was done.

Otherwise - I hope to have a new post up soon.

Quick ideas - when you ain't got nothin', you got nothin' to lose: For Dems, this lawsuit *may* (long odds) let them take a bite out of BushCo. For reps, we can hujiliate Wilson, the media, and the CIA.

Guess what - Joe Wilson, Tim Russert and George Tenet aren't candidates for anything. Advantage - Dems!

(NOTE: The "payoffs" are wildly asymmetric - maybe the left has a 1% chance of impeaching Cheney and the right has a 90% chance of shaming Joe, but so what - in his natural habitat on the far left, Joe wears teflon anyway. Put another way, the left are making a pawn sacrifice here.

That would all change of Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Hillary Clinton were sponsoring the suit, but no such luck.

Love the Wilson Legal Trust - Soros-types can pay Wilson to harass Bush forever. I *assume* donors are anonymous, which (IIRC) is the case with Libby.

Of course, Soros-types can buy Joe and Val's books and pay Joe speaking fees, so he will never be hungry (except for more attention).

Typepad ate my response to Byron York, who called this case ""A LEFT-WING BLOG WITH A LEGAL CAPTION".

I say it is the Paula Jones case with better fashion sense.

Brent

Cheney would have to have a Declaration by Bush that he had read the Complaint and that all of Cheney's actions were in the course and scope of his federal employment. I have since read the Complaint and the defendants should have "qualified" immunity regarding the Bivens-type allegations. DOJ attorneys would defend the action and probably move for summary judgment on the grounds that the allegations do not, as a matter of law, support an action for a onstitutional tort. Bivens-type cases are usually brought by a private citizen for governmental abuses or mistakes, not by a fellow government employee. The non-constitutional torts, or state torts, such as invasion of privacy, would be probably be dismissed as discussed in my previous posts. Of course, the plaintiffs will no douct complain that the defendants and the administration are "hiding behind" the Westfall Act.

Sara (The Squiggler)

In regard to the SOL talked about upthread ...

If the clock starts with the "incident" then how do you establish the "incident." The facts say the incident started during an interview with UGO, yet UGO is not named except maybe as one of the unnamed 10 does. We don't know that date, do we? But if 3 years is the SOL then they missed with the filing because the "incident" obviously took place at least 3 days before the article as confirmed by Harlow's testimony. And the UGO convo was at least a day before that I would think.

Now if the SOL starts with when the defendants first became aware of the harm, then I say it gets very murky because of the UGO/Grossman connection. For all we know, Val and Joe told him and he told UGO.

And the questions regarding Fitz are interesting. If that article I linked to way back is true, he is up for reappointment as a U.S. Attorney. Does he want reappointment? What if he decides to go private sector? Could he work for Val and Joe and let's face it, the VIPS crowd.

And why is the Libby case in Hoekstra's sites as a set up? Eons ago I asked if there could be any spillover from the MOM investigation into Fitz's and everyone said no, but that was before the sh!t hit the fan with all the NYT leaks and the uproar to get Gonzales off his butt and into gear investigating the leakers.

So the question is not the silly civil suit, but what the heck is Fitz going to do and where exactly has all this investigation led and who is really being investigated and why? Can a prosecutor start out with a legit investigation, find out there is nothing there but continue to follow leads on other leaks, etc.?

JM Hanes

Rick:

" I just don't see how a plaintiff gets to someone acting in their official capacity."

The Wilson's suit targets Libby, Rove & Cheney in an "individual capacity only" as a way to circumvent strictures relating to government emplyees suing government agencies. As you imply, though, this really has no bearing on the substantial protections afforded to public servants acting in any official capacity -- which is clearly the case here. The Wilson's acknowledge as much in several items where they state that "Defendants acted undercolor of federal law."

Such protections do not apply, however, where violations of constitutional rights are concerned -- which explains the thrust of this complaint, strained though arguments 1-6 may be. In items 7 & 8 where they accuse the defendants of crimminal (vs. constitutional) violations alone, you'll note they assert that "Defendants acted outside the scope of their employment."

JM Hanes

Speaking of strained, this complaint might have been less embarassing if it had correctly identified the "equal protection clause" as part of the 14th Amendment. Aside from such glaring technical inaccuracies, however, it does demonstrate just how thin a story the most comprehensive collection of the best talking points available actually tells.

Jane

>If the clock starts with the "incident" then how do you establish the "incident."

In a civil cause of action, the standard is when the plaintiff "knew or should have known".

Sara (The Squiggler)

Mornin' Jane ... so if Novak is approached by his street "stranger" and that "stranger" reports back to Wilson, then JW "knew" before the article was published. If Novak contacted CIA at least 3 days before publication and Harlow knew and supposedly talked to Val, then she knew BEFORE publication. So would that start the 3 year SOL and if so, then wasn't the filing late? And then there are the WaPo reporters who were talking to Joe and Grossman, et al who also seem to have regular conversations with Joe. Seems they knew or should have known.

Wouldn't there have been some "intention to file" long before the SOL ran? I'm involved in a ongoing civil suit that had to wait for another matter to conclude before we could proceed and my attorney had to file "intentions to file" several times thruout the years we were waiting. Also, my case is claiming both state and Federal jurisdictional claims but the Fed claims have to wait for the State claims to be ajudicated so it is my understanding that an "intention to file" had to be filed on the Fed side as well.

MikeLucca

I say it is the Paula Jones case with better fashion sense.

I have to disagree. That was a legitimate lawsuit against a serial sexual harasser. Were it not for the quality of his legal team, Clinton would most certainly have lost the suit and been forced to pay damages.

The Joe-Val suit is a nuisance suit, a sad attempt at gaining political advantage for the Dems (I wouldn't be surprised if Clinton or Dean are behind the whole thing, at some level). And it's going to blow up in their pretty faces.

Other Tom

Brent: Muchas gracias for the treasure trove of info on the Westfall Act and the FTCA. As a technical matter, wouldn't the initial defense motion be a rule 12(b)6 motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted? That is the appropriate motion at the pleading stage, before any discovery has been had. For non-lawyers, the difference between this and a summary judgment motion is that the latter is brought after facts are established during discovery. The 12(b)6 motion is not dependent on discovered facts, but rather tests the legal sufficiency of the case as disclosed by the initial pleadings.

Stephen_V

The case appears to have been assigned to U.S. District Judge John D. Bates, a former Deputy Independent Counsel for the Whitewater Investigation from 1995 to 1997, who was appointed to the bench in December 2001 and, since February 2006, also serves as a judge on the FISA court. This is not a judge one would expect to be overly friendly to Wilson and Plame's position.

The attorneys who filed the lawsuit are not some 14th Street ambulance chasers looking to cash in on a big contingent fee. Appearing on the Complaint as counsel of record for Plame and Wilson are three attorneys from the law firm of Proskauer Rose LLP, one of the nation's largest law firms, with its main office in New York City. Joining Proskauer as counsel is Professor Erwin Chemerinsky, a very well known and highly respected scholar of constitutional law who is currently a professor at Duke University School of Law. Chemerinsky has written several casebooks and treatises on constitutional law and federal jurisdiction, hundreds of law review articles that have appeared in all of the major law journals, and in April 2005, was named by Legal Affairs as one of “the top 20 legal thinkers in America.” Chemerinsky has argued numerous cases before the Supreme Court of the United States. Say what you want about Plame and Wilson, but the attorneys who prepared and filed this lawsuit on their behalf did not just fall off a turnip truck, and they are intelligent, skilled, and experienced enough to craft a complaint that will not subject them to sanctions for filing a factually or legally frivolous lawsuit. Speculate all you want as to the political and financial motivations for the filing of this lawsuit, but I strongly doubt these attorneys would risk their professional reputations or their personal or firm's finances on a lawsuit that is so legally flawed or factually unsupported that it would result in them being sanctioned by the Court.

It should be noted, however, that Christopher Wolf, the Proskauer partner who is lead counsel, has been Wilson and Plame's next door neighbor and close personal family friend for the past eight years. In addition, Wolf appears to be politically connected to former Clinton administration officials and has personally made donations to Democratic candidates.

Don't Libby, Rove, and Cheney Have Automatic Immunity From Suit Since They Were Government Officials Acting Within the Scope of Their Employment?

No. In the first four counts of the Complaint, Libby, Rove, and Cheney are being sued as individuals, under what is known as the Bivens doctrine, for allegedly depriving Wilson and Plame of certain constitutional rights. In Bivens v. Six Unknown Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), the United States Supreme Court held that a cause of action for money damages exists against agents of the United States, in their individual capacities, for conduct in violation of the Fourth Amendment while acting under color of law. The right to recover exists although no statute establishes it - it is a judicially created cause of action. In Carlson v. Green, 446 U.S. 14 (1980), the Court noted that punitive damages "are especially appropriate to redress the violation by a government official of a citizen's constitutional rights" and reiterated the plaintiff's right to a jury trial in Bivens actions.

While Bivens itself dealt only with the Fourth Amendment, the Court subsequently allowed Bivens claims arising under the Fifth Amendment. See Davis v. Passman, 442 U.S. 228, 248-249 (1979). The Third Circuit Court of Appeal extended the action to encompass First Amendment claims. See Milhouse v. Carlson, 652 F. 2d 371, 373-74 (3d Cir. 1981). In essence, Bivens claims may arise out of virtually any deprivation of a constitutionally protected right. The rationale of Bivens is to deter unconstitutional conduct by exposing individual officers to liability for their constitutional torts. See generally, Note, New Life for a Good Idea: Revitalizing Efforts to Replace the Bivens Action with a Statutory Waiver of the Sovereign Immunity of the United States for Constitutional Tort Suits, 71 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 1055 (November 2003).

Doesn't Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald's Failure to Indict Libby and Rove For Violating the Intelligence Identities Protection Act Necessarily Preclude Wilson and Plame's Civil Action?

No. In order to establish a violation of Title 50, United States Code, Section 421 [the Intelligence Identities Protection Act], it would be necessary to establish that Libby or Rove knew or believed that Plame was a person whose identity the CIA was making specific efforts to conceal and who had carried out covert work overseas within the last 5 years. Apparently, the Special Prosecutor was not able to find evidence that Libby or Rove knew or believed that Plame was engaged in covert work.

None of the claims contained in the civil action filed by Wilson and Plame are predicated on an alleged violation of 50 U.S.C. sec. 421. Instead, Wilson and Plame are claiming that Plame's status as a CIA employee was secret and classified and not publicly known until revealed for the first time in Novak's July 14, 2003 newspaper column. Wilson and Plame are claiming that Libby and Rove's disclosure to reporters of Plame's classified CIA employment status in furtherance of a conspiracy involving Cheney and others to discredit, punish, and seek revenge against Wilson for speaking out against the Bush Administration violated their constitutional and common law rights and caused them economic losses and fears for their and their childrens' safety.

Therefore, in order to prevail on their civil claims, Wilson and Plame will not be required to prove Plame was a "covert" operative, only that her CIA employment status was classified, a fact that Fitzgerald announced at an October 28, 2005 press conference. Of course, this is not all Wilson and Plame will be required to prove in order to prevail on their civil claims. The point here is that Wilson and Plame will not have to meet the same standard with regard to Plame's CIA status as was required to be met by Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald in order to bring criminal charges against Rove and Libby for violating 50 U.S.C. sec. 421.


clarice

Fitz has said, however, that he will not introduce evidence that Plame's position was "classified" and to get that evidence the CIA would have to produce itl. If they didn't --and it's obvious they didn't --to Fitz, why would they in this less significant civil matter?

Stephen_V

Clarice, if Fitz did not have evidence that Plame's employment status at CIA was classified, where did he get the information to publicly announce that fact at the October 28, 2005 press conference? Besides, why would Fitz at this point need to produce evidence that Plame's position was classified, as Libby is now being prosecuted only for perjury and obstruction?

clarice

He made a number of representations at the presser which were utterly false and from which he has back stroked..
He noted in the indictment that Plame was "classified" but in discovery conceded he would not be producing any evidence on this score.

clarice

Again--if the agency wouldn't provide this in the criminal suit, why would they produce it here. (Remember, as the case now stands,, there is nothing material about the variations in Libby's testimony and that of the prosecutions' witnesses.)

clarice

stephen, truth be told..I think that the still secret referral correspondence is the key to this. I think the CIA never made out the necessary facts to proceed and someone in Comey's office (maybe Comey himself) proceeded anyway. When Fitz got into it he realized the claim was crap. (I think if her position was classified it was a pentimento of a prior classification which had erroneously not been changed. Evidence for this is Harlow's comments to the WH preeie and Novak with no notification of "classified" status; the reference to her in the INR, etc.

clarice

***preSSie***

And as Toensing and De Genova have repeatedly said, "classified" would be insufficient to proceed as well..The Agency would need to show that they had done everything in its power to shield her from disclosure.And we know they didn't. Among other things, they didn't stop big mouth Joe from blabbing and drawing attention to themselves; placing her maiden name in Who's Who, the EPIC program, and yakking her position all over to the world (See Gen. Vallely). Finally, as Novak notes that had her working at a clearly non-existent cover company. A no no.

Sara (The Squiggler)

OT but of interest to those here following John Kerry and the various Swiftboat lawsuits:

Kerry Group’s “actionable libel”?

A very experienced attorney with deep knowledge of the details tells me that the defend John Kerry organization, Patriot Project, may be approaching “actionable libel” by implying Admiral Roy Hoffman and possibly Admiral Bud Schacte of $100,000 payoffs from the Swiftees for their speaking out against John Kerry’s exaggerations and fabrications of his Vietnam service.

clarice

I hope that's true, Sara. Kerry seems to share the same absence of memory and big mouth as his pal, Ambassador Munchausen.

MikeLucca

Man, I would love to see Kerry waterboarded at depositions over this. He belongs in Gitmo with his jihadist anti-American brethren.

Sue

Man. He banned me again. Scary is one tough cookie.

http://www.typepad.com/t/comments>You are not allowed to post comments

Don't mess with Larry. He has ways...

::grin::

Sue

Nevermind the link. It doesn't work.

Sue

And all I asked him was did the stupid pills get mixed up in his vitamins. ::grin:: Now that wasn't all that bad, was it? Oh, I also asked for him to provide a link to the report that reportedly said Omert never served in the military. Wonder why he just deleted that post without providing the answer?

MayBee

He made a number of representations at the presser which were utterly false and from which he has back stroked..

jeez, and don't forget that Walton has said the jury won't even be seeing Fitzgerald's Libby indictment.

Bruce Moomaw

"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."

Why, of course. That's why O.J.'s criminal and civil trials had identical outcomes. Lest we forget, there is that little concept "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" which applies in criminal cases, as opposed to "preponderance of the evidence" in civil trials. May I whisper the possibility that Fitzgerald thought he couldn't prove, at least beyond that Reasonable Doubt, that Rove and Libby deliberately outed Plame -- a problem which the Wilsons don't have in this suit?

Bruce Moomaw

As for Kerry vs. Hoffman, it really would be wise to remember that Hoffman, immediately after claiming that he "always" had a very low opinion of Kerry's wartime behavior, got caught red-handed having written downright gushing statements at the time about Kerry's behavior, which were still in the military's files. By all means, let's see how this one turns out.

Cecil Turner

Lest we forget, there is that little concept "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt . . .

Except the issue here is not a conviction, but an indictment. And the applicable standard for that one is "ham sandwich."

. . . got caught red-handed having written downright gushing statements at the time . . .

"Red-handed"? Heh. And sorry to break this to those lefties who've never served a day in uniform, but it's fairly common when writing up military award recommendations to gush a bit--it doesn't necessarily reflect the true feelings of the officer recommending him, nor does an award necessarily mean a given action was particularly bright.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Traffic

Wilson/Plame