Memeorandum


Powered by TypePad

« Specter, the NSA, And FISA | Main | Saturday Night Ice »

July 15, 2006

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451b2aa69e200d8342f228553ef

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The Wilson Civil Suit - All Applaud!:

» Taking A Stroll Through The Garden Of Half-Truths from Pajamas Media
Ed Morrisey @ Captain's Quarters dissects Valerie Plame and Joseph Wilson's lawsuit against Cheney, Rove, Libby and 10 John Does. Tom Maguire @ Just One Minute wonders why the excitement in both the right and the left. UPDATE: All Things... [Read More]

» Once More, With Feeling from PostWatch
Now it's Daniela Deane who repeats the error made by Howard Kurtz, Eric Weiss and Charles Lane about Joe Wilson not finding evidence of Iraq seeking uranium in Niger. Deane, in a post.com story filed after the Plame/Wilson presser titled [Read More]

» Taking A Stroll Through The Garden Of Half-Truths from Pajamas Media
Ed Morrisey @ Captain's Quarters dissects Valerie Plame and Joseph Wilson's lawsuit against Cheney, Rove, Libby and 10 John Does. Tom Maguire @ Just One Minute wonders why the excitement in both the right and the left. UPDATE: All Things... [Read More]

» Breaking Plamegate news ... UPDATED from Squiggler
So one day after Robert Novak comes clean and tells the world that he learned about Joe Wilson's wife through an inadvertent remark during a long interview with his primary unnamed source, someone not a political gunslinger, and someone suspected to be... [Read More]

» Good Stuff from Funmurphys: the Blog
I'm just getting around to reading some of my regular blogs, so if these posts are bit old, think of them as timeless classics: Craig at Lead and Gold examines how Hollywood's cultural blinder hurt their bottom line. Hmm, I... [Read More]

Comments

topsecretk9

--Advantage - Democrats! Neither Joe Wilson, Tim Russert, nor George Tenet are candidates for anything;--


No, but Joe is a campaign trophy, which could be fodder for the opponent (hint ,happened in New Mexico already)

Joe is the de-facto "Koe" candidate

Carol Herman

Since when has there been an advantage to being a midget?

The polls are skewed. Just like they were election night, 2004. When the DELLUSIONAL Kerry went to sleep, rather than to conceed the election he lost in a rout.

Same things are still in play.

As if a bunch of sissies write the news!

No wonder people stopped paying attention.

As to the Pflame fan-dango; if the donks think they win; so be it. They haven't gotten to many prizes, yet. Though they keep digging.

I'm guessing one reason Pflame listened to her neighbor, the lawyer, (who didn't know she was covert, by the way, when Fitzgerald sent FBI agents around the neighborhood, asking) ... sees the potential of the case NEVER being inside the courtroom.

And, I'm sure Pflame can do fancy dancing around her need to be deposed ... because first everybody's gotta hire lawyers. Tre-expensive. Maybe, she's hoping someone settles and throws her ten bucks?

Too bad our justice system has come to this farce.

Libby's still not back at the White House. And, Fitzgerald still has a law license. And, in both cases, I WONDER WHY.

Captain Jack

"Talk About A Bad Draw!

Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame have run into a bit of bad luck in their lawsuit against Dick Cheney, Scooter Libby, Karl Rove, and ten random Republicans. CQ reader Denis K took a peek at the complaint and noticed something that I had missed earlier -- the judge assigned to the case. Wilson and Plame drew Judge John D. Bates -- and a quick glance at his rulings will no doubt have the Left fuming."...

"...Judge Bates ruled in January 2005 that Michael Newdow would suffer no harm if the President said a prayer at his inauguration.

...Judge Bates told Congress that they had no standing to sue for access to the records of Dick Cheney's energy task force.

...his work as one of Kenneth Starr's staff during his independent-counsel investigation of Bill Clinton should force them into despair."

http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/007494.php

Bob

...and Captain Jack I loved this part too!

"It gets even better, or worse, depending on one's point of view. Judge Bates received an appointment earlier this year to the FISA Court, the secret panel that reviews warrant requests for national-security investigations. He replaced Judge James Robertson, who resigned in protest against the Bush administration's bypass of the FISA Court on the NSA terrorist surveillance program. How sympathetic will Judge Bates be to a lawsuit from someone who leaked misinformation after getting sent on an assignment by his wife?"

Jeff

Everyone was asking, so the CIA decided to answer, and gosh - nothing about the OVP requesting an investigation. The facts are clear indeed.

We still don't know exactly what happened because the SSCI works not to be helpful. But the reality is that Wilson was told that his mission was conceived in response to a question from OVP. And the fact is that Wilson did nothing to encourage the idea that OVP sent him on his mission. This is a canard invented by OVP in summer 2003 in order to find something to deny that could be denied, so that the fact that OVP's query to hear more from CIA could be fudged, glossed over. The only thing in print that OVP - and that you still - can point to from the time is Kristof's behest comment, which is manifestly Kristof's doing, and though even it is ambiguous, whatever sloppiness there is is his doing. You will not find anything of the sort, for example, in Kristof's original May 5 article; nor anything of the sort in Pincus. And do you want to know why it is obvious that Kristof's June 13 lede is sloppy work on his part? Because in the substance of the very same article, Kristof makes clear what that lede is a summary of, and he gets it right:

Italy's intelligence service obtained the documents and shared them with British spooks, who passed them on to Washington. Mr. Cheney's office got wind of this and asked the C.I.A. to investigate.

The agency chose a former ambassador to Africa to undertake the mission, and that person flew to Niamey, Niger, in the last week of February 2002.

Leave aside the irrelevant telescoping of distinct foreign intel reports in the first sentence. The simple fact of the matter is that Kristof gets it right, and in no way suggests that Cheney sent, chose or even behested Wilson, on any meaning of "behest." Kristof is categorical and accurate on who chose Wilson. Cheney asked the CIA to look into it, and the CIA chose Wilson. The only possible problem here is that it doesn't specify that the very idea of such a mission was evidently also the CIA's, and not OVP's. But, first, that is so obviously not Wilson's problem, and second, it doesn't add up to the sinister suggestion that Cheney was responsible for sending Wilson to Niger.

In contrast, in summer 2003 - and even into fall 2003 - Cheney's office denied that Cheney had anything to do with Wilson's trip, was unconnected to it altogether. Which was false. Why this doesn't bother you more than one item of Kristof's sloppy journalism, which he himself effectively corrected in his very own article, is unclear to me. As for Chris Matthews, surely you're not going to blame his imprecision - has he ever been precise about anything? - in this case on Wilson, are you? And at the same time, is Chris Matthews the arbiter of what's what in Washington, D.C.? The all-powerful source of information for everyone who counts?

Now, as for State and DoD, whose questions do you think CIA takes more seriously, theirs or OVP's? To nail this down, it would be nice to know the exact order of events, which the SSCI works nicely to obscure. In particular, here's how I think things went on February 12 2002: DIA publishes a report on the Niger story, Cheney reads it (SSCI doesn't specify what day, though, but I think it was that day, rather than the 13th), OVP asks the CIA its question(s) about the Niger story, CPD is told about this, brainstorms the idea of a mission to Niger, one of Plame's colleagues suggests Wilson, their supervisor asks Plame to write up his qualifications, and she does so. That's obviously a lot to happen on one day - is that how it went? Again, SSCI obscures a lot, so we don't know yet. But if that's how it went, that speaks strongly in favor of OVP's questions triggering the mission,

What's more, on February 14, CIA told Cheney that they were working to clarify the information and to see if it could be corroborated. Now, it's true this came from Winpac, but since they said all the information they had came exclusively from a foreign government report that lacked crucial details, the only possible implication of the statement that they were seeing if it could be corroborated was that new information was going to be gathere, not that what CIA had was going to be analyzed. (This Winpac SPWR is presumably the basis for the misleading claims made throughout 2003 by OVP that within days of Cheney's interest, CIA came back with an answer, and that was the end of the story.)

What's more, in early March Cheney asked his morning briefer for an update on the Niger story. (Meanwhile, by the way, INR produced on March 1 a negative assessment of the Niger story. And guess what? The INR analyst who produced the report had been told it was in response to interest from OVP in the alleged Niger-Iraq uranium deal. Note that: not interest from INR's home department, State, but OVP. Imagine that.) On March 5, Winpac sent Cheney's briefer an update which noted, among other things, that they were going to be debriefing a source - Wilson, of course - that very day. This information was, presumably, briefed to the Vice President, although, strangely, as far as the SSCI determines, there was no further follow-up on the results of Wilson's trip, although DO officials - presumably someone in CPD - did alert Winpac analysts of the report because they knew of the high priority of the issue. (Evidently, that nobody saw the fact that Wilson reported a former Nigerien official at one point had some psychological anxiety that Iraq might possibly at some point want to talk about uranium as the sort of corroboration worth briefing back to the Vice President. That sort of claim was not made until summer 2003, when Tenet and others tried to turn this piece of information contained in Wilson's report against him. But if couldn't possibly be that the Vice President wasn't briefed on the report precisely because it didn't provide such corroboration. Couldn't be.)

In short, if you're looking for misleading and false representations of the connections between OVP and Wilson's mission, look to what OVP was saying in 2003, not one line from a Kristof piece where he ambiguously summarized his own, accurate reporting. And certainly don't blame Wilson for that one ambiguity - or for Chris Matthews' inability to get off his hobby horse once he's on it.

Captain Jack

So in summary, Cheney didn't send Wilson on his tea sipping trip as Joe falsely claims, his desk jockey wife did.

Oh, and Joe confirmed that Iraq sought to purchase uranium.

Jane

Last time I looked Cheney, Rove and Libby aren't running for anything either.

SaveFarris

While this is clearly an opportunity to smack down Joe the Courageous, who here actually believes the MSM will acuratly cover the autopsy? Once the inevitable dismissal comes, you'll be sure to see a 4 sentence story on page B-23 of the NYT, right next to the latest news that the budget is back in surplus.

lurker

What are the odds that Bates will recuse himself?

Tom Maguire

From Jeff:

And the fact is that Wilson did nothing to encourage the idea that OVP sent him on his mission.

I was not privy to every nod and wink off the record chat Wilson had with reporters and/or Congressman in the summer of 2003, so I can't really say.

If Sen. Rockefeller was so misled (in the Chris Matthews link) based on one sentence in a Kristof column, he is pretty gullible.

Or here is Wolf Blitzer on Jul 13 (post Wilson column):

BLITZER: But 11 months earlier, you, the Bush administration, had sent Joe Wilson, a former U.S. ambassador to Niger, to find out whether it was true. He came back, reported to the CIA, reported to the State Department, it wasn't true, it was bogus. The whole issue was bogus. And supposedly, you never got word of his report.
lurker

I won't believe that MSM will cover it accurately regardless of location of coverage.

But I do believe that even if Cheney, Rove, and Lewis do win this case, the dems and left-wingers will claim new conspiracy theories and continue to claim that these 3 guys are guilty no matter what!

lurker

Wonder how long this story will remain in MSM reporting. Looks like this story is beginning to wind down due to the Israel war.

The Wilson story is all connected to going to war against Iraq as part of GWOT so whaddya think about this comment from DKOS

And there were other DKOS posts, such as:

Israel is NOT a country

And what's worse than this????

and

The New Antisemitic Meme????

lurker

Well, AJStrata provided an answer to the above questions!!

Kate

I got the sense that the MSM was pleased there was real news going on and they could minimize coverage of the Wilsons.

As much as they love Bush-bashing narratives, I thought the media recognized a cheap PR stunt and had some resentment being so obviously used.

Now if it were a slow news day...

Tom Maguire

Jeff - there is Matthews/Rockefeller, there is Blitzer, there is Wilson's EPIC speech where he says he was sent by the Admin - one woul dhave to spend more time than I have right now to track that meme in June/July 2003, but I am pretty sure it is out there.

This does get extra points for creativity:

But the reality is that Wilson was told that his mission was conceived in response to a question from OVP. And the fact is that Wilson did nothing to encourage the idea that OVP sent him on his mission. This is a canard invented by OVP in summer 2003 in order to find something to deny that could be denied, so that the fact that OVP's query to hear more from CIA could be fudged, glossed over.

Why didn't they focus on the non-debunked forgeries then?

Other Tom

I love the selection of Judge Bates. However, it is not unusual for the federal courts (each district can fashion its own rules in this regard) to have a system whereby subsequent cases with similar factual issues are transferred to the judge hearing the earlier case--the "low-number rule." If such a rule exists in D.C., this case would end up before Judge Walton in the next few days (which would be fine with me--he strikes me as a judge who brooks no nonsense.) Anybody know the D.C. rules? Clarice?

Jane

Around here there would be no urge to have the same Judge presiding over a criminal case, to preside over the related civil case. In fact I would be shocked to see that happen. Maybe it is different in DC - or Federal Court (most of my experience is in state Court).

>What are the odds that Bates will recuse himself?

He didn't recuse himself from the case involving Cheney and the release of the minutes from the energy task force. Why do you think he might recuse himself?

capitano

Canard invented by the OVP? I think not -- too much "behesting" going on as I recall -- this via Sara:

What was left muddled was whether or not Cheney had ordered the mission, with the earlier media reports presenting an incoherent message, and Wilson stating in a more private setting that he wasn’t sent on the behalf of the CIA – which was undeniably false. This set the stage for VIPS to try and cut off the head of the beast, by demanding the resignation of Cheney. Ironically, VIPS published this message on 14 July 2003, the same day Novak published his column that revealed Plame as a CIA analyst. Here they repeated the claim that Wilson was sent by Cheney, in a letter to Bush:

There is just too much evidence that Ambassador Wilson was sent to Niger at the behest of Vice President Cheney's office, and that Wilson's findings were duly reported not only to that office but to others as well… That this campaign was based largely on information known to be forged… Joseph Wilson, the former US ambassador who visited Niger at Cheney's request… it is equally clear that your vice president led this campaign of deceit… We strongly recommend that you ask for Cheney's immediate resignation.

Ranger

I think Joe's statement at the EPIC event is very important. As I recall, he not only stated that he was sent "by the US government," but specifically said, "not the CIA, the government." Why would he make such a statement, and what import does it have?

I will lay out my personal theories:

1. Joe needed to distance himself from the CIA because he believed that members of the press knew his wife was a CIA employee working in the CPD. By specifically denying his trip was a CIA mission he makes this look like a totally new and different issue from anything the VIPs are trying to do. His story then looks like a separate and distinct charge rather than another VIPs attack. The intention was to mislead people into thinking that Joe was sent by State, not the CIA.

2. This tactic worked, because the impression was that Wilson was sent by someone else, other than the CIA. This is why UGO is lying when he says the disclosure of "Wilson's Wife" was "inadvertent." It was, in my view, deliberate, and part of a State Department push back to put the blame for the whole Joe Wilson fiasco where it belonged, at the CIA. One does not "inadvertently" tell two nationally known reporters the exact same thing.

2a. I think this theory is supported by how Novak describes the interview where he found out about "Wilson's Wife." As he describes it, his source said 'Why would I, why would the CIA choose this guy?' At first I thought this statement might implicate Tenant as the source, but upon further reflection, I now think this is a senior State Department person defending against the charge that State had picked Joe and put the whole trip together.

Joe started the whole ball rolling on this by deliberately misleading people into thinking he was sent by "the government, no the CIA." Everything in this sad affair flows from that initial deception, which was intended to separate Joe’s charges from the VIPs crowd.

Rick Ballard

Jeff,

I think it would be helpful if you made your comments a little longer. 1,118 words just aren't enough to actually get your point accross. I think that a 2,000 word comment would be much more convincing. Shoot for longer sentences, too. If you can get out to about 25 words (on average) you'll be guaranteeed the attention that your remarks deserve. You might also consider chapter headings to make it easier for the reader to follow your insightful analysis.

Just some friendly hints.

windansea

saw a report on CNN covering Val & Joe's excellent lawsuit yesterday...they basically made fun of them with lots of campy cuts of Bond films....like they did not take the case seriously...I am sure Joe's fans will be displeased.

clarice

OT. I am not sure how the DC CT operates now. There was a scandal some years ago when it turned out that the assignments judge had jiggered with it to provide pro-Clinton judges for all those charged with campaign finance violations involving Clinton (i.e. Kanchanalak) and I think great efforts were made to be sure assignments were made randomly. OTOH years ago when I had a series of cases involving the same parties and related issues, they were for efficienct apparently assigned to the same judge.

Rick Ballard

Ranger,

I concur. Armitage was the head of the Powell Protection League and when he got a whiff of Joestink he gave out a shout of "Who is this idiot?". Joe's file was produced and on the top were the notes from the 2/19/02 boondoggle cover meeting convened by Val. The tone of the note established what followed. Ford was detailed to put the notes into "Memo to Grossman" form (I'll bet that Grossman's tie to Joe was unknown at that time) and the game was on. Grossman tipped Joe early with a "they're coming after you, Joe" which gave Joe ammo to spoon feed Kristof and Pincus.

I'm appalled at the deference granted Armitage. The theory is that he's "apolitical" because he has no Republican party standing. In fact, he is totally political, it's just that his party consists of Powell butt kissers.

All the pertinent information was in the hands of State and State initiated the push back.

clarice

***efficiencY**(I need my coffee).

Chants

Jeff,

I have not read anywhere a better description of the minute interplay between the OVP and the CIA regarding Wilson's trip. Extremely well done, in my most humble opinion.

But I have a question. How can I corroborate your assertion that this interplay went down as your describe:

"On March 5, Winpac sent Cheney's briefer an update which noted, among other things, that they were going to be debriefing a source - Wilson, of course - that very day. This information was, presumably, briefed to the Vice President ... ."

You are basically saying that Cheney was in the know with in this part of your analysis. This is key. And new to me. What is your source for this?

I recognize that given that we are dicussing such a minutia of fact that an authoritative source may not be available with via an internet link.

clarice

As more and more people come to realize that Armitage was the source, sat on Woodward, refused to come forward and clear everyone else, his reputation is ruined. If he thinks that even Fitz can shield him from this, he's wrong. At heart, this is a small town.

verner

Hang it up Jeff. Wilson's claim to fame was that the VP sent him, and his info was ignored. Everybody knows that.

There were dozens of people more qualified, and more current to send to Niger than him. If not for Valerie, he would have never been considered. He didn't even have a security clrarance for chrissake! And he did not sign a confidentiality agreement--unprecidented on such a sensitive mission according to most experts.

Not to mention, no one has examined his contacts, actions before his trip. Was he already talking to Rand Beers, plotting a strategy?

Now it the time to come clean.

Who signed off on sending Joe?

Why didn't they make him sign a confidentiality agreement?

Who sent the referral letter and what did it say?

All of that needs to be de-classified. The public has a right to know.

Where is the leaky NYT when you need them?

SteveMG

TM:
A little old light here but not much (we've been through this now, what 87 times?).

From The New Republic's subscription-only online piece (some of which has been changed from their original version):

"One year earlier [2002], Cheney's office had received from the British, via the Italians, documents purporting to show Iraq's purchase of uranium from Niger. Cheney had given the information to the CIA, which in turn asked a prominent diplomat, who had served as ambassador to three African countries, to investigate. He returned after a visit to Niger in February 2002 and reported to the State Department and the CIA that the documents were forgeries. The CIA circulated the ambassador's report to the vice president's office, the ambassador confirms to TNR.

SMG

verner

"On March 5, Winpac sent Cheney's briefer an update which noted, among other things, that they were going to be debriefing a source - Wilson, of course - that very day. This information was, presumably, briefed to the Vice President ... ."

Refresh my memory, but according to the SSCI report, I don't think Wilson was the only person sent to Niger. Wasn't there another mission? It might not have bee ole Joe that they were talking about--considering the crapola he came home with.

Patrick R. Sullivan

Jeff is really getting desperate. Wilson didn't do anything to encourage the idea that Cheney sent him...except for all the speeches and briefings he gave to congressmen and reporters saying he was sent at the behest of the VP. Other than those, nada.

Unfortunately, this suit will almost surely be dismissed with the back of the judge's hand. It's past the use by date, it's amateurishly drawn (confuses the 5th and 14th Amendments), and merely says; We (the Wilson's) are beyond being criticized by our political opponents. Which ain't so.

However, if Rove and Libby countersue for libel and defamation, that might keep it alive. Theres plenty of evidence that Joe is operating with malice'--a speech at a college in Florida that was widely circulated by the Kossaks comes to mind--so the public figure exception is probably not available to Joe.

I long ago predicted an Alger Hiss moment for Joe is he was stupid enough to sue. And, if either Libby or Rove calls his bluff, then Joe will either have to perjure himself or admit he's been lying all along.

clarice

IIRC Wilson let the lies in the Kristof and Pincus articles stand until after his SSCI appearance when he wrote them claiming he'd been misquoted.

In fact, at his EPIC speech big mouth Joe makes veiled references to forgeries and sets out the entire scenario of the beset "whistleblower".

SteveMG

From The New Republic's subscription-only online piece (some of which has been changed from their original version):

That was the Judis/Ackerman cover piece, "The First Casualty".

First page is here: Link

Interesting that while Wilson told some, er, untruths about his mission, apparently he didn't tell Judis/Ackermann that the VP sent him.

Small (very) point for the Wilson defenders on this specific issue.

SMG

Donald

Here's the absofuckinglutely best part. American Jewery in a crazed death wish will send about 85% of their vote to the vicisous communist who want them driven into the sea. Ain't that a bitch?

Chants

I have come to the conclusion that ridiculing Jeff's arguments is unproductive.

He presents his them in a cogent and distictly non-Firedoglake fasion.

verner

Clarice, the Wilsons are very good a letting lies stand uncorrected. Remember when Corn implied that Valerie was covert? Remember when they allowed VF to stated that Val worked for Alan Foley at WINPAC?

Like the good Dominican sisters taught me, there are sins of both Commission and Omission.

Either way they are guilty as sin.

verner

make that: VF to state that

Ranger

This legal action really is puzzling to me. There are so many issues that the VIPs need to be concerned about here. This entire thing strikes me as a very carefully planned political attack by the VIPs that went badly wrong.

Wilson was supposed to come across as a coragious former career State person (and a Republican to boot) who got fed up and blew the wistle. That would give the VIPs the opening to pour the fire on. Key to that was ensuring that Wilson appeared to have no connection to the CIA (and therefore possibly the VIPs). UGO's push back pretty much derailed the whole plan.

Now, some interesting things that may come out if this goes to discovery:

1. Was Wilson the "Former Ambasador with close ties to the CIA" that appeared severel times in newspaper stories leading up to this. If so, what specific "close ties" was he citing?

2. Who dropped the hint with David Corn that Val had been a NOC. Up until Corn raised the question, no one had suggested it. The only one cited in the original story Corn wrote was Joe, but that doesn't mean he dropped the dime. My personal theory is that it was one of the VIPs that fed the info to Corn, who then talked to Joe to "confirm" (I can't say if she was, but if she was, and they outed her, it's treasonous).

I personally think the VIPs had this as a fallback plan all along, they just never told Joe or Val they would throw them under the bus if things went bad. Val probably went along thinking this was a way out of the dead end her career was in. If things went well and the Dems won in 04, she would be shifted over to the political appointee side of the CIA and bump up to a top level position in the agencey.

RHSwan

Donald,
What the hell are you talking about? It doesn't have anything to do with the topic of this post.

windansea


Ms. American Spy
(Sung to the tune of Don McLean's American Pie)

A short, short time ago
I can still remember
How the "Plame Game" used to make me smile
And as I read those D-Kos rants
I got a big bulge in my pants
And thought maybe we'd get "Chimpy" for awhile

But then June 12th made me shiver
Fate became an "Indian Giver"
Bad news on the Internet
Precisely what I had fret!

Oh, I remember how I cried
When I thought of Wilson's "outed" bride
Something deep within me fried
The day that Fitzmas died

So don't cry, Ms. American Spy
We'll get Libby for his fibby
And then Cheney will fry
And that smirking chimp will finally wave us goodbye
Singin', this'll be the day donkeys fly
This'll be the day donkeys fly

Did you see the film Loose Change?
And do you have faith you're not deranged
Though ev'rybody tells you so?
Do you believe in "Downing Street"
The "Memo" that'll get Shrub impeached?
And can you prove Kerry won O-hi-o?

Well, I know that Diebold rigs machines
'Cause the exit polls are all I need
Vote counts are just a ruse
I'd Rather trust CBS News!

I was a lone mid-thirties ne'er do well
In my Mommy's basement on her old-school Dell
But I could have sworn I was in Hell
The day that Fitzmas died

I started singin':
Don't cry, Ms. American Spy
We'll get Libby for his fibby
And then Cheney will fry
And that smirking chimp will finally wave us goodbye
Singin', this'll be the day donkeys fly
This'll be the day donkeys fly

For nearly six years, we'd been overthrown
Reading psychotic rants in Rolling Stone
Believing every conspiracy
Will Pitt had to vent his spleen
With a quote he borrowed from Howard Dean
And a scream that came from you and me

Oh, and while Chimp's polls were looking down
Fitz dropped the ball and lost his crown
The Grand Jury was adjourned
No indictment was returned
And while Markos read a book on Marx
Code Pink protested in the park
Neil Young sang dirges full of snark
The day that Fitzmas died

We were singing:
Don't cry, Ms. American Spy
We'll get Libby for his fibby
And then Cheney will fry
And that smirking chimp will finally wave us goodbye
Singin', this'll be the day donkeys fly
This'll be the day donkeys fly

Bash 'em, smash 'em, gut 'em all and trash 'em
Repukes get off, seems we just can't thrash 'em
All our hopes are fading fast
Nancy's built a House of glass
Those frozen assets could bite our ass
Didn't need that freezer full of cold hard cash

Thought TruthOut's scoop meant Karl Rove's doom
We envisioned his frog-marching gloom
Our cause it would advance
Oh, but we never got the chance
'Cause Leopold's tale was far afield
Those "business hours" refused to yield
Do you recall "Sealed Versus Sealed"?
The day that Fitzmas died

We started singing:
Don't cry, Ms. American Spy
We'll get Libby for his fibby
And then Cheney will fry
And that smirking chimp will finally wave us goodbye
Singin', this'll be the day donkeys fly
This'll be the day donkeys fly

Oh, and there we were all in one place
Moonbats lost in cyberspace
With no chads left to count again
So come on, Fitz be nimble, Fitz be quick
Indict some Rethug and make it stick
'Cause indifference is the fascists' only friend

And as I watched him on the news
My lips were clenched 'round some cheap booze
But no drink the store would sell
Could break Bushitler's spell
And as the "Plame Game" died out in the light
To cheers from the "Religious Right"
I saw Freepers laughing with delight
The day that Fitzmas died

We were singing:
Don't cry, Ms. American Spy
We'll get Libby for his fibby
And then Cheney will fry
And that smirking chimp will finally wave us goodbye
Singin', this'll be the day donkeys fly
This'll be the day donkeys fly

I met a girl who'd popped some 'ludes
And I asked her to improve my mood
But she told me that she was gay
I went down to the DU board
Where I'd read the good news weeks before
But the threads there said the indictment wouldn't play

And in the streets Mother Sheehan screamed
Franken cried, and Al Gore schemed
No "truth to power" spoken
Air America was broken!
And the blogger I admired most
Armando from the Daily Kos
He hopped a Lear Jet for the coast
The day that Fitzmas died

And they were singing:
Don't cry, Ms. American Spy
We'll get Libby for his fibby
And then Cheney will fry
And that smirking chimp will finally wave us goodbye
Singin', this'll be the day donkeys fly
This'll be the day donkeys fly

They were singing:
Don't cry, Ms. American Spy
We'll get Libby for his fibby
And then Cheney will fry
And that smirking chimp will finally wave us goodbye
Singin', this'll be the day donkeys fly!

http://intherightplace.blogspot.com/2006/06/ms-american-spy.html

PeterUK

We interupt tonights episode of "celebrity Suers" to announce Fort Sumter has been fired upon

verner

"2. Who dropped the hint with David Corn that Val had been a NOC. Up until Corn raised the question, no one had suggested it. The only one cited in the original story Corn wrote was Joe, but that doesn't mean he dropped the dime. My personal theory is that it was one of the VIPs that fed the info to Corn, who then talked to Joe to "confirm" (I can't say if she was, but if she was, and they outed her, it's treasonous)."

My theory is that Davids Corn, a long time 'progressive" writer for the Nation, and a visiting scholar for the Institute for Policy Studies, has been in on this charade from the word go.(Giving the term Corn-fed a whole new meaning).

This is a classic left-wing set-up, designed to hurt the Bush administration. There are just too many documented ties binding the key players who have promoted Joe from the beginning of this mess--and I think there is a very compelling case to be made that he was co-ordinating efforts with them BEFORE he ever went to Niger.

I think that Cheney's request just provided an excellent excuse. They would have likely cooked up a reason to send Joe anyway--just like they had in 1999. The whole point of sending him was to disprove that Iraq approached Niger for uranium. (And an excellent question, yet unanswered, is "why so focused on this one small piece of the Intelligence assesment?")

Obviously, UCIAO (unnamed CIA officer) made sure that Joe didn't sign any confidentiality agreement so that he could eventually blab to the press. Then when the moment was right, they ran with it.

The VERY LAST THING these flim flam artists want is for the whole truth to come out.

I hope Hayden declassifies the whole mess. At this point, what harm could it possibly cause to National Security?

topsecretk9

Ranger , you nailed it.

clarice

Corn is at the heart of the victim game. He was acquianted with Joe before this broke and referred to email correspondence with him before this all broke.
As to Cheney's request providing an excuse, the SSCI (either in the full report or in Roberts' ) noted that this must have been in the works for some time, because it is unlikely so much work to get Wilson sent could not have been done in the 24 hour period the Agency said it had been.

brenda taylor

verner and clarice i have been thinking david corn was involved and i think someone needs to be asking him some very specific questions about this subject.he was on fox the other day and akk he wanted to talk about was global warming.

brenda taylor

and by the way novak wasnt the only one wondering why cheney would send old lieing joe wilson i was dieing to find out and am glad that he brought the question up that i wanted answered.

Chants

TM,

In regards to the FTCA, here is my take.

If the complaint makes allegations, which if true, would constitute a tort by a federal employee acting within the scope of his or her employment, then the federal government must be made a party to the complaint, (i.e., a prima facie case).

Prima Facie issues are typically procedural in nature. In other words, they dictate not on the merits of a case, but how a case properly is heard by a judicial officer, (Judge, Justice, Referee, Magistrate, etc).
Thus, all one needs to do to establish a prima facie case is to make allegations.

After the allegations are made, then a initial hearing is held to determine whether those facts establish a situtation where, if the allegations are true, then something legally actionable happened. The facts alleged are assumed to be true for the purposes of this hearing. If the court finds that a prima facie case has been articulated in the initial pleadings (i.e., allegations), then a second hearing is necessarily held to determine the actual merits of those pleadings.

If the Wilson/Plame complaint alleges facts, which if true, would constitute a situation where a federal employee committed an tortious act, then the FTCA applies. If the FTCA applies, then the US government must be made a party.

I do not practice in federal courts. My practice is limited to state court. So I do not know whether the inclusion of the 10 John Does passes for an inclusion of the US Federal Government. But from what I know about John Doe defendant pleading in state court, they are included only where certain defendants exist, but their identities are not known. I can't see a situation where the US Government would constitute an unknown defendant under the FTCA. Either they are a party they aren't. It's identity can't be legally unknown.

Since the Plame/Wilson complaint does not apparently include the US government as a party, it may be dismissed. That dismissal, however, depends on whether it articulates a FTCA prima facie case, as descibed above.

From my reading of the complaint, the big question is whether it makes allegations which, if true, would constitute tortious conduct within the defendants' SCOPE OF EMPLOYMENT. The answer to this question is well beyond my knowledge.

But this question maybe, possibly, could be reduced to this: Do attempts by a president's agents to discredit/punish a critic constitute tortious conduct by a federal employee as contemplated by the FTCA?

The Plame complaint alleges that agents attempted to "discredit AND punish" conjuctively. If it had alleged that the agents' conduct simply tried to discredit Wilson, a real question exists as to whether that conduct even constitutes a tort. That may be key as to whether the complaint articulates a prima facie case. The Plame laywers will focus on the punishment angle, but I digress.

It is pretty clear to me that no matter how the defendants' conduct is labeled, it took place within the scope of their employment. Thus the FTCA applies and the US government should have been made a party.

Leave to amend a complaint to include necessary parties is routinely granted, if timely made.

(None of the above is intended to be legal advice to anyone. It is strictly instructional and analytical in nature. If one has a question as to whether this legal analysis applied to him or her, a personal consultation with an attorny should be made).

Wilson's a liar

The whole point of this ridiculous lawsuit is that every newspaper article for the next four months leading up to the election that mentions Karl Rove will describe him as "Karl Rove, chief political advisor to President Bush, who is currently defending himself against charges that he illegally outed a covert CIA officer...."

These two assholes were led down a primrose path by some Democrat operatives into believing they held the key to bringing down the colossus that is Karl Rove. They are determined to see it through by any means necessary, even if they make complete idiots out of themsleves in the process. Fitz let them down so now they have to carry the ball themselves. And they have drunk the Bushitler Kool-Aid for so long that they probably really believe they can get Rove this way. Their lefty fanclub is now telling them that Novak was just a Rove co-conspirator, the key is getting them in a courtroom under oath and then they will have to tell the whole sordid truth!

Redcoat

Good quote from Byron York at The Corner,

So yes, the Plame/Wilson lawsuit is ridiculous. But many serious questions about this case remain. And most of them should be directed to Patrick Fitzgerald.

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MTI2OTU0ZjhjODVjZjlhYTAxZjk1YTJjZGJkZjcwYjk=

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.

Other Tom

My recollection about Corn is that he has acknowledged a conversation with Wilson in which Wilson discussed his wife's employment on a "purely hypothetical" basis.

clarice

Stephen. my prior post must have vanished.
Fitz made a number of (false) factual assertions in his presser from whish he has since back strocked. Among them that Plame 's position was "classified"/ He repeated that claim in his indictment of Libby, but in discovery conceded he's be putting no evidence of that in at trial.

This says to me the CIA either has no such evidence or has deigned to provide it in the criminal matter, and , therefore, it is even less likely to do so in this suit.

Barney Frank

Joe Wilson's EPIC speech, June 14 2003 (one day after Kristof's behest story, a story for which Wilson was a source):

"I just want to assure you that that American ambassador who has been cited in reports in the New York Times and in the Washington Post, and now in the Guardian over in London, who actually went over to Niger on behalf of the government--not of the CIA but of the government"

Jeff said,

"And the fact is that Wilson did nothing to encourage the idea that OVP sent him on his mission."

"The only possible problem here is that it doesn't specify that the very idea of such a mission was evidently also the CIA's, and not OVP's. But, first, that is so obviously not Wilson's problem, and second, it doesn't add up to the sinister suggestion that Cheney was responsible for sending Wilson to Niger."

It so obviously is Wilson's problem when he makes a speech in which he specifically denies working on behalf of the CIA one day after Kristof implies he was sent by OVP.

Jeff, your civility is appreciated but please give up defending that preening cock-of-the-rock Wilson. He's indefensible.

Wilson's a liar

Stephen V - your genius lawyers somehow managed to find an Equal Protection Clause in the Fifth Amendment. And cited opinion columns in the New York Times as evidence. Not a very auspicious start. There's a reason why this complaint is being filed under "comedy" by various websites today.

My 12-year-old could have drafted a better "complaint."

clarice

***stroKed** and
**This says to me the CIA either has no such evidence or has NOT provided ***

Stephen_V

Wilson's a liar, first of all, they are not MY genius lawyers. Second, any first year law student knows that the Fifth Amendment Due Process clause, although not expressly containing "equal protection" language, has been interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court to afford the same protection as the 14th Amendment equal protection clause.

Thus, in Bolling v. Sharpe, a companion case to Brown v. Board of Education, the Court held that segregation of pupils in the public schools of the District of Columbia violated the due process clause. ''The Fifth Amendment, which is applicable in the District of Columbia, does not contain an equal protection clause as does the Fourteenth Amendment which applies only to the states. But the concepts of equal protection and due process, both stemming from our American ideal of fairness, are not mutually exclusive. The 'equal protection of the laws' is a more explicit safeguard of prohibited unfairness than 'due process of law,' and, therefore, we do not imply that the two are always interchangeable phrases. But, as this Court has recognized, discrimination may be so unjustifiable as to be violative of due process."

''Equal protection analysis in the Fifth Amendment area,'' the Court has said, ''is the same as that under the Fourteenth Amendment.'' So saying, the court has applied much of its Fourteenth Amendment jurisprudence to strike down sex classifications in federal legislation, reached classifications with an adverse impact upon illegitimates, and invalidated some welfare assistance provisions with some interesting exceptions.

In sum, the fact that the Fifth Amendment does not contain an express equal protection clause does not mean that the Fifth Amendment does not prohibit violations of equal protection.

Why don't you do some research before issuing your ignorant pronouncements of what you think the law is?

clarice

Speaking of the Fifth AM, as the criminal case has not been resolved, one Slate writer, asserts that all the named defendants can use it in refusing to respond to discovery which makes this different than the OJ and Blake cases where the cases had already been resolved.

windansea

does tradesports have a line on this ??

:)

Ranger

I think another big hurdle the Wilson's have to overcome is the degree to which Val was casual with her status (and her virtue). NOCs are told to inform as few people as possible of their status. Not even imidiate family members are to be told unless there is a compelling reason. Many NOCs brothers and sisters are not even aware of thier actual employment. How Val can justify telling Joe on thier third date (while he was still married to another woman) that she was a CIA employee (and, at the time still covered by the relevent statutes)will be interesting to hear. I think it also opens up the door to asking every guy she dated while she was a NOC what the nature of their relationship was, and at what point she told them of her status. This whole thing could get very personally embarrasing for Val. This is starting to look almost as good as a sexual harrasment case.

clarice

Yes. Before proceeding with the investigation, per De Genova and Toensing, the CIA would have had to show that they'd done everything in their power to protect her identity. If they did allege that, we know (as if we didn't already) that whoever filled the referral docs was full of it.

lurker

Well, how about assigning Ted Olsen to this case as a counsel? Boy, that would be adding ammunition to the defense team.

Ranger, verner, David Horowitz, Seixon, topsecret, etc., man, you've done great research making the dots connect.

Keep posting, ranger!

lurker

Reading Mac Ranger's post at his site reminded me of "Deep Throat"...that Ray and his co-horts were trying to play the "Deep Throat" game against Bush #1, Reagan, and Bush #2.

The good thing is that the Plame / Wilson Pony show has made their fake "Deep Throat" game far more public knowledge that they won't be able to get away with it with the next Republican President. This lawsuit just may be the last nail in their coffin.

lurker

AS for a left-wing poster that continues to believe that Saddam was NOT a threat to the world, the links such as this link needs to be repeated over and over until...just maybe...they finally realize how dangerous Saddam was to the world. He was!

Jeff

Tom

I don't know what winks and nods Wilson gave reporters or congressional people either, obviously, but is there any evidence that Wilson told them he was sent by Cheney? And isn't it notable that both the Matthews show and Blitzer come after Joe Wilson's own column in which he wrote

The agency officials asked if I would travel to Niger to check out the story so they could provide a response to the vice president's office,

which is pretty clear?

Just so I understand clearly, your suggestion is that the language of Wilson going at Cheney's behest, which Kristof used for short even though it failed to capture the substance of the story he himself wrote, was suggested to Kristof by Wilson, and that the best explanation for others using the same language was that WIlson was likewise whispering it in their ears? Even though Kristof's own story and the other published stories that used Wilson as an anonymous source did not give accounts that similarly suggested, however ambiguously, that Cheney sent Wilson, or that Wilson went at Cheney's behest? You don't think Matthews and Rockefeller latched on to that language because it was the strongest version of the connection to Cheney, Wilson's own precision be damned, and neither Matthews nor Rockefeller is the brightest bulb?

The point about OVP and the White House denying what they could deny is the following: they had to address the topic of Cheney's connection to Wilson's trip. Rather than admit that Cheney had some connection to the trip - which many of your commenters will not acknowledge to this day - but did not know about it, and so on, they found a version of the claim of Cheney's association that they could attack as false. Furthermore, they had other topics to address as well, including the question of the forgeries, as well as whether Cheney learned of Wilson's trip, and they addressed those as well - and in most cases mixed truth (e.g. apparently Cheney did not learn about the trip at the time) with falsity (e.g. the claim that Wilson had claimed that he did - Wilson's actual claim was that he had good reason to think that Cheney did, and he was right. Even the SSCI said as much.)

Now, it would be nice to know what were the questions from OVP that prompted the CIA to ask Wilson to go on his mission. Just as it would be nice to know what day Cheney read the DIA report, what day the information that Cheney's office had questions about it was relayed to CPD, what day the meeting to think about how to respond to the questions was held, whether Plame's memo of the 12th was written at her own initiative or in response to a request from a superior. But on all this the SSCI is strangely silent and unedifying.

Chants says:

You are basically saying that Cheney was in the know with in this part of your analysis. This is key. And new to me. What is your source for this?

No, I'm not saying that; be careful. The information all comes from the SSCI report. Cheney may have been told they would be debriefing a source, whom we know to be Wilson. But there's no reason to think Cheney learned that; and in fact the report based on Wilson's trip did not identify him. The significance is, first, that Cheney asked again about the Niger story in early March, and, second, in reply his briefer was told that a relevant source was going to be debriefed on March 5, which means it is probably a good guess that Cheney himself was told there was a source being debriefed. One of the mysteries is that, according to the SSCI, Cheney was not briefed on the report on Wilson's trip on March 8, nor did he ask again, at least his briefer.

Neo

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.

One could supposed that being the next door neighbor, that he was questioned about whether he knew about Val's status by Fitz or the FBI.

Does this cause any special problems for him ?

lurker

"The agency officials asked if I would travel to Niger to check out the story so they could provide a response to the vice president's office,"

If this is what Joe said, this is what he believes. This is basically hearsay "He said, she said" deal. This still doesn't provide the evidence that Cheney did actually sent Joe to Niger.

Would help if you could break up your posts, too.

lurker

If the reports say that Cheney was asking at various times, it still doesn't mean that he had all of the information at each of those miletones. Cheney may still not know about Plame or the connection between Plame and Wilson until June timeframe.

Maybe he did but maybe he did not. Seeking information is nothing wrong as if some of you guys think it is deplorably wrong. Also, this still doesn't mean that Cheney outed Plame.

lurker

The junket questions on the side written by Cheney, revealed by Fitz, tells me that Cheney never sent Wilson to Niger. He asked if CIA's sending a non-CIA employe with no security clearance, without NDA signed on a classified trip was the norm.

This is by no means an order. This is by no means an effort to out Plame. This doesn't mean that Cheney wanted to send someone to Niger for more data.

This would be very difficult for the plaintiffs to prove against the defense team.

lurker

If I were in Cheney's shoes, I wouldn't even approve a non-CIA employee that doesn't have security clearance (the right level) and without a NDA signed and, especially, the fact that Wilson never signed a NDA and did not produce an official report to CIA.

This whole story about Wilson going to Niger at the "behest" of OVP is just as strange and bizarre as any alien story, such as War of the Worlds, 4400, etc.

SteveMG

Well, Cheney's notations on Wilson's NY Times op-ed piece appear to me indicative of someone who knew nothing about the Ambassador's little Niger sojourn.

It seems to me that had Cheney been even remotely aware of this CIA response to his requests, he would have probably had some notes on the piece indicating that.

Maybe not. We're all Kremlinologists here trying to discern content from muddled comments and reports. Is Beria in or out?

SMG

millco88

Jeff,

Isn't it pretty obvious that if Cheney wasn't involved in sending Wilson, then Wilson's op-ed which started the chain of events is pretty worthless as a political statement?? Remember the major takeaway of that piece was that the neocons were so hellbent on war with Iraq that they ignored what their own people were saying, right??

That's why this whole thing has always been a little fishy. If Cheney wanted something investigated, do you think a guy like Wilson is who he would want doing it?? Of course not.

JM Hanes

StephenV

"In sum, the fact that the Fifth Amendment does not contain an express equal protection clause does not mean that the Fifth Amendment does not prohibit violations of equal protection."

That said, however, doesn't it strike you as more than a little sloppy to refer, expressly, to the equal protection "clause" in the 5th Amendment? I'm curious as to why they would cite the 5th Amendment in this manner, rather than the 14th. Is there perchance some implicit understanding that abrogations of amendments in the Bill of Rights are somehow more substantive than violations of subsequent amendments?

lurker

As for Cheney to send a request to CIA, shouldn't there be an official process with forms filled out AND signed by both parties...authorizing a non-CIA employee without security clearance and NDA signed? Basically...to cover both of their asses.

Unless Joe has something in writing WITH Cheney's signature authenticated, Joe has no chance. Even if CIA includes something written down indicating Cheney said something, it still doesn't mean that Cheney agreed to it.

Anyone that used to work for CIA here? Can these people enlighten us with explanations of any official processes of approving tasks, trips, etc.? Joe wasn't even covert, wasn't he?

Florence Schmieg

I know this topic is the main concern of this website and I have enjoyed it too. But somehow all of this seems in really bad taste. This pathetic couple and their childish lawsuit are meaningless in the background of what is happening in the world right now. An interview with Victor Davis Hanson yesterday had him saying that this period we are now in reminds him strongly of the early 30s in Europe. He believes we are all in for some really dificult times very soon. Let the Wilsons fade into a memory hole somewhere. Even the NYTimes this morning did nothing more than a blurb in the National News small summaries section about them. Sometimes events just force you to put things into perspective.

Stephen_V

Section 1 of the 14th Amendment is directed to the States: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Therefore, the 14th Amendment would not be applicable in this case because there is no allegation of any State action. When equal protection violations are alleged against the Federal government, or agents thereof, or against government entities that are not States per se, such as the District of Columbia, the Fifth Amendment appears to be applicable.

I agree with you though that it is curious that paragraph 46 of Wilson and Plame's Complaint alleges a violation of the "Equal Protection Clause" of the Fifth Amendment when there clearly is no such clause expressly set forth in the Fifth Amendment. Perhaps it would have been more correct for the Complaint to have simply alleged a violation of the Fifth Amendment.

clarice

Florence, You are, of course, correct, but (a) it's a diversion from more pressing matters that is somewhat harmless, and (b) it is not totally unrelated, because these clowns and their media-Dem supporters have seriously harmed morale and support for what had to be done.

Specter

Way to much minutia to see the forest here.

Look at it like this. Cheney asked about the intelligence about Niger. CIA came up with a plan and Plame recommended Joey Boy (there is a letter she wrote that proves this).

Joey goes and hob knobs over mint julips. By his own words he debunked the forgeries by date and names - documents he had never seen - ever. He reports that Niger did not make a sale, but that the former Prime Minister told him of a meeting with Iraq reps in 1999 where the PM thought the issue would be about uranium.

Joey Boy also states publicly that the CIA did not send him, but the government did. In addition he says that the CIA sent him (refer back to his speech and his op-ed). Speaking out of both sides of his mouth. Both statements can't be true.

Cheney makes notes questioning why an unqualified ambassador was sent. Obviously did not send Joey Boy. He also never said, as claimed, that he sent Joey on the Junket.

The bottom line is that Libby's attorneys have 5 witnesses ready to testify that Joey Boy outed his wife long before. End of story. End of suit. Laughed out of town. But not before key players get to be deposed.

SteveMG

I'm convinced that if the Palestinians were given their own country with streets paved with gold, that the first thing they would do is tear up the gold to buy weapons to attack Israel.

SMG

JM Hanes

Jeff:

"The only thing in print that OVP - and that you still - can point to from the time is Kristof's behest comment...."

Now that's a positively supercalifragilistic hedge. If we're applying the "in print" standard, we can strike most of your assertions/assumptions abut the VP's office as well.

What fascinates me, however, is the importance Wilson clearly continues to assign to building firewalls around his wife's role in the circumstances leading up to his selection for the mission. I suspect he realizes that that's where the only real legal jeopardy here lies.

"As for Chris Matthews, surely you're not going to blame his imprecision - has he ever been precise about anything? - in this case on Wilson, are you?"

Considering Matthew's unabashed acknowledgment of his phone line to Wilson from the outset, I'd say sourcing Wilson for his imprecision sounds pretty reasonable. You don't suppose Wilson had nothing to say when, for example, Matthews called in to pass along Rove's "fair game" remark? Indeed, as the Wilson email to FDL suggests, Wilson has made feeding the flames with precise imprecisions a full time occupation.

maryrose

Rick:
Thank you for your succinct answer to long-winded Jeff-I always get lost in his posts.
Specter: excellent summation!
Florence:
You are of course correct and I am praying for peace and a resolution of this recent escalation.
SteveMG: Your last comment speaks volumes and I hope common sense and basic decency will prevail.

maryrose

Also noticed at the press conference that Schuster was front and center drinking the Kool-Aid

Redcoat

SMG

the first thing they would do is tear up the gold to buy weapons to attack Israel.

You give them too much credit,they would tear up the gold streets,throw the Gold at the Israeli's,accuse them of stealing it,and get money for weapons from varios N.G.O's as usual.

jr

It's going to be interesting for both sides to watch

Rick Ballard

Florence,

You're correct that this is an insanely trivial pursuit today. The same could be said almost any day. The question remains whether encouraging the opposition to take their eye from the rear view mirror as they stomp on the gas would be an overall positive or negative. A switch from backward negative to forward positive might have meant that we would all be hoping that Teresa could buy a crib sheet so that Lt. Doody could pass his "global test" today.

Keeping the opposition's feet planted firmly on the path to nowhere is never a bad idea. As we will see again in November.

clarice

Oh, and thanks, Rick, for the Jeff Digest..As I age my capacity to read thru lengthy drivel shrinks.

Forbes

If I may (and I couldn't resist), the only VP that sent Iar Joe Wilson to Niger was Valerie Plame!

PeterUK

Lurker,
IIRC,there was an article where it was stated that Joe was going to Niger on business of his own,which is why he was asked to inquire about yellowcake sales.
I seem to remember Rick had something to saw about this.

Forbes

OK, that was "Liar Joe Wilson."

Tom Maguire

I have come to the conclusion that ridiculing Jeff's arguments is unproductive.

He presents his them in a cogent and distictly non-Firedoglake fasion.

I think I have seen Cecil Turner twist his arm behind his back with even more relentless research, but Jeff seems to be snark-proof.

Brewster Jennings was a bad cover name from the start

Interesting comments. You will never win on Wilson's words, he is a skilled dissembler.

Why not apply your skills to another mystery?

__________________________________
http://www.hillnews.com/marshall/092304.aspx

---Here’s why.

My colleagues and I have known the guy’s name since late spring. And at least three European intelligence agencies knew who he was well before we found out. In fact, twice this summer we brought him to New York for interviews.

Both times he traveled under his own name, Rocco Martino.

The first time was in June; the second time was in August. And it’s the second time that’s more telling.

By the time we brought Martino to New York in early August, he had already been identified by name in the Italian and the British press as the man who tried to sell Burba the forged documents.

In fact, when we whisked him out of the country, he was already under very active and conspicuous surveillance by Italian authorities in Rome. He flew to New York under his own name and stayed for several days.

One of my colleagues and I actually had a friendly bet about whether FBI agents would be waiting for Martino when he came through Customs in New York, since his role at the center of the case and his name had just been published in the Financial Times — a paper you can find on many street corners in Washington, D.C. ---

____________________________________________

Why is an American blogger whisking French assets into and out from the country? Who are these colleagues? Is the blogger part of the disinformation plan, or a useful idiot?

Who connected him to "Martino"? If it was Joe Wilson you will think his patiriotic loyalty is not to USA.

Other US intel assets involved? Democratic party apparati?

This is all a better mystery for you to explore than endlessly mowing down Wilson's chatter.

jwest

Shortly after the Plame affair broke, Tim Russert interviewed Wilson on Meet the Press. As Wilson began his story, Russert stopped him mid-lie on the point of being sent by the “office of the Vice President”.

Wilson ducked and dodged on the clarification of that point, but it would be interesting to get the actual transcript.

Anyone have that in their files?

ordi

I am with you Clarice! I seldom read thru lengthy drivel. To me it is pointless as they tend to ramble, use outdated quotes and link to leftwing/moonbat sites or generally drool from both sides of their mouths.

clarice

Too often length is used to hide absence of thought as if the writer had hypnotized himself with the moony drone of hie words.

PeterUK

Clarice,
It is akin to getting the sales spiel from a funeral director,or watching a coffin warp.

Stephen_V

For anyone who would like some insight the law relating to Wilson and Plame's First Amendment retaliation claim in Count One of their Complaint, and the standards governing a good-faith or qualified immunity defense that may be asserted by Cheney, Rove, and Libby, check out the decision in Blankenship v. Manchin, 410 F. Supp. 2d 483 (S.D.W.V. 2006), in which a similar claim of free speech retaliation against the Governor of West Virginia in his individual capacity survived a Rule 12(b)(6) motion (meaning the claim was allowed to proceed to the discovery phase at least). Interestingly, one of the attorneys for the Plaintiff in that case was none other than Robert D. Luskin, who is Libby's attorney now.

Rick Ballard

Peter,

Effective electoral political discourse should always follow the dictum of: "Shoot low, sherrif, it's a gang of midgets on Shetlands."

I believe it has something to do with the IQ of the average voter.

Sue

I am with you Clarice! I seldom read thru lengthy drivel. To me it is pointless as they tend to ramble, use outdated quotes and link to leftwing/moonbat sites or generally drool from both sides of their mouths.

And information already debunked with sites, quotes, etc. The next day, sometimes even the same day, they repeat the same debunked argument.

JM Hanes

Stephen V

Many thanks for your contributions here. As I understand it then: Bivens establishes the violation of constitutional rights as a legal basis for suing public officials even when acting in an offical capacity. Bolling v Sharpe explicitly extends the burden of providing equal protection to the federal government by conflation with due process (assuming a reasonable person would consider the circumstances sufficiently egregious?).

You noted above that "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." Is framing the disclosure of Plame's "classified CIA employment" as "unlawful" simply a talking point then, or does it have additional legal significance? Does harm resulting from crimminal (vs civil?) activity carry with it some increase in the range/size of potential penalties perhaps? To do so, however, the illegality would eventually have to be substantiated, would it not?

I've also been assuming that the decision to sue the Defendants as individuals was an attempt to get around the fact that while Plame herself was a government employee, she made no attempt to avail herself of any remedies available to her as such. I must admit however, that trying to sort out the significance of individuals acting under color of law, from officials in performance of their duties, to officials acting outside the scope -- on both sides of this complaint -- feels like wading into a swamp.

Speaking of swamp life, I think my favorite bit of this colorful complaint is the gratuitous definition of prey:

"Fair game" is a hunting term used to describe prey (an animal that is killed and eaten) and is used colloquially to describe a person who may legitimately be attacked.
Just in case the judge isn't clear on who is stalking whom! Despite the fact that this suit supposedly been under contemplation for a long time, it seems hastily compiled to me. I suspect that Wilson is not an easy client! Much of the document reads as though it comes straight from that particular horse's mouth.

JM Hanes

Per Rick:

Armitage was the head of the Powell Protection League and when he got a whiff of Joestink he gave out a shout of "Who is this idiot?". Joe's file was produced and on the top were the notes from the 2/19/02 boondoggle cover meeting convened by Val. The tone of the note established what followed. Ford was detailed to put the notes into "Memo to Grossman" form (I'll bet that Grossman's tie to Joe was unknown at that time) and the game was on. Grossman tipped Joe early with a "they're coming after you, Joe" which gave Joe ammo to spoon feed Kristof and Pincus.
Just thought the most cogent, Occamizer approved, scenario deserved reiteration. Ditto for your take on Armitage as a putative non-pol.
Rocco

Here's the Oct.">http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3131258/">Oct. 5th transcript. Russert: "In February of 2002, you went to Niger on behalf of the CIA..."

What I find interesting is another Wilson lie. Here he claims the meeting between the Iraqi delegation and Mayaki never took place and the SSCI says it did.

Novak sticks to his guns! Dana Priest talks about the 1x2x6...

ordi

JM Hanes,

I think your right about Wilson not being an easy client and that the document reads as though it comes straight from that particular horse's mouth.

Despite what was Posted by: Stephen_V | July 15, 2006 at 10:08 AM the client is still the boss and is paying the bill and if the client says sue the attorneys must comply or the client finds another attorney.

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.

I don't care how great an attorney one is you can't make a purse out of a sows ear.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Amazon

  • Lee Child, Kindle short story
  • Lee Child
  • Gary Taubes

Traffic

Wilson/Plame