Geez, Did Anybody See That Coming?
Wilson/Plame civil suit dismissed. [Opinion]
Let me stagger down memory lane and revisit my coverage of this; maybe there will be some mortifying links to folks predicting great things from this suit, or astute commenters ridiculing it.
Here we go - unaware of a statute of limitations for their alleged causes of action, I predicted in June 2006 that we would not see a suit at all (OK, that didn't work out), mainly because of the many problems including the reason the judge dismissed this:
(2) Rove apparently won't be charged with a crime for leaking about Ms. Plame. Doesn't that suggest his first defense against any civil action will be to assert that he is a public official engaged in the performance of his duties? Since Libby was charged with perjury and obstruction rather than criminal leaking, doesn't he have the same defense?
In July 2006 the suit was announced, and I still pooh-poohed it, although I predicted that Dems had more upside than Reps if the thing ever took off:
For the Democrats, this civil suit represents an opportunity to depose Bush Administration officials and maybe strike gold with some embarrassing or even illegal tidbit (think Paula Jones). On the Republican side, there is a sense that Joe Wilson may be humiliated in discovery, along with the media and the anti-Administration CIA cabal alluded to recently by Rep. Peter Hoekstra.
Advantage - Democrats! Neither Joe Wilson, Tim Russert, nor George Tenet are candidates for anything; Bush won't be either, but he is the leader of his party, notionally at least. The Dems have a puncher's chance of scoring a big win; the Reps are more likely to "win" this suit, but what is victory - humiliating Joe Wilson? Been there, done that, and John Kerry cut him loose to ice the cake.
Within the confines of his base on the far left, Joe Wilson is a teflon legend and no discovery can shame him.
In September 2006 we had a link to the amended complaint.
And in May 2007 we had a post on the civil suit hearing, which prominently featured the immunity argument.
I certainly hope the timing of this dismissal doesn't hurt any of the Wilson's book and media deals.

To quote Peter Falk in The Princess Bride:
"Yes, yes, you're very smart. Shut up."
Seriously, though, discovery would have been kind of fun.
Posted by: Uncle Pinky | July 19, 2007 at 04:33 PM
My 2nd biggest regret in this turn of events...
Other Tom is in Italy and is not sharing in this moment...
(first biggest regret is no deposition of Mrs. Wilson and Mr. Plame, of course.)
Posted by: hit and run | July 19, 2007 at 04:50 PM
So now, what happens to all the money they collected on the net? Weren't their lawyers pro bono?
Posted by: verner | July 19, 2007 at 04:51 PM
Verner!!!!!! Hi!!!!!
Posted by: Sara | July 19, 2007 at 05:01 PM
Other Tom should have a Compari on us.
Or something a little more substantial if his heart desires.
FDL must be awash in anger today.
Posted by: vnjagvet | July 19, 2007 at 05:03 PM
I certainly hope the timing of this dismissal doesn't hurt any of the Wilson's book and media deals.
or the Hillary endorsement
Posted by: windansea | July 19, 2007 at 05:03 PM
The Haditha case if falling apart, Sutton (the prosecutor) looked the vindictive fool at the Border Patrol hearing the other day, Reid and Co. looked like fools at their Snooze Party, and now this.
Posted by: Sara | July 19, 2007 at 05:06 PM
the official lefty response?
Joe Wilson for Senate!
Posted by: windansea | July 19, 2007 at 05:06 PM
Sara:
Verner!!!!!! Hi!!!!!
Me!!! Too!!!!
Hi!!! Verner!!!!
Posted by: hit and run | July 19, 2007 at 05:11 PM
Key finding by the Judge was that it's NOT a crime for the Government to protect itself against lies.
here
Posted by: jmoss | July 19, 2007 at 05:11 PM
VERNER!
Well, Chemerinsky can now ungird his loins at last..the battle is over and the dynamic duo was vanquished.
Posted by: clarice | July 19, 2007 at 05:13 PM
Hello, Verner.
I agree, Hit and Run. It is too bad Other Tom isn't around right now.
Posted by: Elliott | July 19, 2007 at 05:13 PM
I'm sorry this is OT, but too good to pass up here.
Posted by: Sara | July 19, 2007 at 05:15 PM
The last paragraph from the AP piece:
The alleged means by which defendants chose to rebut Mr. Wilson's comments and attack his credibility may have been highly unsavory, " Bates wrote. "But there can be no serious dispute that the act of rebutting public criticism, such as that levied by Mr. Wilson against the Bush administration's handling of prewar foreign intelligence, by speaking with members of the press is within the scope of defendants' duties as high-level Executive Branch officials."
In other words, act unsavory, expect unsavory back...especially when your wife sent you.
Posted by: verner | July 19, 2007 at 05:15 PM
Oh, and HI everybody!!!
I've missed you, but have been busy with "stuff" lately...
Posted by: verner | July 19, 2007 at 05:18 PM
He did not say it "was" unsavory. It is a motion to dismiss pretrial. He must assume what the plaintiff has alleged is true in all respects, but his point is even if it is true ( not stating a fact but merely conceding the allegation ) the law grants immunity to public officials acting within their public duties.
I know that a lot of lefties are digging hard and holding on too tight, cause otherwise it means that their 20 indictments fantasy is over. And I am here to deliver the news, it is definitely over now.
Posted by: Gmax | July 19, 2007 at 05:22 PM
He did not say it "was" unsavory. It is a motion to dismiss pretrial. He must assume what the plaintiff has alleged is true in all respects, but his point is even if it is true ( not stating a fact but merely conceding the allegation ) the law grants immunity to public officials acting within their public duties.
I know that a lot of lefties are digging hard and holding on too tight, cause otherwise it means that their 20 indictments fantasy is over. And I am here to deliver the news, it is definitely over now.
Posted by: Gmax | July 19, 2007 at 05:23 PM
Didn't the good professor Chemerinsky publicly consult on the filing of this suit? What a putz. How much do you have to pay to have him teach you the law?
Posted by: Gmax | July 19, 2007 at 05:26 PM
Didn't the good professor Chemerinsky publicly consult on the filing of this suit? What a putz. How much do you have to pay to have him teach you the law?
Posted by: Gmax | July 19, 2007 at 05:26 PM
Didn't the good professor Chemerinsky publicly consult on the filing of this suit? What a putz. How much do you have to pay to have him teach you the law?
Posted by: Gmax | July 19, 2007 at 05:26 PM
Didn't the good professor Chemerinsky publicly consult on the filing of this suit? What a putz. How much do you have to pay to have him teach you the law?
Posted by: Gmax | July 19, 2007 at 05:28 PM
Unfortunately Chris Matthews is not hosting Hardball tonight. We will miss his likely "subdued" reaction.
Posted by: bio mom | July 19, 2007 at 05:30 PM
Via Protein Wisdom:
Posted by: Sara | July 19, 2007 at 05:33 PM
Sorry I screwed the link.
Should be:
Protein Wisdom
Posted by: Sara | July 19, 2007 at 05:34 PM
Dammit. I was Plam-ay Jonesing pretty hard. Now this. That little beeyotch and her mental midget mouthpiece got away with it. Blechh.
Posted by: Enlightened | July 19, 2007 at 05:36 PM
Given that the AP's Matt Appuzzo usually had solid coverage of the Libby trial, it's worth noting that his report that the case was dismissed on jurisdictional grounds is mostly wrong, and that the WaPo and Gmax above have it right.
Posted by: Karl | July 19, 2007 at 05:37 PM
Since this blog's denizen's have descended on Marcy's blog to relieve themselves, I would like to return the favor and defile these green, green pastures....
There was no underlying crime! The leaker was Armitage! Fitz and Reggie are out-of-control Liberals run amok! Moonbat! Moonbat! The Constitution is toilet paper! Clinton did it! Save me from the brown people! Mission Accomplished! Bring 'em on! I don't think about bin Laden! Put food on my family! Up or down vote! Fool me once....Take my habeus corpus, please! Try the egg salad, and tip your waiter -- I'll be here all week!
Posted by: indeciderer | July 19, 2007 at 05:37 PM
I only wish semanticleo,sferris,pete and all our other dear moonbats could be here to share this moment with us.Hark,what is that plopping sound,could it be tiny heads exploding in the Fever Swamp?
Posted by: PeterUK | July 19, 2007 at 05:40 PM
No exploding heads, PeterUK: The ruling is an implicit call to Waxman to haul Fitz before HOC and get down to business. After all, Congress is the proper venue for dealing with treason in the executive branch...
Won't that be fun?
Posted by: indeciderer | July 19, 2007 at 05:45 PM
"There was no underlying crime! The leaker was Armitage! Fitz and Reggie are out-of-control Liberals run amok! "
How true,so splendid when one from the sinister side has an epiphany.You weren't journeying to Damascus by any chance?
Posted by: PeterUK | July 19, 2007 at 05:46 PM
--We brought this suit because we strongly believe that politicizing intelligence ultimately serves only to undermine the security of our nation.--
If I read this correctly Joe is saying he's sorely disappointed that he and Val's politicizing of intelligence "only" undermined the security of our nation and did not lead to a direct cash windfall from a DC jury. Stiff upper lip Joe, one out of two ain't bad.
Posted by: Barney Frank | July 19, 2007 at 05:46 PM
sour grapes indecide.
Posted by: Topsecretk9 | July 19, 2007 at 05:46 PM
Putting your hopes in dimbulb Henry Waxman is a lot like thinking Raw Story is dedicated to factually reporting. Your are destined to be severely disappointed. The prozac may help though.
Posted by: Gmax | July 19, 2007 at 05:48 PM
Putting your hopes in dimbulb Henry Waxman is a lot like thinking Raw Story is dedicated to factually reporting. Your are destined to be severely disappointed. The prozac may help though.
Posted by: Gmax | July 19, 2007 at 05:49 PM
Today’s decision is just the first step in what we have always known would be a long legal battle and we are committed to seeing this case through
Book!
And
Movie!!!!!
We will not rest, we will not slumber, we will not sleep until the advances are in our accounts!!!!!!!
Onward!!! To Battle!!!!
Yeeeeaaaaarrrrrggggghhhhh!!!!
Posted by: hit and run | July 19, 2007 at 05:50 PM
bio mom: Tweety won't be available for Softballs tonight because the doctors are still trying to extricate him from Judy's business after he stuck his head waaaay up there last night (she's a hero, dontcha know!).
Posted by: indeciderer | July 19, 2007 at 05:50 PM
Sheesh! First I screw the link, then the quote, then I post the correction on the wrong thread, so let's try it one more time.
Okay, I blame it on too much pool water in my eyes. Here is the Protein Wisdom quote I was trying to post:
Posted by: Sara | July 19, 2007 at 05:51 PM
The ruling is an implicit call to Waxman to haul Fitz before HOC and get down to business.
Don't you mean HUAC?
Posted by: Barney Frank | July 19, 2007 at 05:52 PM
"The ruling is an implicit call to Waxman to haul Fitz before HOC and get down to business. After all, Congress is the proper venue for dealing with treason in the executive branch..."
So you think Fitz was treasonous? A trifle harsh,more over ambitious to my mind.
Posted by: PeterUK | July 19, 2007 at 05:52 PM
LOL. Everything is funny to me this afternoon.
Posted by: Sue | July 19, 2007 at 05:53 PM
Sue:
LOL. Everything is funny to me this afternoon.
Oh, you really should try reading it on 750ml of Cabernet Sauvignon.
(750ml just ain't what it use to be)
Posted by: hit and run | July 19, 2007 at 05:58 PM
Me too Sue. I just listened to John Gibson's My Word about Joe's "huffing and puffing" and I'm still laughing.
Posted by: Sara | July 19, 2007 at 06:00 PM
Good to see Verner back! Wish Larwyn would stop by here every now and then.
Glad to see that this case is dismissed. Also glad to see that Bates took note that Joe Wilson LIED and that WH had every right to protect themselves against lies.
Too bad Joe Wilson does not see that. But surely, the American public will see through Joe Wilson.
If only Libby would appeal his convictions....
Posted by: lurker | July 19, 2007 at 06:04 PM
What is it about subpoenas that scares neo-cons so much? Fitz - a REAL conservative -
respects the law, and so will obey the subpoena when issued. Will you all watch when , under questioning, he reveals the GJ testimony that Bush and Cheney declassified a spy's identity for revenge? After all, Libby's OWN LAWYER basically said as much on the first day of the trial....
Posted by: indeciderer | July 19, 2007 at 06:04 PM
lurker, per the Libby Defense Fund, Libby is appealing his conviction.
Posted by: clarice | July 19, 2007 at 06:05 PM
Val recommended Joe and Joe did not sign a non disclosure
Joe told some lies and got rebutted
Val outed herself
Liberals died
The End
Posted by: windansea | July 19, 2007 at 06:06 PM
Dear indecider..You are too stupid to vote let alone post here if you think Cheney declassified Plame's identity . For if he did that would have been a perfect defense.
As for the subpoenas they are ridiculous, outside the legislative branch's jurisdiction and the refusal to respond to them will be unheld by the courts.
Posted by: clarice | July 19, 2007 at 06:08 PM
clarice
You could have stopped at " you are too stupid to post here". He wont read and comprehend anything you say. Give the fellow traveler accurate direction to the Hamster Wheel and he can commiserate on how close they came to bringing down the evil Bushitler.
Posted by: Gmax | July 19, 2007 at 06:12 PM
Fitz under oath?
I shudder at the thought.
And please, no please, do NOT recall Valerie to testify.
Do NOT throw me into that briar patch.
Posted by: hit and run | July 19, 2007 at 06:12 PM
clarice
You could have stopped at " you are too stupid to post here". He wont read and comprehend anything you say. Give the fellow traveler accurate direction to the Hamster Wheel and he can commiserate on how close they came to bringing down the evil Bushitler.
Posted by: Gmax | July 19, 2007 at 06:12 PM