Powered by TypePad

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

July 13, 2006



He said the Kristof/Pincus articles quoting him about "forged docs" was wrong (after he testified to the SSCI), that he never saw them--and he told that to the SSCI as well.



Larry O'Donell

I think they're going to have a lot of trouble keeping this case in court. I think the vice president's side of the case has a very, very strong case in going for dismissal. [...]

If O'Donell can see reason,there is hope for the rest of the simpering half-wits like Peter.


--If O'Donell can see reason,there is hope for the rest of the simpering half-wits like Peter.--

No...he will be re-labeled republican shill.


oh, not Peter...Larry O'Donnell


Actually, if IIRC Peter did say this one, and the only issue, he agreed on...the lawsuit that is


Wow what do we have here ... a bunch of facists behaving as willing participants in the Bush propaganda/spin machine. I'll bet some of you have delusions of someday being given a big Bush kiss as reward for all your spinning. More likely he would run the other direction at the approach of his riffraff supporters. But hey keep spin spin spinning media reports amongst yourselves. It does my heart good knowing that you guys are in a permanent state of intellectual and moral vertigo. Dramamine anyone?

Sara (The Squiggler)
Never trust someone who says categorically that we should never trust a very large group of people because of one amorphous trait. Except me.

My Dad told me to never forget the primary rule:

Never trust a man who says "trust me."

Sara (The Squiggler)

From a post at RED STATE:

6. The initial issue in the case, before the legal sufficiency of the allegations and before any discovery is taken, is whether some or all defendants (or other interested parties) will ask for a stay or dismissal of the litigation. There are three bases for doing so. One, the liberal quotation from the indictment underscores the fact that this suit overlaps substantially with the subject of a pending criminal trial. Fitzgerald may well intervene to ask for a stay of all proceedings - he won't want his trial witnesses deposed in a civil suit. Second, Dick Cheney in particular has duties as the Vice President, including dealing with an unstable and dangerous world potentially lurching into another war on top of the two-front war we're already fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. Under Clinton v Jones, there's no absolute bar to such a suit but the district court can balance the intrusion of the litigation, among other factors - here, with the case focusing on Administration foreign policy, the level of intrusion could be significant. And third, there's the state secrets privilege, described extensively in this opinion (later upheld by the DC Circuit) dismissing claims by Sibel Edmonds, who charged retaliation by the FBI relating to her work as a translator of national security documents. Basically, if a civil suit would involve discovery of national security information (such as, for example, details of any covert activities by Plame, to say nothing of discovery directed at Cheney), the court can dismiss it in the greater national interest. The Bush Administration has been loath to press the envelope on the kinds of legal privileges asserted by the Clintons to deflect personal scandals (as opposed to expanding the rights of the Executive Branch more broadly) but the desire to get this lawsuit out of the way may compel them to seek a stay or dismissal on this basis.



Is this previous post by Sara a good example red-stater analysis? Busting a gut! :) Spin spin puke spin spin puke ... the new repulican mantra?


Hello, Peter.


-- And third, there's the state secrets privilege, described extensively in this opinion (later upheld by the DC Circuit) dismissing claims by Sibel Edmonds,--

Well that's fascinating...her pal Sibel (the one who slandered Judge Walton BTW) increased the chance of a dismissal? HEH

Sara (The Squiggler)

Busting a gut! :) Spin spin puke spin spin puke

Damn I'm good.

Want some more peter? Good roundup HERE.


Bush security accomplishments:

2550 dead US service men and women.
100,00 dead Iraqis.
No chance in hell of democracy in Iraq.
The Mideast plunging deeper into chaos.
Spying on americans.
Iran and N, Korean thumbing their noses at us.
Worldwide terrorism on the rise.
International cooperation dimishing.

With security like this who needs Al Qaeda?


While I'm in agreement generally with the assessments of the suit above, I would note something about Chemerinsky.

You may not like his politics (I know I don't). You may think he comes off badly on TV (if you are not blind and deaf). But he is also an authority on questions of federal jurisdiction, having written a leading hornbook on the subject that addresses suing government officials, Bivens actions, etc. He is someone the Wilsons would definitely want on their team, particularly if creative lawyering on a Bivens claim is required.


Peter...after 9/11 President Bush asked what was the worst that could happen. He got his answer-a terrorist attck with a wmd.

He was determined in implementing policies that have prevented an attack.

There is a global worldwide war on against Islamic fascism and you seem surprised there are military casualties in war and quote figures from a debunked Iraqi casualty report.

You need to stop cutting and pasting from leftist websites and begin reading some history. I would suggest some books on the Civil War to give you a clearer understanding of the reality of wartime casualties.

Also, I've been doing some reading on the 1930s and the similarities to our times is striking. A nice preemptive war in Europe in 1936 would have been a very messy war with lots of casulaties, but a very good thing.


Uh peter, try to find your meds today! Or we'll have Charlie sit you down and explain "noetherian induction" to you... this could be the only antidote to your delusion.


Well there is your modern liberal Peter aka Little pee,as fine an example of DDD (Deluded Dipstick Disorder) as one could hope to find.
Want to start by trusting this one?


The first question to ask Wilson is,"What exactly was the purpose of your business trip to Niger,do you currently have interests there now?"


I bet the media asks real hard questions of Mr. and Mrs Plame today. Sort of like they badger the President and Rumsfeld.

Actually, the media should not be able to get away with protecting their media props...like the Plames and Sheehan.

One of my favorite was Sgrena, the Italian communist. A CBS reporter interviewed her and never asked her about her lies.


When do we get to "Unsealed v. Unhinged"?
Shortly before "Hinged v Unhinged".


This idea of:

"Unsealed v. Unhinged"?
Shortly before "Hinged v Unhinged"

may require another one of Charlies theorems !


Plaming Out: Joe Wilson Jumps the http://www.theamericanspectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=10091> Shark

"Why would someone who opposed the invasion of Iraq as did Wilson and his wife rat out Analyst Plame? There is no reason, which is why Armitage is presumably not included in the suit."


Perhaps Valerie is lying to Joe about her role because he wants to be the big cheese that was selected to go based on his years of experience and knowledge not just because he was sleeping with a CIA employee


The question might be raised,why did Valerie want Joe out of the way?


>Rule 68 is probably a no go. Think about it. The defendant has to agree that a judgment against him will be entered by the court. This would be exactly what the plaintiff's want--an admission of guilt! Even if its for only $1.

That is a good point. The whole power of a Rule 68 is the threat of having to pay your opponant's attorney's fees, and it only works if you don't care if the opponant takes judgment against you. It's best used to bring people to the table and at this point, the Wilson's don't want to come to the table. The attorney's fees only accrue (here at least) after the offer of Judgement. So it's best done early on.

Re: the stay until after the criminal matter is over. This would appear to benefit the Wilson's as they probably have more to lose in discovery. But since this President is very committed to not revealing what goes on, I would not be surprised if the good guys ask for a stay as well. That would be a huge disappointment.


Captain Ed has a kick-a$$ analysis of the LIES that make up the bulk of the Complaint

Easily debunkable, brazen, pathetic



Forgot one:

"Number of 9-11 style attacks in the US since 9-11": ZERO

Thanks for playing.


"2550 dead US service men and women.
100,00 dead Iraqis.
No chance in hell of democracy in Iraq.
The Mideast plunging deeper into chaos.
Spying on americans.
Iran and N, Korean thumbing their noses at us.
Worldwide terrorism on the rise.
International cooperation dimishing.

With security like this who needs Al Qaeda?"

3000 killed on 9/11.
USS Cole soldiers killed.
Khober Towers soldiers killed.
271 American soldiers killed after a newspaper leak.
North Korea's first test in 1998.
Worldwide terrorism challenged but weakening.
International cooperation shocked.
Check Iraq the Model, democracy in Iraq on the rise.
Spying limited to connections with foreigners that impose terrorist threats.
Iran and North Korea will lose.

Personally, someone said that this case is timed with the November elections; therefore, a stay on this case wouldn't be a good idea. A stay gives the democrats ammunition as part of their campaign. If Fitz is about to wrap up his investigation AND drop the Libby case, then a stay would not be justified.

I would push for discovery and depositions as soon as possible, especially due to the fact that this case is frivolous, having no chance of winning, had good odds of dismissal.


Hahaha! Hugh Hewitt, after noticing Chemerinsky's name, suggested that Cheney bring in John Eastman.


When You Lose the Wahhabis.

Hizbollah lost Saudi Arabia's support. Hizbollah, Iran, NK, AQ, etc., are challenging their authority but they will lose.


Mac has an update at his website:

"UPDATE V: Seixon Blog points to VIPS being behind the entire charade from the beginning - which is correct, but they are only a quarter of the "cabal". I've pointed to the VIPS involvement - especially one Larry C. Johnson - who has alway seemed to have more than an "casual" amount of background knowledge, specifically of the "street meeting" a certian invidividual had with Novak. Others involved include familar members of the media (one or two who may be in a little hot water with Fitzgerald's investigation), along with some members of the DNC. I know complicated, but I'm going over piles of notes, emails, tips, etc. I'll have more as time goes on. Again, the suit is a piece of crap legally (looks like it was drafted by the DU) and won't get past the hearing stage and will be tosssed, but that wasn't their intention anyway. The only it was filed was to keep the Joe and Valerie show on the radar for a book. More to come."

And, no, I won't buy their book(s).


Does anyone else get the sense that the media may be beginning to tire of this tedious couple. I actually saw a balanced report on CNN that was rather negative on their suit.

OTOH, CNN plans to carry the news conference live.

The media is really tired of Cindy Sheehan, and Joe Wilson is unlikeable and has major crediiblity problems.

Real interest lies in how Valerie comes across. Will she flame out or will a new leftist star be born...

Let's face it she's probably much smarter and we know she is more attractive than Cindy Sheehan.


Seixon, several right-wing bloggers are mentioning your post - mac ranger, strata-sphere, for starters! Good for you!


A key statement in AJStrata's Tailoring of A Suit:

"Siexon has done some excellent work on illustrating how the civil suit by the Wilsons and the minions was more than likely part of the overall plan as far back as October 2005, when there were still hopes for a Merry Fitzmas. As I have said many times, Wilson is on audio tape, prior to his own Op Ed coming out party in June 2003, saying that the only way for the Niger Forgery stories to do any damage was to create a scandal and keep it in the news. He implores the crowd to do so, and it seems they have done their best. But Bush and Co. are weathering the storm and may come out of this in better shape - because the American people do not support manipulating liars. So we have the Wilsons executing their long standing Plan B for civil action, which was necessary because, in the end, the Bush administration’s penchant for professionalism and discipline resulted in no concerted effort to PR-slam the Wilsons (a marker of the Clinton administration who hired people to go through personal files and leak those to the press!). The Wilson’s expected DC to be the same as it always has been, but Bush did change the tone where he could and it protected the administration from this set up. What is next? Did those arrayed against the Wilsons have a Plan B response? My guess is they did and it too would swing into action if triggered by a civil suit. Let the games begin."

Yup, let the games begin.


Kate, I think the Dems and MSM are starting to realize that Shehan and the Wilsons are having the same effect as M. Moore did in 2004. This is their attempt to keep from being viewed as the party of loons... good chance they'll have reining these moonbats in!


I'm sure that Cheney, Rove, Libby, et. al. are all saying something along the lines of "Oh, please don't throw me dat brier patch, Br'er Fox!"

Or perhaps the Tarbaby would be a better Uncle Remus metaphor for what Plame/Wilson faces. Get her up on the stand, under oath, and give her the choice of telling the truth about what really happened and being totally discredited and laughed out of court, or else sticking to her story and facing perjury charges. Wouldn't it be sweet if Libby walked and Plame/Wilson went to jail for perjury? The moonbats would howl!

And I saw a great e-mail comment at InstaPundit comparing this lawsuit to Oscar Wilde's defamation suit against the Marquis of Queensbury, and we all know how THAT turned out!


>Does anyone else get the sense that the media may be beginning to tire of this tedious couple.

Just maybe they are afraid that if the suit goes forward, their own complicity will be exposed.

richard mcenroe

On a related note, you gotta love the class-action law firm in the Google Ads with their 'ethical-free' evaluation of your case...

And here is what Marty says:

"But that's not the best of it. Rove will be asked whether it's true, as Murry Waas reported, that GWB personally ordered him to reveal classified information in order to discredit Joseph Wilson. And when he says "yes," as he presumably will, plaintiffs will then have a strong basis for deposing Mr. Bush himself. [Yes, I'd rather "depose" him in the other sense of that term, but you take what you can get.]

Or they might just amend the complaint to name GWB as a defendant. (The Republicans may yet come to regret the Paula Jones precedent.) Either way, that deposition should be lots and lots of fun.

These people are simply nuts. If GWB ordered it revealed, then it wasn't classified any more. This is analogous to saying the the bank teller is a bank robber because she handed over $50 out of her cash drawer -- to the customer who had just given her a proper withdrawel slip for withdrawing $50 out of the customer's account.

Nuts. Freakin insane.

cathy :-)


Why is it that every recent press release by Joe Wilson begins with Bob Novak and then moves on the White House, but in the suit Bob Novak is clearly missing ?

Is it that only government officials can violate someone civil rights or is it that Bob Novak has no political or PR value to Wilson's army ?


If GWB ordered it revealed, then it wasn't classified any more.

I don't think this fact is compatible with BDS. Anyone old enough to remember the robot in Lost in Space? "That does not compute!" is probably what happens to them when they read this sentence.


Jane, here is what Larry O'Donnell says about

So, according to Larry O'Donnell, Bevins has nothing to do with this case. And Larry says:

"I think winning better not be the point, because the one quick disagreement I have with John Dean is I think this is a very weak case. I wrote a book about a civil rights case, and I don't recognize any of the applications of civil rights law that they're using in this complaint."

Not a surprise that John Dean is going around saying that this is a strong case.


Oh, sorry, link is missing. Here it is!


Is that audio available anywhere?


The Larry O'Donnell - Keith Olberman video is available via the link above (at NRO via Steve Sprueill).


Michelle Malkin's post on this case focuses on the "Legal Defend Fund Scam". The reimbursement of their funds to When help the whistleblowers got a hugh laugh out of me.


Haha - CNN cut away from the Wilson press conference to talk to themselves. sigh.


I always enjoy it when they refer to John Dean as a Republican. It has the same feel as calling Key Lay a businessman or Alcee Hastings a judge.


John Dean left reality years ago.


Fox is covering the presser now - then Novak will comment on it.



Jay Tea has provided a better response to Peter's post plus, don't forget that Saddam killed probably at least half a million people of his own.

Don't Rock the Boat

Hard to challenge these facts.

SunnyDay, do tell us what Fox and Novak are saying!


The press are tiring of Wilson and Plame simply because the range of facial expressions is limited to Joe's smug face lifted smirk anf Val's selfconsciously goofy simper.Let's have some emotion people!

Bruce Hayden

For the non-lawyers here, a quick overview of what the lawyers here have been throwing around. Procedure in civil suits in the federal courts is primarily controlled by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP). This and the underlying Constitutional law is typically the basis for Civil Procedure in the first year of law school.

Rule 11 is titled: "Signing of Pleadings, Motions, and Other Papers; Representations to Court; Sanctions". But what is relevant here is that by signing pleadings, the attorneys or unrepresented party are certifying that the pleadings are not frivilous (see 11(b) for details), and if they are determined to be so, then the court may sanction that party, and the sanctions may include attorneys' fees (11(c)).

Rule 12 is titled: "Defenses and Objections--When and How Presented--By Pleading or Motion--Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings". Of most interest 12(b) lists the objections that can be made, and 12(b)(6) is "failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted". For example, Claim 2 is for an alleged violation of the Equal Protection clause of the 5th Amdt. Unfortunately for Plame/Wilson, the EP clause is under the 14th Amdt. which is applicable to the states, and not federal govt. The idea is to use 12(b) to strike claims for relief, and if all the claims are stricken, the entire complaint fails. And this can sometimes be leveraged by Rule 11 into sanctions (i.e. primarily attorneys' fees).

Rule 68 is titled: "Offer of Judgment" and is a mechanism that may be utilized to shorten proceedings by submitting offers of judgement. The way it works is that a defendant offers to let the plaintiff take judgement against him for a specific amount. Then, "If the judgment finally obtained by the offeree is not more favorable than the offer, the offeree must pay the costs incurred after the making of the offer" (i.e. primarily attorneys's fees).

This rule is frequently utilized in some courts and in particular, in some areas of practice. Note that it uses "must" instead of "may" as in 11(c). However, as noted here, under FRCP (as opposed to under some state court rules), the defendant must essentially admit to liability, and since this case is primarily political and personal, and not really aimed at money damages, it is unlikely to be utilized here.


Fox - just reported the facts and brief history. Novak said he had talked to some lawyers about it - they said it's an extremely unusual lawsuit, and not likely to be successful.

Short discussion of why they are not suing Novak - he said possibly "freedom of the press."

Nothing new.


Well, I thought Val was rather umimpressive. She does a better victim routine better than Sheehan because she remembers not to break out in a toothy grin. Sheehan keeps forgetting that and has to be reminded by her hardworking handlers.


CNN barely played any of the presser, quickly went to talking heads, no breathlessness at all. Val and Joe will be very disappointed to get home and see the Tivoed results.


I hope this news conference does violate Joe and Val's right to privacy. LOL


Yep, just short little blurbs.

CNN and Fox both seemed in a hurry to get back to middle east news. Very bad timing in that respect - too much real news, haha.


Has anyone seen any coverage blaming Navak for speaking out at precisly the time that Wilson/Plame were filing their lawsuit? I was expecting conspiracy types to go nuts. Maybe I'm just missing it.


Peter: With security like this who needs Al Qaeda?

Peter, when you look inside yourself, does it bother you that you can't find a thorough, sound, accurate, underlying framework for understanding the world around you that you might use to help make the world a better place?

PD Shaw

TM asked if Wilson could "file and forget" this suit, or do they actually have to start deposing witnesses and doing legal stuff? I'm sorry if I missed an answer . . .

Not really. The Federal Rules mentioned above require the court and the parties to enter into a scheduling order with deadlines for getting the case resolved. Now, if the parties agree to a lax schedule, the court is likely to agree. I could readily see the defendants agreeing to delay depositions and other evidentiary matters, but not the legal issues. I see the defendants filing motions to dismiss the complaint as being defective on its face.


Bob got more face time talking about the Middle East rumble.

I wonder if Joe and Val's will sue Hamas and Hezbollah for cutting into their face time.


I just finished reading the 23-page complaint over at Smoking Gun. So, Joe Wilson's civil rights were violated because Cheney, Rove, Libby and 10 other yet-to-be-named henchpersons of the aforementioned civil rights squelchers executed a common scheme to whisper about him?


I'm curious, here... Is the 23-page lawsuit itself a sworn document? Signed by the plaintiffs? If Fitzgerald already has plenty of evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that several the assertions contained within the filing are false, can he jog over to the grand jury this morning with his paperwork and the pleading, and charge Joe Wilson with one count of perjury for each false statement?

Did Joe Wilson just build his own perjury trap, climb into it, and spring the door shut behind himself?

cathy :-)


"Any goodwill that has come my way, and there has been an overwhelming support from Republicans who are highly indignant about this as well as some Democrats, but any goodwill accrues to my wife. Not to me. And my wife has made it very clear that—she has authorized me to say this—she would rather chop off her right arm than say anything to the press and she will not allow herself to be photographed. So while I believe she would make a wonderful politician, it is tough to run a campaign if you're not talking to the press and you're not being photographed."

—Joseph Wilson on Meet the Press, October 5, 2003 Wilson Whoppers


I don't see their signatures on it.

Kevin B

If you haven't already, you need to read Mr Rights tribute to Ms American Spy

Warning, Keyboard Alert

(Apologies if the link has been posted already.)


>Is it that only government officials can violate someone civil rights or is it that Bob Novak has no political or PR value to Wilson's army ?


The first thing I wondered when I read the lawsuit was why Novak wasn't included. He was asked the same thing today, or yesterday, (it's all smooshed together) and he said essentially, the lawsuit is stupid, it has no facts and the whole thing is dumb.

Frankly I suspect Wilson's media ties discouraged him from naming a reporter. Wouldn't want to create any pesky precedents.

Appalled Moderate

Even assuming the allegations in the filing are true, how does JOE WILSON have a cause of action? It's not like he hasn't found opportunities to exercise his first amendment rights all over the place. Is he upset because he's lost the benefit of his spouse's income?

The lawsuit, by the way, is a pretty pathetic document. But then, it's dismissal will help with the talk show gigs in the months ahead...

Other Tom

I've never known Rule 11 to have any teeth at all. My guess is that the first response by the defentdants will be a motion under Rule 12(b)6 to have the case dismissed on a number of grounds. Off the top of my head, I assume they'll argue that the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; statute of limitations re some of the claims (statue began to run with the disclosure, not with Novak's publication); immunity of government officials from civil lawsuits based on their performance of their duties. Certainly appears that Bates is a good draw for the defendants. I simply don't believe that the Wilsons have any genuine interest in seeing this thing get to the discovery phase--they are far too vulnerable, as are many of their press and VIPS colleagues, to disclosure of information that will make them appear even more ridiculous than they already do.


Saw Val on Tv then Mideast coverage showing John Bolton at the UN was shown. Val whines again about how she lost her job-boo hoo losts of people are no longer wanted at their job but they don't file a lawsuit with no merit to get back at their employer. Joe and Val looked like what they are -losers.

Bruce Hayden

I think that the basic problem for the Wilsons is that their case is built on sand. They are going to have a lot of problem proving causation.

The basic problem is that they allege that Libby, presumably at the behest of Cheney, disclosed Plame's CIA status to reporters before the Novak article, but it was the Novak article, with no real apparent causation by the named defendants, which was the cause of their alleged misfortune.

So, you have a situation similar to where A shoots at X a couple of times and misses. Then B accidently shoots and hits X, and X sues A for being hit by B.

Of course, there is also the problem that though they allege personal animus on the part of Cheney, et al., Cheny has a plausible argument that it was professional, in furtherance of the Administration's attempt to sell the invasion of Iraq.


Other Tom,

I simply don't believe that the Wilsons have any genuine interest in seeing this thing get to the discovery phase--they are far too vulnerable, as are many of their press and VIPS colleagues, to disclosure of information that will make them appear even more ridiculous than they already do.

I see this playing out the same way the C.A.I.R lawsuits did.

They essentially went after websites and people who said C.A.I.R had ties to terrorism,they went through the same historionic outrage phase the Wilson's are,including indidgnant press conferances,only to drop the case on the brink of discovery,because they had a great deal more to lose than gain from having themselves exposed,especially from the financing they were involved in.

Another point,the Plaintiffs need to make all sorts of esoteric arguements on privacy,and try to tie the Defendants into acts that violate the Constitution among other things.

The Defense can essentially play show-and- tell,all the pictures of Joe and Val in Vanity Fair,etc, and they can hammer Wilson with instance after instance of his lies.


Is it true that plaintiffs disclose first?

Bruce Hayden

I do think that they have plead sufficiently to survive a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss all the claims for relief. Maybe not summary judgement, but I think some of the claims can survive at the preliminary stage.

Overall though, I concur that their case, at present is quite weak. Besides my causation and official duties arguments above, I see them having a big problem overcoming the fact that Wilson wrote the NYT article when they are claiming loss of privacy, etc. And Plame quit - which means that they are going to have to prove constructive discharge. Also, they seem to be reading quite a bit into the 5th Amdt. that is most likely not there. The 1st and 5th Amdt. claims are hard because they all require federal action, and yet the defendants are being sued specifically as individuals. It can maybe be done, but will, IMHO, be difficult - you really have civil rights violation allegations here, instead of pure 1st and 5th Amdt. claims. They don't make this clear, but that is why some claims are likely to survive dismissal under 12(b)(6).


I agree with all here who say that the suit will likely be dismissed or that Wilson will drop it before the discovery phase.

But is it at all possible that Wilson and others with BDS are very eager to obtain discovery from the Admin, because they think they may uncover something that will be explosive? Wilson is certainly arrogant enough to think that he can handle a deposition. Even the evidence that he has lied so far comes down to his version versus someone at CIA, or his claiming to have misremembered about when he saw the forged documents.

This is a slim hope, that they will keep the suit going and that the court will not dismiss it. But does anyone else want to keep hope alive?


Geez....get a contract and have to work and miss all the fun.

I wonder what happens when they depose and then put the "5 Witnesses who will swear that Joe told them about Val" before any of this hit the papers. How do they get past that?

As far as Ftiz putting a stay in place - it is possible. He can claim that Libby will be using the civil discovery process to circumvent the criminal discovery process. However there is federal precedent to vacate any motion by Fitz: In McSurely v. McClellan, 426 F.2d 664, 672 (D.C. Cir. 1970) the federal court cautioned against granting a motion to stay in which the duration of the stay is indefinite. "In light of the fact that one of the functions of discovery is to preserve testimony while recollection is relatively freswh, an indefinite stay of their taking should not be entered unless no alternative is available."

Of course it really depends on whether the Libby case goes forward in early 2007. I suspect not.

Soros=deep pockets for the Wilsons?


Previewing your Comment
>The first question to ask Wilson is,"What exactly was the purpose of your business trip to Niger,do you currently have interests there now?"

Actually I'd take the long route:

Mr. Wilson. How many times have you been to Niger? What was the date of the first time? What was your reason for being there? Who did you meet there?

What is his address, phone number. How many times did you meet him. What did you talk about. Did any business come about as a result of that meeting? What kind of business? Who else was involved? What are there addresses and phone numbers? Did you make any money from the transaction? How much? Where was that money deposited? What was the date of the first meeting? The second? How long did the first meeting take place? Where did it take place? Who else was involved.

How many times have you met with so & so? What are the dates? Who else was present? What did you talk about?

Who else did you meet with on your first trip to Niger?

And on and on and on? You get the drift.


Yes, they say any excess money will go to a fund for whistleblowers--that is surely the perfidious VIPers whom Soros does fund--and this fund raising trust is just to provide cover for him in this matter, I think.

I think if the case survives a motion to dismiss, Fitz will ask to put it on hold until after the trial which , if the case isn't dropped, will take place in early 2007 --not an unreasonable hold, Specter.


BTW, did you see the crappy WaPo article today on the case? It cites anaonymous experts to the effect that it will allow the Wilson's to get more discovery from the Administration and basically repeats the charges they make without comment. SHEESH..It's like the paper has no connection to or archives on the subject.



Will the Wilsons go through discovery prior to defendants or is it a simultaneous process?

Serious adults know American troops are fighting for America's survival.

“When a nation is at war, many things that might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its effort that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight, and that no Court could regard them as protected by any constitutional right.”

1st ammendment, scotus, 1919, schenk

"The first part of creating a mass movement is the mythic idea.. We put the myth out there that America was in chaos. America was not in chaos. … When 100,000 people marched on the Pentagon in 1967, we put out the myth that America was divided in two. America was not divided in two. But we put the myth out there and what happened, by ’69, ’70, America was divided in two." - Jerry Rubin

Nothing will ever justify *these* means, Joe Wilson.


>Will the Wilsons go through discovery prior to defendants or is it a simultaneous process?

Around here it happens simultaeously.


"Peter, when you look inside yourself".

Every time he does that it goes dark.


Sounds good to me,then can we waterboard him?


***anonymous*** of course.


"BTW, did you see the crappy WaPo article today on the case? It cites anaonymous experts to the effect that it will allow the Wilson's to get more discovery from the Administration and basically repeats the charges they make without comment. SHEESH..It's like the paper has no connection to or archives on the subject."

Not smart writing.

WH can use National Security as a reason for not disclosing classified information in a discovery, right?

WaPo must really, really, really want WH to lose BIG time.


Mac Ranger referred to David Horowitz's excellent analysis and timeline to the Plame-Wilson game.

Check Mac's post, then click on David Horowitz's post at frontpagemag.

David's got a good handle on the details.



I figure the Wilson depo alone would take about 5, 10 hour days. I'm ready to go. Just waiting for the call!


Just ordered a gross more panty hose..Though the DC Council in its wisdom has banned smoking in all buildings and I don't know how I can survive a deposition without smoking or biting off heads.Nicorette I guess....


Biting off heads isn't always a bad thing.


Got a look at Judge John D. Bates. His bio reads quite impressive.

Seems he has ruled">http://www.cfif.org/htdocs/legal_issues/legal_updates/other_noteworthy_cases/judge_bates_dick_cheney.htm">ruled on Cheney before, cutting off a suit by the GAO over the Energy Task Force records.


He's a FISA Judge.


A recently appointed one, Jane , whose identity was unknown until he outed himself in his bio..LOL..The irony!


Mr. & Mrs. Plame apparently are unable to make the distinction between retaliation and rebuttal. When Mr. Plame published his highly critical op-ed, the administration not only had every right to respond, but also to rebut any part that was inaccurate. As has now been proven, Mr. Plame packed quite a few whoppers in his op-ed, so he alone bears the responsibility for his lying ways. Setting the record straight following a dishonest hit-piece is not only a First Amendment right, but a duty.

The lawsuit is silly, but it will be fun to watch the Plames get sucked ever deeper into their self-created vortex of sleaze.


Clarice, I've heard that if you roll up a couple of partially-chewed pieces of the nicorette into a nicotine patch, into a nice tight tube, then you can light that up and smoke it...

cathy :-)


*thwack* cathy..making fun of my plight.

Lew Clark

Can OBL join in the suit? His life took a turn for the worse about the same time the Wilson's claim theirs did. And I think he can make a stronger case that "those guys" had a lot to do with it.


I'd be very nervous if I were a lefty. Joe Wilson has a lot of, shall we say, skeletons in his closet. His intelligence work with the French government won't go over so well if it comes to light. Neither will his involvement with the murder of Vince Foster.

This lawsuit smacks of hubris to me. Don't be surprised if this backfires on the Wilson big time and we see Joe and Valerie get hauled before a grand jury.

Stay tuned...


Sounds good to me,then can we waterboard him?

Mwahahaha! Evil, but funny. And it would be richly deserved.

The comments to this entry are closed.