Powered by TypePad

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

July 13, 2006

Comments

Festus

jwest: I like your speculation, but wouldn't it require Fitz to completely change his spots? He hasn't been too hard on the loyal opposition to this point.

Jane: I like your thinking on rule 68. If I recall, as a defedant in a federal action I have 20 or 30 days of open, first shot discovery effective upon receipt of the summons. I volenteer to work for free and what a s**t storm of interrogatories, doc requests and depos would appear right after the marshall brought the paper work. What fun. I could easily reduce Joe to a blubbering idiot (sorry if he alrady is there).

clarice

Barney, summary judgement is available whenever reading the facts in the light most favorable to the opposing party, there is no way that party could prevail. I do not see any legal cause of action here and I'd try it. Perhaps after some discovery..though partial summary jsugement seems available here on a number of counts. Other stuff might be dropped soon on a Motion to Strike as it is purely speculative and incendiary.

Jane

I don't think Rove or Cheney will countersue. (A well placed call to the IRS would be a lot more fun.)

Clarice, I use Rule 68 all the time. It's a great device to get people to see clearly.

Neo, I thought they mixed up the 5th and 14th amendment. But I'm no constitutional scholar.

topsecretk9

Seixon--

GREAT

--On June 15, Rove’s lawyer Robert Luskin announced to the press that Rove had been cleared and would not be indicted by Fitzgerald. On that same day, the Wilsons registered the domain name for their legal support trust, wilsonsupport.org, according to WHOIS records. It’s interesting that they waited until Rove was cleared to register this domain name..---

Seixon

lurker,

Research? No, my photographic memory remembered the "civil rights" reference from the Sale article. :)

topsecretk9,

OMG there you are. You have got to check your mail. Please, please, pretty please? :)

maryrose

Does anyone have any doubt about the complicity of Val in this whole sad scenario. This lawsuit proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that she was in on this grifting scam from the get-go and now wants to spice up her otherwise DULL book by claiming to issue a lawsuit against a sitting vice-president. This is hubris and a sense of self-importance run amok. These two are con artists and eventually the world will see them for who they really are. I think the California sun has addled their brains but that's just me.

Patton

How about.....So, Valerie, did you ever disclose your status as a CIA agent to anyone not cleared to recieve that information...perhaps someone you had gone on say, one or two dates???

Do you often share this highly classified information with just anyone that buys you dinner??

topsecretk9

Seixion

OK...right now

clarice

Brilliant catch, ts..I blogged it though I don't know when or if it'll go online.

Mike G in Corvallis

The lawsuit is massively, insanely stupid. Even if Wilson's in the throes of NPD, he should have enough residual sense to see that giving his detractors discovery is *not* going to help his reputation.

Wasn't it Lenin who wrote that the greatest fool of all is a revolutionary who believes his own propaganda?

Or as James Lileks once said of another jerk, "he not only drank the Kool-Aid but ordered up another gallon for a high colonic."

Wilson may want to parlay his 15 minutes of fame into a book deal for his wife and a Democratic insider gig for himself, but it's gotta end some time ... in the same way that Wile E. Coyote eventually looks down to discover that he's walked off the cliff and has a thousand feet of empty air between himself and the canyon floor.

jwest

Festus,

“…….wouldn't it require Fitz to completely change his spots?”

Absolutely.

I’m of the mind that Fitz knows his case against Libby is ready to be dismissed by Walton, and that his only thought now is how to salvage his career.

On the bright side, Fitz still has unlimited time and money, plus no supervision. He has tried for three years to nail someone on the administration side, without any luck. He also must be beginning to feel that some on the Wilson side of the fence have been less-than-truthful with him.

Considering the fact that Cooper was in contact with Wilson a few days before the infamous phone interview that ended up being the “War on Wilson” (the theme of Fitz’s indictment of Libby), perhaps Fitz is developing the theory that maybe there was something not quite forthcoming in a few interviews.

Fitz will change his spots - not for truth, justice and the American Way – but for what all career government employees value the most….their ass.

clarice

There are enough people for whom this keeps the game alive to impell them to keep this joke alive.

Fitz looks like an even bigger fool.

Rocco

Giraldi wrote an article on November 21, 2005 called Forging The Case For War and claims Berlusconi and Prodi hand delivered the first intelligence we received concerning Iraq and Niger.

“The first suggestion that Iraq was seeking yellowcake uranium to construct a nuclear weapon came on Oct. 15, 2001, shortly after 9/11, when Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi and his newly appointed chief of the Servizio per le Informazioni e la Sicurezza Militare (SISMI), Nicolo Pollari, made an official visit to Washington. Berlusconi was eager to make a good impression and signaled his willingness to support the American effort to implicate Saddam Hussein in 9/11. Pollari, in his position for less than three weeks, was likewise keen to establish himself with his American counterparts and was under pressure from Berlusconi to present the U.S. with information that would be vital to the rapidly accelerating War on Terror. Well aware of the Bush administration’s obsession with Iraq, Pollari used his meeting with top CIA officials to provide a SISMI dossier indicating that Iraq had sought to buy uranium in Niger. The same intelligence was passed simultaneously to Britain’s MI-6.”

But the SSCI states this intelligence was cabled…Page 36

“Reporting on a possible uranium yellowcake5 sales agreement between Niger and
Iraq first came to the attention of the U.S. Intelligence Community (IC) on October 15, 2001. The Central Intelligence Agency's (CIA) Directorate of Operations (DO) issued an intelligence report | ^ | ^ ^ H from a foreign government service indicating that Niger planned to ship several tons of uranium to Iraq ^ ^ | ^ | . The intelligence report said the uranium sales agreement had been in negotiation between the two countries since at least early 1999, and was
approved by the State Court of Niger in late 2000. According to the cable, Nigerien President Mamadou Tandja gave his stamp of approval for the agreement and communicated his decision to Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. The report also indicated that in October 2000 Nigerien Minister of Foreign Affairs Nassirou Sabo informed one of his ambassadors in Europe that Niger
had concluded an accord to provide several tons of uranium to Iraq.”

I’m wondering if the cable was sent because Berlusconi and Prodi weren’t home to know about it? Perhaps Cheney never found out about this intelligence. The SSCI says an SEIB was published but it’s unclear as to whether or not Cheney saw it? Did they set up Berlusconi and Prodi too?

Festus

Boys and Girls: I followed the link and saw that Mr Wolfe (sp?) of Prosekeuer (whatever) is the atty for the Wilsons. Please know that no matter that he may be of a leftist bent, he did not lightly sign the pleadings in this case, thinking that,"What the hell, I'll dismiss in a couple of weeks). This is his employment (profession) we're talking about and laugh all you want (I laugh too) he did not do this lightly. (I'm senile, I know, but wasn't rove's atty from the same firm?) (conflict?) I never would have sued someone as political theater and I don't think other serious attys would either. If what I have said bears no relation to the reality on the ground in DC the may God have mercy on our souls. Regards

topsecretk9

Seixion

I haven't got anything...

Rocco

Pollari not Prodi

Seixon

clarice,

I love me some WHOIS. :)

Rocco,

Giraldi is a VIPSer. Ding, ding, ding!

topsecretk9,

Sent it to you again... Check your spam folder to make sure it hasn't ended up there... ;)

Chants

When I heard this on the news today, I just laughed. And I'm sure every other lawyer on this board laughed when he or she first heard it.

The discovery process is going to be a zoo, for the Wilsons. That is if it get's past a 12b6 motion (failure to state a claim). This is the Big Case York alluded to a couple of months ago, the one Fitz is so desperate to keep out. He wanted it out for a reason. He knows it is a bad case.

This will not get beyond summary judgment. But then there are the appeals. That could take some time.

But sanctions and attorneys fees could shorten this case up right quick. Rule 11, anyone?

Wilson's a Liar was right. This is an attempt to turn the machines back on. And Jeff Goldstien's comment was spot on: to continue the illusion of a scandal.

Rocco

And a partner in Cannistraro Associates

lurker

Any interesting comments from the left-wing sites?

Are they dancing all over the place or scratching their heads at our glee over this case?

This case also proves that many left-wingers truly believe that Rove, Cheney, and Lewis are guilty.

Nah, Cheney and Rove will not get fired over this. Not this time.

Sure wished that Libby never got fired after today's filing.

Jane

Festus,

Don't forget the Requests for Admission. we could come up with 1000's of them right here in about 3 hours I predict.

Chants,

Biven worries me, but that may be because I'm completely unfamiliar with it.

Festus

Reminds me of the time a US Fed Dist Judge appointed me, in open court as a special US Attornet to prosecute my opposing counsel for various violations. I had not requested the special honor and the Judge solved my conundrum by suggestig to said counsel that he could get out his checkbook anr write a$10,000. check to expunge thew problem. I would think that Fritz might face some dissaproval as well.. Regards

Redcoat

Festus,

I would tend to agree with you that from a professional standpoint,this is a Kamikazee mission,and given Wilson's problems with truth,no sane attorney would take it.

But given everything we know about Wilson, he is a proven liar,and not a particularily good one,and a fantasist to boot,they could easily have overroad any advice given to them by competant counsel.

I doubt they will want to submit to the scrutiny of discovery,it will call into play her work record,and all of their finances as well,and all of Wilson's lies.

It's all bluster.

Charlie (Colorado)

Rule 11?

Charlie (Colorado)

If you lawyer types don't start feeding us some subtitles, I'm going to start talking about noetherian induction.

Rick Ballard

It's an attempt to water the nutroots because all the leaves are falling off. Without Darth Rove in the sights what does a nutrooter really have to live for? Between the Kosola exposes, the realization that the nutroots are politically impotent (probably true in all senses) and Fitz's setting the innocent free, the leftist crud has no reason to leave their basement alcoves.

It ain't gonna bring the stinking corpse of the movement back to life either.

Barney Frank

clarice,

My only experience with summary judgements was when we were facing an utterly meritless suit (plaintiffs eventually were sanctioned for about $250,000) but it still went to trial. With a fair judge in a different jurisdiction, summries might fly. I just wonder about DC.
*************************
I'm presently involved in a lawsuit with some one who IN MY PERSONAL OPINION (legal disclaimer) suffers from NPD, and I can tell you they do not act rationally. Common sense does not enter into it.
**********************
Can any attorney here tell me whether California has the equivelent of rule 68? I remember reading something similar years ago. Could be very helpful to me in one present suit. Guess I'll ask my lawyer (ka-ching!). I'm pretty sure we do, but I'd forgotten about it.

Festus

Redcoat: read the man's biog. He is a serious lawyer. Even serious lawers make mistakes, but it is too easy to ascribe them to the opposition before all issus are revealed. I'd rather be on the defense, but I never approached a suit filed by a qualified attorney as a slam dunk. Wilson got Wolfe (and I suspect the management commitee of his firm) to sign off on the suit. So, unless the question in my earlier post is answered that in DC, We Don't Give A S**t, I won't dismiss out of hand, although, as I said, I ll work for free to do this case Best

jerry

here's an all purpose disorder for the manager on a rainy day: obsessive and neurotic transferral of pathology (ONTOP)

Jane

>Can any attorney here tell me whether California has the equivelent of rule 68? I remember reading something similar years ago.

My guess is every state has one, assuming the state follows the Federal Rules. They are vastly underused in my experience which makes them very valuable.

Here is Rule 11:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/Rule11.htm

jwest

Festus,

You are what lawyers are supposed to be.

In a case that I was involved in a few years back, the countersuit claimed I had stolen trade secrets from the company I was suing.

After a year of discovery and hundreds of thousands dollars later, the truth came out. In depositions, the management of the company denied ever making that claim. It seems that the senior partner of their law firm just thought it was good idea to throw that claim into the mix, hoping that their discovery would find some “dirty hands” to offset the original claim.

Needless to say, this turned out rather badly both for the defendant and their law firm. However, it does demonstrate how some lawyers are not above signing a suit that they know to baseless.

topsecretk9

--Brilliant catch, ts..I blogged it though I don't know when or if it'll go online.--

Clarice...that was all Seixon...must read his post

Wilson's a liar

All I have left to say tonight is that Rove must be breaking out the champagne. Between the loony Plames, moonbat Cindy, and wacky Jack Murtha, he has been given the best opposition anyone could hope for.

Festus

Mr Frank: Indeed in Ca there is a rule of Civil Proceedure thar has the same perameters and benifits of Rule 68 I forget the number, though I used it to great effect when I was an active warrior. Best luck. By the way, if your lawyer didn't tell you about this right out of the box, he or she isn't serving you well.

Redcoat

The Huffers are foaming at the mouth with joy.

There is reason to believe that Libby has knowledge of the administration's involvement in the 9-11 attacks. Lets hope that Wilson and Plame can contribute by use of pressure to crack the crime of the century. Maybe Joe and Val should run for office. They can add respect to the shameful American image.

I think that was Charlie Sheen.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2006/07/13/valerie-plame-sues-cheney_n_24995.html

ordi

OMG Redcoat they all have been driven crazy!

There is reason to believe that Libby has knowledge of the administration's involvement in the 9-11 attacks. Lets hope that Wilson and Plame can contribute by use of pressure to crack the crime of the cenury.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

clarice

TS, Sorry I credited you with it. Apologies to Seixon, too..Seixon, I owe you one,

jwest

Barney,

Our rule 68 (not California) says that the judgment must exceed the settlement offer by a minimum of 10%, otherwise you get whacked*.

* I’m sure there is a more legal sounding term, but at my lawyer’s rates, the “whacked” made the point just fine.

SweetMintTea

Thinking about it....

Whats the downside for Joe and Val?

Money? Thats no object, I am sure that there are lots of "kick the canners" on DU that can be shaken down for contributions. The economy is doing well and the coffee decanters can afford to support their pet delusions. Also Elizabeth Hurleys impregnator should be good for some underwriting.

Since money wont be a problem, why not do it?

Maintains their martyr status; promos their book deal, and lets face it Cindy Sheean was getting all of the press these days and the Vanity Fair invites were becoming scarce.

Hassert predicts a GOP seat pick up and the same day Mr and Mrs Plame are back to distracting Rove. A coincidence?

Barney Frank

Thanks guys.

Festus,

After thirty years, off and on, of being tied up in court mostly over real estate I finally have found an excellent lawyer whom I've been using for the last four years. We really haven't had a chance to discuss this rule because we just got served with a new suit which is utterly bogus, but did survive the demurrer last week.

jwest

SweetMint,

What’s the downside?

If you have ever experienced the Mack Truck sized rectal probe known as discovery, you would know the answer to that question.

Even when you are on the winning end, depositions are far more unpleasant than anything experienced by the residents of Gitmo.

clarice

Forget who I'm responding to--but virtually every frivolous lawsuit has a lawyer's name on it. And Wilson;s lawyer is NOT in the same firm as Rove's--Luskin is with Patton and Boggs.

Tom Devlin

Can I sue 10 John Does for endangering my life by revealing details of a secret anti-terrorism program, then make NY Times reporters tell what they know? Just wondering.

SweetMintTea

Jwest,

If they were really going to take the suit all the way it might be an issue.

But they can milk it for all of the benefits at least until Novemeber and then let it quietly die off next year.

Maybe they get a few quotes for the book and a bunch more party invites from hipsters wanting to get inside scoop. Invite to Laurie Davids house maybe?

And look, its already raised their Q factor among the moonbats.

Is there a counter-suit for them to worry about? I dont see it, the defendants are public figures.

pgl

Mark Kleiman (www.samefacts.com) nails this one [warning - most JOM readers won't like Mark's factual take on this one].

Festus

Barney: as I now recall, (fog, fog) it is Rule 998 of the Cal Rules of Civil Proced. But don' shoot me if I am wrong See ya

Festus

I have always wanted to say this :"Good night Clarice. You are the best"

Redcoat

Festus,

The point I'm still having trouble with is given all we know of Wilson,and the outright misstatements of things we know to be true, like Plame's role in sending him,which was clearly decided against Wilson in the SSCI report,that are in the filing,it will take a lot more than the signature of a reputable attorney to give this suit even the thinnest veneer of credibility.

Add to this Erwin Chemerinsky,Moonbat law professor,who is a Media Whore like his clients,the atmosphere of this suit quickly reaches the level of "Media Circus."

Bios of Wilson's Counsel:(Non Moonbat)

Christopher Wolf
http://www.proskauer.com/lawyers_at_proskauer/atty_data/0824

Charles S Sims

http://www.proskauer.com/lawyers_at_proskauer/atty_data/0726

Mark.D.Harris

http://www.proskauer.com/lawyers_at_proskauer/atty_data/7614

clarice

Thank you very much, festus.

jwest

SweetMint,

Depending on how much money everyone wants to spend, the trial would be years away. But discovery, oh sweet discovery, is almost immediate.

They are greasing up the front bumper of the Mack as we speak.

Rick Ballard

Clarice,

Presuming UGO will be John Doe1, his interview with Novak will probably fall under his official duties, as, in fact, do the actions of Cheney and Rove. I just don't see how a plaintiff gets to someone acting in their official capacity. Presuming a quick Motion to Dismiss, which will be granted, this goes to the DC Court of Appeals, correct? If so, perhaps Tatel will provide us with another entertaining decision. Maybe Fitz can dream up a new affidavit in support.

jwest

Clarice,

Isn’t Christopher Wolf the next door neighbor of Wilson, the only guy in D.C. who didn’t know she was a CIA clerk?

clarice

Rick, imagine you are Fitz at this moment. He has to feel he was played for a fool.

Festus

Clarice: Every frivolus lawsuit may have a lawers name on it but it didn't have mine. And I , because of my experience, will not be the first to ascribe frivolity to my adversaries. Buy the way Mr Chemerinsky, is not covered by all my fore going protestations. He is a nutter. Night

clarice

jwest, yes. It's their neighbor ,the communications lawyer. From what I've seen of the complaint--and I just am not in the mood to read it all--it sounds like Chemerinsky, fruitcake professor wrote it, using Truth Out and Murray Waas as his factual template.

Redcoat

Festus,

Buy the way Mr Chemerinsky, is not covered by all my fore going protestations. He is a nutter.

I think we all took that for granted.

He is a world away from the other Lawyers who are on Team Wilson.

Rick Ballard

"He has to feel he was played for a fool."

If he is at all introspective, he may want to consider why he was selected in the first place. After all, the person most easily played as a fool is a fool. Hardworking and well educated fools are not unknown in the universe.

verner

Just a thought. Might this mean that the insiders are betting that Scooter will walk as well?

If Libby is included in the civil suit, when could his lawyers start discovery on the Wilsons? Would any of the dirt they find be of use for his trial? hmmm.

Oh, I forgot, Fitz is claiming that Valerie, and the original reason for a special prosecutor have absolutely nothing to do with the charges against Libby. LOL

Any attorney representing anyone the Wilsons are sueing, please get in touch. There are quite a few people who post regularly at JOM that can supply you with a long list of witnesses to call, and questions to ask. It will save you lots of time and money.

Seixon

Rocco,

Quite right. Cannistraro was one of the first ones peddling that stuff. No doubt he's a VIPSer too. Morons.

clarice,

Heh. It's all good. :)

crosspatch

"The lawsuit is massively, insanely stupid. Even if Wilson's in the throes of NPD, he should have enough residual sense to see that giving his detractors discovery is *not* going to help his reputation."

HA, have you actually ever delt with a real diagnosed case of NPD? First of all, they believe they can win by charm or failing that by intimidation. Not that they *might* win, mind you, but that they *will* win if they can just be intimidating enough. They also think they are one of the "cool kids" and that the usual rules don't apply to them. They believe there will always be some out they can use to get around the realities that the riff-raff have to deal with. They are of the class that makes the rules, not the one that is managed by the rules. They have connections, they have pull and if you cross one, the results can be spectacular.

I have delt with two people in my lifetime with personality disorders. NPD was one of them. It isn't fun. I have learned two things, though. Never attempt to have a rational discussion with an irrational person. It is a waste of time for both of you. The second thing is that left untreated, mental illness can be contagious. These people can be so warped as to make you doubt your own sanity. Maybe that explains Valerie's time off for a mental health break. If Joe really has NPD, living with him would be a real horror but only evident in private. They do a good job of masking it in public unless they are pushed to a complete break. That's my experiance, anyway.

Pofarmer

It seems Novak has something to say bout this, via Fox news.

"WASHINGTON — The senior Bush administration official who gave Robert Novak information about former CIA officer Valerie Plame's role in sending her husband, Amb. Joe Wilson, to Niger in 2002 was not trying to discredit Wilson, the columnist told FOX News on Wednesday.

Novak also said he doesn't believe the senior administration official, whom Novak referred to as "Mr. X," had the conversation with him about Wilson's fact-finding mission on Iraq's nuclear weapons program as part of a "conscious effort to manipulate me."

"I saw no such campaign. Nobody in the administration ever said anything critical about Wilson to me," he said.

Mr. X told Novak that Wilson's "wife worked in the office of nuclear proliferation in the CIA, and she suggested he go. That was it," Novak said.

He added that he was later told by CIA Public Information Officer Bill Harlow that Plame didn't initiate the trip but once she was asked about it, she suggested her husband be sent. A Senate Intelligence Committee report later concluded that Plame played an important role in getting Wilson sent to Africa."

A Zoo, indeed. They got-------nuthin.

Seixon

NPD... 5 of these...

1. a grandiose sense of self-importance
2. is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love
3. believes that he or she is "special" and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people (or institutions)
4. requires excessive admiration
5. has a sense of entitlement, ie unreasonable expectations of especially favourable treatment or automatic compliance with his or her expectations
6. is interpersonally exploitative, ie takes advantage of others to achieve his or her own ends
7. lacks empathy and is unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others
8. is often envious of others or believes that others are envious of him or her
9. shows arrogant, haughty behaviours or attitudes

Heh. How many of these does Wilson have?

pgl

Mock testimony where witness Cheney claims he has 28 instances where Wilson lied? Funny given that Dick Cheney lies 26 out of every 28 times that he opens his mouth!

What was that Dick? F*** me? LOL!

No competent attorney would let a serial liar like Dick Cheney take the stand in his own defense. None.

Barney Frank

crosspatch,

Indeed it is a nightmare to cross the path of someone with NPD. I used to laugh off the head shrinkers, but no more. My life has literally been turned upside down by this person. Shrinks may not be able to cure anybody but they sure can describe the nutjobs.


Festus,

I'll look that rule up right now and we'll be able to confirm whether or not you are senile :)

pgl,

Sounds like someone needs a nap.

topsecretk9

--Might this mean that the insiders are betting that Scooter will walk as well?--

I think this was a stunt in order to set up the legal fund in order to get big guns for Libby's trial

--If Libby is included in the civil suit, when could his lawyers start discovery on the Wilson's? Would any of the dirt they find be of use for his trial? hmmm.---

Yes, could he start by getting the NYT's docs they say they have with communications with Wilson?

Barney Frank

Festus,

It's official; you are not senile.
998 Code of Civil Procedure it was. Thanks.

lurker

Just read "The Reality-Based Community" as pql suggested:

Here is what Marty Klieman had to say.

This confirms their belief that Rove, Cheney, Libby, AND Bush are guilty.

Many lawyers here are already aware of the plaitiff discovery and what will happen here is that the plaintiff discovery will reveal basically nothing.

Sure, Rove, Libby, and Cheney will have to answer questions but they will be truthful and consistent with their answers. Wilson will not be.

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.

Footnote: The Waas story provides a possible explanation for the lack of any "substantive" indictment in the Plame case: Rove and Libby could have claimed that they were acting under orders, and that the Presidential instruction gave them reason to believe that any information released pursuant to it would not damage the national security, thus refuting the scienter required by the Espionage Act. Fitzgerald might well have concluded that he couldn't disprove that claim beyond reasonable doubt. "

Right. The case will still fall apart and backfire on the Wilsons.

lurker

Excuse me, it's Mark Kleiman.

crosspatch

Sexion, what those criteria don't tell you is how they behave when they don't get what they want. They are masters of escalation. They will continue to raise the stakes until you back down but they never will.

"The different disorders have different underlying themes. People suffering from narcissistic personality disorder respond with extreme defensive actions to events which they feel threaten their perception as special and privileged."

Such as filing an inflated civil suit when the federal investigation falls apart. One other interesting trait I found on the net:

"The most telling thing that narcissists do is contradict themselves. They will do this virtually in the same sentence, without even stopping to take a breath. It can be trivial (e.g., about what they want for lunch) or it can be serious (e.g., about whether or not they love you). When you ask them which one they mean, they'll deny ever saying the first one, though it may literally have been only seconds since they said it -- really, how could you think they'd ever have said that? You need to have your head examined! They will contradict FACTS. They will lie to you about things that you did together. They will misquote you to yourself. If you disagree with them, they'll say you're lying, making stuff up, or are crazy. [At this point, if you're like me, you sort of panic and want to talk to anyone who will listen about what is going on: this is a healthy reaction; it's a reality check ("who's the crazy one here?"); that you're confused by the narcissist's contrariness, that you turn to another person to help you keep your bearings, that you know something is seriously wrong and worry that it might be you are all signs that you are not a narcissist]. NOTE: Normal people can behave irrationally under emotional stress -- be confused, deny things they know, get sort of paranoid, want to be babied when they're in pain. But normal people recover pretty much within an hour or two or a day or two, and, with normal people, your expressions of love and concern for their welfare will be taken to heart. They will be stabilized by your emotional and moral support. Not so with narcissists -- the surest way I know of to get a crushing blow to your heart is to tell a narcissist you love her or him. They will respond with a nasty power move, such as telling you to do things entirely their way or else be banished from them for ever."

Poor Val.

clarice

I wouldn't be surprised if for judicial efficiency this case wasn't also assigned to Judge Walton. HEH

crosspatch

"ndeed it is a nightmare to cross the path of someone with NPD. I used to laugh off the head shrinkers, but no more. My life has literally been turned upside down by this person. Shrinks may not be able to cure anybody but they sure can describe the nutjobs."

Yeah, and thankfully, MOST people in this world have no idea how strange it can really be. I have had a close social experiance with diagnosed borderline personality disorder and had a workplace experiance of someone I seriously suspected of NPD though am not sure of any professional diagnosis.

Best advice I can give someone: If you can, RUN!

Redcoat

Crosspatch

The most telling thing that narcissists do is contradict themselves. They will do this virtually in the same sentence,

Sounds like Joe,I wonder if believing as true their last contradictory statement is part of the disorder.

jwest

Clarice,

Since you are in D.C., what can you tell us about Judge Bates?

Is he on the side of goodness……or badness?

jt007

Festus,

Your answer to Barney is correct. I am an attorney in Los Angeles and Section 998 of the California Code of Civil Procedure allows a party to make an offer of settlement no later than 10 days before trial that remains open for no more than 30 days. If the offeree declines the 998 offer and the plaintiff fails to obtain a judgment or award more favorable than the offer, the offeree will be liable for the offeror's costs (including expert witness fees). Section 998 does not provide for the recovery of attorney's fees, however. It apparently differs from Fed Rule 68 in that it does not require an acknowledgement of liability on the part of the offeree if the offeree decides to accept the offer.

My two cents: a couple of the causes of action can be eliminated with a 12 (b)(6) motion and the rest is susceptible to a summary judgment motion. If I were defense counsel, I would move for change of venue. This case is too politically charged for the political atmosphere of Washington. I'd want a jury in Richmond to hear anything that survived the motions.

Seixon

crosspatch,

Damn. Sounds like a girl I know. Scary. I don't think she's that bad though. But she's definitely denied things that we spoke about, did, etc. and acted like she's all important, etc. Or maybe that's just normal for some girls..... heh.

Wilson's a liar

NPD would certainly explain Wilson's serial lying. He clearly still believes that he and he alone "got the goods" on Bush and Cheney, and they and Rove risked everything to discredit him. Delusions of grandeur to the max.

Of course, I have long held that he had a much baser motive through all of this: he got the lovely Val to marry him (because of course, a grandee like himself deserved to have only the most beautiful and smart woman hanging on his arm) by promising her that she would be able to quit working and live the high life after their babies were born, either as Mrs. Secretary of State or Mrs. High Paid Consultant with bigtime connections to the White House. He has become increasingly desperate to keep his promise to her. This lawsuit fits right in with the whole MO: cover up his own screwup that really cost Val her job at CIA, by making her the victim and blaming that nasty Dick Cheney for ruining her career. This way she never blames him.

God knows why Val has not woken up and smelled the coffee here. Lying Joe has just used her and used her, with the web getting ever more tangled and both of them looking more and more foolish. She should have dumped him a long time ago. Then again, she has two babies with this man, so she may just feel she is stuck with him, and this lawsuit is the only slim chance she has left to hang on to the fantasy of herself as victim of some big Republican conspiracy, and not of the monster sitting next to her on the couch.

clarice

Damned straight run when in the company of anyone with MPD .

Now, possums, reread the terms of the Trust..the beneficiary of any excess will certainly be the VIPS.(Are they in trouble and is this defense fund a means to provide a defense fund for THEM?)

Tom Maguire

So the next story by Jason Leopold is "Unsealed v Unsealed"?

When do we get to "Unsealed v. Unhinged"?

clarice

From instapundit (HEH)
MORE: Another reader emails: "The suit is akin to Oscar Wilde's defamation case against the Marquis of Queensbury." That didn't work out well.

crosspatch

"Sounds like Joe,I wonder if believing as true their last contradictory statement is part of the disorder."

Heh, well, that article was talking pretty much about the extreme end of the spectrum, how one might act when flustered or otherwuse disregulated. Generally when confronted with the contradiction they will deny it and when faced with it in black and white, will say they were misunderstood. If they wrote it and are confronted with it, there's no telling what they will do. In my experiance they will try to attack you and find a reason to criticize your ability or right to critique them. At that point you are a threat to them and if you are higher on the food chain, they suck up. If you are lower, they try to destroy you.

Anyone have any anecdotal information on how Joe is to work FOR? Stories from direct reports would be interesting. People with NPD tend to both loathe and abuse subordinates.

skinnydog

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, Wilson/Plame accepts it and screams vindication because Cheney/Rove/Libby have all admitted to the allegations in the complaint by accepting a Judgment on the complaint. Cheney et al. respond by saying this was merely a strategic play, but this reality never is given the light of day by tthe MSM. Meanwhile, the point of view of Joe and Valerie is repeated endlessly in the press.

In an ordinary civil lawsuit it is ususally all about the money, so Rule 68 is very useful. This is not about the money, it is about politics.

clarice

I'd pay a $1 and let them declare "victory", but you may have a point--they may have to tear them limb from limb in a protracted case that goes on for 20 years.

jwest

Wilson’s a liar,

Don’t be too quick to put the halo over Val’s head.

We haven’t heard or read anything from her yet, plus she’s been professionally trained to lie, cheat, steal (and kill for that matter). For all we know, Joe might be just some idiot she knew could be manipulated easily.

She has been working for 20 years in a back-stabbing, highly political environment with the dregs of America’s bureaucrats. Leaks damaging to national security have been pouring out the CIA for years and for all we know she might be behind some of them. We know she has a taste for the high life in European capitals and perhaps the thought of being Mrs. Ambassador to France was just the enticement she needed to forget any duty to the country and go for the ouster of the Bush administration.

Never trust a liberal. Never.

clarice

jwest, I know nothing about Judge Bates..Here's his bio:
http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:0bV4ca__rWgJ:www.dcd.uscourts.gov/bates-bio.html+DC+Courts+Judge+Bates&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1>bio

Tom Maguire

FWIW, Matt Cooper is the key witness, because he is the only reporter who promoted the "War on Wilson?" theme - all the others (Novak, Woodward, Miller, Pincus) - thought the leak was not part of a sinister scheme. (Pincus did say "obnoxious", however.)

The complaint does lean a bit on the 1 x 2 x 6 allegation on the WaPo, which has essentially fallen apart.

They also need to waltz past this, from the indictment:

7. On or about June 11, 2003, LIBBY spoke with a senior officer of the CIA to ask about the origin and circumstances of Wilson's trip, and was advised by the CIA officer that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA and was believed to be responsible for sending Wilson on the trip.

They stick an "erroneously" in the complaint, but who told Libby in July 2003 that it was an error?

cnj

attn. Seixon:
"On June 15, Rove’s lawyer Robert Luskin announced ..."

The correct date is June 13.

SteveMG

Never trust a liberal. Never.

Does that include the ones buried in Arlington National Cemetery? And buried in a dozen other cemeteries across the country?

Or the one - perhaps a small percentage - now protecting us overseas?

I don't mean to be rude but when someone says something like that, they sound quite foolish.

I get as teed off as the next person over many of the things that our friends on the political left do. But just because they have a different political outlook doesn't mean they're all bad people.

The personal isn't political and man is more than a political animal.

Off my soapbox.

SMG

Redcoat

jwest

Don’t be too quick to put the halo over Val’s head.

We are often the authors of our own misery, if the fact that he was cheating on his wife when he got involved with her didn't deter her from marrying him,that doesn't speak much for her character,or judgement.

jwest

Steve,

I didn’t say all liberals were puppy rapists or even bad people in general.

The point is that the very act of being liberal (in the present context) denotes a form of intellectual dishonesty that puts ideology above facts and logic.

Hence the maxim, Never Trust A Liberal.

Seven Machos

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

Neo

Saw one post tonight. Basically read ..

I hate Bush, I hate Cheney, but I'm sick and tired of Val and Joe. Please just go away.

topsecretk9

Did you see in TM's update, the newest Liberal about to be labeled a republican? Um...it's is rather shocking but it's Larry O'Donnell...

Neo

WHO:
Valerie Plame Wilson
Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV
Christopher Wolf, Esq.

WHAT:
News conference to announce filing of civil lawsuit

WHEN:
Friday, July 14, 2006
10:00 AM

WHERE:
National Press Club
529 14th St. NW, 13th Floor
Washington, DC 20045

crosspatch

Oh, it would be a hoot if nobody save Helen Thomas showed up.

Peter

Oh no! Not the "never trust a liberal" battle cry. So sorry but the troops have deserted you. Nobody to rally. You have been exposed for what you are and your record will live in our history for the life of our once great nation. On the bright side ... the republican party is about to die a horrid death. Your destiny for overtly supporting them is a world that responds to your opinions with a total lack of interest and respect. Congrads! You couldn't have done it without you.

vnjagvet

Judge Bates looks like a good draw. I hope he does not recuse himself.

Syl

re Larry O'Donnell

I noticed a shift in him some days ago here in another thread:

O'Donnell vs Olberman

Molon Labe

The silence of the Euros and the Saudis shows that these governments understand that the Hizbullah action is a coordinated move by Iran. The Euros are silent because Condi has effectively made this point to them. The Saudis are silent because Iran is their chief rival.

Their continued silence is the key to resolving this conflict quickly, and such a resolution will be a major setback for Iran.

topsecretk9

OK, I alluded to Wilson's misquotes, misattributions and literay flair...but Captain Q catches something here in the complaint...

On May 6, 2003, the New York Times published a column by Nicholas Kristof which disputed the accuracy of the "sixteen words" in the State of the Union address. The column reported that, following a request from the Vice President's office for an investigation of allegations that Iraq sought to buy uranium from Niger, an unnamed former ambassador [now known to be Plaintiff Joseph C. Wilson IV] was sent on a trip to Niger in 2002 to investigate the allegations. According to the column, the ambassador reported back to the CIA and State Department in early 2002 that the allegations were unequivocally wrong and based on forged documents.

Note the qualifying phrase, According to the column. The complaint never mentions two salient facts: (1) Joe Wilson was Kristof's source, and (2) Wilson reported nothing of the kind. According to Wilson's own testimony to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, the Prime Minister of Niger told him the exact opposite:

Some one better call Kristof and Pincus and tell them "there coming after you"...but really...Wilson just opened the door for Kristof and Pincus to be deposed ( I think they would already) but they will press Wilson on this and then do you really think that Kristof and Pincus are going to say...yeah, yeah, yeah we misquoted and misattributed "the wrong names and wrong dates" and well all of it...

topsecretk9

Wow, Sly...what is up with him?

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame