Plame's Civil Suit

Looks like Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame are attempting to extend their 15 minutes of fame - and perhaps do some PR for Valerie’s new book. Now that it’s obvious the only charges to come down from Fitzgerald are the Libby perjury charges, which have nothing to do with the underlying allegations, and Rove was not “frog marched” out in handcuffs per Wilson’s fantasies, they’ve filed this civil suit against Dick Cheney, Scooter Libby and Karl Rove:

The Smoking Gun has a copy of the complaint as filed: Plame Sues Cheney, Rove Over CIA Leak | The Smoking Gun

I, for one, hope it’s not dismissed in summary judgment. I want it to go to discovery phase so that Wilson and Plame and Rove can all be on the stand - now that would be some good theater.

Here’s an analysis I read on Redstate – haven’t read the brief myself:

http://www.redstate.com/story/2006/7/13/191450/260

  1. There’s a good deal of predictable partisan posturing here, and big chunks copied from the Libby indictment and press accounts, but Plame and Wilson cagily allege as few additional facts as they can. Basically, a blogger who had never spoken to Plame or Wilson could have written most of this. In particular, there’s no detail on Plame’s career at the CIA other than that she was “an operations officer in the Directorate of Operations” and “her employment status was classified,” neither of which necessarily implies any covert activities.

  2. Fitzgerald’s press conference is quoted as providing a basis for a civil lawsuit against people who were not even indicted, giving a good example of why prosecutors should not give press conferences about topics outside the four corners of their charges.

  3. There’s a cause of action for violation of a “Fifth Amendment right to privacy,” and while I’m not familiar with the caselaw on constitutional torts, that sounds like a stretch. The complaint does not reference the Vanity Fair photo shoot or what happened to the profits from the book deal Joe Wilson got out of all this.

  4. The complaint provides nothing to connect Cheney or Libby to the actual press disclosure of Plame’s identity.

  5. It appears from the “JDB” docket number on the NRO version of the Plame complaint that the case was initially assigned to Judge John D. Bates, a George W. Bush appointee. However, it may be that Judge Bates would recuse himself from a lawsuit naming Cheney and Rove in their personal capacities, and it is possible that the case could be sent to Judge Walton, who is handling the Libby trial.

  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 ( http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/02-1448.pdf ), 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.

Wilson and Plame are partisan media whores. These just reinforces my feelings about them.

Talkleft is describing this as a Bivens suit, something which I’m more or less completely ignorant about, any input?

The standard for damges has to be less than the test for the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, but how much does that help Plame?

[quote]ExNole wrote:
Talkleft is describing this as a Bivens suit, something which I’m more or less completely ignorant about, any input?

The standard for damges has to be less than the test for the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, but how much does that help Plame?
[/quote]

I had never heard of a “Bivens suit” before – or if I had I’d forgotten. Here’s what I found on a quick Google:

http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:m9PioTUDLCkJ:www.cops.usdoj.gov/mime/open.pdf%3FItem%3D1393+"bivens+suit"+definition&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1&client=firefox-a

EXCERPT (page 16, first full paragraph)

A final issue with respect to state, local, and tribal officers’ access to NSI is liability. Specifically, if in a criminal investigation SLTLE officers used NSI that was collected in a manner inconsistent with constitutional
standards or if that information (including personal records) was kept as
intelligence records that were under the custodianship of a state, local, or
tribal law enforcement officer, it is possible that the officer(s) and the chainof command (through vicarious liability) of that officer’s agency could be liable under 42 USC 1983, Civil Action for Deprivation of Civil Rights. Asmost officers are well aware, under this provision if a state or local officer, acting under the color of state law, violates the civil rights of a person, the officer and his or her chain of command may be sued in federal court.
Even though that officer may be working on a federal task force under the
supervision of a federal officer such as an FBI agent, the applicable test is
whether the officer is paid by and bound by the employment rules of his or her state or local employing jurisdiction.19

[Footnote 19: The FBI may keep such records in its custody on the basis of its national security responsibilities. While it is possible to hold a federal officer liable based on what is
known as a “Bivens Suit” - derived from the case of Bivens v. Six Unknown
Agents 403 US 388 (1971) ? it would be difficult, particularly under the
conditions of counterterrorism.]


As for the standard for damages, it would seem to come up from her rather interesting idea of a violation of her alleged 5th Amendment right to privacy, so while it’s preponderance of the evidence it would be to prove something quite different from any criminal statutes – though if she could convince a stupid jury that there was evidence that criminal statutes were violated they might conflate that with her 5th Amendment claim. Actually, given it’s novelty, I can’t imagine that would be too difficult, with an OJ-style jury drawn from all those who have not formed any pre-conceived notions of this case (i.e. the uninformed).

Predictable right wingnut shills come out and attack the Wilson’s.

Pathetic

I know that both the RNC and DNC pay posters to spew talking point on internet forums and blogs but why would the RNC pay Chris to post here?

[quote]Marmadogg wrote:
Predictable right wingnut shills come out and attack the Wilson’s.

Pathetic

I know that both the RNC and DNC pay posters to spew talking point on internet forums and blogs but why would the RNC pay Chris to post here?[/quote]

If you can get them to cut me a check, please do so. I’m right here in DC, so they wouldn’t have to walk very far. However, outside of your fevered reality, the Plame suit looks rather weak on its face, and is coincidentally timed with her need for publicity for that book. Proof? No – but given this couple’s history of grandstanding (Vanity Fair anyone?) and the circumstances, not an outlandish position to take.

Now go debase the integrity of the stock markets some more…

Here’s an interesting post from Tom Maguire, who has been all over the Plame thing from the get go:

http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2006/07/a_wilson_civil_.html

Do read the whole thing – especially you Marmadogg.

[quote]Marmadogg wrote:
Predictable right wingnut shills come out and attack the Wilson’s.

Pathetic

I know that both the RNC and DNC pay posters to spew talking point on internet forums and blogs but why would the RNC pay Chris to post here?[/quote]

Wilson wrote an OP/ED for the NYT that conflicted with his report to the SI Commitee just to make Bush look bad. Partisan and media whoring.

Wilson made campaign stops with Kerry. Partisan.

Wilson and Plame appeared in Vanity Fair magizine long before any of this started. Media whoring.

Trying to whitewash these facts and their true motivations is pathetic. Why do you do this?

I think the idea is that they deprived her of her job/privacy without due process. The whole thing seems bizarre, legally.

I thought the original leak was wrong, even if not proven criminal, but this seems sort of shameless.

Seems to me the main point is to get Cheney, Rove and a few others under oath. Details about the falsification of intelligence data as justification for war will come out. Or they’ll all commit perjury, which is more likely.

[quote]tme wrote:
Seems to me the main point is to get Cheney, Rove and a few others under oath. Details about the falsification of intelligence data as justification for war will come out. Or they’ll all commit perjury, which is more likely.

[/quote]

Please. These guys are way too smart for all that shit. This is a civil suit not a grand jury so they will say very little.

This is about selling a book.

Why bother wasting the energy to hate the Plames so much?

It’s not as if they are running the country into the ground or spreading “lies” so they can enact whatever policies they prefer.

[quote]tme wrote:
Seems to me the main point is to get Cheney, Rove and a few others under oath. Details about the falsification of intelligence data as justification for war will come out. Or they’ll all commit perjury, which is more likely.

[/quote]

If that’s the idea, it’s a dumb one.

The Supreme Court, in 1875, held in Totten v. United States that, because of the obvious state-secrets concerns, lawsuits may not be premised on covert espionage employment agreements. Totten was not permitted to sue to enforce obligations he claimed the United States owed based on his activities as a Civil War era spy. The Totten doctrine was reaffirmed by a unanimous Supreme Court in 2005, in Tenet v. Doe (involving husband-and-wife spies who similarly claimed the government reneged on its commitments to them).

Add that to the item quoted above:

  1. 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 ( http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/02… ), 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.

On top of that, as a threshold matter the Plame-Wilsons would need to establish the relevance of such a line of questioning to their actual claims, which seems a stretch.

I think it’s just to make sure that everyone is VERY aware that the White House leaked, on purpose, for political purposes.

I suppose that will make it harder for the cheerleaders to spin.

I believe that valerieplame and joewilson are completely blameless. I don’t think they broadcasted her identity to anyone. His trip to sudan was not politically motivated and his credentials were above reproach. His report was full of facts. His facts were researched with a minimum of sitting at the consulate. He’s a true field man.

Further, this is part of a vast right wing conspiracy.

Therefore, I conclude that john kerry won the election in 2004.

Thanks,

JeffR

[quote]JeffR wrote:
I believe that valerieplame and joewilson are completely blameless. I don’t think they broadcasted her identity to anyone. His trip to sudan was not politically motivated and his credentials were above reproach. His report was full of facts. His facts were researched with a minimum of sitting at the consulate. He’s a true field man.[/quote]

Do you actually know what the points of refutation were?

Oh wait… this is Jerffy I’m talking about. Never mind.

[quote]vroom wrote:
I think it’s just to make sure that everyone is VERY aware that the White House leaked, on purpose, for political purposes.

I suppose that will make it harder for the cheerleaders to spin.
[/quote]

The problem is that in a lot of ways, the Wilson/Plame are giving the Administration’s supporters more to play with. Even if there isn’t a connection with the release date of the book, it’s not hard to make this look like a publicity stunt, especially given the nature of the suit.

That link and the comments have some info on what a Bivens suit is. I understand the premise, its a suit against the government when your constituional rights are violated. As for Plame, I understand the reasoning behind saying leaking her name violated her due process rights, but I’m not sure if it is supported by the law.

I’m also pretty sure that because it’s a civil suit that we won’t get to see all of the documents and sworn testimony that some people think this is going to drudge up.

Fitz can also put the trial on hold indefinitely until he formally concludes his investigation, and naming Dick Cheney may force the trial to be postponed until after '08.

Another motive for the filing:

Perhaps they just want to set up an excuse to collect money from the legions of netroots folks:

By all means, please contribute.

There’s one born every minute…

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Wilson and Plame are partisan media whores. These just reinforces my feelings about them.

[/quote]

That’s a lie. She was trying to stay in the shadows when Novak the traitor ratted on her.

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Another motive for the filing:

Perhaps they just want to set up an excuse to collect money from the legions of netroots folks:

By all means, please contribute.

There’s one born every minute…[/quote]

2 the minute you were born.