btw, the next step in fraud-artists Joe and Valerie's civil lawsuit against Cheney, Armitage, Libby and Rove is a February 15, 2007 deadline for the "defendants" to file their response briefs to the Wilsons' claims of "retaliation"..... I can't see how that theory can hold any water with anyone who's not psychotic after today's testimony..... how long can Joe and Valerie keep their fundraising machine going now that it's too obvious to ignore that their lawsuit is a fraud??
http://www.wilsonsupport.org/node/72 The Defendants File Motions to Dismiss
-- On November 14, 2006, in response to Joe and Valerie Wilsons' lawsuit, Vice President Richard Cheney, the vice-president's former chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove and former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage all filed motions to dismiss the claims against them.
All of the defendants allege that their positions as high level government employees protect them from suit. They also argue that disclosing Valerie Wilson’s classified CIA employment as part of a conspiracy to discredit, punish and seek revenge against Joe Wilson was within the scope of their employment. In other words, they were just doing their jobs and, therefore, are immune from suit.
The U.S. Government Files a Motion to Dismiss and a Statement of Interest
In addition, the United States government filed a statement of interest (an explanation of the government's view of the case) and a motion to dismiss the claim that the defendants' disclosure of personal information about the Wilsons violated District of Columbia law. Like the individual defendants, the government claims that when the top officials were engaged in unlawful acts against the Wilsons, they were acting within the scope of their employment.
Ironically, at the same time that the U.S. government is declaring that each of the defendants acted within the scope of his employment by disclosing Valerie Wilson’s identity as a covert operative, the government has also brought a criminal case against Mr. Libby for crimes related to the disclosure of Valerie Wilson's status as a CIA operative.
The government can't have it both ways. Mr. Libby can't have both violated the law and legitimately acted within the scope of his employment.
HIGHLIGHTS OF THE CLAIMS MADE BY THE DEFENDANTS
Absolute Immunity
Defendant Cheney's Argument:
Vice President Cheney claims that the vice president, like the president, is absolutely immune from all lawsuits stemming from any action he may have taken while in office.
The Wilsons' Response:
Absolute immunity does not extend to the vice president. The Supreme Court has afforded only the president absolute immunity from all civil lawsuits, finding that private lawsuits would distract the president from his duties and raise unique risks to the effective functioning of government. While history and the U.S. Constitution support absolute immunity for the president, there is no precedent for extending absolute immunity to the vice president.
Qualified Immunity
The Defendants' Argument:
All defendants, with the support of the United States government, claim that they enjoy qualified immunity -- meaning that although they may not be immune from all lawsuits like the president -- they cannot be sued for violating the Wilsons' constitutional rights. According to the defendants, they could not have known that when they conspired to create a whispering campaign against the Wilsons, which involved disclosing Valerie's status as a covert CIA operative, they were violating the Wilsons' rights.
The Wilsons' Response:
None of the defendants is entitled to qualified immunity. They all knew that what they were doing was wrong and they went ahead anyway, with no regard for the predictable consequences.
First Amendment Violation
The Defendants' Argument:
Each of the four defendants claims that Joe Wilson's First Amendment right to freedom of speech was not violated because his ability to speak was not "chilled."
The Wilsons’ Response:
Government officials disclosing Valerie Wilson's status as a CIA operative in direct retaliation for Joe Wilson's speech is a violation of his First Amendment rights. The officials named in the suit pro-actively engaged in an effort to punish Joe Wilson for telling the public the truth about the Bush administration's justification for going to war with Iraq.
WHAT HAPPENS NEXT?
The Wilsons' opposition to the defendants' motions to dismiss is due on January 16, 2007. Then, the defendants' will have the opportunity to file reply briefs by February 15, 2007. Sometime thereafter, U.S. District Court Judge John Bates will schedule an oral argument, during which the judge has the chance to question the lawyers about their arguments. A decision will be expected sometime in the spring, but it is likely that the judge's decision will then be appealed.