Posted on 10/20/2005 8:12:04 PM PDT by STARWISE
Joseph Wilson and his wife, Valerie Plame are preparing to file a civil suit against Bush administration officials.
Plame was the covert CIA agent allegedly unmasked by the White House. Now she is preparing to file a civil lawsuit against the Bush administration officials who may have disclosed her identity and scuttled her career, Salon.com reported Thursday.
"There is no question that her privacy has been invaded. She was almost by definition the ultimate private person," said the couple's attorney, Christopher Wolf.
Wolf said the couple would make a final decision on filing a lawsuit after special prosecutor Patick Fitzgerald has completed his investigation, Salon said.
If they do sue, Wilson and Plame could be the first litigants to depose senior White House officials since Paula Jones, an employee of the state of Arkansas, sued President Bill Clinton.
(Excerpt) Read more at upi.com ...
Yes they are and but for MSM, they wouldn't get away with the patently false stuff.
bumping the great one!
Does anybody know if Wilson was paid for his little jaunt to Niger?
Uh...why are we hearing about the Wilson's civil suit against "administration officials" when we still don't know if "administration officials" will be indicted criminally?? I mean, don't they even wanna wait to see how this is gonna end next week? Or, could it be, hmmm, let me see, that maybe there won't be ANY "administration officials" indicted criminally after all, and they know it??
Pleeze...put these clowns in jail. I'd much rather thin about reforming social Security and immigration than this tempest in a teapot.
She should sue her husband. I'd never heard of her until her bonehead husband started going on every talk show and making speeches about her and "the leak".
Could be, although the scuttlebutt says indictments are coming down on Cheney and or Libby and possibly Rove.
Remember, it's all about indicting -- not proving guilt.
Indict, so Nancy Pelosi et.al can sing about the "culture of corruption and cronyism."
This is long, but it was written by two of the authors of the law.
here is the law
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/50/chapters/15/subchapters/iv/sections/section_421.html
The Plame Game: Was This a Crime?
By Victoria Toensing and Bruce W. Sanford
Wednesday, January 12, 2005; Page A21
Why have so many people rushed to assume that a crime was committed when someone "in the administration" gave columnist Robert D. Novak the name of CIA "operative" Valerie Plame? Novak published her name while suggesting that nepotism might have lurked behind the CIA assignment of her husband, Joseph Wilson, to a job for which he was credentially challenged: The agency sent him to Niger to determine whether Iraq was interested in acquiring uranium from that country, although he was an expert neither on nuclear weapons nor on Niger.
Journalists are being threatened with jail for not testifying who gave them information about Plame -- even journalists who did not write about Plame but only talked with sources about her. Ironically, the special prosecutor has pursued this case with characteristic zeal after major publications editorialized that a full investigation and prosecution of the government source was necessary. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution even claimed that the allegations came "perilously close to treason."
It's time for a timeout on a misguided and mechanical investigation in which there is serious doubt that a crime was even committed. Federal courts have stated that a reporter should not be subpoenaed when the testimony sought is remote from criminal conduct or when there is no compelling "government interest," i.e., no crime. As two people who drafted and negotiated the scope of the 1982 Intelligence Identities Protection Act, we can tell you: The Novak column and the surrounding facts do not support evidence of criminal conduct.
When the act was passed, Congress had no intention of prosecuting a reporter who wanted to expose wrongdoing and, in the process, once or twice published the name of a covert agent. Novak is safe from indictment. But Congress also did not intend for government employees to be vulnerable to prosecution for an unintentional or careless spilling of the beans about an undercover identity. A dauntingly high standard was therefore required for the prosecutor to charge the leaker.
At the threshold, the agent must truly be covert. Her status as undercover must be classified, and she must have been assigned to duty outside the United States currently or in the past five years. This requirement does not mean jetting to Berlin or Taipei for a week's work. It means permanent assignment in a foreign country. Since Plame had been living in Washington for some time when the July 2003 column was published, and was working at a desk job in Langley (a no-no for a person with a need for cover), there is a serious legal question as to whether she qualifies as "covert."
The law also requires that the disclosure be made intentionally, with the knowledge that the government is taking "affirmative measures to conceal [the agent's] relationship" to the United States. Merely knowing that Plame works for the CIA does not provide the knowledge that the government is keeping her relationship secret. In fact, just the opposite is the case. If it were known on the Washington cocktail circuit, as has been alleged, that Wilson's wife is with the agency, a possessor of that gossip would have no reason to believe that information is classified -- or that "affirmative measures" were being taken to protect her cover.
There are ways of perceiving whether the government was actually taking the required necessary affirmative measures to conceal its relationship with Plame. We can look, for example, at how the CIA reacted when Novak informed the press office that he was going to publish her name. Did the general counsel call to threaten prosecution, as we know has been done to other reporters under similar circumstances? No. Did then-Director George Tenet or his deputy pick up the phone to tell Novak that the publication of her name would threaten national security and her safety, as we know is done when the CIA is serious about prohibiting publication? No. Did some high-ranking government official ask to visit Novak or the president of his newspaper syndicate to talk him out of publishing -- another common strategy to prevent a story? No.
Novak has written that the CIA person designated to talk with him replied that although Plame was probably not getting another foreign assignment, exposure "might cause difficulties if she were to travel abroad." He certainly never told Novak that Plame would be endangered. Such a meager response falls far legally shy of "affirmative measures."
There is even more telling CIA conduct about Plame's status. According to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence's "Report on the U.S. Intelligence Community's Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq," when the agency asked Plame's husband to take on the Niger assignment, he did not have to sign a confidentiality agreement, a requirement for just about anybody else doing work for an intelligence agency. This omission opened the door for Wilson to write an op-ed piece for the New York Times describing his Niger trip. Did it not occur to our super sleuths of spycraft that a nationally distributed piece about the incendiary topic of weapons of mass destruction -- which happens to be Wilson's wife's expertise -- could result in her involvement being raised?
The special prosecutor and reporters should ask Chief U.S. District Judge Thomas Hogan, who is overseeing the grand jury, to conduct a hearing to require the CIA to identify all affirmative measures it was taking to shield Plame's identity. Before we even think about sending reporters to prison for doing their jobs, the court should determine that all the elements of a crime are present.
Victoria Toensing was chief counsel to the Senate intelligence committee from 1981 to 1984 and served as a deputy assistant attorney general in the Reagan administration. Bruce Sanford is a Washington lawyer specializing in First Amendment issues.
Thanks for that.
======================
Joseph Wilson is uncertain how events will shake out, though he personally is doing just fine. He recently told a San Francisco audience that he wasn't interested in public office, being someone who had "too many wives" (Valerie's his third) and, when young, took "too many drugs. And, yes, I did inhale."
With a best-selling book, The Politics of Truth, and a lucrative speaking tour under way, Wilson's now making a living off Karl Rove's apparent indiscretions. "I've got a great life, and what I'm doing now is the right thing to do," he allows when I ask if he wouldn't mind being back in the enveloping mist of the Olympic Peninsula, as he was in the mid-1970s, out of the spotlight, crafting a mountainside retreat. "Once a carpenter, always a carpenter," Wilson says, brightening. He turns 56 next month. "I guess if things don't work out, I can always put my tool belt back on."
randerson@seattleweekly.com
Joseph Wilson speaks at 7:30 p.m. Wed., Oct. 26, at Town Hall (1119 Eighth Ave.); $35. His talk is sponsored by Foolproof Performing Arts, 206-325-2993, www.foolproof.org.
was Plame a covert CIA agent?
Unfortunately, logic says that it has been established that she was covert. Otherwise, how could Fitzgerald continue investigating a crime that doesn't exist. Can you imagine the outcry if, on October 29th, after two years of investigating, its announced that no crime was committed because Plame was not covert. I can't imagine that happening. The Democrats have bet their entire wad that Plame was covert.
American Voices (d.b.a. Foolproof) is a non-partisan, non-profit organization serving the Greater Puget Sound region and beyond by providing entertaining forums for informed opinion, lively discourse, and fresh thinking on national issues.
In the fall of 2003, our focus shifted to politics and public policy and American Voices as we know it today took root. Over the past two years we have made an enormous impact on our community. With speakers such as President Bill Clinton, Dr. Cornel West, Governor Ann Richards and Bill Moyers - we have brought to the Pacific Northwest the voices, ideas, and viewpoints that an informed electorate must hear to exercise the essential task of governance in a democratic society. We play a unique role in the civic landscape of Seattle, complementing the work of CityClub, Seattle Arts & Lectures, and World Affairs Council with our emphasis on national politics & policy and our ability to reach people of all political stripes.
Ten days before an event, Foolproof executive director Marilyn Raichle says, (Howard) Dean’s booking agency cancelled but promised to reschedule.
“This doesn’t sound like Gov. Dean,” Raichle says, but “all we know is we’re in a world of hurt.”
And speaking of attempting to discredit the President....
isn't there some law somewhere that either protects the President, the same as ANYone would be protected, against slander? Or isn't there some way the President can seek justice against people like Wilson (and ergo, people like Ronnie Earle re: his attempt to discredit and ruin DeLay)? If for nothing else than to clear the slate and go on record in clearing his name, Bush, Cheney, Rove, DeLay should all be able to do something legal to punish these socialist partisan hacks.
I'm getting really weary of these leftists presumably getting away with all this bs they're pulling. I keep wondering and worrying that....if they can get away with all this NOW, when we control all three branches of government, what on earth will keep them from doing much MUCH worse things in retaliation against conservatives and Republicans, if/when they ever manage to sleaze their way back into power (God forbid).
"...Wilson who was attempting to discredit the President"
Fitzgerald doesn't have to investigate the disclosure of Plame's identity. He can investigate whether someone tried to obstruct justice in the course of his investigation.
Well, a legal definition or standpoint is really the only one we're concerned with here. Right?
Or is a civil suit less dependent on the legal aspects, and more on the emotional ones (lots and lots of lefties on the jury)?
"But there is also a legal definition, for the purposes of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. And she almost certainly did not meet the requirements for a covert designation under the IIPA."
Agreed. And it will only get worse.
I think that's their (Boris & Natasha's) way of reassuring (or bragging to?) their socialist buds that even if Rove and others in the Bush admin. get off without indictments or criminal charges, they intend to sue them in civil court ANYway. Just as OJ got off in criminal court but lost in civil court?
And yes, they just want the negative publicity to linger on through the 2006 elections and beyond. No surprise here. I just think there should be some 'consequences', legal especially, for people that set out to ruin a career with no proof and no basis for accusation.
Wonder if Woofson's on some Kerry/Heinz payroll or another Dem president wannabe .... aah, HILLARY!.
I wouldn't doubt it if he was. Much like Cindy al-Sheehan, he's probably getting a nice fat bonus from Soros right about now. And of course he's planning (the comment about 'if things don't work out') on falling back on their ""tell-all"" book to make them a few mil. That way, he won't have to ever worry about having to have a 'real' job. Not that he's ever had to.
And what gauls me most is that we, the taxpayers, are paying these two slimebags' salaries!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.