Valerie Plame Wilson and Ambassador Joseph Wilson Initiate a Civil Action Against Vice President Cheney, Karl Rove, and Scooter Libby for Violations of their Constitutional and Other Legal Rights
Thursday July 13, 3:11 pm ET


WASHINGTON--(BUSINESS WIRE)--July 13, 2006--Former CIA agent Valerie Plame Wilson and her husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, filed suit in federal court today against Vice President Dick Cheney, his former Chief of Staff I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, top Presidential advisor Karl Rove and other unnamed senior White House officials, for their role in the public disclosure of Valerie Wilson's classified CIA status. Are they going after Wilson's website and Who's who?


The suit accuses the defendants of violating the Wilsons' constitutional and other legal rights as a result of "a conspiracy among current and former high-level officials in the White House" to "discredit, punish and seek revenge against" Mr. Wilson for publicly disputing statements made by President Bush in his 2003 State of the Union address justifying the war in Iraq.They are gonna prove a conspiracy to discredit!...cool. Did Rove trick Plame into reccommending hubby for the job? (discrediting and politicizing the CIA) Did scooter convince Wilson to lie in his editorial?

The suit was filed nearly three years after Washington columnist Robert Novak disclosed Valerie Wilson's classified CIA employment in a column he wrote on July 14, 2003, based on leaks from senior administration officials. It took them 3 years to decide they were discredited?

As a result of Cheney, Libby and Rove's conduct, the suit claims that the Wilsons have suffered violations of their rights guaranteed under the United States Constitution and by laws of the District of Columbia.Like the right to lie?


The Complaint specifies that each of the Wilsons has been deprived of their First and Fifth Amendment rights;1st ? I guess calling a liberal a liar is a violation of his religious freedom :|


each has suffered a gross invasion of their privacy; Didn't seem to concern you when you posed for the cover of Vanity Fair

each has been impaired in pursuing professional opportunities; You both did the impairing with the lies, politics, and cronyism


and that they fear for their safety and the safety of their children as a result of the wrongful public disclosures. "Think of the Children" :rolleyes:

In addition, the Complaint alleges that Valerie Wilson was impaired in her ability to carry out her duties at the CIA, and to pursue her career at the agency in further service to her country, as she had planned. Judging by the CIA's record on WMD's, I'd say your abilities were already impaired and your husband(whom you reccommended) is to blame for your carreer being in the tubes. (but you can always fall back on your modeling)




http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/060713/20060713005646.html?.v=1

If one wishes to remain anonymous, one should not have one's name included in one's husband's bio in Who's Who - nor should one appear on the cover of Vanity Fair.

Just sayin'.


I suspect this is being bankrolled by Moveon.org.

How retarded...

If one wishes to remain anonymous, one should not have one's name included in one's husband's bio in Who's Who - nor should one appear on the cover of Vanity Fair.

OH - MY - GOD. You are something else.

OH - MY - GOD. You are something else.


Isn't it amazing how far neo-cons will go to believe in fantasy? They keep repeating the same de-bunked garbage month after month even though they've been proven wrong dozens of times now.

Isn't it amazing how far neo-cons will go to believe in fantasy? They keep repeating the same de-bunked garbage month after month even though they've been proven wrong dozens of times now.
Debunked? They didn't pose on the cover? The point is simple CA.

SHE is the one that "impaired" and jeopardized her carreer when she got her hubby to do a bogus investigation.

HE is the one that initiated the entire political pissing contest when he wrote his bogus op-ed piece

THEY couldn't have been too concerned about their new fame and exposure when they posed for the cover of a chick magazine

If no charges are being filed by Fitzy then doesn't that tell you her importance to the CIA was dubious at best?

:nonono: It's amazing that so many otherwise very intelligent people are so clueless about what it means to be covert or undercover.

caddis, do you know your neighbor very well? Do you know what that person does for a living? No, do you really know? ... do you know what they actually go do when they leave their house every morning? How would you know if this person living the life of a middle class American, say, engineer, was actually a CIA operative? What would distinguish that person as an operative compared to, say, the neighbor on the other side of you? How do you know that the week long "business trip" to Denver this "engineer" told you about so you could water his azaleas and collect his mail wasn't really a CIA-sponsored trip to some Middle Eastern area to do some CIA-stuff there?

This is the stuff of being covert: appearing to be one thing when in actuality being something completely different. How you people think it means the ol' cloak-&-dagger, never appear when the sun is up routine is a complete mystery.

boedicca, I've said it before: Plame could have appeared to be a pole-dancer in a strip club before her outing and no one would have been the wiser of her alter-ego as a CIA operative. She appeared in public and at diplomatic functions as the wife of a diplomat. That was her cover: wife of a diplomat and guess what? Wives of diplomats routinely accompany their husbands and make the rounds of cocktail circuits and parties. Indeed, it would be more suspicious if Wilson-the-diplomat's wife was never, ever seen in public: what, people would think, is she hiding? That's the face she showed the world much as the engineer neighbor of caddis makes like a "normal" guy.

And I've debunked this nonsense about appearing on the cover of Vanity Fair before too. Check the timeline:

- Novak outs Plame as a CIA operative on July 14, 2003
- Vanity Fair article appears January 17, 2004

Your best buds in the WH assured that her cover was blown long, long before she posed on the cover of VF. Get it? The minute Novak's article appeared exposing her to the world as a CIA operative, her career within the CIA was done. Mmkay?

There is a good chance that she and her family were put at risk by the traitorous actions of Rove et al because who knows who she dealt with in the course of her WMD work? Who knows what their collective reactions might have been/might still be?

Geez, it's so elementary. You guys get all bent out of shape over a newspaper article mentioning the name of a program the substance of which Bush talked about multiple times over the last few years (SWIFT) but you cannot understand the concept of a double-identity? Being covert? Classified? The danger of exposing CIA agents like this? It even appears you can't even read a calendar since this old Vanity Fair nugget keeps getting drudged up despite being sunk many times before.

:eek7:

The Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982, according to numerous sources, doesn't apply to Plame. Others claim that it does. I don't know, because I haven't read it, but I did hear a pretty good point by point argument that makes me lean toward her not meeting the criteria. The subject is being debated, and I assume that time will tell, and someone will ultimately determine officailly whether it does or not.

Bob Novak has publicly claimed that Cheney didn't out her, that no one in the White House or the administration ever mentioned her name to him, and that the two of them in fact, outed themselves through various forms of media.

Novak stated just days ago that he got her name from the Who's Who article/bio. I've listened to several interviews with him this week, he seems sincere, stands by his story, and he has stated that he is almost certian that his true source will be revealed in time. If and when that happens, we'll all know. Until it does, the jury is still out.

I just can't see why he would go on national radio and TV and lie about this, so I tend to believe him until real proof to the contrary is presented in court.

I get the feeling that the pair of them are eating up this publicity, and I would bet that a book deal is either in the works, or it will be in the not too distant future.

My personal, gut feeling is that they both seem to thouroughly enjoy all of this publicity. It can do strange things to people, and I just have a feeling that this is a big part of what we're witnessing at this point.

I hope she gets $85 million dollars (http://www.discussanything.com/forums/showthread.php?t=92238&) from them. She was misrepresented without her consent. Her feelings are probably hurt. That's worth $85 million, right?

It's gonna be tough to win a civil trial claiming someone did something wrong considering no one has been indicted for it in a criminal case...

It's gonna be tough to win a civil trial claiming someone did something wrong considering no one has been indicted for it in a criminal case...

I dunno about that. Didn't OJ lose big time in the wrongful-death civil suit brought by Nicole Brown & Ron Goldman's families even though after his farce of a murder trial he was found not guilty?

OH - MY - GOD. You are something else.


Thank you! Considering the source - I feel AFFIRMED.

I dunno about that. Didn't OJ lose big time in the wrongful-death civil suit brought by Nicole Brown & Ron Goldman's families even though after his farce of a murder trial he was found not guilty?While writing what I did, I said to myself...

"Self?...Watch someone try to connect this to OJ..."

(sigh)...OK then...I'll explain...

First, OJ was indicted...Special prosecutor Fitzy has already stated that no one will be indicted for "outing" Wilson's wife...

Second, the reason OJ was convicted in the second trial was because certain pieces of evidence are allowed in a civil trial that were not allowed in the criminal trial...If the first jury was given the same evidence the second jury was allowed to see, most agree that the outcome would've been different...

If the special prosecutor...who is the guy who PROSECUTES...doesn't have enough cause or evidence to PROSECUTE someone for leaking after a multiyear investigation and millions of dollars, what makes you think Plame's lawyers will have any more success?...

This case will be over in five seconds...Here's the WHOLE defense...

Rove's lawyer - "I call Patrick Fitzwater to the stand."

Rove's lawyer - "Did my client do anything wrong in the court of law?"

Patrick Fitzwater - "No"

Rove's lawyer - "The defense rests."

Judge - "Case dismissed...Let's go to the bar."

:shrug:

While writing what I did, I said to myself...

"Self?...Watch someone try to connect this to OJ..."

(sigh)...OK then...I'll explain...

It'll be interesting to see how it plays out compared to your condensed version...

It'll be interesting to see how it plays out compared to your condensed version...Actually, it involves partisan hacks attacking the ruling party which has been the norm for the last 5 years whether someone was talking about war, taxes, religion, pretzels, or speechmaking...

So it won't be interesting at all...

Second, the reason OJ was convicted in the second trial was because certain pieces of evidence are allowed in a civil trial that were not allowed in the criminal trial...If the first jury was given the same evidence the second jury was allowed to see, most agree that the outcome would've been different...


No. Criminal law has a much harder burden of proof. In criminal law (the first trial), the poof has to be beyond reasonable doubt, but in civil law (the second trial), they only need a preponderance of evidence.

Actually, it involves partisan hacks attacking the ruling party which has been the norm for the last 5 years whether someone was talking about war, taxes, religion, pretzels, or speechmaking...

No. It can be boiled down to civilians taking a stand against an act perpetrated by their federal government that put their lives at great risk. It was a calculated, puerile and vindictive act by Rove et al to purposely expose Wilson's wife as a CIA agent and had nothing to do with countering the arguments put forth by Wilson in his op-ed piece.

Indeed, they -- Rove et al -- could have stuck to the facts and presented their side (which as it turns out was indeed full of shit) without exposing Plame. Instead, Plame was, to Rove, "fair game" for attack.

You know, for an administration so allegedly concerned about keeping secret covert programs for tracking phone calls and banking and the like, they sure seemed willing to expose a person working in the CIA on WMD issues just to get back at a political opponent.

If the wet-noodle Fitz doesn't see fit to lay charges, so be it. A civilian court may very well see that the case Plame & Wilson make has merit. Like I said, it will be interesting to see how it plays out in reality versus your prognostication.

No. It can be boiled down to civilians taking a stand against an act perpetrated by their federal government that put their lives at great risk. It was a calculated, puerile and vindictive act by Rove et al to purposely expose Wilson's wife as a CIA agent and had nothing to do with countering the arguments put forth by Wilson in his op-ed piece.

Indeed, they -- Rove et al -- could have stuck to the facts and presented their side (which as it turns out was indeed full of shit) without exposing Plame. Instead, Plame was, to Rove, "fair game" for attack.

You know, for an administration so allegedly concerned about keeping secret covert programs for tracking phone calls and banking and the like, they sure seemed willing to expose a person working in the CIA on WMD issues just to get back at a political opponent.

If the wet-noodle Fitz doesn't see fit to lay charges, so be it. A civilian court may very well see that the case Plame & Wilson make has merit. Like I said, it will be interesting to see how it plays out in reality versus your prognostication.


It's truly mind boggling how people can lie to themselves when the facts are right in front of their faces. The same people who think the NYTimes staff should be executed also think outing Plame wasn't even a bad thing to do!

If the wet-noodle Fitz doesn't see fit to lay charges, so be it. A civilian court may very well see that the case Plame & Wilson make has merit. Like I said, it will be interesting to see how it plays out in reality versus your prognostication.So we're on to attacking the prosecutor now?...

It's truly mind boggling how people can lie to themselves when the facts are right in front of their faces. The same people who think the NYTimes staff should be executed also think outing Plame wasn't even a bad thing to do!Since you're agreeing to a post that was responding to me...I never said outing Plame "wasn't even a bad thing to do..."

In fact, if you've ever read what I've written here previously instead of making the usual "All Conservatives must think the same way" conception, you'd see that I find what Novak did unacceptable (http://www.discussanything.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1339054&postcount=123)...

Some people believe that the Press is there to play the role of keeping the Government in check, but they have no clue as to how to keep the Press in check...

But there is an ethics problem here...It's not Novak's job to play the part of vindictive journalist...

But I have a feeling that Novak, being partisan himself, took it upon himself to help the White House out by showing everyone Wilson's lack of credibility...

Although it has been found that what he did was not illegal, it was still a pretty rotten thing to do...Wilson showed he was scum, but that doesn't give Novak the right to drop to the same level...

Sorry to burst your bubble...One of these days you might understand that not all people on a certain side are radicals and gulp down the party's agenda...

Although from what I've seen, I wouldn't bet any money on it...:hmm:

So we're on to attacking the prosecutor now?...

Actually, you know what? I take that back. Fitz may not be such a bad fellow after all.

Going back a couple of posts, you said:

Special prosecutor Fitzy has already stated that no one will be indicted for "outing" Wilson's wife...

Let's see what Fitz had to say about the investigation as a whole, back on October 28, 2005, in a press release:

"In an investigation concerning the compromise of a CIA officer's identity, it is especially important that grand jurors learn what really happened. The indictment returned today {Libby's indictment...** alleges that the efforts of the grand jury to investigate such a leak were obstructed when Mr. Libby lied about how and when he learned and subsequently disclosed classified information about Valerie Wilson [Plame]."

Later that day during a press conference, an exchange occured between Fitz and a reporter:

"QUESTION: Mr. Fitzgerald, this began as a leak investigation, but no one is charged with any leaking. Is your investigation finished? Is this another leak investigation that doesn't lead to a charge of leaking?

FITZGERALD: Let me answer the two questions you asked in one. OK, is the investigation finished? It's not over, but I'll tell you this: Very rarely do you bring a charge in a case that's going to be tried and would you ever end a grand jury investigation. I can tell you, the substantial bulk of the work in this investigation is concluded. This grand jury's term has expired by statute; it could not be extended. But it's in ordinary course to keep a grand jury open to consider other matters, and that's what we will be doing.

Let me then ask your next question: Well, why is this a leak investigation that doesn't result in a charge? I've been trying to think about how to explain this, so let me try. I know baseball analogies are the fad these days. Let me try something. If you saw a baseball game and you saw a pitcher wind up and throw a fastball and hit a batter right smack in the head, and it really, really hurt them, you'd want to know why the pitcher did that.

[...]

In this case, it's a lot more serious than baseball. And the damage wasn't to one person. It wasn't just Valerie [Plame] Wilson. It was done to all of us.

And as you sit back, you want to learn: Why was this information going out? Why were people taking this information about Valerie Wilson and giving it to reporters? Why did Mr. Libby say what he did? Why did he tell [New York Times reporter] Judith Miller three times? Why did he tell the press secretary on Monday? Why did he tell Mr. [Matthew] Cooper [of Time magazine]? And was this something where he intended to cause whatever damage was caused?

Or did they intend to do something else, and where are the shades of gray?

And what we have when someone charges obstruction of justice, the umpire gets sand thrown in his eyes. He's trying to figure what happened, and somebody blocked their view.

As you sit here now, if you're asking me what his motives were, I can't tell you; we haven't charged it.

So what you were saying is the harm in an obstruction investigation is it prevents us from making the fine judgments we want to make. "

http://mediamatters.org/items/200607140006

So the question is, is it correct to conclude at this time that no laws were broken because according to the man that could lay such charges, Libby's behavior impeded the original investigation?