Today, Valerie and Joe Wilson filed this lawsuit. Basically, they've charged Libby, Rove, and Cheney - among others - with violating their civil rights.

This entry does a good job of explaining what this issue is all about with some helpful facts.

Questions for debate:
1. Given the information available, do the Wilsons have a case?
2. Does this move strengthen the argument that Valerie Wilson was working undercover?
3. Could other lawsuits follow for additional actions such as libel and defamation?

Edited to add wikipedia link.

#2. The fact that Fitzgerald has admitted he knows the original source for the disclosure of Plame's employment and has failed to indict that person, while further stating he will not, leaves the strong conclusion that such disclosure was not illegal, probably because her employment did not fit a category protected under any law. Plame's depo (which Libby's attorney are doing a Snoopy Dance in anticipation over not to mention the depo of Richard Armitage*) will shed light on that subject, as well as others. Based upon that reasoning...

#1. It will be a gross stretch to form a new Cause of Action where anyone lawfully and truthfully exposes publicly the employment of another regardless of whether it was done from malice or otherwise. The Wilsons' also have the insurmountable problem that the kerfuffle has increased Plame's earning power, not reduced it. Lawsuits of this nature can only ask for money damages of which there are demonstrably none.

#3. It is unclear from this question who it is contemplated would file the libel and slander suits. In the case of the Wilson's the answer is "no" as truth is a defense in such actions, hence the gyrations in attempting to inventing new Causes of Action in the case filed. The answer is "no" also to any by individuals sued on the other side, as one cannot libel another with what is alleged in a legally filed lawsuit or said in court procedings. Now what is said by the Wilsons' and their sycophants outside the protections of court procedures is another question.


Fitzgerald is undoubtedly having apoplexy over this lawsuit and the subpoena/discovery capabilities it gives his Defendant who would otherwise have in only a very limited capacity.





*be aware that "taking the Fifth" under oath in a civil case, unlike in a criminal case, can be presented to the jury, and the court will usually grant an instruction to the jury that such action can be construed to be an admission the answer would have been against the interest of the declarant.

1. Given the information available, do the Wilsons have a case? I have no doubt in my mind that they have an excellent case- provided the GW crew doesn't pull some "executive privilage, you know, for national security (wink wink) , terrorism now! " type legal slieght of hand and the principles are actually forced to face the accuser. I would be folly to go up against a regime as entrenched and not afraid of using any unethical means to smear there opponent if there wasn't a case. Lawyers don't like to lose any more than a trained athlete- you can be sure they have dotted thier "i"s and crossed those "T's" in this case. The burden of proof is much lower in a civil case than a criminal case, and I think Fitzgerald just couldn't get a "slam dunk" he needed to finish the case- karl rove has proven himself to be very good at killing any paper trail to himself, though it has his character and dealings all over it. I wonder who will be forced to testify- I would really like to see Rove under oath!



2. Does this move strengthen the argument that Valerie Wilson was working undercover?

There is no doubt- she always was, otherwise there would have been no special investigator in the first place. Saying she was not was just pure Rovian/Rush spin. I pity the poeple that even buy that line that she was not, it is obvious, at any level, she was working undercover.


3. Could other lawsuits follow for additional actions such as libel and defamation?

I am hoping so, these scumbags really need to be held accountable at some point for some of thier crimes. Even if she only wins 1$, it is a victory- the case being, is, I don't know if she has LOST any source of income, to be "made whole". That is a valid argument- BUT punitive damages would be appropriate in this case, I am thinking one gazzilionaity punitive against every member of GWs cabinent and staff. It would be nice to see them broke, naked and homeless, living on welfare and food stamps- mmmm, sweet sweet poetic justice

As if the media would just sit by and do nothing if that were to happen. After all, we all know how slavishly pro-Bush they are and how they always hold his coat for him.


Nonetheless, lawyers do lose, so it's not like every case they take up is a good case. On top of which, the Wilsons are setting up a "legal fund" - an odd move, considering that plaintiffs' attorneys usually don't get paid unless they win. This could easily be primarily a publicity move. Even if they lose, they could claim that the deck was stacked against them by Karl Rove or whomever, and the media (I'm not being sarcastic this time) would not be all that likely to question them seriously. They're "victims", after all.

1) The media has practically blown wind on GWs tushy since 9/11, not near as attack dog as during the Clinton so called "scandals" ( I used to think they WERE scandals until GW has shown us what REAL abuse of power is!)

2) So a 'legal fund" is a damning evidence of a publicity stunt? I notice that the, oh, what's her name, the ugly chick that got the nose job that accused Clinton of Sexual harrasement? Got her clock cleaned by Tanya harding? Anyway- she had a legal defense fund almost immediately- no one on the right seemed to question that move

To take on Rove, when, chances are, they will be dismissed as something like "national security" or "executive privileage" makes total sense to make sure and not ruin yourself financially- heck, I better donate- best cause I have heard of all day!

Well, all I can say is that your perceptions are quite unique if you think the media aren't "Rather" biased against Bush. Either way, though, can you name a single "smear" against anyone that Team Rove has actually been able to make stick to the wall with the dutiful compliance of the major media?

By the way, they went easy on Clinton. Just imagine what it would have been like if Reagan or Bush had bombed that Sudanese aspirin factory.


Hey, it's your money. But I'm still wondering how they can be financially ruined if they don't get charged for legal services unless they win the suit.

Let me get this straight- you think lawyers really work for free until they win the suit? - and I am being unrealistic? how about legal aides and private investigators, various bribes to low lifes etc?

By the way, they went easy on Clinton. Just imagine what it would have been like if Reagan or Bush had bombed that Sudanese aspirin factory.

That would have been bad.

Imagine if Clinton had invaded Iraq, lost the WTC, was a minority president (not a pluraity), kept falling off his bicycle, held hands with a Saudi dude, rubbed the shoulders of a female diplomat, flipped the bird to the camera, cursed, and oh the list can go on and on and on . . .

I think the record's broke.

That's the general idea behind the term "contingent fee". I suggest looking it up.


Legal aides are usually part of the lawyer's staff. "Bribes to low lifes" - now there's an interesting idea. I wonder if the Wilsons will be mentioning that on their web site. And as for private eyes, I think you just might have made Internet history by possibly making the first web site to contain a suggestion that the Wilsons might be considering hiring them. At least no searches that I've made have turned up anyone making such a suggestion. And it would be rather odd for them to first launch a suit and then search for evidence to back up the suit. Usually if you're suing someone, you'd better be sure you already have the evidence you need. Otherwise it calls into question your credibility.

By the way, AuthorMusician, you wondered what would have happened if Clinton "lost the WTC", as if to imply that he had nothing to do with it. Between his botched Somalia operation, the bombing of the aspirin factory to get Monica off the front pages, and Gorelick's Wall, I'd say he's at least as much to blame as any other president for 9/11. That's just another example of the media going easy on him. The bottom line, just to keep things relevant to the discussion, is that an Ugandan soccer team has a better chance of winning the NFL Superbowl than Karl Rove has of getting the media to go along with any attempt by him to smear the Wilsons.

Questions for debate:
1. Given the information available, do the Wilsons have a case?
Did the Wilson's ever really have a case? This case was about political maneuvering, and that is it. She and her husband don't like the Bush Administration and would like to see them come down in whatever way possible. Her being outed as a CIA operative was the ticket. The person that actually put her name out in the papers as the CIA Operative should probably be the one charged, because they had ethical standards, and legal standards, that they should have stood by as reporters. Why were they not named? Its because she doesn't care and just wants to take down the Bush Administration and give them a bad name.

2. Does this move strengthen the argument that Valerie Wilson was working undercover?
As far as I know, there has been no debate to whether she was working undercover or not. This move does not strengthen or weaken anything. It just goes to show how much she is just looking out for herself and what she wants, rather than what really matters.

3. Could other lawsuits follow for additional actions such as libel and defamation?
Other lawsuits could always happen. Valerie Plame is just adding to it. In America we have been haveing non-stop lawsuits for everything imaginable including the famous one where peopole said that McDonalds made them fat so they were suing. A reporter put your name out to the public, but yet you go for the people with names and the good jobs? She is just going for the money and the recognition.