Valerie Plame Wilson and Joseph Wilson to Sue Cheney, Rove. Libby

[onehandle]

Valerie Plame Wilson, Ambassador Joseph Wilson and Their Counsel to Hold News Conference Announcing Lawsuit against I. Lewis ''Scooter'' Libby, Vice-President Cheney and Karl Rove

Thursday July 13, 2:22 pm ET

WASHINGTON--(BUSINESS WIRE)--July 13, 2006--Valerie Plame Wilson, Ambassador Joseph Wilson and their counsel, Christopher Wolf of Proskauer Rose LLP, will hold a news conference at 10 AM EDT on Friday, July 14 at 10:00 AM at the National Press Club, 529 14th St. NW, 13th Floor, Washington, DC 20045, to announce the filing of a civil lawsuit against I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice-President Richard Cheney and Karl Rove.
WHO:
Valerie Plame Wilson
Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV
Christopher Wolf, Esq.

WHAT:
News conference to announce filing of civil lawsuit

WHEN:
Friday, July 14, 2006
10:00 AM

WHERE:
National Press Club
529 14th St. NW, 13th Floor
Washington, DC 20045

http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/060713/20060713005611.html

(Actual headline too long for Subject line)

[stop the bleeding]

1. posting this in GD - thank you n/t

[thereismore]

2. Good. Go get them Ambassador and Valerie! How nice we have the

Clinton precedent on civil lawsuits againt sitting presidents.

[katty]

80. Yes! Finally!

[texastoast]

92. Wonder how that precedent karma is sitting NOW

with our trolling trolls.

:rofl:

[Biernuts]

97. Back to law school - before there will be any trial, the issue

of official immunity will be decided in the courts. This will take some time, three to four years is a good bet, and almost certainly involve one party or the other appealing through the court of appeals. The Case on point is Harlow v. Fitzgerald <http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=457&page=818>

If Jones v. Clinton had resulted from his conduct as President, he would have received official immunity. The case went forward only because it was for private actions occurring before assuming federal office.

The Plame case, however, alleges misconduct in the course of official duties. Although I have no doubt they will retain private counsel, they also will be defended by the United States Department of Justice since the case involves on the job actions. It's also very possible for the courts to rule that only the United States may be sued, not the individuals.

[bilgewaterbill]

107. The DOJ? Isn't that a conflict of interest?

Wasn't Fitz working for the DOJ? Or does his "independence" give them cover?

[Biernuts]

120. This isn't the DOJ case - it's a private civil case by Plame

One of DOJ's responsibilities is to defend government electees & employees when they are sued for their actions or decisions in office.

Here's what it says on the DOJ Website, specifically the Civil Division, headed up by an Assistant Attorney General, Prencipal Deputy Assistand Attorney General and with 5 Deputy Assistant Attornies General and "more fucking lawyers than Bill Gates has" (I creatively added the last part)

"Defend the government and its officers and employees in lawsuits seeking damages from the U.S. Treasury or from individuals personally."

source: http://www.justice.gov/jmd/mps/manual/civil.htm


They didn't defend Clinton in the Jones case because it occurred before he took federal office.

But people sue government all the time - especially cabinet secretaries. DOJ defends them. Usually, even if they are sued by name, official immunity attaches and the judge dismisses the individual as a defendant from the suit.

[bilgewaterbill]

123. Maybe I'm dense...

But your explanation didn't clear up my confusion: How can the DOJ be expected to defend someone they were actively investigating? I understand the difference between civil and criminal cases, but does that preclude the DOJ from possessing information that is potentially detrimental to its "client"? Thanks for your patience.

[aquart]

3. YES!

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

4. whoot!

Cheney and the others can't run away from a civil suit. Hope they win BIG.

[midnight]

5. I heard that this was possible.

I guess we all have to wait to hear about it tomarrow.

[Kagemusha]

6. They sure waited until the last minute.

Hoping not to impede Fitzgerald's investigation?

[wryter2000]

10. I think they were waiting to see if Rove would be indicted. n/t

n/t

[wryter2000]

7. That's what I'm talking ABOUT! n/t

n/t

[UpInArms]

8. and thanks to the reichwingers - being an "executive" gives no immunity

to civil suits while in office



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_v._Jones

Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681 (1997), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case establishing that a sitting President of the United States has no immunity from civil law litigation against him, for facts unrelated to his office (having occurred before he took office).

...more...

Hoisted by their own petard :D

[NoodleyAppendage]

15. Yes, but does this ruling apply to the Vice-President?

It looks like it only specifies the "sitting President of the United States," a point that Cheney's lawyers are sure to raise.

J

[Spazito]

48. Vice Presidents have NO immunity from prosecution at all

Only Presidents have immunity from prosecution while in office when the charges relate to their official duties. The USSC ruled that Clinton was not immune from prosecution because the case was based on private acts.

) Prosecution of Vice President and Other Federal Officials
While there are different legal opinions about the President, there is a general consensus that Vice President and other “civil officers” of the United States can be indicted and prosecuted while they are still in office, prior to any impeachment. There are numerous legal cases that have firmly established this rule. For instance, in 1804, Aaron Burr, while Vice President, was indicted for the killing of Alexander Hamilton both in the state of New York and New Jersey. Burr never claimed any immunity from prosecution in the case, and had to serve out his office with the stigma of indictment.

Likewise, Spiro T. Agnew, while Vice President, was investigated by the U.S. Attorney in Baltimore for allegedly receiving payoffs from contractors when Mr. Agnew was governor of Maryland. Before entering a plea bargain to a reduced charge and resignation, Vice President Agnew made a motion to the federal court to enjoin the grand jury proceedings against him on the ground of immunity while in office. In response, then-Solicitor General Robert Bork filed a brief arguing that “considerations based upon the Constitution’s text, history, and rationale which indicate that all civil officers of the United States other than the President are amenable to the federal criminal process either before or after the conclusion of impeachment proceedings.

http://news.lawreader.com/?p=171

[Beowulf]

But these aren't facts unrelated to their offices

They are suing over actions taken in their official capacities as members of the exexcutive branch. I'll bet this gets tossed. It's the difference between Clinton being sued by Paula Jones and being sued by Monica Lewinsky.

I hope I'm wrong.

[UpInArms]

31. methinks that will not matter - he was arguing for immunity

because it did not relate to actions in office.

[tabasco]

35. Maybe, but the scumbags are going to have to argue in court...

why exactly, revealing a top-secret CIA operation and compromising national security was part of their executive duties.

I imagine that's all the Wilsons want.

[grytpype]

36. Uh... slight problem there...

Cheney and Scooter and Turdblossom did what they did while they were in office and may have immunity from suit.

For sure, they will claim immunity.

[UpInArms]

41. these criminals are not even executive in their offices

ergo - they can have no immunity from civil suits - by any stretch of the imagination.

Immunity is not given under the Constitution - nor is "Executive Privilege"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_privilege

Executive privilege is a claim asserted by the President of the United States and other members of the executive branch to justify withholding of documents and information from other branches of government. As Presidents since George Washington and Thomas Jefferson have argued, the separation of powers embodied in the United States Constitution implies that each branch will be permitted to operate within limits free to some degree from the control or supervision of the other.

The concept of executive privilege is a legally murky one, and the Constitution does not mention it, though some consider it to be an element of the separation of powers doctrine. The history of Executive privilege underscores the untested nature of the doctrine, since Presidents have generally sidestepped open confrontations with Congress and the courts over this issue by first asserting the privilege, then producing some of the documents requested on an assertedly voluntary basis.

Jefferson set the precedent for this in the trial of Aaron Burr for treason in 1807. Burr asked the court to issue a subpoena duces tecum to compel Jefferson to provide his private letters concerning Burr. Chief Justice John Marshall, a strong proponent of the powers of the federal government but also a political opponent of Jefferson, ruled that the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution, which allows for these sorts of court orders for criminal defendants, did not provide any exception for the President. As for Jefferson's claim that disclosure of the document would imperil public safety, Marshall held that the court, not the President, would be the judge of that. Jefferson complied with Marshall's order, but claimed he was doing so voluntarily. President Bill Clinton did the same when agreeing to testify before the grand jury called by Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr only after negotiating the terms under which he would appear.

The Supreme Court addressed the executive privilege in United States v. Nixon, the 1974 case involving the demand by Watergate special prosecutor Leon Jaworski that Richard Nixon produce the audiotapes of conversations in the Oval Office of the White House in connection with criminal charges being brought against members of the Nixon Administration. Nixon invoked the privilege and refused to produce any records.

The Supreme Court did not reject that claim out of hand; it noted, in fact, "the valid need for protection of communications between high Government officials and those who advise and assist them in the performance of their manifold duties." As the Court stated, "uman experience teaches that those who expect public dissemination of their remarks may well temper candor with a concern for appearances and for their own interests to the detriment of the decisionmaking process." This is very similar to the logic that the Court had used in establishing an "executive immunity" defense for high office-holders charged with violating citizens' constitutional rights in the course of performing their duties.

...more...

Will they claim that outing a covert CIA agent was in the "course of performing their duties"?

[texastoast]

93. There are only certain things

sovereign immunity applies to. It will be interesting to see how it pans out. Damn, I wish I could work on that case.

[wakeme2008]

9. hehehe The Clinton - Paula Jones lawsuit just came

back and bit Cheney, Rove, Libby in the ass :rofl:

[madaboutharry]

22. My thought exactly. Watch them yell:

"But,but,but...we're at war...whawhawha..."

[E-Z-B]

38. Excellent point!!!

[Bok_Tukalo]

78. I don't thing Clinton v Jones applies in this instance

Although Forrester v White does.

[texastoast]

95. What about state secrets?

Like Bareford v. General Dynamics?

[Bok_Tukalo]

98. I would have to read the decision

I checked out Clinton v Jones and it was concerned with civil suits brought against the Executive for unofficial actions.

The argument could be made that Cheney, et al were acting in an official capacity so in that instance, you look to Forrester v White which is clear that immunity does not exist.




<<Among executive officials, the President of the United States is absolutely immune from damages liability arising from official acts. Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 731 (1982). This immunity, however, is based on the President's "unique position in the constitutional scheme," id., at 749, and it does not extend indiscriminately to the President's personal aides, see Harlow, supra, or to Cabinet level officers, Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511 (1985). Nor are the highest executive officials in the States protected by absolute immunity under federal law. See Scheuer v. Rhodes, supra.>>

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=484&invol=219

[wakeme2008]

114. Why wouldn't it apply

the SC said President Clinton could be sued while in office...

[leesa]

11. Sweet.

[bluerum]

12. Do they have a legal defense fund set up yet ?

[Barrett808]

14. I will donate early and often. n/t

[bahrbearian]

62. The Wilsons have a legal support fund at

http://wilsonsupport.org/
I'm sure Cheney will just use they money he pilfered from Iraq.

[bluerum]

64. Thanks - found it earlier and posted below! nt

[Catchawave]

74. "Donate for Justice" !

I sure will :patriot:

[Flying Dream Blues]

13. Thank God for their courage and persistence.

Due to this trial, the TRUTH (not the media's swiftboating version) will come out.
This is a bright spot in a sea of despair.

[eagler]

16. YES!

nt

[Bush_MUST_Go]

17. These treasonists are lucky Plame & the CIA are going through the courts

[Fridays Child]

20. Yes. By Bushco's own rules of empire...

...the likes of Cheney, Rove, and Libby should suspended from a prison cell ceiling, to be brought down only for occasional waterboarding.

:mad:

[No DUplicitous DUpe]

18. It's Breaking on MSNBC now...Cool! Go get them.

Traitors

edited for this link...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13845613/

and this snip:
WASHINGTON - The CIA officer whose identity was leaked to reporters sued Vice President Dick Cheney, his former top aide and presidential adviser Karl Rove on Thursday, accusing them and other White House officials of conspiring to destroy her career.

In a lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court, Valerie Plame and her husband, Joseph Wilson, a former U.S. ambassador, accused Cheney, Rove and I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby of revealing Plame’s CIA identity in seeking revenge against Wilson for criticizing the Bush administration’s motives in Iraq.
Snip

[SCRUBDASHRUB]

19. Sweet!

On cnn.com, too!

[Love Bug]

32. I think they were trying to get her killed, not ruin her career

I wouldn't put it past this bunch of bastards (see "Wellstone, Paul").

But of course, we can't prove it.

[colorado_ufo]

106. I'm feeling all warm and tingly . . .

Go Valerie and Joe!

[Patsy Stone]

21. And... it is good!

Godspeed, Joe and Valerie.

:thumbsup:

:patriot:

[DoYouEverWonder]

23. No wonder BushCo

is trying to start WWIII today. They desperately need a distraction.

[No DUplicitous DUpe]

TV news can only follow 1 story at a time. hmmmm

I wonder which story they will choose?

[derby378]

24. Does this have any real chance of keeping Rove out of the 2006 campaigns?

That would be sweet.

[President Kerry]

59. probably not (this is a civil suit), but it sure does have a real

chance to have him and his buddies sweating bullets and shitting bricks. That's good enough for me.

[Amonester]

25. Good news!! Go get 'em!! K & R

Plus: R there any ways to include that traitor & liar Novak in the list?

[Monkeyman]

26. Can't wait to see what the meatheads on Fox say

[Shipwack]

61. I'll bet a dollar that the right-wing spin will be...

1) This is all about the money to them... that's why they're suing.

2) They are attention whores... no wonder she wasn't really a covert agent; she likes the spot-light!

[PassingFair]

87. The spin on the "blurb" I heard on the am radio today....

was that Plame was not classified "covert"
(they were a bit dodgy on terminology)and
therefore it was OK to "out" her.

[Lasher]

100. Ongoing rightwing spin has perpetuated this myth

This lie is easily exposed as such. It came up yesterday here at DU and here is my reply.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=2383051&mesg_id=2383410

Lasher

[kestrel91316]

104. Yeah, sure. That's why the CIA complained to Fitz about the outing.

[PassingFair]

105. The kool-aid pushers are saying that the reason Rove was NOT

indicted, was because Plame's status did not
warrant "covert" type protection.

[kestrel91316]

108. HA. The only reason he wasn't indicted along with Cheney and

probably Bush, too, was because this time the coverup worked. They all circled the wagons and nobody told the real story.

[texastoast]

94. Oh, yes the spin will be there

And they had better be prepared, unlike John Kerry was for the Swiftboating.

[rateyes]

27. ONE GREAT BIG WORD:

DISCOVERY!

The Wilson's lawyers get to sit down in a room with Libby, Cheney and Rove and DEPOSE their sorry rear-ends. They get to file motions and get subpoenas to collect EVIDENCE!!

Woooohoooooooooo!!!

The Turdblossom is about to hit the fan!!

THIS ALONE COULD BRING DOWN THIS PRESIDENCY!! Congress won't investigate! Well, the Wilson's and their attorneys WILL!!!

[DerBeppo]

33. which is why

this will probably never reach discovery. It'll be tossed pretty quickly. We cannot live in a system where the executive branch is subject to civil suits concerning matters of official government business while in office. Wait until they're out of office, then destroy them in court.

[rateyes]

52. Well, if it gets tossed now

for those reasons, there is nothing keeping them from waiting till later. In the meantime, give it a shot. One thing is sure. Libby is NO LONGER a part of the administration...so go after him NOW, and if need be, get the other bastards later. Still gets the same discovery, and they still get to depose Rove, Cheney, Novak, Miller, Bush, and all the rest of the cronies.

[Amonester]

76. YES: they STILL can have a go at that PNAC TRAITOR LIBBY...

NOW!! :party:

:bounce: :toast: :applause:

Methinks that lil' war criminal's gonna squeal!! :woohoo:

[Qutzupalotl]

86. But doesn't that assume

that this act of treason was "official government business"?

[PassingFair]

88. We DO live in a system where the executive branch subject to

civil suits concerning matters of BLOW JOBS!

[DerBeppo]

115. actually

the only civil case that clinton was subject to was jones. that was expressly due to the incident being alegedly done prior to taking office. all the civil beej stuff happened after he left office. criminal charges (which is what impeachment was based on) is fair game. this is civil. big difference.

[PRETZEL]

116. given that point,

then wouldn't the only person covered by immunity be Bush? I thought the issues of executive priviledge doesn't extend to those beyond the President. And if I remember correctly I tend to think was important in Jones in that regardless of when the cause of the suit occurred the President is not to be held to be above the law and time constraints were not at issue.

[KoKo]

42. Yep! John Dean said that "Civil Suit" could get much more evidence

through "discovery" than a Special Counsel like Fitz could...and that's the way to go!

I feel badly they have to put themselves through this because Fitz was sandbagged but...Thank God they will do it for us citizens to get at the TRUTH!

[Pachamama]

89. Discovery and Depositions can really, really suck for those having to be

deposed....


Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! :rofl:

Cheney is not going to like this at all....wonder if he'll bring the President along with him? :eyes:

[rateyes]

103. Know what else?

The fucker will have to be put under oath!!

Karma's a bitch, isn't it?

:rofl:

[Tellurian]

28. Start lobbying for TRIAL coverage on mainstream TV...

For months on end...ABC, NBC, CBS...anyone of the three majors.

[halobeam]

30. Come on now, you are getting me all ... happy !

I'm NOT supposed to be, otherwise when it fizzles.. I cry.

OKAY ...**CK it... I'll bite.... on TV? Wahoooo! Lobby, Lobby, here I come.

[NoAmericanTaliban]

29. Good for them. At the least this will keep the issue in the news

& reveal more info. Of couse they will try to motion it to death or get it outright dismissed but that wouldn't be easy.

[thefuzz811]

49. Even if they do start...

covering it a lot of the MSM, they won't give accurate information. Their coverage will be as biased as all of their other stories. They will try and discredit the real victims with another smear campaign. They'll label them as sue happy, or any other tactic they can think of.

[rateyes]

55. Hey fuzz....

Welcome to DU :hi:

[grannylib]

101. "in the pockets of the trial lawyers..." the tired rePiglican spin on the

evils of those who try to protect American consumers, pass safety standards, etc.


Those nasty nasty people.

[grytpype]

34. .

[schmuls]

45. ha ha - thanks for the nice clip of people clapping their asses off!

[Tellurian]

46. Grrrrrrrreat! Thanks !!!! :):):)

[Divine Discontent]

85. THOSE POOR PEOPLE'S HANDS...

they must be so sore from all that 24/7 clapping...

and, a bit of a philosphical question for everyone, even if none of us are in this forum, are these people still clapping? when the thread gets archived, only then will their suffering end by the dark magic of grytpype?



www.cafepress.com/warisprofitable <<<--- check it out!

[slor]

37. Go get em Valerie!

We all know you could put the hurt on them physically too!

[KoKo]

39. Great News...John Dean urged them to do this before Fitzgerald was

appointed. It would seem Fitz has gone as far as he can and I credit the Wilsons because if Paula Jones could do it then Ambassador Wilson and their wife can use the same Supreme Court ruling to to it and they certainly have most credibility. Paula Jones was run by the Right with a hoked up pile of lies.

I can't wait to donate to the Wilson Defense Fund. Time for someone to turn the tables on these laws the Repugs have used for their on ends.

:applause:

[bahrbearian]

65. The Wilsons have a legal support fund at

http://wilsonsupport.org/

[Maat]

84. And I'll be donating; see my other post.

E.C. is simply the best counsel anyone could have EVER; there is NO individual more familiar with the intricacies of constitutional law than he is.

[PurpleChez]

40. How dare they question our Great Vice-Führer?

They must hate America so, so much....

[schmuls]

43. Our great leader's big daddy said that those who out those who

are undercover deserve punishment as traitors. I wish they could all swing...but I'm not holding my breath!

[Ilsa]

44. I wish they could sue them on behalf of the families of slain soldiers.

That would be sweet.

Of course, this means no one will be able to discuss this in any more detail because of "on-going litigation". I'll be dead before I get the whole story.

[davidwparker]

47. You go, Wilsons.

[twaddler01]

50. Awesome!

:toast:

[The Witch]

51. WHAT A BIRTHDAY PRESENT!!!!

UWAH! Thank you Ambassador & Mrs. Wilson!!!!! :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce:

[zara]

53. Surely some BS national security exception will be rubber-

stamped by the wing nuts on SCOTUS!~
But
Go Joe & Val! Do it for your country!

[cain_7777]

54. I'm so excited... again.

I had a bottle of champange waiting for Rove to be popped, but when Fitz dropped the charges I was lost. What to do now? I could save it for Bush's impeachment but that seemed so distant. Thank you Mr. and Mrs. Wilson, now I have something to look forward to again.

[Dr Fate]

56. The Anti-Filibuster/Pro-Unitary Executive Democrats screwed us again.

Alito & Roberts will make sure this never happens, folks.

Go back to sleep.

[Seabiscuit]

70. Oooooo... bummer, bummer! n/t

[mikelgb]

57. State Secrets n/t

[Synnical]

58. Here's their website (complaint available)

To help Ambassador Joseph Wilson and Valerie Plame Wilson pay for the substantial legal costs associated with the illegal leaking of Mrs. Wilson’s classified CIA status. This includes:

* Counseling them for their potential witness testimony during the upcoming trial of Scooter Libby; and

* Helping them to prepare for a civil suit that would uncover the truth surrounding the leak, ensure all relevant public officials are held accountable for actions depriving the Wilsons of their privacy and constitutional rights, and serve as a deterrent to similar crimes being committed in the future.

Should the civil action result in a payment to Joe and/or Valerie Wilson that is in excess of all costs associated with their legal activities, the equivalent of all monies contributed to the Trust will be returned to the Trust. All Trust money will then be distributed by the trustees to a charitable organization(s) that works to protect government whistleblowers’ First Amendment rights and helps to defend them from retaliatory action.

http://www.wilsonsupport.org/

The Complaint: http://www.wilsonsupport.org/Docs/File_Stamped_Complaint.pdf

[Guaranteed]

60. BWAHAHAHA!! MASSIVE damages, preponderance of the evidence!

They can't have immunity for this, either. Way outside their official capacities.

They're going to get NAILED.

[Seabiscuit]

66. Not just that, but liberal discovery - they can virtually back a truck up

to the White House and raid their files, and carry them away, all with the judge's approval.

[Guaranteed]

72. ROFL yup! And leak the info all they want.

They can hold press conferences and tell people what they've found (if they want to).

[bluerum]

63. Legal Support Trust Link

The Joseph and Valerie Wilson Legal Support Trust

Godspeed.

[Seabiscuit]

68. Donated!

[grasswire]

112. how do we know that is legit??!!

The email address is hotmail.com! There is no information about the entity.

I would definitely check this out before donating!

[Tight_rope]

67. HOLY SHIT.....Couldn't happen to a more deserving guy!

:woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo::bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :applause: :applause: :applause: :evilgrin:

[Dr Fate]

71. heh- I was wondering if that was a typo! ;) n/t

n/t

[unda cova brutha]

69. Cheney will invite the plame's attorney on a hunting trip

to discuss the merits of the case.

[McCamy Taylor]

73. Hot damn!

[Catchawave]

75. Emailed thread to Olbermann and company....

Just in case they missed it :D

[Just Me]

77. I imagine the S/L was near or here. Wonder how they're going,...

,...to get past the immunity issues? I hope they have some super duper attorneys and a LOT of support!!

:bounce:

[Amonester]

79. PNAC's traitor & war criminal Libby has no immunity whatsoever.

He's no longer "in office" and they can fry his disgraced a** now, no matter if the rest of the gang of pigs would 'manage' to escape being exposed before their peers until they're thrown out of 'office.'

:evilgrin:

[Biernuts]

122. Doesn't matter if he's in office today - only that the allegations

resulted from on the (federal) job conduct.

If someone sued Bill Clinton or Al Gore today for something from 1995, the Department of Justice would defend them.

From the DOJ Website, specifically the Civil Division, headed up by an Assistant Attorney General, Prencipal Deputy Assistand Attorney General and with 5 Deputy Assistant Attornies General and "more fucking lawyers than Bill Gates has" (I creatively added the last part)

"Defend the government and its officers and employees in lawsuits seeking damages from the U.S. Treasury or from individuals personally."

source: http://www.justice.gov/jmd/mps/manual/civil.htm

[onenote]

81. I wonder what the legal claim will be?

I hope they have a good theory. The only thing I can think of is tortious interference with a business relationship (i.e., by outing her they interfered with her employment relationship with the CIA).

Anyone got any other ideas?

[The Wizard]

82. With all the money

these shysters looted from our treasury, settling out of court will not be a problem. Then again, why settle when you and make these scumbags twist in the wind. Make them testify and lie under oath. There's enough on the record to make them contradict one another. The threshold in a civil case is a preponderance of evidence, not guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

[Maat]

83. They simply could NOT have better counsel.

Constitutional law scholar Erwin Chemerinsky, who is Of Counsel in the Wilson lawsuit, will be available for interviews following the news conference at [phone] or by leaving a message at [phone]

Professor Chemerinsky is my hero; I absolutely love the lecture he did recently talking about the unprecedented and inappropriate seizure of executive power by the Evil Bushistas.

He also gave me hope; he thinks that we can do something about things.

His tapes and materials have been responsible for nearly every good grade I received in both law school and on state tests (E.C.'s, that is).

[Tellurian]

90. Yeah, well, he better have 24 security...

Remember what happened to Charles Ruff during Clinton's Impeachment?

These charlatans know no bounds. They are clever and underhanded.

The levels to which they will sink to eradicate a threat are bottomless.

Mr. Chemerinsky better put his strategy on tape for others to Champion

in case he is no longer able.

Just a friendly warning...

[shayes51]

91. Way to go!

[Joe Bacon]

96. I wish they would sue Novak too

Love to see them file a racketeering action against that rat bastard!

[Joey Liberal]

99. I love it! n.t

[jazzjunkysue]

102. YESSSSSSS!!!!!!!! MORE COWBELL!!!!!

Hooo---ahhhhhhhh!!!!!

Celebrate! Celebrate!

Let's see the news leave this alone. I think not.

WoooHooooo!!!!!

[Cybergata]

109. I hope this causes Rove and Cheney some misery

because I'm still pissed off at how they treated the Wilsons. Putting someone who works for you in danger simply because they tell the truth. This just pisses me off no end. To be honest, there is no amount of misery that would even out this terrible injustice.

[sonias]

110. Thank you Valerie Plame Wilson & Ambassador Joseph Wilson

You are true patriotic American citizens fighting for what is right and decent in our society. I hope that you get justice in your civil suit.

:applause: :patriot:

Sonia

[peacetalksforall]

111. By accepting no money, they can't be asked to settle out of court,

right?

Could Cheney, Libby, and Rove plead guilty in exchenge for non-disclosure?

How many ways could this be short curcuited?

Could we expect all kinds of appeals that would get side-tracked to the (not so) Supreme Court?

107 messages and no one is guessing who the other 10 are?

I hope the other 10 named include everyone on the WHIG board, plus Tenet.

I'm waiting for the lies and crapola from Victoria Toensing and Joe DeGenova. I'd also like to hear what James Baker, Ed Meese, Theodore Olson, C B Gray, and Ledeen say.

Here we go on another round of trying to right some lies. Is Karl Rove going to handle his own disinformation and lie program?

I hope there is a Rove vs Libby vs Cheney rift and they all tell an equal number of lies about themselves and an equal number of truths about the others.

My wish has come true.

I am so glad the Wilson's are not taking money. If everyone is sending in money, we need to know that it isn't in to their pockets. Yeah! It is predictable that Rovians will get the reverends to lie about it anyway and all the follower-swallowers will be calling in to WJ and talking about all the money the Wilsons will make even though other callers (us) set them straight.

[Joyce]

113. I hope and I believe...

that Mary Matalin is one of the ten "John Does." She's very deeply involved in everything that Cheney and Libby have done to harm this country. She deserves to be held accountable. I would like to know how much money the Scooter Libby fundraiser at her home raised recently. It's a shame...I had high hopes for the Matalin-Carville marriage, but it doesn't look good for her. I'm sorry that she has done this to herself and her daughters. It would be very interesting to see a guest list for that fundraiser, too.

[Biernuts]

121. Do you know who pays for defending the Respondents?

Surprise - WE ALL DO.

One of DOJ's responsibilities is to defend government electees & employees when they are sued for their actions or decisions in office.

Here's what it says on the DOJ Website, specifically the Civil Division, headed up by an Assistant Attorney General, Prencipal Deputy Assistand Attorney General and with 5 Deputy Assistant Attornies General and "more fucking lawyers than Bill Gates has" (I creatively added the last part)

"Defend the government and its officers and employees in lawsuits seeking damages from the U.S. Treasury or from individuals personally."

source: http://www.justice.gov/jmd/mps/manual/civil.htm

Guess who pays any damages if awarded by a jury and they are upheld on appeal - right again - dig into your pocket, taxes may be rising.

[Algorem]

117. Diane Rehm announced Joe Wilson will be the guest in first hour Monday

http://www.wamu.org/programs/dr/06/07/14.php#11390

[Moderator]

118. k

[sabra]

119. Plame Says Government Betrayed Her Trust

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-5951146,00.html

Plame Says Government Betrayed Her Trust

WASHINGTON (AP) - Former CIA officer Valerie Plame and her husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, said Friday they decided to sue Vice President Dick Cheney and presidential adviser Karl Rove because they engaged in a ``whispering campaign'' to destroy her career.

Plame told at a news conference she trusted the government to protect her and that the government ``betrayed that trust. I'd much rather be continuing my career as a public servant than as a plaintiff in a lawsuit.''

Said Wilson: ``We are under no illusions about how tough this fight will be. But we believe the time has come to hold those who use their official positions to exact personal revenge accountable and responsible for their actions.'' His wife said they decided to pursue the lawsuit with ``heavy hearts.''

In the suit filed Thursday in U.S. District Court, Plame and her husband said that Cheney, Rove and Cheney's former chief of staff, I. Lewis Libby, leaked her CIA status to reporters to punish Wilson for criticizing the Bush administration's motives in Iraq.