Jonathan Turley: Plame Lawsuit Could Be Extremely Damaging

[cal04]

Plame Lawsuit Could Be Extremely Damaging To Bush Administration -- After President Leaves Office
QUESTION: What's your opinion of the validity of the Wilsons' complaint?

TURLEY: I don't think it's as frivolous as people make it out to be. The complaint raises fairly standard claims in terms of the injury allegedly suffered by the Wilsons.

QUESTION: But isn't the lawsuit a long-shot at best?

TURLEY: The key is going to be whether they can overcome the threshold constitutional issues -- whether the Vice President is immune from this type of lawsuit. are likely to ask the court to rule on and to appeal before any discovery occurs.

more
http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2006/jul/14/plame_lawsuit_could_be_extremely_damaging_to_white_house_after_bush_leaves_office

[yourout]

1. In other words....if it goes to SCOTUS they are screwed.

Had keep the powder dry.

[Spazito]

2. Not necessarily, there are indications that Cheney could well be

"sacrificed" to take the heat of the rest of them so the USSC may well actually follow the law and precedent and rule the VP has no immunity.

[SeattleGirl]

4. You may be right, but I wonder how willingly Cheney would let

himself be sacrificed. He is, after all, the BMOC, and Bush is nothing more than the Cheerleader in Chief. It will be interesting to see how this all plays out.

[whistle]

3. Dahaaa! I guess violating the law and exposing CIA undercover agents

...putting lives and national security at risk could also be extremely damaging, at least in a civilized society. But in the U.S. I guess not

[HereSince1628]

5. I expect Gonzales to approach the Court and ask for dismissal

on the grounds that the case will negatively impact "national security." It's the Ace that they always try to play, why wouldn't they do it again?

[WinkyDink]

8. I think it's clear her job was eliminated in an illegal, discriminatory

manner. She personally was targeted, as opposed to being fired for incompetency. Nothing "national security" about that.

[HereSince1628]

13. You clearly don't get it... Cheney and Bush are National Security

interests and by extension anything that risks their political reputations.

That is the entire reason that Cheney has pushed for, and received unprecedented executive branch secrecy and unprecedented executive branch authority since 2000.

Valerie Plame-Wilson is just more collateral damage. She mattered little at the time, and she matters even less since they now have the courts stacked in their favor. Expect Alito to write for the majority in the USSC.

[tabasco]

6. The scum criminal cabal will have to explain why compromising

national security by revealing a top-secret CIA operation was part of their official duties.

THIS SHOULD BE GOOD !!

[Guaranteed]

11. Yup, that's their only argument. But it's a joke,

and anyone should be able to see that.

[Mandate My Ass]

7. they howled when clinton asked for temporary immunity from

the Paula Jones civil suit. He lost in a 9-0 SCOTUS decision. Of course, being the hypocrites they are, they'll argue that he should absolutely be granted immunity, probably citing national security or some such bullshit.

[SoCalDem]

9. Be assured that the fight over which judge it will be, will be the BIG

fight.. A Bush toady will immediately dismiss, and a "liberal" judge who accepts it will be pilloried and might fear for his life (knowing who the opponents are)..

Perhaps they will just keep the whole thing front and center until *ڎ leaves..

[KoKo]

14. If they can do an "appeal" after a Bush Bot Judge dismisses it...then it

might go past Bushies term...and wouldn't it be grand to have them "out of office" facing a major Law Suit.

We can "dream" can't we....:shrug:

[SoCalDem]

15. That might be the best case scenario, since they could not claim

to be too "busy" :)

[Guaranteed]

10. He's right about the "key," but there is no immunity for something

like this. Neither Cheney nor Rove were acting in their official capacity in doing what they did. Exactly where in their job descriptions does it say "leak the names of CIA agents to the press and compromise our national security"?

This was something they did in their *personal* capacities, USING information they obtained in their official capacity. But the actions themselves had no legitimacy within their respective administrative roles. They weren't taken by the Vice President, they were taken by Dick Cheney.

This lawsuit isn't even close to a "longshot." It's a fucking "slam-dunk" (ha ha). The injuries are clear, and as far as liability there are many witnesses (Fitzgerald's already done most of the work), and there is even physical evidence. It only takes a preponderance of the evidence in a civil case to win. It should be easy.

This one's a no-brainer for the Wilsons.

[Bake]

12. Not quite a no-brainer.

Look at the law on agent/master -- what is considered "in the scope of one's duties" can be pretty broad. Cheney et al. can argue, and most certainly will argue, that what they did was in the interest of national security (and how f***ed up is THAT!!!) in that undermining the pResident in a post-9/11 world is the same as undermining national security (wait, isn't that what LIEberman said too?).

Frankly, I think this is going to be a very high hurdle to get over.

Bake

[johnnydrama]

16. the law

I guess the law is a fascinating thing since to me i look at it this way

Day before Novak column, nobody knows Valerie Wilson is undercover for the CIA.

And this is easily documented by the Wilson's, the CIA, Fitzgerald etc..

Day after Novak column, everybody knows.

Seems open and shut to me, but I guess not.

[stepnw1f]

17. So If Nothing Comes of This a Dem Can Do The Same?

Afterall... this is a legal precedent right, rightie bunnypants?