Jul 13 2006
Joe And Val Suing To A Best Seller
Obvioulsy Fitzgerald is closing up shop because first we have Rove jauntily walking around sans indictment, then Novak opens up on his role in all this, and now the Wilsons try and create a mega-scandal so Val can sell more books by filing a flimsy law suit against Libby and Rove! Too much fun. Bring it on Joe and Val, because you will be opening yourselves up to such questions and information held back that your reputations will not survive the encounter. Let’s begin with Joe’s role in the Kerry campaign. Then we can move onto how Valerie was one of only 4 people present at the debriefing at the Wilson’s home where Joe was sure he debunked forgeries that would surface 6 months llater! Funny how Val never suggested Joe for the trip but was always there on key dates. We can explore Marc Grossman and pull Armitage into all this. A civil suite would be the perfect place for the final show down.
Addendum: I have to say I think Joe Wilson is just plain dumb. All evidence points to Libby not outing Plame but responding to reporter’s questions. Rove did not out Plame, he answered reporters questions. Novak did not out Plame, Armitage did. So what is this suite going to be about?
,blockquote>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.
What a waste of lawyer’s fees (bet you Sorros is paying for this). There is no way to win this case when a federal prosecutor is not even making these charges stick. Either the reporters broached the subject, or in the case of Mitchell and Russert, never heard about Plame! The one’s who did broach the subject had contacts with JOE WILSON! Miller and Cooper (via Massimo) were in contact with Joe Wilson. So if Miller and Cooper did not hear it from Libby or Rove originally (which they both testified under oath about) who did they hear it from? When all the evidence points away from Libby and Rove as the original sources for all those who supposedly knew Plame, you have to wonder about this suit. It is probably just a political stunt to keep the story in the news. Call it a poor loser’s Fitzmas.
Addendum: More here.
Addendum: Here is the filing by the Wilsons. Apparently it names Cheney, Libby, Rove and hints at ten other people from the government and politics.
Update: Well, it is not good to submit something that is just plain wrong, and timelines will prove it. Check out Para 3 where it now claims if it were not for Joe Wilson the 16 words would never have been challenged! LOL! What a hoot. Unfortunately for Wilson, his article came out in July and the 16 words were lit a flame much earlier. Just check out this timeline by the BBC and see that the IAEA had made comment about the claims in March. So from the start the jury will see what a self-aggrandizing liar Joe Wilson is.
Update: Page 6 Item B: Wilson brings back the claim he debunked the forged documents! Let’s open up that can of worms.
Update:Page 7 has some interesting, never before seen details on the timeline of events that can only be coming from grand jury testimony and knowledge. Much of it around Under Secretary of State (and posible life pal to Joe Wilson) Marc Grossman, whom it seems has may be taking a role in this suit with the Wilsons.
Correction: looks like this part is lifted from the Libby indictment and I just don’t recall the details. Who knows what it means
In fact, on Page, para ‘e’, it seems Grossman is blaming other State Department employees for saying Valerie sent Joe! Interesting. Was Grossman trying to hide is relationship with Joe? Why would Grossman say something that Joe Wilson claims is fals – Valerie’s role? Was this a set up to juice up the story and get it out in the media? The nepotism angle is an eye catcher that even Novak couldn’t resist dropping in his story on Niger. Wilson did clearly say, well prior to his own coming out, that the only way to get the story going was to create a scandal. That is on audio tape. So did the Wilson plan all along to throw out the Plame angle to give the story some legs? Wouldn’t surprise me in the least. That sounds like a good CIA trick, hide a poison pill in a bit of eye-candy.
Reading the filing all I see is a lot of hallway office gossip!
Update: OK, on page 13, para 22 they go back to Marc Grossman’s 1X2X6 theory which assumes two officials leaked to 6 reporters. But what we had was 1 official leaked to Novak and Woodward, and 2 officials confirmed the information to some degree! This is one weak case off the bat.
Update: Man this is hard to read, it is so lame. On page 16 the damage done was all the notoriety and exposure, which was not caused by the WH defending its position, it was Joe Wilson making false claims, first anonomously (which seems to be a big problem the Wilson’s have with WH comments) and then later out in the open. If the Wilson’s were damaged because of notoriety then blame Joe. This is the price you pay for speaking out on a matter, and lying to a nation about what you did in Niger!
Update:And is anyone surprised to see leftwing nut Erwin Chemerinsky on the Plame Team? Check out the very last thing on the very last page.
Retire05,
…move to a little town in Utah. Start a new life. Open up a humble diner. Val gets a cheerleader outfit to keep the homefires burning. One day a sedan black sedan pulls up outside the diner…
I’ll bet the Plames drop the suit after november and never answer any discovery.
Tell me they never heard of Alger Hiss. The left never remembers.
Honestly, I don’t think the loss in credibility, in terms of the general public, matters the slightest to them. They will always have their credibility with the people that really matter to them on the left. They’ll always be heroes. And no matter what comes out in a civil trial, there’s going to be a big payoff at the end. They’ll be speaking engagements as far as the eye can see. Although I’m not a literary expert, it just seems like they’ll get a huge book deal no matter how this turns out. Again, assuming their credibility to the general public doesn’t matter to them, from their perspective, they can’t lose. As long as they can stay in the public eye and drag this thing out, their stock will rise.
One more thing, being new to this site, I would love for somebody to provide me with a source (I don’t care if it’s Time Magazine or a post on Daily Kos) that lays out precisely how Plame was a “covert agent”. It’s been repeated so often, it’s just become “truth”. I heard it on NPR today in the car. Some reporter was giving background on the case and simply refers to Plame as having been “covert”.
As John Travolta said in Pulp Fiction, “That’s a bold italic statement.”
Carol,
$2 million… but who’s paying for that? The taxpayer! Heh.
Hey AJ, over at my blog you’ll see that Wilson registered the domain name for his legal support fund the same day that Luskin announced that Rove was in the clear. Interesting, ne?
Oh, and eh… Richard Sale reported on possible indictments including breaches of civil rights and ruining Wilson’s name… sound familiar? He wrote that article on October 26, 2005. Sounds to me like one of his sources goofed up and revealed Wilson’s plans for a civil suit. It’s all over at my blog.
PS. I caught the 1x2x6 thing too. Grossman seems to have been a major player in cleaning up for his boss and to set up the match for Wilson.
Don’t miss this background on the suit by Seixon.
http://www.seixon.com/blog/archives/2006/07/civil_suit_leak_1.html
The Plame Lawsuit – Plenty Of Laughs To Go Around…
Whoa boy. I cannot tell you how floored I am that Joe and Valerie Wilson have decided to sue pretty much everyone over their supposed "outing" in the media. I mean they have both displayed a large amount of common sense and intell…
Did those who take the Wilsons at their word help in the crafting of this lawsuit? How else to explain the inclusion of Wilson’s debunking of the forgeries? Did he read it before it was filed, and if he did, could he point out that there were factual inaccuracies that would inevitably be exposed?
So many questions, so little time…
Once More, With Feeling…
Now it’s Daniela Deane who repeats the error made by Howard Kurtz, Eric Weiss and Charles Lane about Joe Wilson not finding evidence of Iraq seeking uranium in Niger. Deane, in a post.com story filed after the Plame/Wilson presser titled…
The case will be dismissed as it falls under the CSRA!!
Before WILKINSON, Chief Judge, and WILKINS and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Judge Wilkins wrote the opinion, in which Chief Judge Wilkinson and Judge Motz joined.
OPINIONBY: WILKINS
OPINION:
WILKINS, Circuit Judge:
Sheryl L. Hall appeals a district court order dismissing her claims under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 29 L. Ed. 2d 619, 91 S. Ct. 1999 (1971), and 42 U.S.C.A. § 1985(1) (West 1994), as being precluded [**2] by the Civil Service Reform Act (CSRA) of 1978, Pub. L. No. 95-454, 92 Stat. 1111 (codified as amended in scattered sections of 5 U.S.C.A.). Because the CSRA constitutes the exclusive remedy for claims arising out of federal employment, we affirm.
Hall maintains that the district court erred in dismissing her Fifth Amendment Bivens claim against Scott, Tayman, and Vaden as being precluded by the CSRA. We disagree.
A Bivens action is a judicially created damages remedy designed to vindicate violations of constitutional rights by federal actors. See Bivens, 403 U.S. at 395-97. In order for a Bivens remedy to be available, a court must determine that (1) Congress has not already provided an exclusive statutory remedy; (2) there are no “special factors counselling hesitation in the absence of affirmative action by Congress”; and (3) there is no “explicit congressional declaration” that money damages not be awarded. [**6] Id. at 396-97; see Schweiker v. Chilicky, 487 U.S. 412, 423, 101 L. Ed. 2d 370, 108 S. Ct. 2460 (1988). The “special factors” concept “includes an appropriate judicial deference to indications that congressional inaction has not been inadvertent.” Schweiker, 487 U.S. at 423.
The CSRA “comprehensively overhauled the civil service system,” creating a “framework for evaluating adverse personnel actions against [federal employees].” Lindahl v. Office of Pers. Mgmt., 470 U.S. 768, 773-74, 84 L. Ed. 2d 674, 105 S. Ct. 1620 (1985). “It prescribes in great detail the protections and remedies applicable to such action, including the availability of administrative and judicial review.” United States v. Fausto, 484 U.S. 439, 443, 98 L. Ed. 2d 830, 108 S. Ct. 668 (1988). A primary purpose of enacting the CSRA was “to replace the haphazard arrangements for administrative and judicial review of personnel action” that existed [*205] prior to the CSRA. Id. at 444. When the CSRA was enacted, the perception was that the existing appeals process was so lengthy and complicated that federal supervisors were [**7] discouraged from taking legitimate adverse personnel actions. See id. at 445. Further, because multiple jurisdictions had concurrent jurisdiction over actions challenging personnel decisions, there was a wide variation in decisions regarding the same or similar matters. See id. Accordingly, the CSRA was designed to eliminate this problem as well.
The Supreme Court examined the availability of a Bivens action in a federal employment context in Bush v. Lucas, 462 U.S. 367, 76 L. Ed. 2d 648, 103 S. Ct. 2404 (1983). In Bush, the Supreme Court determined that federal employment constituted a “special factor” warranting refusal to recognize a First Amendment Bivens claim asserted by a federal employee. See Bush, 462 U.S. at 378-80; Zimbelman v. Savage, 228 F.3d 367, 370 (4th Cir. 2000). This court recently decided a similar case, the facts of which are closely analogous to the case at bar. In Zimbelman, two employees were fired from their jobs with the Air Force under suspicion of having committed various acts of misconduct, including theft and fraud. See Zimbelman, 228 F.3d at 369. [**8] The employees brought suit against their supervisors and the Air Force investigators who had conducted the investigation into their misconduct, asserting several constitutional claims, including one under Bivens for a violation of their Fifth Amendment right to preserve their reputations. See id. at 370. This court affirmed the dismissal of the Bivens claims, concluding that they “indisputably arose from a federal employment relationship.”
Hall contends that the CSRA does not preclude her Bivens action because although the CSRA provides for administrative or judicial review of the action taken against her, her Bivens claim is not against her supervisor. Hall’s argument is without merit, however. The salient fact here is that the wrongful acts Hall alleges were taken against her arose out of her federal employment relationship. Because they did arise out of her federal employment, Bush and Zimbelman dictate that Hall’s claim is precluded. That the CSRA does not provide the remedy that she would prefer is of no moment. See Bush, 462 U.S. at 388-90 (refusing to allow a Bivens action even though “existing remedies [did] [**9] not provide complete relief”); Zimbelman, 228 F.3d at 370-71 (holding that plaintiffs were not released from the exclusive remedial framework of the CSRA when their claims arose from their federal employment even though the CSRA provided plaintiffs with no remedy); cf. Lombardi v. Small Bus. Admin., 889 F.2d 959, 961 (10th Cir. 1989) (holding that plaintiff’s claims were precluded by CSRA because actions complained of arose from federal employment relationship even though many of the alleged violations occurred after the employment relationship was terminated); Gleason v. Malcom, 718 F.2d 1044, 1048 (11th Cir. 1983) (per curiam) (holding that claims by federal employee were barred under Bush even though one claim was against coworkers because “the purpose of denying a private cause of action to federal employees is to ensure that they do not bypass comprehensive and carefully balanced statutory and administrative remedies in order to seek direct judicial relief”). Accordingly, the district court correctly dismissed Hall’s Bivens claim.
SBD