Well...this should be interesting.
Posted by Mig (Member # 9284) on :
Yes, I just hate how Cheney and Rove forced her to do those Vanity Fair photos as a way to undermince her covert intelligence work. She thought that nothing would help her intelligance work more than a Vanity Fair photospread. And we can't ignore how Rove and Cheney tricked her husband into taking such a public role in undermining her employer. The fact that Novak has recently stated that the disclosers were all inadvertent and not designed as retribution, only shows Novak is a tool of the administration.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I hope she and her husband are ready for the deposition. It's not going to be fun, and Wilson's motives will be in play.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Just for the record, the Vanity Fair article was after she was outed.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
Any articles in Vanity Fair occurred long after the leak of Plame's identity. The damage had already been done.
Her husband "undermined her employer" by revealing that the some of the claims that they were using to mount a case for war were not true. Shame on him, telling the truth like that. Especially when thousands of lives were on the line. How unamerican.
As for Novak, what his intentions were aren't relevant to what the intentions of those who gave him the information were.
So, in short, do you have any point at all?
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mig: Yes, I just hate how Cheney and Rove forced her to do those Vanity Fair photos as a way to undermince her covert intelligence work. She thought that nothing would help her intelligance work more than a Vanity Fair photospread. And we can't ignore how Rove and Cheney tricked her husband into taking such a public role in undermining her employer. The fact that Novak has recently stated that the disclosers were all inadvertent and not designed as retribution, only shows Novak is a tool of the administration.
...amazing.
Meanwhile, let's get back to torching the NYT building for their treason.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
Novak has said that Joe Wilson has not been honest. I wonder what his role in all this is.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Dag, I was wondering about that. I seriously hope this is for real, that they have real evidence to back their claims and can carry this forward. I truly hope this isn't JUST politically motivated.
I do believe it almost has to be at least partly motivated by politics though.
What else exists in this charge will be VERY interesting to see.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
There are serious, credible allegations that John Wilson lied about his trip to Africa, especially concerning how he came to be selected for the trip. His account tended to boost his credibility. The contradiction of his account included the Plame's name.
Remember, we're trying to figure out intent in this suit. Which means that the truth of what happened isn't nearly as important as the perception of the truth by the defendants.
I'll be interested to see the complaint, especially the cause of action.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Dag, could you expand more on that? I find it interesting that the truth would not be as important as perception, although sadly I am not surprised.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Here's the complaint for those interested. (Edit: Erwin Chemerinsky, the lawyer appearing of counsel for Plame and Wilson, is the lecturer for Constitutional law in the national bar review course. Small world.)
Kwea, short answer is that intent matters. Intent very much depends on what a given person thought was true at the time. For example, if you see someone come at you with a baseball bat and swing at your head, whether or not you knew he was an actor giving self-defense demonstration is going to factor into whether or not you go to jail for shooting him.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Thanks Dag,
Interesting reading.
I understood about 1/5th of it, I think.
But still, impressive.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Some issues I suspect will be raised:
1.) Were these actions under "color of law." If not, all of the constitutional claims are tossed. Of course, some actions might be and some not. But not all actions taken by an official are under color of law.
2.) Whether there was "public interest" in Plame's identity. If they use the same standard they'd use for reporters, then I doubt she can win on the privacy claim. This is where Wilson's motive and truthfulness will be particularly telling, because if he was enhancing his credentials by saying he had been sought by the administration when really his wife suggested the trip, it will be relevant to an issue Wilson made public.
3.) What kind of discovery will the plaintiff's get? Much of this would seem to be privileged.
The answer is due w/in a month. I'll post it if I can find it.