Joy Tomme, in the under-appreciated blog Ratbang Diary, argues that Rove and Novak ratted out someone more important than Rove. The only guys on a higher level are Cheney or Bush.Emptywheel of Firedoglake has corrected my misunderstanding of her views: She feels that Novak's still-mysterious primary source is not Armitage, but someone else. And who might that person be?
Perhaps we've been given a huge clue in the fact that Joe and Valerie Wilson have brought suit against Rove, Libby and Cheney. Many believe that the Wilsons are privy to Novak's infamous "Source No. 1."
They do not name this source in their legal complaint, but they do target Cheney as acting in a "supervisory capacity" over Libby. The complaint comes close to stating (paragraph 18, subparagraphs v, w and x) that Cheney authorized a leak to Matt Cooper, although subparagraph u implies that Libby learned about the leak to Novak after the fact.
Paragraph 23 of the complaint reads:
Upon information and belief, Defendants Libby, Rove, Cheney and John Does 1-10 reached an agreement to discredit, punish and seek revenge against the Plaintiffs that included, among other things, disclosing to members of the press Plaintiff Valerie Plame Wilson’s classified CIA employment.So far, this all comes down to "blame Cheney because he was the boss," which seems like a valid argument to me. But the complaint does not say, or even imply, that Novak spoke to Cheney.
To this date, the only clue Novak has given are these words, which describe his still-unnamed source: "This official was not known as somebody who did a lot of political manipulations. He is more of a substantive person."Does that phrase apply to Cheney? Maybe we would consider him manipulative -- but you have to look at the matter from Novak's point of view.
The Discovery phase of the suit may firm up the evidence against Cheney. Many will argue that a sitting V.P. cannot be sued for actions committed in office. (Clinton was sued while president for actions allegedly committed before he was elected.) On the other hand, the statute of limitations applies; if the Wilsons do not sue Cheney now, they never will have the chance again. Tossing out the suit on that basis means that henceforward, any member of the executive branch will be able to do nearly anything to anyone. We are in uncharted territory here...
Incidentally, the Wilsons have a web page up for their case. I've taken the liberty of putting together a small ad for their site. Anyone with a web site who wants to display this ad need merely crib the appropriate line of code via View>Page Source. (I'll thank you not to laugh at my HTML.)
13 comments:
Hey cannonfire, remember I told ya Plame was really undercover and this blew a network of people... well it did. She is suing primarily because she was UNDERCOVER*
You reckon anyone will notice how that is no longer an issue in this fight?
It is QUITE important. Remember how I told ya my freind was scared to death... well... touche`
respondeat superior- "let the master respond." The doctrine under which liability is imposed upon an employer for the acts of its employees committed in the course and scope of their employment. Similarly, respondeat superior makes a principal liable for a tort committed by her agent. (emphasis mine. Legal Terminology Cathy J. Okrent)
Also- heard John King say this morning that (paraphrasing) "the issue of whether or not Plame-Wilson had a hand in her husbands trip to Niger is pivotal." Er, why would that be? I cannot conceive of why this was ever an issue at all. First of all, it is not illegal for a person to recommend her spouse for an assignment for which he is well qualified . Second, it is a poorly conceived smear. Not only could it be proven false, but in order to expose the purported nepotism, something that is an innocuous and everyday occurance in Washington and elsewhere,and resulted in no financial gain for the Wilson's, the actors, ie Rove, Libby, and Cheney, had to expose themselves (or at the very least "Senior administration officials")as depraved idealogues, willing to risk National Security interests for petty partisan revenge.
very quickly here; i'm scrambling to catch up with all the gazillion little crises that developed in my absence.
thanks so much to joe for keeping up with this important development, though one not hard to predict, and emptywheel did just that. i've got my feelers out for some questions that are nagging me, not least of which is cheney's suit-ability, but i have to do more digging first.
not sure the issue you point out with regard to suing cheney is the one that is key here, joe. in the little digging i've done so far, it seems the supremes allowed clinton's case to go forward not because it occurred prior to his taking office, but because it occurred outside his line of duty as president (which addressed sunny's contribution). in other words, it was a personal matter.
of course, a case could be made that nothing a president does is personal, including breathing, but that won't pass judicial muster. the argument could be made two ways. from cheney's point of view, he could argue that he supervised this effort to 'set the record straight', which is the line that's been used all along, particularly by libby. so all in the line of duty (in which case, respondeat superior would apply).
but plame's argument could be, well since when does smearing a civil servant's good name - not on the merits but by exposing covert status - get included in one's constitutional 'duty' as vp? cheney could counter bush told him to do it, and then it would get even more interesting.
all in all, though, the situation places cheney in something of a bind in making his argument.
i'm trying to read the complaint carefully, with legal input, review both novak's and luskin's statements, and some of the timing in all this, in order to make more sense of things. not least of which is getting a better handle on the role armitage has had to play in it all.
meanwhile, anon, plame cannot make her covert status an issue in this case precisely because it would then be an issue and she would be compelled then to present evidence to that effect, which she will be unable to do for obvious reasons. you may have implied that, but just wanted to be clear on it.
also, though the fact that she was undercover was all along at the crux of the matter in terms of initiating the investigation into the whole mess, it really does play something of a peripheral role now. that role is in triggering the reckless lengths these criminals will go to in order to push their agenda. full steam ahead, damn the torpedoes.
and damn her status; she and her career were just collateral damage in their dirty little war against all who are against their dirty big war. even if said obstacle happened to be in a highly key position to protect our national security, no matter; their ends justify their means.
now the fact that she was actually working on wmd's and these expressly as they have to do with iran sure makes one wonder just how far ahead cheney was thinking. it's easy to imagine that, when he discovered what she did, he considered well hey, if her hubby is this adamant against our iraq war, then she'll no doubt do what she can to thwart our efforts to 'bring about regime change' in iran, so why not take out two birds with one leak?
just guessing there. but more later; gotta get back to work.
It'll be interesting to see what the Wilsons do when an out-of-court settlement is offered to them. I mean, really, can anyone imagine this case actually going to trial? It would turn into a Constitutional farce.
We need to Gitmo-ize the esteemed Mr. Novak. Thank goodness the Bush gang has legalized torture. As soon as we're running the prisons again, we're going to find out a LOT.
When all is said and done - Novak still wrote the article (a choice of his) and he's still playing coy now - what's in it for him? Isn't it pathetic. No matter what they do I always have this vision of little brats on the playground wrecking someone else's fort. It just never ends. But once they DO wreck the fort they always deny having done so and then send up the smokescreens.
Anyway, the writing is on the wall..er..I mean the margins. That's where the directives started.
Out of curiosity (or stupidity), could it have been Libby who saw the article, wrote the notes as a brief to Cheney? Seems that would be the workflow wouldn't it? Anyone analyze the handwriting?
unirealist - torture doesn't work. However, they don't seem to know that, so telling them they'll get tortured should probably work a treat :)
Look at the note that Wilson sent to TO. In the 4th sentence, in both notes, is the same grammatical error. He says the CIA setup a meeting.
Just sayin.
Miss P.
Robert Novak's Tale Trail:
July 6th - Wilson's OpEd in the New York Times is published. Wilson appears on NBC's Meet the Press hosted by Andrea Mitchell [is Novak a roundtable guest?]
July 7th - Novak left message(s) for Karl Rove at the White House (on purpose for a paper trail, or for a legitimate reason?)
July 8th - In the afternoon OUTSIDE THE WHITE HOUSE!?! Robert Novak is walking (on the driveway? on a city street? which city street, if so?), after his meeting at THE WHITE HOUSE with ???? Karl Rove? Stephen Hadley? WHO? [And where is Novak walking to? A nearby office?]. He proves to a witness who speaks to him that HE KNOWS "VALERIE" WILSON'S NAME - BY USING IT! unprompted, along with conveying the (just-learned?) information that she is a CIA employee, and that R. Novak is of the opinion that J. Wilson is "an asshole" etc., etc. Who was in Washington, D.C. that day? Karl Rove? Stephen Hadley? Richard Armitage? Was Bush in town?
Novak is known to have spoken with Karl Rove BY PHONE (?) on July 8th (time of day?). [Source?] Did Rove arrange the hour-long meeting with ??? Do Rove and Novak cavort together outside of work???
July 9 - ?
July 10 - ?
Etc. We need to pin this guy down. [And we can be damn sure that Rove and Novak's pals in the corporate media, who already know the answers to many of these questions, won't do it for us, nor publish what they know.]
Answer (to one question of mine above): NO, Bush was NOT in town - he was in Africa by that time. Was this the week that Rove was in Australia for a while? Libby and Cheney were hanging around -- July 8 was the morning that Libby met Judy Miller at the hotel for breakfast...
Colin Powell was in Africa. Richard Armitage had the stateside State Department watch? Ari Fleischer was in Africa, as was Condoleeza Rice. Stephen Hadley was - here or in Africa?
emptywheel is from TNH, not FDL, of course :-)
I disagree with the comment that we are sailing "in unchartered waters" legally. The unanimous Supreme Court decision against Clinton, requiring him to be deposed in the Paula Jones civil lawsuit, set a precedent that virtually wipes out any presidential (and by implication, vice-presidential) immunity to civil lawsuits while in office. The purpose of the immunity clause was to protect the highest office-holder from distracting and harrassing lawsuits (likely politically motivated) while in office which would undermine or impede his/her ability to serve the country. If the SC ruling could do this to Clinton for illegal acts he was alleged to have committed before he took office and had nothing to do with his official duties, it sure as hell applies with greater force to alleged illegal acts by a slightly lower-ranking VP who committed them while in office while performing his official duities. Such a lawsuit is entirely pertinent to determining the competence and integrity of the person holding office with respect to upholding our laws and the Constitution. The Clinton SC precedent will make a Cheney appeal to the court using the immunity argument, and then upheld by any judge(s) or Justice(s), appear so blatantly partisan that I don't think any judges or justices would possibly countenance it.
"..appear so blatantly partisan..."
Jeeze, ewastud. Re-read Bush vs. Gore, from the 2000 decision. If Scalia wasn't blatantly partisan, the term has no meaning. Sandra Day will burn in Hell for her part in that decision, but I'm sure she is the only one who regrets having countenanced it.
Post a Comment