Skip to main content

View Diary: The Latest: First Look at Plame/Wilson Complaint (Update IV) (112 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Having reviewed the complaint, my expertise (7+ / 0-)

    as an attorney of over fifteen years doesn't help me much at all.

    The very specific legal issue is whether an act intended as retaliation for Joseph Wilson's exercise of first amendment rights, taken under color of law, is a violation of his civil rights for which Congress has provided a private cause of action for damages under 42 USC 1983.  

    I suppose Plame is alleging that the intent was to injure her as well, since the bad guys have stated their belief that she started it all by getting Wilson the job.

    Plame also throws in some privacy related torts.

    Cheney et al will test the legal sufficient with a motion stating that there is no set of facts that are alleged that could make out of cause of action.  What Cheney et al can't use is the admin's philosopher's stone of Executive Secrecy or Double Secret or National Security, or whatever they are calling it, because THIS conspiracy involved leaking secrets, not keeping them.

    •  even if they don't win (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      KayCeSF, leo joad, Monique Radevu

      I think they may expose lots of dirty laundry.

      Gonna be a judgment, that's a fact. A righteous train rollin' down this track . . . -- Bruce Springsteen

      by saucy monkey on Thu Jul 13, 2006 at 01:19:23 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  In your professional opinion (0+ / 0-)

      will this case turn not on whether the leakers knew or should have known Plame Wilson's protected status but whether Novak knew or should have known since he was the one who made her identity public?

    •  Haven't read the complaint yet. (0+ / 0-)

      But my intial reaction was that they're going to have a really tough time making out a 1983 case.  What civil right was violated Wilson's first amendment rights?  On what basis do they allege Wilson has standing?  What was his injury?  

      Did they bring a claim for tortious interference with Plame's beneficial business relations with the U.S. government?  

      If we abandon our ideals in the face of adversity and aggression, then those ideals were never really in our possession. - Cpt. Ian Fishback

      by Rick Oliver on Thu Jul 13, 2006 at 01:50:52 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I saw the problem. (0+ / 0-)

        And it's not really addressed in the complaint: Wilson is the person who spoke out, but Plame was the one who was outed.  I suppose that his damage is financial (her support) and emotional (the pettiness of it) and the risk (she has enemies).  Is there a dollar amount?  The jury will tell.

        Plame, on the other hand, is being punished for her association with an anti war person, which violates her civil rights.

        Plame has a claim to a privacy right.  Not really a civil rights claim, but state law tort, maybe.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site