No! I don't mean that kind of fun!! I mean subpoena and discovery fun.
A lot has been made of the passage in the Wilsons' complaint referencing "operatives."
Defendants John Does No. 1-10 are persons whose identities currently are unknown but who are believed to be persons who were either employed by the United States Government in senior positions at all times relevant to this Complaint or who were political operatives with close ties to such persons.
My guess is those "operative" Does might include any of four kinds of people:
- Newt Gingrich, who is alleged to have been in on the first Get Wilson meeting and also accompanied Shooter and Scooter on their arm-twisting trips to the CIA
- Unnamed people who helped spread word of Plame's outing in July 2003
- Karen Hughes and Mary Matalin, who were WHIG members but who were not working full time in the Administration in July 2003; presumably they had some kind of contracting relationship (and note, both have testified before the grand jury)
- People like Clifford May and JimmyJeff GannonGuckert, who wrote articles in Fall 2003 claiming Plame's identity had already been public before Novak leaked it, conveniently at precisely the time BushCo was trying to argue that Plame hadn't been covert
The inclusion of the "operative" Does in the complaint is important, because, according to Attaturk, Cheney (probably) and Libby and Rove (less probably) may be able to claim immunity from the Wilsons' lawsuit by claiming that outing a CIA NOC is a normal part of their job protecting America's security. But these "operative" Does are not government employees, and therefore enjoy no such immunity. As Attaturk responded to my question about this:
If SOME case goes forward, albeit not against the main actors, do the Wilsons still get to subpoena the main actors?
As fact witnesses it would seem hard for Rove, Libby & even Cheney to get out of such testimony -- though I suppose they could try to quash on national security reasons.
You have a lot of power in Federal court to subpoena witnesses as long as there is some possible relevant reason for doing so.
See, if the Wilsons can prove that any of these people were part of the conspiracy to punish the Wilsons for Joe's op-ed, we can put them and everyone they interacted with up on the stand for a little conversation. We can get to discovery through the party hacks, even if we can't through the government employee party hacks.
So let's use the case of JimmyJeff GannonGuckert to see how this might work. We know GannonGuckert was already deeply involved in his special White House relationship in July 2003 because he bragged of entertaining Tony Blair on July 17, 2003 (when Blair and Bush were undoubtedly trying to figure out how to put the false Niger claims back in the box). It's unclear what kind of entertaining GannonGuckert really did, but White House records show that GannonGuckert really did visit the White House on July 17, and not during the press briefing. He also had four more non-press briefing visits during the period of time for which Fitzgerald subpoenaed WHIG meeting notes, July 6 to July 30.
7/1/03 11:25 - 1:42 (12:50-1:26)
7/2 11:50 - 1:20 (12:35-1:12)
7/3 3:04 - 4:16 (Condi Rice briefing, 3:40-4:10)
7/14 11:33 - 1:32 (Ari's goodbye party) (12:03-12:56)
7/15 12:15 (no exit) (12:38-1:23)
7/16 12:26 - 2:05 (12:50-1:20)
7/17 4:43 - 6:13 (12:36-1:17 - doesn't match)
7/22 12:23 - 1:53 (12:58-1:35)
7/23 12:21 - 2:23 (1:17-2:07)
7/25 2:08 - 3:30 (2:39-3:15)
7/27 3:08 - 5:24 (no briefing)
7/28 12:53 - 2:04 (briefing 10:12-10:23 - doesn't match)
7/30 12:13 - 12:45 (no briefing) (Bush press conference earlier than that)
[my emphasis--bold is the claimed Blair visit, italics are other irregular visits]
Obviously, GannonGuckert's boasts about entertaining Blair aren't enough to justify a civil lawsuit. And I frankly think it'll be much more likely that we can prove Hughes or Matalin or Newt were in on the conspiracy than JimmyJeff (though they're not as fun to talk about).
But there is later evidence that GannonGuckert was involved in this conspiracy. I'm speaking, of course, of JimmyJeff's story on the INR memo.
A memo written by an INR (Intelligence and Research) analyst who made notes of the meeting at which Wilson was asked to go to Niger sensed that something fishy was going on. That report made it to the outside world courtesy of some patriotic whistleblower that realized that a bag job was underway.
....
The classified document that slipped out sometime after the meeting put her name before the public, albeit a small group of inside-the-beltway types, but effectively ended the notion that she was still covert.
The purported leaking of the INR memo in Fall 2003 was an integral part of a campaign to justify the leak. Not only does GannonGuckert claim the INR memo was leaked by a whistleblower (which would therefore not fall under the IIPA statute), and that that leak was the means by which Plame was outed. But the Republicans depended on the INR memo to support their claim that (and I put this in quotes so it's clear that this is total bullshit) "the leak was justified because Plame's role in Wilson's trip was a legitimate cause for critique of that trip." BushCo relied on purported leaks of the INR to support this claim until Pat Roberts obligingly put his conclusion claiming she suggested him into his section of the SSCI report (after which, of course, goons like Novak would claim that a conclusion the Democrats and most Republicans didn't concur with was a unanimous conclusion).
And the timing of GannonGuckert's claims that he had seen the INR memo is critical, because (from Waas) we know it occurred during a period when the White House was using RNC lackeys as a surrogate to fight their Plame battle for them.
During the initial stages of the Plame investigation, the RNC was at the forefront of the Bush administration's effort to stymie demands for the appointment of a special prosecutor and to continue the campaign to discredit Wilson. To some career investigators, the RNC appeared to be acting as a proxy for the White House in attempting to thwart the naming of a special prosecutor.
October 2003, the period when Novak and Rove were comparing stories and May was claiming he knew Plame's CIA identity, features three more irregular GannonGuckert visits.
10/1/03 11:51 - 1:37 (12:44-1:30)
10/2 11:52 (no exit) (12:47-1:26)
10/6 12:58, 6:10 (no exit; checks in twice but doesn't check out)
10/7 12:46 - 2:03 (12:58-1:46)
10/8 12:10 - 1:27 (12:16-12:42)
10/14 12:22 (no exit) (12:40-1:14)
10/27 12:32 - 1:33 (12:39-1:15)
10/28 10:54 - 12:22 (Bush press conference 11:15-12:03)
10/29 12:20 - 1:08 (12:20-12:57)
[my emphasis]
Anyone want to FOIA White House records to see if Cliff May was lurking around the White House on the same days as GannonGuckert's "irregular" visits?
Now, as I've said, I think we stand a much better chance hanging our case on Matalin, Hughes, and Newt's involvement in this case. We know Hughes and Matalin have something to say because they both appeared before the grand jury, and they were not government employees at the time of the leak (though Hughes is back, trying to propagandize the Arab world into submission).
But the leaking of the INR memo and the GOP's other attempts to pretend that Plame suggested Wilson (you hear that, Pat Roberts? I'm coming after you) are going to be central to determining the merit of this case. Look at what Wilson emphasized in his email statement the other day.
Robert Novak, some other commentators and the Administration continue to try to completely distort the role that Valerie Wilson played with respect to Ambassador Wilson's trip to Niger. The facts are beyond dispute. The Office of the Vice President requested that the CIA investigate reports of alleged uranium purchases by Iraq from Niger. The CIA setup a meeting to respond to the Vice President's inquiry. Another CIA official, not Valerie Wilson, suggested to Valerie Wilson's supervisor that the Ambassador attend that meeting. That other CIA official made the recommendation because that official was familiar with the Ambassador's vast experience in Niger and knew of a previous trip to Africa concerning uranium matters that had been undertaken by the Ambassador on behalf of the CIA in 1999.
Valerie Wilson's supervisor subsequently asked her to relay a request from him to the Ambassador that he would like the Ambassador to attend the meeting at the CIA. Valerie Wilson did not participate in the meeting.
As the CIA itself has officially confirmed, Valerie Wilson did not send Ambassador Wilson to Niger and she neither suggested him nor recommended him for the trip. Furthermore, the Ambassador agreed to travel to Niger pro bono with only his travel expenses being paid. [my emphasis]
I'm guessing one of the first questions that gets discussed in the motion to dismiss is whether or not Plame really suggested Wilson for the trip. The Republicans will try to argue that the leak was a legitimate response to a critic. But that argument will fail once the CIA establishes (again) that Plame did not suggest Wilson.
And GannonGuckert's claims about the INR from Fall 2003 are a central part of BushCo attempts "to completely distort the role that Valerie Wilson played with respect to Ambassador Wilson's trip to Niger."
What better place to start with discovery than with the gay prostitute in the White House?