Wilson v. Libby, et al Political "Red Meat" Civil Litigation For the Clamoring Base

Friday, July 14, 2006
Fitzmas is unofficially over without sufficient celebration among the MoveOn.org/DU/Kos faithful, otherwise known as the leftynetroots. Had Fitzmas been more rewarding in its outcome, Wilson v. Libby would be totally unnecessary. Its filing earlier this week also unofficially declares that Fitzgerald has passed from leftynetroot hero to rightwing lackey.

The unfortunate Paula Jones litigation had many consequences. Not the least of them was to put then President Clinton into a intricate legal bind which he got out of only with the assistance of a formidable array of some of the most skillful inside the beltway lawyers this generation has to offer.

Another consequence was to tempt future political operatives to use civil litigation to amplify and publicize the alleged scandals of their opponents.

For most of this year, the leftynetroots were so sure of a lift from Fitz, getting to the point of assuring each other that Karl was on the verge of indictment and Dick on the verge of resignation or worse. When neither of those fantasies materialized there had to be something to continue the dream's possibility.

What better than a Civil Action? Let's pull a "Paula Jones". If the Rethugs can do this, why can't we? Look what Clinton had to go through. We'll make that look like a walk in the park. After all, Clinton only allegedly outed his own thingy to Paula, but the White House outed a SECRET AGENT IN TIME OF WAR. We can get it all out to the public. We can depose Libby, Rove, Cheney, maybe even President Bush and expose their perfidy. The MSM will follow our every move. Victory in November.

There is only one problem with this scenario. Civil discovery is reciprocal. Lawyers for each defendant get to depose both Mr. and Mrs. Wilson and countless CIA, State Department and press allies. All of that will be exposed to the public as well.

In the Paula Jones case, Paula was a political nonentity. The only question in her case was did the then Governor of Arkansas show her, a state employee, his thingy or didn't he. In the Wilson case, there is much more to it. And the Wilsons are smack dab in the middle of all of it. The Wilsons are also politically invested in the outcome of the case, as are their supporters.

The Wilson case, therefore has more risks for the plaintiffs than did the Jones case for Jones. Will the outcome be good for the Wilsons and their leftynetroot supporters? Or will the tables be turned by the vast right wing conspiracy?

Stay tuned.


terrye said...

I can think of about a million questions I would like to ask Wilson and the little lady. Shall we make a list?

Let me go first.

Joe, why was your editorial in the NYT and your testimony to the Senate at odds with each other? Which was the lie?

And Valerie, did you ask your husband to write that editorial?

CF said...

As usual, a good point.

Rick Ballard said...


I don't think there is enough blood dripping off the red meat. Civil litigation doesn't have the allure of handcuffs and jail cells that generate enthusiasm (and money) for the nutrooters. Plus there's no sex at all - no hope for any bent willy testimony to liven things up.

It is red meat for the other side though - and for precisely the reasons that you outline. Joe and Val under oath in a depostion would be something to which you could sell tickets. Unless they caught Arkansas Alzheimers upon being sworn.

Barry Dauphin said...


Hey, we should have the comments here come up with the questions.

Q: To Wilson: Could you explain exactly what you think is wrong with the "16 words"? Didn't you think that writing an editorial in the NY Times would invite scrutiny from the press of why you were sent to Niger? When did you commit to work for the Kerry campaign? Have you ever heard of JustOneMinute? Do you know who Tom McGuire is?

Q: To Val: Didn't you worry that if your husband wrote an editorial for the NY Times that your role in sending him to Niger would become public knowledge? Did you attempt to dissuade your husband from writing the op-ed piece? Why did you marry such a sniveling little rat-faced git?

vnjagvet said...

That's what I thought, Rick.

Then I read some of the comments "over there". Unf***ing believable. Youda thought the Wilsons hit a homer.

Literally nocturnal emission time for the male types and fantasy orgasms for the females. Swooning. Pledges of fealty, etc., etc. They can't wait to get their hands on that the eeeeeeeeeevil Rove and Cheney.

It has all the earmarks of a netroot job. Big firm, Hi level publicity, Book deal, etc., etc.

If it is a netroot project, they are thinking tactically and not strategically for the reasons I mentioned in the post.

The book deal is a part of the whole thing IMO. It reminds me of John O'Neill's book on Kerry.

Somthing tells me that the book and subsequent movie will fall as flat as the lawsuit.

But they are setting it up.

Rick Ballard said...


I don't go "over there" much - the cost of Hazmat suits and all - interesting that they're still flogging the dead horse that hard. I suppose I should hope that they put a lot of effort into it. It's better than having them attempt something that might be productive.

If it gets to deps, my first questions would be:

How and when did you first make contact with Kristof of the NYT and Pincus of the WaPo?

Did you make the initial contact with the Kerry campaign or did they contact you? Who was the contact person?

I think it will be dismissed prior to deps being taken but I hope not.

vnjagvet said...


Some of the counts may be dismissed before discovery. But with the legal talent on board, it is likely that at least something will survive.

The test on a motion to dismiss in Federal Court is whether, taking all facts alleged in the complaint and all inferences to drawn from them in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion, it appears beyond a doubt that the non-moving party "can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief." Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46, (1957).

That is a difficult standard to show, and a plaintiff is given every benefit of the doubt.

Peter UK said...

So the Paula Jones affair was about the "outing" of a covert thingy?

vnjagvet said...


At least according to Paula.

A "thingy" is like a penis, only smaller.

vnjagvet said...

And it had only been covert for a very short time.

Fresh Air said...

The likelihood of Bill's thingy being covert to the belles of Little Rock is about the same as Tipper Gore having a tattoo on her ass that says "MOM."

Barry Dauphin said...

Yes, in both lawsuits there is a real prick in the middle of it all.

Seneca the Younger said...

I still say Wilson&Plame aren't red meat.

They're fuzzy blue-green meat.

David Thomson said...

I am getting the distinct impression that Valerie Plame’s book deal is in the toilet. The offering price is no longer in the millions. This publicity stunt is a pathetic attempt to reverse a deteriorating situation.

MeaninglessHotAir said...

I tend to agree with David. From the Wilsons' point of view, what were they going to do for an encore? It's sue now or disappear forever into the maw of public indifference.

terrye said...

All I can is for a couple that is all pissy about being "outed" they sure do go out of their way to get their pictures taken.

lurker said...

Testing my new login here...

How much attention will this case get over the next few months? So far, some scant MSM reporting and probably will wind down to occasional 2 or 3 line reports....

Rick Ballard said...


I'm betting very little MSM coverage - they aren't particularly pleased with the result of the NYT's call for a special prosecutor. Kristof and Pincus will be deposed and the pimping of the original premise will come to light. Civil litigation just isn't that interesting.

Over in moonbat territory it may be followed but I have a feeling that the illusionary moonbat empire is in the process of shrinking. The Kosola/astrologer bit makes them look dumber than a sack of hammers.