The Plame Game civil suit

Way back in July, I wrote a bit about the possibility of a civil suit in the Plame scandal. It seems to be an idea that’s catching on.

In an interview yesterday, [Joseph] Wilson said that once the criminal questions are settled, he and his wife may file a civil lawsuit against Bush, Cheney and others seeking damages for the alleged harm done to Plame’s career.

If they do so, the current state of the law makes it likely that the suit will be allowed to proceed — and Bush and Cheney will face questioning under oath — while they are in office. The reason for that is a unanimous 1997 U.S. Supreme Court decision ruling that Paula Jones’ sexual harassment suit against then- President Clinton could go forward immediately, a decision that was hailed by conservatives at the time.

The right sure did love that lawsuit nine years ago. I wonder how they’d feel about it now?

I’m not going to pretend to be an expert in this area, but there seems to be elements of a good case here for Wilson and Plame. To read an analysis from someone who is an expert, Anthony Sebok, a professor at Brooklyn Law School, wrote a compelling twopart series on what would be involved in a Plame civil suit a few months ago.

At a minimum, think about how much fun discovery could be. Remember, a decade ago, Paula Jones’ lawyers used a civil suit to pursue discovery, force her ideological enemies into under-oath depositions, and fish arond for politically damaging information.

I wonder what would happen if Wilson and Plame pursued a similar course? What do you suppose they could ask Bush and Cheney once they’re under oath?

Not knowing the legality, I would definitely contribute to a fund to help the Wilson’s put forward this suit – if possible. My XMAS gift to myself.

  • Not knowing the legality, I would definitely contribute to a fund to help the Wilson’s put forward this suit – if possible. My XMAS gift to myself.

    Me too. CB, see if you pull this together for us.

  • fly in the ointment:

    clinton v jones was decided that way because the justices doubted the decision would interfere with the workings of the executive branch. (yeah, whatever) in the aftermath of *that* brilliant reasoning they could, with some merit, rule in the other direction this time.

  • I’m giddy with glee at the thought of putting them on the stand, but putting politics aside, I can see the constitutional benefit to overturning Clinton v. Jones. As partisan and divisive as politics has become, there is still a huge risk of attempting to use the legal system for political or personal witchhunts that have nothing to do with justice, and as we saw with Bill Clinton, significantly crippling the Oval Office. Whoever is in that office.

  • I don’t want to get too excited, but this could be great. I’d contribute to WPLF, too.

    Does anyone think that Bush nominated Miers because there may be multiple suits filed against the administration in the future and he knows she could never find him guilty of anything but being the greatest, coolest guy on earth?

  • I will gleefully contribute, til it hurts. But don’t expect a resolution to this case before your grandchildren’s grandchildren are retiring. Either that or the Supreme’s who (s)elected George will suddenly come down with another bout of activism and bar the case for the good of the country…unless we’re already living under martial law. I look so good in tin foil…

  • Comments are closed.