Plame Lawsuit Goes Down in Flames

It's over for Valerie Plame's lawsuit against Dick Cheney, Scooter Libby and Karl Rove:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A U.S. appeals court on Tuesday dismissed former CIA analyst Valerie Plame's lawsuit against Vice President Dick Cheney and several former Bush administration officials for disclosing her identity to the public.

The Court of Appeals in Washington dealt another setback to the former spy, who has said her career was destroyed when officials blew her cover in 2003 to retaliate against her husband, Iraq war critic Joseph Wilson.

Plame's outing led a lengthy criminal investigation, which resulted in the conviction of Cheney's top aide, Lewis "Scooter" Libby, for perjury and obstruction of justice.

President George W. Bush commuted Libby's 2 1/2-year prison sentence last year.

Plame and Wilson sought money damages from Cheney, Libby, former White House aide Karl Rove and former State Department official Richard Armitage for violating their constitutional free speech, due process and privacy rights.

But a three-judge panel of the appeals court upheld a federal judge's ruling that dismissed the couple's lawsuit.

The court ruled Cheney and the others were acting within their official capacity when they revealed Plame's identity to reporters.

Now Plame will have the pleasure of paying the defendants' costs of suit, and possibly their attorneys' fees. 

The case was an uphill battle to begin with, as I wrote when the lawsuit was filed:

Plame Seeks Another 15 Minutes of Fame With Lawsuit Against Cheney

Valerie Plame has sued Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, and Lewis "Scooter" Libby for allegedly revealing her "secret" CIA identity.

As a litigation attorney, the lawsuit sounds like an uphill battle to me.  Not an impossible battle, mind you, but a long uphill slog for Plames' attorneys in which the outcome is far from guaranteed.  First Plame has to prove that Cheney, and/or Rove, and or Libby leaked her identity and that her identity was not previously known; then she has to prove that it was illegal for the defendants do so and that there is no valid defense. 

Without having seen the complaint yet, I believe there's quite possibly a strong privilege defense in one form or another.  Assuming for sake of argument that someone in the administration revealed the connection between Plame and Wilson, it was quite probably necessary to do so in order to participate in full and fair public discussion and debate of an important national security issue involving the Iraq war.  Plame's lawsuit itself alleges that Cheney disclosed Plane's identity for a logical reason -- to let people know the complete and unvarnished truth about an issue of public importance:

According to court filings in Libby's case, Cheney played a key role in a White House effort to counter Wilson's charges.

Cheney cut out Wilson's New York Times article and scribbled on it, "Have they done this sort of thing before? Send an ambassador to answer a question? Do we ordinarily send people out pro bono to work for us? Or did his wife send him on a junket?"

Libby told a grand jury that Cheney was so upset about Wilson's allegations that they discussed them daily after the article appeared. "He was very keen to get the truth out," Libby testified, quoting Cheney as saying, "Let's get everything out."

Ironically, the lawsuit reportedly accuses White House officials of violating the Wilsons' "constitutional rights to equal protection and freedom of speech."  But if Plame and Wilson have a right to freedom of speech, Cheney, Rove, Libby, and the rest of the administration surely have those rights too.  It is within the range of reasonable discussion of a public issue to point out that a speaker involved -- Wilson in this case -- may have a built-in bias on the issue arising from his own personal circumstances.

While this certainly does not mean that every CIA officer's identity is fair game for disclosure, there is room for debate about whether Plame's identity was really a secret at the time.  The White House especially needs latitude to fully debate issues of public importance, and that may sometimes require it to reveal secret information if it is in the public interest to do so.

And here's an excerpt from another update I wrote while the case was pending:

As a lawyer, I'm also looking forward to the likely denouement of Plame's lawsuit.  The case was not particularly strong to begin with, and this week's news hasn't helped. 

Of course, even a weak case can sometimes be won if the lawyers involved work feverishly at it (effort sometimes makes a big difference) and if a party gets the "right" judge or uncovers the right facts in discovery.

But the case is currently as rife with holes as Swiss cheese.  Even with highly motivated leftist donors funding the Plame lawsuit, the costs in attorney time of trying to prove up this case will eventually prove daunting.  There may be a dismissal, a summary judgment, or a weak settlement that really amounts to a concession of defeat. 

But we shall see.  There are no sure things in the legal world.  A lot of it comes down to how motivated and skilled are the lawyers on each side.  The process may drag on a while and the case may die in bits and spurts as various claims and defendants are weeded out.

Plame has had her 15 minutes and then some.  Narcissism and Republican-baiting only go so far.  Time for Plame and Wilson to shuffle off the stage and find something productive to do. 

Valerie Plame has sued Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, and Lewis "Scooter" Libby for allegedly revealing her "secret" CIA identity.

As a litigation attorney, the lawsuit sounds like an uphill battle to me.  Not an impossible battle, mind you, but a long uphill slog for Plames' attorneys in which the outcome is far from guaranteed.  First Plame has to prove that Cheney, and/or Rove, and or Libby leaked her identity and that her identity was not previously known; then she has to prove that it was illegal for the defendants do so and that there is no valid defense. 

Without having seen the complaint yet, I believe there's quite possibly a strong privilege defense in one form or another.  Assuming for sake of argument that someone in the administration revealed the connection between Plame and Wilson, it was quite probably necessary to do so in order to participate in full and fair public discussion and debate of an important national security issue involving the Iraq war.  Plame's lawsuit itself alleges that Cheney disclosed Plane's identity for a logical reason -- to let people know the complete and unvarnished truth about an issue of public importance:

According to court filings in Libby's case, Cheney played a key role in a White House effort to counter Wilson's charges.

Cheney cut out Wilson's New York Times article and scribbled on it, "Have they done this sort of thing before? Send an ambassador to answer a question? Do we ordinarily send people out pro bono to work for us? Or did his wife send him on a junket?"

Libby told a grand jury that Cheney was so upset about Wilson's allegations that they discussed them daily after the article appeared. "He was very keen to get the truth out," Libby testified, quoting Cheney as saying, "Let's get everything out."

Ironically, the lawsuit reportedly accuses White House officials of violating the Wilsons' "constitutional rights to equal protection and freedom of speech."  But if Plame and Wilson have a right to freedom of speech, Cheney, Rove, Libby, and the rest of the administration surely have those rights too.  It is within the range of reasonable discussion of a public issue to point out that a speaker involved -- Wilson in this case -- may have a built-in bias on the issue arising from his own personal circumstances.

While this certainly does not mean that every CIA officer's identity is fair game for disclosure, there is room for debate about whether Plame's identity was really a secret at the time.  The White House especially needs latitude to fully debate issues of public importance, and that may sometimes require it to reveal secret information if it is in the public interest to do so.

Comments

[gawfer]

"...Now Plame will have the pleasure of paying the defendants' costs of suit, and possibly their attorneys' fees..."

ROTFLMAO!!! Talk about poetic justice...

I guess putting God and Country first is conditional for some. heh.

She would have never made it in the military.