liberalhere@yahoo.com wrote:+

[snip]

How many times have you been robbed?

Have as much trouble with math as you do analogies?

It doesn't matter who revealed Plame name first, second, or third. Each
revelation is a crime. Only when said secret is declassified does
discussing any discussion become legal.

You don't know what was or was not classified. Of course.

George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr. wrote:

[snip]

In the mid-90's her cover was disclosed by a Moscow spy. Later, Havana
learned her identity because of a mistake by the CIA, itself.

So telling a billion people about her is ok because two secret
services already knew it?

By your theory, if China steals blueprints to a US nuclear submarine,
it's ok for me to sell them to North Korea.

By your theory, Valerie Wilson is also guilty of outing herself after
she was outed:

There is no other open source document, anywhere, that proves her
status in any other way. Your opinions, or the opinions expressed at
wikipedia or NY Times don't fucking matter: there is no definitive
proof anywhere: just opinions.

If Mrs. Wilson was covert, she was covert. If she wasn't, she wasn't.
The fact that Fitzgerald found the original leaker and no charges were
filed, indicates that, indeed, there never was a crime.

Big Gop money & power was behind Juanita Broderick. She was a way of
slinging mud and making it stick without having to go to trial.

Big Gop power and money was also behind the Whitewater investigation
and impeachment.

For the boys and girls on the hill, Whitewater and Impeachment was a
big, BIG deal they'll never forget. The House had three speakers in as
many weeks right in the middle of it. If you don't think "brown manilla
envelopes were delivered at midnight" during that naked power struggle,
you're an innocent fool: a little boy lost and afraid inside a game for
men.

That the Senate pissed its pants and ran away was no accident caused by
a few cowards.

If you're still following along, then you have to realize there was big
Dem money & power behind the Joe Wilson Fiasco. He was sent on the trip
on the recommendation of his wife, though he seems to be uniquely
unqualified for the mission. He spent two weeks (in his own words)
sipping tea at the palace in Niamey. His report helped to convince
Washington that an attempt was, indeed, being made by the Iraqi Liaison
to purchase Uranium Oxide.

Only later, when it was sure to cause the most damage to the
Administration (at the time, one of the highest polling administrations
in American History), did he shoot his mouth off at any reporter who
would give him a headline.

Hardly the behavior of someone who was committed to guarding his
private life, and the identity of his Top Secret wife.

And, while you might think he was just being a patriot because of what
he knew to be true, he didn't know ANYTHING about Iraq's attempt to
purchase Uranium Oxide. He wasn't qualified to investigate, and he had
turned up no definitive evidence, one way or the other. Most of what
he'd found tended to confirm that it was possible that the attempt to
purchase had been made.

Whatever.

On December 13th, 2006, Saddam Hussein was captured and taken into
custody by US Coalition troops.

On December 19th, 2006, Mohammar Qaddafi contacted IAEA and declared
his intentions to abandon his covert nuclear weapons project.

Tell me that one event is only tangentially connected to the other all
you want.

In article <6v8kg25jtnb5gu5nsjq1k8qp9rj7deipaj@4ax.com>,
Captain Compassion <daranc@NOSPAMverizon.net> wrote:

On Thu, 14 Sep 2006 18:21:11 -0700, "George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr."
<tyrebiter@mooresciencehigh.edu> wrote:

On Thu, 14 Sep 2006 17:36:26 -0700, Captain Compassion
<daranc@NOSPAMverizon.net> wrote:

And Plame could prove Rove individually liable without suing Armitage.

Not of outing her.

Why not? He did out her.

We know that the WH told at least six reporters about Plame before
Novak published the story.

Armitage was the first to tell Novak. Novak was first to be told.

If Armitage broke the law, that does not excuse others for also
doing so.

Hugh

On Thu, 14 Sep 2006 21:11:17 -0700, Captain Compassion
<daranc@NOSPAMverizon.net> wrote:

On Thu, 14 Sep 2006 18:21:11 -0700, "George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr."
<tyrebiter@mooresciencehigh.edu> wrote:

On Thu, 14 Sep 2006 17:36:26 -0700, Captain Compassion
<daranc@NOSPAMverizon.net> wrote:

And Plame could prove Rove individually liable without suing Armitage.

Not of outing her.

Why not? He did out her.

We know that the WH told at least six reporters about Plame before
Novak published the story.

Armitage was the first to tell Novak. Novak was first to be told.

So what? Rove confirmed Armitage's story. Rove - caused it to be
published. Without that confirmation, the story would have stayed in
Novak's notebook. If one person pours gasoline in a building, and then
a second one lights the match and ignites it

are they not both guilty?

Also, Armitage did not happen to be the first. Official Washington
stenographer Bob Woodward was told much earlier, as I recall.

And we know that Rove told Novak about her, by confirming the other
story. Confirming the other story is no different from being the first
to say it. It takes TWO SOURCES for an ethical reporter to publish a
story. Rove was there - he was one of the two.

So he did something which forced Plame to leave the CIA.

Armitage did.

Yes, he too is guilty. We agree on that.

Confirming the story is releasing the information, just as lighting
the match sets the gasoline on fire

gotta go now

It's ok for him to talk about her to reporters

after the cat has been let out of the bag by another.

There are criminal laws - and the fact that Armitage ratted her out
first does not mean it's legal for Rove to confirm the story. Armitage
gives North Korea the plans to our electronic countermeaures in
fighter planes. They ask you - are these correct? And you say - yes.
You're guilty of espionage.

What law did Rove break? You can't be accused of murder if you shoot a
corpse.

Same about outing Valerie.

But now we're dealing with a law suit because Valerie was harmed and
it's an odd one. She sues because her constitutional rights have been
denied to her, such as her right to equal treatment, her right to free
speech.

Did Rove do something to deny her equal treatment? sure. He ratted her
out as a spy so she couldn't do her job.

I guess that's not equal.

And it's without a reasonable basis for the bad treatment.

But it's an odd claim.

Now is there a claim for TRYING to get her to lose her job if someone
else already acted to achieve that result?

I don't know. Don't really care.

What I care about, like the Jones team going after Clinton, is the
discovery.

Valerie was harmed - her career was ruined.

It would be nice if the perps had to pay the cost of their sins.

The suite is under 42 USC 1983. Deprivation of rights under color of
authority.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode42/usc_sec_42_00001983----000-.html

No one ever wins this in a civil action. This is used by the federal
government to try racist and oppressive cops. The second trial of the
Rodney King cops was under this statute.

The federal government will have to defend because the defendants were
acting in their official capacity.

See Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) rule 19. Failure to join a
necessary party is grounds for dismissal under FRCP 12(b)(7).

So it is not true that all parties must be included in the suit, but
instead a person must be included if "complete relief cannot be
accorded among those already parties" and some other stuff irrelevant
here

I guess that would mean that if Valerie suffered a million dollars in
damages, and Rove and Armitage were equally to blame, then Armitage
had to be included so he could chip in his 500,000 share, rather than
forcing Rove to be stuck with the full bill?

ok, seems reasonable

There is the deep pockets doctrine. If Armitage is broke the
plaintiffs could get $999,999 from Rove and $1 from Armitage.

But if one has money, the co-defendant can be limited in liability to
his share. I assume that's what makes Armitage a necessary party.

The suit rests on the

premise that the defendants conspired to ruin the careers of Plame and
Wilson by disclosing Plame as a CIA agent who suggested Wilson go to
Africa. After the suit was filed it became known that Armitage was the
person who outed Plame to Novak thus making Armatage the prime player
in the matter. Unless it can be shown that Armatage conspired with
Bush, Cheney, Rove and Libby then they will have to be dropped from
the suit.

Why?

The conspiracy rests on the assumption Plame was outed for nefarious
reasons by the defendants who used their powers to destroy the
plaintiffs.

I don't think the details of their motivation are that important. The
damage is as great if they did it to destroy the Wilsons or to blind
the US to the information her spy ring was gathering, to wit that
those the administration wanted to invade did not in fact have WMD.

Or if their motive was to discourage subsequent whistle-blowers. Or
any number of other reasons which were not kosher.

If the outing was first by a party (Armitage) who was not

part of the alleged conspiracy and his actions were accidental than
there can be no conspiracy.

Why not?

Armitage is old school Department of State. He hates the Neo-cons.

The mob can conspire to kill you, but you fall off your horse this
afternoon and die before they can do it. They have still committed a
crime.

I think the better argument is that they have not caused you any
damages. Though there was a conspiracy.

And of course, it took two to get this story published, Novak would
not publish with one source.

And Rove was the other source. So Armitage could be innocent - but
Rove could be a conspirator with President Bush. So I can see Armitage
being innocent and Rove buing guilty.

Rove merely confirmed what Armitage said when asked by Novak. Novak
also confirmed Plame with the CIA.

I guess your theory is that all the damages sprang from that first
publication, and if it was Amritage who caused it to be published,
then all the damages are his fault, not the fault of the others.

I have a problem with that.

For one thing, there were two sources for Novak's article - Armitage
and Rove. They were co-perps behind that leak, and one is alleged to
have acted in concert with others. As indeed Armitage may have done.

There is no evidence that Armitage and Rove were co-conspritors. Novak
called Rove after he talked to Arimatige. According to this article:

"The suit does not accuse Richard Armitage, who was deputy secretary
of state in the Bush administration, of participating in an
administration conspiracy to blow her cover."

So it looks like they share my theory, that it is not necessary for
Armitage to have conspired with Rove.

They believe that Armitage could be "innocent" yet still Rove and his
nest of conspiring co-traitors would be liable.

The fact that Rove et al may have made political hay over this matter
is not an actionable item and could be kicked under FRCP 12(b)(6).

Rove was the source. As was Armitage. It takes two to really do the
nation harm here.

Thus Rove should pay up.

Unless it's a legitimate part of his job to blind the US to critically
important espionage information, or part of his job to punish
whistle-blowers.

Seems to me.

And apparently that's the way it seems to Plame's lawyers too, in that
they joined Armitage without accusing him of complicity with the White
House evil doers.

They had to join him to avoid the case being kicked under FRCP
12(b)(7).

Rove et al are off the hook for outing Plame. Wilson has to prove that
saying mean, but truthful, things about a public figure is an
actionable offence. Wilson also has to show how he was individually
damaged.