emptywheel,

You missed one obvious John Doe. George W. Bush.

I will note with impish delight that the complaint cites the 1×2×6 leaks.

Well, your Ari theory’s on life support (or have you dug your way out of the hole Novak gave you last night), so by all rights you should still have your 1X2X6 fun.

Actually, there’s a technical issue with it. Since they’re not talking JUST about the initial outing, then the remaining 6 (Mitchell and Matthews and whoever else) get thrown in the damages.

The threshold legal question will be whether the defendants enjoy absolute and/or qualified immunity. In some respects, it will be a case of first impression, so look for the case to center around that legal issue for a while.

Valerie Plame has a new book deal

Former CIA officer Valerie Plame, whose outing led to the indictment of a White House official, has agreed to write her memoirs for Simon & Schuster, weeks after a reported seven-figure deal with the Crown Publishing Group fell through.

â€It will be a very interesting book by a key figure of our time,†Simon & Schuster spokesman Adam Rothberg said Thursday.

Financial terms were not disclosed and no publication date has been set. In early May, Crown announced that it would publish Plame’s book, but the two sides could not agree on a final contract.
AP 7/13/06

Polly,

Thanks — as it happens, a secret informant (whom I’ll refer to as MTW) emailed me that precise link early this morning.

The only other text in the email was â€neener neener neener,†or something to that effect….

Well…that List of John Does candidates certainly explains the perverse NRO bit by Cliff May yesterday following Novak’s non-story demanding apologies to Rove…

Can Rove verify Cliff’s on the list, I wonder? Heh.

I believe the â€operatives†in question were at the Republican National Committee. If you’ve been following Waas’s reporting, you’ll remember that investigators immediately suspected that the RNC was acting as a proxy for the White House in the Wilson smear campaign (and subsequent battle to avoid the naming of a special prosecutor). It shouldn’t be lost on anybody that at the time Ashcroft’s DOJ was filled with ex-RNC types.

Read the Preface to John Dean’s new book for a description of his lawsuit. Lasted for 7-8 years; resolved with a settlement with undisclosed awards, except to say the Deans were satisfied. What you need in a case like this is perserverence in the face of all sorts of dirty tricks and huge expenditures of money on the other side. Wilsons seem like the sort who won’t give up. But I’d guess we’ll have to keep contributing to them for years. And we shouldn’t give up either.

EW,

Wouldn’t Armitage be on the Doe list?? Or is he in there somewhere and I just can’t see him.

Here’s my latest obsession, if Novak and Woodward both went to Armitage about Plame, doesn’t it make sense that Powell was their initial contact (just like they’d talk to Rove to clarify something Bush said, or Libby about something Cheney said)?

Why would they go to Armitage, if not?

I like Powell, FWIW, he and Andy Card seem like the only honest people in this Administration.

(thanks to someone on JOM for mentioning this relationship)

Should be interesting times.

ecoast wrote in recent post comments ’Another worry–they [the Wilson’s]drew a right wing judge.’
But do you REALLY think the assignment of the judge to this case occurred by chance? I doubt it. Whistleblower Sibel Edmonds’ experiences (plural) in court seem to indicate a nonrandom assignment: the same nonfavorable judge (singular) eventually received all her cases (plural).

Also in time for November elections, ’Sibelogist’ Luke Ryland (who curiously follows US politics from Australia) has an update from Sibel Edmonds reviewing the reasons why certain (mostly republican) members of Congress made the Dirty Dozen list compiled by the National Security Whistleblowers Coalition. (As you may be aware, H.R. Clinton and Lieberman made the list, too)

Luke also posts his interviews with Edmonds who reminds us to start anywhere with her case, Abramoff, the outing of Plame’s Brewster Jennings, etc and you will find connections with all of them.
http://nswbc.org/DirtyDozen/In…..yDozen.htm

Just a question: Why is Charles S. Sims not yet a member of the DC Bar?
==>see end of the Wilsons’ filing: Charles S. Sims (not admitted in D.C.)

So, for a major sit-down interview to get an in-depth background on the subject, why would Novak seek out Armitage?

I’m with emptywheel: your last refuge is Hadley. I would be delighted to have been completely bamboozled on this (and it would be nothing less than a complete bamboozle), and to learn that it was Hadley, who fits Novak’s description as well, if not better, than Armitage does, though I don’t think it’s going to happen.

But the subject was almost certainly not just Wilson, but the already emerging disaster of Iraq and the failure to find WMD, which was a topic that included but went beyond Wilson, as the news coverage before and after makes pretty clear. And Armitage’s own position on the war was probably pretty sympatico with Novak’s, so it makes perfect sense that Novak would want to talk with him in that context.

Whether it’s winnable or not, it certainly brings this into another kind of court where the discovery rules are quite different. Maybe we’ll get some decent â€discoveries†out of all of this after all.

just wondering… is the libby / rove grand jury testimony totally off limits or would the wilson’s be able to get that in discovery?

re: who are the 10 John Doe’s?

’Ten’ seems like such an exact number. Why not not create wiggle room and list 20 Joe Doe’s? Maybe such a number can be so exact because it refers to membership to a specific, identifiable group… such as the White House Iraq Group/WHIG ?

SourceWatch/Wikipedia have this to say about WHIG:

[In response to the Yellowcake forgery issue, the White House Iraq Group devised this strategy to combat critics:

â€There is a strategy now, devised by White House communications director Dan Bartlett, Mary Matalin, a former aide to Vice President Cheney, and former Bush aide Karen Hughes. Both advise the White House as a consultants to the Republican National Committee.

The plan: Release all relevant information. Try to shift attention back to Bush’s leadership in the war on terrorism. Diminish the significance of that single piece of iffy intelligence by making the case that Saddam was a threat for many other reasons. Put Republican lawmakers and other Bush allies on TV to defend him.

Most important: Question the motives of Democrats who supported the war but now are criticizing the president.†]

WHIG Members (listed on SourceWatch)
Karl Rove*
Karen Hughes
Mary Matalin
James R. Wilkinson
Nicholas E. Calio
Condoleezza Rice
Stephen Hadley
I. Lewis (Scooter) Libby*

WHIG members listed on Wikipedia
sames names as above and the following additional person:
Andrew Card

This totals only 9 names, two of whom(*) are already named in the lawsuit, so three additional people could be included. Dan Bartlett? Judith Miller? W?

lukery,

Thanks. That was news to me.
We seem to be posting within minutes of each other.

lukery,

I just read Judge Collyer’s ruling from 6/2006. It looks like Sibel’s claim(s) are dismissed but that Sibel has until 7/27/06 to file an ammended complaint ’that states a claim for intentional conversion’–whatever that is.

http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/Op…..2006-b.pdf

Will Sibel similarly ask this judge to produce personal financial records or else recuse?

Lukery

Thanks for those details. THey’re both tremendous. I’ve been trying to figure out who orchestrated Novak’s media bonanza this week (Rove, the Libby defense fund, the GOP?). I originally thought Rove. But after Novak lost track of the narrative, his testimony didn’t help Rove all that much. I’m beginning to wonder whether this wasn’t a favor to Cheney. You know. Neglect to mention the aspects of his column (the use of the word operative, the use of Cheney’s framing) that Cheney is responsible for. Still, if Novak’s testimony did Cheney in, then how awkward is it to try to save him now?

pdaly

My list of 10 comes from several points. First, there is a lot of evidence of hanky panky in State to create the illusion of Plame as suggesting the trip (and some indications that Cheney heard more details about Plame’s role than he would have gotten from Tenet). So that’s why I include Fleitz, Bolton, Wurmser, and Hannah.

Then there are the Republican operatives, who were discussed a lot in the initial cover-up period–the people who purportedly leaked the INR. So that’d need to cover whoever gave JimmyJeff GannonGuckert and the WSJ details of the INR memo. That’s where Mehlman comes in (plus, as I said, Mehlman also issued talking points to support Rove, and lied in those). That leaves WHIG as the leftover. But that seems right, not least because Fitz’ interest in Whig (per his subpoenas) was for the peroid July 6 to July 31. That is, they definitely played up the story, and those who can be proven to have done so will get hit.

This may have already been asked and answered long ago, but did Rove use JimmyJeff GannonGuckert to control Mehlman?

Or others for that matter? Has it ever been established whether JimmyJeff GannonGuckert was doing anything at the White House other than spin?

I don’t think it would be all that tin-foil to imagine Rove inviting associates to the White House for fun and games and then collecting the photographs or other incriminating evidence. Unfortunately, those types of actions are no longer out of the realm of possibility.

And for what it’s worth, I still think Bush outed Plame, whether or not that is ever proved or even disclosed. It was a big F-U to his father. I also wonder if Cheney was caught cleaning up the mess.

And we shouldn’t forget the fact that the Shrub lawyered up.

Would Bush as a John Doe be more likely to have the lawsuit jettisoned, and therefore not have been included for just that reason?

Thanks, as always, to the experts here.

Would someone please direct me to the page in the filings referring to â€covert†or â€NOC†status?

The Injuries: U.S.C. 18: Conspiracy

There is evidence that the Vice President and members of the Bush administration are in violation of U.S.C. 18 Section 372 – Conspiracy to impede or injure an officer. If found in violation each of such persons shall be fined not more than $5,000 or imprisoned not more than six years, or both

The outing of Valerie Plame as a covert CIA operative in retaliation for Joe Wilson’s filing a report contradicting the White House’s claim of Iraq’s WMD (Niger yellowcake) is in violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 372.

She was prevented from doing her job by intimidation, by revealing her identity, making it impossible for her to discharge her duties. She had to leave the place where her duties as an officer were required to be performed. She was intimidated, interrupted, hindered and impeded. Since it caused the loss of her job, and her ability to ever do that job again, it’s mild to say it injured her property…. it disabled her from working in that capacity altogether.

There is evidence that Vice President Cheney leaked this information:

* A copy of Joe Wilson’s op-ed annotated by Dick Cheney with comments constituting the main part of the smear launched against Wilson that week–the claim that Plame had sent Wilson on a boondoggle
* Evidence that Scooter Libby noted he had instructions to tell Judy something before he spoke with her on July 8–as well as the suggestion that his excuse doesn’t hold up
* Evidence that Libby and someone else (possibly Cheney) were warned of the damage Plame’s outing caused after July 14, 2003

source: Fitzgerald Collecting Cheney’s Smoking Guns

Novak answers viewers questions

Can you explain the incident involving Mr. Wilson’s â€friend†that happened to run into you on the street. What did you and him discuss? What is your impression of the situation? I appreciate the way you have handled yourself through this whole ordeal. You are a true journalist! — JUDY

ROBERT NOVAK: I foolishly answered questions about the case by a stranger who stopped me on the streets of Washington. He turned out to be a friend of Wilson who immediately went to Wilson’s office to report after our conversation. Some people think this was set up by Wilson, but I have no evidence of this. Thanks for the compliment.

emptywheel, thanks for pointers. I’ve got some catch-up reading to do.
Any idea whether there is a legal requirement to meet before one can add a â€John Doe†to a lawsuit? It seems we could use more than 10.

Jeff

Bit of a rant there. I am also pleased to see the stranger story confirmed.

I find Novak’s story to be full of holes. He has much more in his column than he has explained.

He talked to someone else in the WH or Rove said more than Novak is saying.

Where did he learn about Wilson’s previous trip
Who said Tenet never saw the Wilson trip report
Who said it was decided at low levels in the CIA
Who claimed that Wilson’s report was â€forgotten by the time the president spokeâ€
Who told him that â€Messages between Washington and the presidential entourage traveling in Africa hashed over the mission to Niger.â€

Harlow didn’t give him this, who did.

Wilson made an oral report in Langley that an Iraqi uranium purchase was â€highly unlikely,†though he also mentioned in passing that a 1988 Iraqi delegation tried to establish commercial contacts. CIA officials did not regard Wilson’s intelligence as definitive, being based primarily on what the Niger officials told him and probably would have claimed under any circumstances. The CIA report of Wilson’s briefing remains classified.

and who in the White House told Novak that they want to declassify inoformation.

The Agency never before has declassified that kind of information, but the White House would like it to do just that now