Tom Maguire, Glenn Reynolds, and Mark Levin are fairly slavering at the prospect of defense discovery in the Valerie Plame Wilson/Joseph Wilson civil suit against Rove and Libby. It doesn’t seem to have occurred to them yet that their fantasy version of the events surrounding the outing of Ms. Wilson might be false, and that the act of bringing the suit shows that the Wilsons are confident that their reputations will survive whatever might come out. (Maguire acknowledges that his firm prediction that no such suit would ever be filed was wrong, but doesn’t consider the natural inference that some of the premises leading to that conclusion must also be false.)
Of course, if the Maguire/Reynolds/Levin thesis were correct, the Administration would welcome the opportunity to clear itself in court. That would mean not trying to quash the suit under the “state secrets” doctrine. Would you care to bet on that question, Tom? (I’m hoping to win back some of what I lost betting on a Rove indictment.)
Our Wilson-bashing friends also don’t seem to have thought through what’s likely to happen in plaintiffs’ discovery. Libby and Rove are going to have to answer the same questions in deposition they answered in front of the grand jury. Only this time it will be on the public record. And of course their ability to prevaricate is limited by the threat of perjury charges if the two stories don’t match. In addition, Robert Novak is going to have to come clean, again in public, or face contempt charges.
But that’s not the best of it. Rove will be asked whether it’s true, as Murry Waas reported, that GWB personally ordered him to reveal classified information in order to discredit Joseph Wilson. And when he says “yes,” as he presumably will, plaintiffs will then have a strong basis for deposing Mr. Bush himself. [Yes, I’d rather “depose” him in the other sense of that term, but you take what you can get.]
Or they might just amend the complaint to name GWB as a defendant. (The Republicans may yet come to regret the Paula Jones precedent.) Either way, that deposition should be lots and lots of fun.
Footnote: The Waas story provides a possible explanation for the lack of any “substantive” indictment in the Plame case: Rove and Libby could have claimed that they were acting under orders, and that the Presidential instruction gave them reason to believe that any information released pursuant to it would not damage the national security, thus refuting the scienter required by the Espionage Act. Fitzgerald might well have concluded that he couldn’t disprove that claim beyond reasonable doubt.
I think the only interesting legal question this case presents is whether the defendants can recover their attorneys fees under Rule 11 of the FRCP. It's hard to see this complaint as anything other than legally frivolous, even if all the factual allegations in it are true, which is hardly likely to be the case.
You are assuming Glenn and Tom are stupid. Maybe. But in Mark Levin's case, his rants are not from stupidity but rather from serial mendacity. But then Mark writes for the National Review where serial dishonesty is a central part of the job description. Stupidity or mendacity – it's sometimes hard to tell with that crowd.
"You are assuming Glenn and Tom are stupid."
Nah. This is the traditional combination of wish-fullfillment and double-dare intimidation tactic they've been playing for years.
From Mark:
Tom Maguire, Glenn Reynolds, and Mark Levin are fairly slavering at the prospect of defense discovery…
What I wrote:
Well – I stand by my position that the plaintiffs will have huge problems gathering (presumably classified) evidence and recreating secret grand jury testimony, not to mention establishing damages and demonstrating that the defendants were not simply acting in their capacity as public officials. And a number of commenters focused on the problems the Wilson's might face as they dealt with defense discovery requests (Mark Levin can't wait).
That's "slavering"?
I could save a lot of time by not even bothering to write – Mark could just make stuff up and attribute it to me.
Maguire acknowledges that his firm prediction that no such suit would ever be filed was wrong, but doesn't consider the natural inference that some of the premises leading to that conclusion must also be false.
Good point. One of my assumptions was invalidated by the press release – a Wilson Legal Trust will foot the bills, so they (OK, he) gets to tour and fundraise without going out-of-pocket; I hadn't really considered that angle, although it is excrcuatingly obvious after the fact.
Otherwise, I am not a lawyer, but if a headline seeker wants to harass the White House on someone else's dime, I suppose they can try – clearly, this is intended to be the Revenge of Paula Jones.
But that's not the best of it. Rove will be asked whether it's true, as Murry Waas reported, that GWB personally ordered him to reveal classified information in order to discredit Joseph Wilson.
I can't find the word "Rove" in the linked Waas story.
It doesn't seem to have occurred to them yet that their fantasy version of the events surrounding the outing of Ms. Wilson might be false…
Projecting?
Tom:
So when you say "Mark Levin can barely wait" you weren't agreeing with his sentiment, but just pointing it out?
Anyway how's about that bet?
Mark
I'll agree with Kleiman's point (which should be obvious even to somone as desperate to believe the opposite as Maguire): For people supposedly in danger from what defense discovery might reveal, Wilson and Plame seem remarkably confident. So why don't we all just stop gazing into our magic Eight Balls, sit back, and watch what the Fates reveal? (Actually, though, I pretty much take for granted that the Administration will hastily abort this trial before it can begin by yelling "state secrets", which seems to be its preferred strategy whenever confronted with a legal challenge.)
> Only this time it will be on the
> public record.
I would assume that the defenses' second motion (after the motion to dismiss) would be to have the entire trial classified Top Secret and held under seal, so I wouldn't hold my breath waiting to read those transcripts.
Cranky
Actually, though, I pretty much take for granted that the Administration will hastily abort this trial before it can begin by yelling "state secrets", which seems to be its preferred strategy whenever confronted with a legal challenge.
The claim of "state secrets" will present an interesting contrast with the official party line that everyone knew that Valerie Plame worked at the CIA and what she did there.
I don't think this contretemps has covered anyone, in any position, in glory. But I have to tell you, if the SSCI report is accurate, then Plame and Wilson are fools to bring this lawsuit – if the lawsuit really was brought for legal vindication. I don't think it was. I suspect that this is related to the fact that Plame got a book contract, and the lawsuit will have some developments in the news right around the time the book is released, which should goose sales. Sort of like Clarke's book was released to tie to his testimony, and Risen's book came out around the time of his story on the NSA.
Or is this too cynical?
Or they might just amend the complaint to name GWB as a defendant. (The Republicans may yet come to regret the Paula Jones precedent.)
No. GWB is immune for presidential actions from civil suit. Jones established that a president was not immune, while sitting, for actions taken while not sitting. Nixon had already established near-blanket immunity for actions taken while president.
I keep coming back to the same problem, which comes out of my 20 years of experience working in the intelligence community. One fact and one supposition: apparently a number of people knew that Ms. Plame worked at CIA, but my guess is that far fewer knew that she was (or had been) in cover status. Heck, the Washington Post recently profiled a couple of my former Langley acquaintances (one on the op-ed page and the other in the food section) and there was no disclosure of classified information because neither had ever been in cover status. When I was "in the business" we had ways to distinguish the Agency people in cover status from those not under cover, but I have no idea if people outside the IC — even those with clearances — would be able to do the same. So I've been wondering for the last couple of years since this story broke, will anyone ever be able to prove that Rove, Libby, et. al. knowingly disclosed classified information? That was not the point of Fitzgerald's indictment of Libby, but it seems like it would be a factor in this lawsuit.
It's got to be fun to contemplate cross-examining someone with a well-known reputation since childhood for having a photographic memory…
"Objection: witness's answer is non-responsive. Would you care to rephrase your "I can't recall," Mr. Turdblossom, sir?"
"… the lawsuit will have some developments in the news right around the time the book is released, which should goose sales."
Bringing a lawsuit to goose book sales is like buying a football franchise to spur grass seed sales: it's just not economical to do it.
Rather, I strongly suspect the idea is to use the tools of civil discovery available to plaintiffs in a lawsuit to dig up information about the public officials that Wilson considers his political opponents. That may work to some extent because those public officials would be hard pressed to claim that matters relating to Plame and her work should be considered confidential.
Alkali: "The claim of 'state secrets' will present an interesting contrast with the official party line that everyone knew that Valerie Plame worked at the CIA and what she did there."
Well, yeah, but when has elementary logical contradiction ever stopped this crowd? And if they're lucky enough to draw one of those numerous judges who regards himself as a poodle dog for the Executive in foreign and military affairs, they're home free.
Quoting Mark:
"So when you say "Mark Levin can barely wait" you weren't agreeing with his sentiment, but just pointing it out?"
Bingo – now, care to guess what I mean when I write "Mark Kleiman is sloppy with his characterizations"?
More from Mark:
"Of course, if the Maguire/Reynolds/Levin thesis were correct, the Administration would welcome the opportunity to clear itself in court. That would mean not trying to quash the suit under the "state secrets" doctrine. Would you care to bet on that question, Tom?"
Well, let's see – what I originally wrote was that the CIA and Fitzgerald won't give Ms. Plame's personnel file to the Libby defense (they finally agreed to provide a summary of 2002 and forward), so they are unlikely to give it to the Wilson plaintiffs.
Is the CIA trying to quash Libby's defense? Helping to lay a point for appeal? Protecting real secrets? Beats me. But if the CIA is at all consistent, they won't provide that info to the plaintiffs, and I don't see how a suit can proceed without it.
Folks intent on blaming "the Administration" will blame Bush – the suspense as to where InventedFacts" will come out is unbearable.
But as to a bet, since I have already opinied that the CIA hasn't played ball yet, my guess is that a foolish consistency will oblige them to continue to cling to her file. That is probably not clear enough for some readers, so – no, I decline that bet.
(Point to ponder – after the appeals as to whether this case can even go forward, we may be talking about decisions made in the next Administration.)
Oh, from Bruce M:
"I'll agree with Kleiman's point (which should be obvious even to somone as desperate to believe the opposite as Maguire): For people supposedly in danger from what defense discovery might reveal, Wilson and Plame seem remarkably confident."
As to who is desperate to believe what, obviously Bruse is not a critical thinker or careful reader either. No matter.
I do believe that the statute of limitations tolled today on some causes of action, that Ms. Plame's book deal was announced yesterday, that the Wilson legal trust means Soros-types can finance this forever (a la the folks who backed Paula Jones), and that nothing Wilson could do would alientate him from his base (Exception – endorsing Lieberman).
So I don't think, and have not thought or written, that they are at any risk of personal embarrassment, so I don't suppose they have anything to fear.
Republican upside will come in embarrassing the press or the CIA. However, because neither Wilson nor Tim Russert nor George Tenet is a candidate for anything there is clearly more upside for the Dems, who may score points against Evil BushCo.
Meanwhile, we await help for the poor readers amongst us – perhaps Mark can cite the specific passage where Wass told us that, quoting Mark,
"GWB personally ordered [Rove] to reveal classified information in order to discredit Joseph Wilson."
Poor Tom. He's smart enough that obfuscating that much is rather a waste – why not leave that to the Tony Snows? Those of us endowed with less lofty nuance else will remember this:
"But as to a bet, since I have already opinied that the CIA hasn't played ball yet, my guess is that a foolish consistency will oblige them to continue to cling to her file. That is probably not clear enough for some readers, so – no, I decline that bet."
(1) Quoting Mark:
Kleiman: "So when you say 'Mark Levin can barely wait' you weren't agreeing with his sentiment, but just pointing it out?"
Maguire: "Bingo — now, care to guess what I mean when I write 'Mark Kleiman is sloppy with his characterizations'?"
Strange: in his original column, Maguire quoted Levin without giving the slightest hint that he disagreed with him. Quoting his entire passage on the subject: "Well — I stand by my position that the plaintiffs will have huge problems gathering (presumably classified) evidence and recreating secret grand jury testimony, not to mention establishing damages and demonstrating that the defendants were not simply acting in their capacity as public officials. And a number of commenters focused on the problems the Wilson's might face as they dealt with defense discovery requests (Mark Levin can't wait)."
The End. No qualifier at all from Tom on that last comment. Shucks, one might almost conclude — as Mark did — that Maguire agreed with it. Tom now assures us, however, that he meant absolutely nothing of the sort, and that he is scandalized — scandalized! — that Kleiman could jump to such a conclusion.
(2) Maguire is quite correct that Kleiman misread Waas' article to say that Bush ordered ROVE to "personally ordered him to reveal classified information in order to discredit Joseph Wilson." What Waas says explicitly, in his second paragraph, is that Bush ordered CHENEY to do so — and Cheney, of course, is the biggest target of all in the Wilsons' suit and in this whole affair. I think that's kind of a forgivable slip on Kleiman's part, given that all the legal consequences he mentions will be exactly the same.
(3) Maguire: "I do believe…that nothing Wilson could do would alienate him from his base…However, because neither Wilson nor Tim Russert nor George Tenet is a candidate for anything there is clearly more upside for the Dems, who may score points against Evil BushCo."
Please, Tom. If he can't establish his case even within the modest standard of likelihood in a civil case, of course it will smash up his reputation in his base — not to mention the profits from that book. And exactly how are the Dems possibly going to "score points against evil BushCo" unless the Wilsons do have some reasonably plausible case?
So I repeat my original point: for people who might be endangered by "defense discovery", the Wilsons are mighty confident, when they could have "saved their base" and made Big Profits on that book in any case by simply avoiding filing that civil suit.
(4) Of course, when I referred to "the White House" trying to quash the suit using the 'state secrets' argument", I did NOT mean "the CIA trying to quash the case using the 'state secrets' argument", given the little fact that this particular White House and the CIA are at open war. I rather doubt that Kleiman was referring to that either.
(5) And of course, anyone who thinks the White House was engaged in no monkey business at all in this affair also has to explain why Libby apparently felt called upon to perjure himself to help cover things up — or why the White House, throughout the 2004 campaign, kept solemnly insisting publicly that Karl Rove had no phone conversations at all regarding Plame's status, at the same time that Rove was saving himself from a perjury indictment by confessing to Fitzgerald that he HAD done exactly that.
Typo: I should have cut out the "Quoting Mark:" at the beginning.
"Shucks, one might almost conclude — as Mark did — that Maguire agreed with it."
Uh huh. And might one also conlcude that when Waas writes "Cheney", it is OK to read "Rove" – apparently so, based on this:
"Maguire is quite correct that Kleiman misread Waas' article to say that Bush ordered ROVE to "personally ordered him to reveal classified information in order to discredit Joseph Wilson." What Waas says explicitly, in his second paragraph, is that Bush ordered CHENEY to do so — and Cheney, of course, is the biggest target of all in the Wilsons' suit and in this whole affair. I think that's kind of a forgivable slip on Kleiman's part, given that all the legal consequences he mentions will be exactly the same."
A "forgivable slip"? Gee, the Footnote refers specifically to Rove using a "following orders" defense – is it a "forgivable error" that days later that remains uncorrected?
Still more from Bruce:
"Please, Tom. If he can't establish his case even within the modest standard of likelihood in a civil case, of course it will smash up his reputation in his base — not to mention the profits from that book."
Gee, his book was sold a few years back, her book will go on sale when – early next year? Do you suppose the civil suit will have sent them down in flames by next spring? And do you suppose the check for her *advance* on the book will take a year to clear?
As to the notion that his base will give a twig for the "facts" that emerge in the lawsuit (if such a suit even survives dismissal, an outcome which will only bosst Wilson's heroic stature), I will cite (a) this blog post, that can't even be vexed to get the details about Rove and Cheney correct, or the (b) general fingers-in-ears chanting that accompanies any mention of Kerry and the Swift Boats, both as evidence that a certain segment of the left is impervious to facts, evidence, and the like.
And this, still from Moomaw, is purely delusional, in quite a comical and touching way:
"Of course, when I referred to "the White House" trying to quash the suit using the 'state secrets' argument", I did NOT mean "the CIA trying to quash the case using the 'state secrets' argument"…"
Jiminy, this really is the "Self-invented reality based community", since both mark and Moomaw used the word "Administration", Moomaw's use of quotes notwithstanding.
Let me try to help – let's quote from Mark's original post, and do look carefully for the phrase "White House", or "Administration", of which (one might argue), the senior officals of the CIA are a part:
From Mark:
"the Administration would welcome the opportunity to clear itself in court. That would mean not trying to quash the suit under the "state secrets" doctrine. Would you care to bet on that question, Tom?"
Claer enough – Mark cited "the Adminstration" as possibly quashing the suit; I maintain that Negroponte could be considered part of the Admin., and since I think the CIA may well quash this suit, I pass on the bet.
Now, Bruce actually puts himself in quotes with "White House" in his recent query, but here is his *first* (and only) statement of that idea, in the comments above at 10:26 PM:
"Actually, though, I pretty much take for granted that the Administration will hastily abort this trial before it can begin by yelling "state secrets", which seems to be its preferred strategy whenever confronted with a legal challenge."
Not "White House", although that is what Moomaw put in quotes – "Administration" was the word he actually used.
Reading comprehension is not at a premium around here, gents, including, apparently, self-reading comprehension.
Let's update the Kleiman/Moomaw dictionary – "slavering" means "noted someone else's enthusiasm"; "Rove" means "Cheney"; and "Administration" means "White House".
Are we clear? Let me volunteer one more – "Same facts" means "Invented fantasy".
BONUS QUESTION – by falsely putting "White House" in quotes as a restatement of his own idea, would it be fair to say Moomaw is lying? Or was the error so transparently obvious to anyone who can read that it would be more accurate to call it "bone-stupid"?
We are going to have to do this the hard way, aren't we?
(1) DID you disagree with Levin, Tom? If so, then why didn't you utter a peep about that fact; and why did you instead include his statement in the list of reasons you gave in that paragraph why the Wilsons' lawsuit is supposedly headed for disaster?
(2) "Gee, the Footnote refers specifically to Rove using a 'following orders' defense – is it a 'forgivable error' that days later that remains uncorrected?"
Yep, since Waas said explicitly that Bush ordered Cheney to release classified information to discredit Wilson. Substitute "Cheney for "Rove", and, as I said, everything Kleiman said remains correct. (If not, do let us know how the change in name affects things.)
(3) "And this, still from Moomaw, is purely delusional, in quite a comical and touching way:
'Of course, when I referred to "the White House trying to quash the suit using the 'state secrets' argument", I did NOT mean "the CIA trying to quash the case using the 'state secrets' argument"…'
"Jiminy, this really is the 'Self-invented reality based community', since both Mark and Moomaw used the word 'Administration', Moomaw's use of quotes notwithstanding.
"Let me try to help – let's quote from Mark's original post, and do look carefully for the phrase 'White House', or 'Administration', of which (one might argue), the senior officals of the CIA are a part…
"From Mark: 'The Administration would welcome the opportunity to clear itself in court. That would mean not trying to quash the suit under the "state secrets" doctrine. Would you care to bet on that question, Tom?"
Please, Tom; at least TRY not to act publicly like a moron. You know perfectly well that it isn't the CIA which is "trying to clear itself in court" of the Wilsons' charge that her cover was deliberately blown in order to discredit him; and you know perfectly well that therefore neither Kleiman nor I was referring to the CIA.
(4) Let us in on some more of those details about Kerry and the Swift Boats — particularly since a number of Kerry's critics (most prominently Adm. Hoffman) got caught red-handed saying that they "strongly disapproved" of his behavior at the time, only to have printed records of their comments enthusiastically praising him at the time turn up almost immediately.
Since apparently, when dealing with Maguire, one must explain things slowly and in great detail, let me add one elaboration to my second point, although it really should be obvious. The fact that Waas didn't explicitly mention Rove in his article (although he did explicitly mention Cheney and Libby) does not, to put it mildly, rule out the possibility that Bush put out the same order to Rove to leak classified information in order to discredit Wilson — which means that Kleiman, to repeat, was perfectly correct to say in his footnote that "The Waas story provides a POSSIBLE explanation for the lack of any 'substantive' indictment in the Plame case: Rove and Libby COULD have claimed that they were acting under orders, and that the Presidential instruction gave them reason to believe that any information released pursuant to it would not damage the national security, thus refuting the scienter required by the Espionage Act." Note those capitalized qualifiers, Tom.
And since (as mentioned above), one must apparently explain the obvious in great detail for Maguire, let me do the same for my first point by asking the obvious question: How likely DO you think it is that the defense lawyers will reveal the Wilsons to be frauds, Tom? Levin (a habitual slaverer if ever there was one) has no doubt about it at all. If (as you now insist) you have serious doubts that he's correct, then why did you quote him approvingly without ever mentioning that little fact?
Let me simplify on the off chance that anyone other than Moomaw is reading this:
1. Both Mark Kleiman and Bruce Moomaw explicitly said that they thought "the Administration" would try to quash this suit. Since (a) the President appoints the head of the CIA, who is therefore widely considered to be part of "the Administration", and (b) since I had previously pointed out that the CIA was blocking access to key information, I felt we had an obvious no-bet, since I too think "the Administration", through the CIA, will quash this suit.
Later Bruce Moomaw quoted himself as having said "White House" rather than "Administration" – evidently he is not able or willing to read his own words, which is a helpful clue to the rest of us as to how seriously he should be taken.
His defense is that I should have known what he meant. Uh huh – just like he "knew" I was slavering. I have a better idea, Bruce – why don't you write what we mean so we can figure it out the first time – don't, for example, interchange "White House" with "Administration".
2. Mark Kleiman tells us in the post that "Rove will be asked whether it's true, as Murry Waas reported, that GWB personally ordered him to reveal classified information in order to discredit Joseph Wilson." I pointed out that Waas said no such thing.
Moomaw's defense is that a simple interchange of "Cheney" for "Rove" solves everything; beyond that, per Moomaw, "Waas does not, to put it mildly, rule out the possibility that Bush put out the same order to Rove to leak classified information in order to discredit Wilson".
Fine, we all agree – Waas might have reported that Bush ordered Rove to do something. We also agree that he did *NOT* actually report that. I continue to beleive that Kleiman should put up a correction – I would suggest something more plasible than "Rove will be asked whether it's true, as Murry Waas *might have* reported, that GWB personally ordered him to reveal classified information…". As a bonus, Waas *might have* reported that Moomaw is a blithering, lying fool. That would depend in part on whether Waas read this comment thread. But he might have!
As to my slavering – I had written two recent posts (JUne, July) on the subject of a Wilson civil suit; if the best evidence they can find for "slavering" is that I linked to Levin with neither an endorsement or denunciation, they really ought to get a dictionary.
More food for thought – in my June post the first thing I write after noting the news story is this:
"The EmptyWheel also picks up on this, Jeralyn Merritt notes it briefly, and Jane Hamsher seems to take it seriously. Let's spin the Wheel:"
We will leave it to Moomaw, Kleiman, and their ESP to determine whether that represents a slavering endorsement of the positions held by the EmpthWheel, Ms. Merritt, and Ms. Hamsher, all well known lefties.
June post
http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2006/06/a_w…
Finally, here is an excerpt from the June post (which was linked in the July post, so I am not cheating at all here – Kleiman could have read it). It is the fifteh and final point I make, and has my only thoughts on the impact of discovery on the Wilsons:
As the civil suit proceeds, perhaps we will find out why Ms. Plame took what was described as an "enforced leave of absence" by the Daily Telegraph; the Times simply called it an "unpaid leave" and dated it from June 1, 2004 to June 1, 2005. The hub-bub following the leak began in late September 2003; however, the SSCI report that was critical of both her husband and the CIA handling of his trip came out in July 2004, just before she left. Just for example, the Senators seemed to be troubled that Joe Wilson claimed awareness of CIA intel that no one admitted to having shared with him. Is there any chance that Ms. Plame was the recipient of some hard stares? And are we sure this is territory the Wilsons are keen to explore?
I still think that her leave of absence is an odd thing, especially if it was forced upon her, and yes, I think it will be highly relevant in assessing the impact of this leak on her career.
I really don't think any serious commentator would call that "slavering", but I also don't think Kleiman or Moomaw are serious.
FWIW – I don't have a link handy, but Kleiman is getting into a bit of a habit of inventig an argument, assigning it to me, and rebutting it. Fight the Strawman!
July post
SHow me the slaver.
Only a moron would believe this lawsuit will proceed, and for a host of reasons. It is fun to watch the frustrated dreamers on the left, fantasizing about presidential depositions and the like. Hint: No depositions will occur. Further hint: Check out the Westfall Act and the Federal Tort Claims Act as threshhold barriers to this action.
P.S.–Of what, exactly, should the White House be eager to "clear its name?"
Yep, we are going to have to do this the hard way.
(1) Please, Tom. You can fantasize all you wish, but neither you nor anyone else really thinks that Kleiman and I were referring to anyone but this particular Administration — which, to repeat (since repetition is said to be very important in educating the retarded), does NOT include the career CIA officials who, by dint of being careerists, are very often NOT regarded as part of this particular Administration, and who are certainly not the ones who have any need to "clear themselves in court".
(2) Yep — Kleiman should indeed put up a correction, as I've told him both on this site and in an E-mail. So should you, on the multiple points on which you're wrong. To repeat myself yet again (for the reason given above): his error affects neither the total strength of the Wilsons' suit (since they can do to Cheney exactly what Kleiman said they could do to Rove), or even the accuracy of his footnote (since there's a very real possibility that Bush gave the same marching orders to Rove than he gave to Cheney and Libby, and so it is indeed perfectly possible that this explains "the lack of any 'substantive' indictment in the Plame case: Rove and Libby could have claimed that they were acting under orders, and that the Presidential instruction gave them reason to believe that any information released pursuant to it would not damage the national security, thus refuting the scienter required by the Espionage Act."
(3) Still no reply from you, I see, to my third point, which is really a very simple question: how likely DO you yourself think it is that defense discovery will reveal the Wilsons to be frauds? To repeat yet again (see above): Levin said he has absolutely no doubt. If you yourself had serious doubts that he was right, why did you quote him without mentioning that little fact? (Your comment in that June post about Plame's "enforced leave of absence", of course, just provides further evidence that you DID previously agree with Levin about defense discoveries making any attempt at a suit by the Wilsons blow up in their faces and reveal them to absolutely everyone as frauds — although we now know that they seem unafraid of that supposed possibility. Incidentally, regarding the Senate Intelligence Committee's report: if — as the Senators stated — Wilson actually told the CIA, after his return from Niger, something completely different from what he publicly said later, why didn't the Administration simply discredit him once and for all by pointing that little fact out at the time?)
As for your penchant for "slavering", you've proven it beyond doubt in the thread above — show me any "lies" on my part, Tom. But then, you've also shown it in your comparably hysterical responses to Brad Delong and me over on his thread on your reaction to the Hamdan decision. (Incidentally, you never replied to my points on that one either — starting with the obvious point that the Court came fairly close to approving Bush's Unitary Executive theory, and that such a decision would have been a victory for the "rule of law" only if you embrace Louis XIV's theory of law.)
Footnote on Levin: what he actually does in that column is zigzag wildly back and forth between screaming that the suit is a Wonderful Thing becuase it will beyond doubt expose the Wilsons as frauds, and screaming that it's a Terrible Thing because it will cause people to doubt Our President's veracity in Wartime. Can't have it both ways — unless you have a large collection of loose screws, which Levin unquestionably has. (See Andrew Sullivan for more recent details on that particular subject, although it's hardly news.)
I'm ready to issue my ruling here. History will record that the final verdict in this matter was rendered by the Washington Post on April 9, 2006, as follows:
"The material that Mr. Bush ordered declassified established, as have several subsequent investigations, that Mr. Wilson was the one guilty of twisting the truth. In fact, his report supported the conclusion that Iraq had sought uranium.
"Mr. Wilson subsequently claimed that the White House set out to punish him for his supposed whistle-blowing by deliberately blowing the cover of his wife, Valerie Plame, who he said was an undercover CIA operative. This prompted the investigation by Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald. After more than 2 1/2 years of investigation, Mr. Fitzgerald has reported no evidence to support Mr. Wilson's charge. In last week's court filings, he stated that Mr. Bush did not authorize the leak of Ms. Plame's identity. Mr. Libby's motive in allegedly disclosing her name to reporters, Mr. Fitzgerald said, was to disprove yet another false assertion, that Mr. Wilson had been dispatched to Niger by Mr. Cheney."
Of course, Karl Rove made the Post say that, but as we all know Rove can do anything he wants, and the fools are powerless against him.