The War Profiteers - CIA Lawsuits: Valerie Plame Wilson et al vs. Lewis Libby, Karl C. Rove et al

The War Profiteers - War Crimes, Kidnappings, Torture and Big Money

CIA Lawsuits: Valerie Plame Wilson et al vs. Lewis Libby, Karl C. Rove et al

Background	Media Reports		Legal Documents			Photo Credits

Background “[…] When Valerie E. Wilson - maiden name Plame - introduced herself to a reporter in her home on July 3, there was no hint she was anything other than a busy mother with an unflagging smile and classy wardrobe. She talked a bit about the joys and challenges of twins, then faded into the background. One might have thought her to be a financial manager, maybe a real estate agent - but never a spy. Few knew her secret: At 22, Plame had joined the Central Intelligence Agency and traveled the world on undercover missions. A few months after that July evening, her name - and her occupation - would be published and broadcast internationally. In the public imagination, she would become ‘Jane Bond,’ as her husband later put it. A clandestine operative isn't supposed to be famous, but her identity was leaked to journalists by administration officials for what Joseph Wilson alleged was retaliation for his criticism of the White House’s Iraq policies. […]” Excerpt of a Washington Post article from October 8^th, 2003.				Valerie Plame Wilson - former covert CIA officer

Video: Congressional Testimony by Valerie Plame Wilson (Excerpt) - March 16th, 2007

Media Reports November 18^th, 2008 - Valerie Plame to Petition High Court to Review Lawsuit 1 news article by the Public Record October 14^th, 2008 - Lawmakers: Bush Stymied Plame Probe 1 news article by ABC News September 22^nd, 2008 - Cheney’s Testimony in Valerie Plame Leak Case Classified 1 news article by the Public Record July 16^th, 2008 - Bush Claims Executive Privilege on CIA Leak 1 news article by the Associated Press July 8^th, 2008 - Waxman Threatens Mukasey with Contempt over Leak 1 news article by the Associated Press June 27^th, 2008 - House Panel Seeks Bush Transcript in CIA Leak Case 1 news article by the Associated Press June 21^st, 2008 - McClellan Testifies he was Wary of Libby’s Leak Denial but went along 2 news articles by the Los Angeles Times & Washington Post June 16^th, 2008 - House Panel Subpoenas FBI Interviews of Bush, Cheney 1 news article by the Associated Press June 9^th, 2008 - McClellan to Testify Before House in CIA Leak Case 1 news article by the Associated Press June 4^th, 2008 - Rep. Waxman Seeks Access to Bush, Cheney Interviews on CIA Leak 1 news article by the Los Angeles Times May 11^th, 2008 - Plame Appeals Dismissal of Suit 1 news article by the Chicago Tribune March 31^st, 2008 - CIA Leak Inquiry Cost $2.58 Million 1 news article by the Associated Press February 26^th, 2008 - Expert Details White House Mail Problems 1 news article by the Associated Press January 16^th, 2008 - White House Reused E-Mail Tapes 1 news article by the Associated Press November 20^th, 2007 - Former Aide Blames Bush for Leak Deceit 1 news article by the Associated Press October 24^th, 2007 - Spy at the Centre of White House Scandal Tries to Tell All 1 news article by the National Post August 3^rd, 2007 - Judge Backs C.I.A. in Suit on Memoir 1 news article by the New York Times July 19^th, 2007 - Valerie Plame’s Lawsuit Dismissed 1 news article by the Associated Press July 3^rd, 2007 - Bush Commutes Libby Sentence, but Conviction Stands 1 news article by the Washington Post June 6^th, 2007 - Libby Given 30 Months for Lying in C.I.A. Leak Case 1 news article by the New York Times June 1^st, 2007 - Plame Sues C.I.A. for Blocking Her Memoir 1 news article by the New York Times March 19^th, 2007 - Valerie Plame, the Washington Post and the Ghost of Joe McCarthy Opinion by Counterpunch March 17^th, 2007 - Plame Sheds Little Light in Leak Case 1 news article by the Associated Press March 16^th, 2007 - Subject of C.I.A. Leak Testifies on Capitol Hill 1 news article by the New York Times September 13^th, 2006 - Armitage Added To Plame Lawsuit 1 news article by CBS News July 13^th, 2006 - Ex-CIA Agent sues Cheney in Leak Case 1 news article by Reuters February 12^th, 2004 - Plame Gate 1 news article by the American Prospect October 8^th, 2003 - The Spy Next Door 1 news article by the Washington Post October 4^th, 2003 - Leak of Agent’s Name Causes Exposure of CIA Front Firm 1 news article by the Washington Post October 3^rd, 2003 - Suspicion Centers on Lewis Libby 1 news article by Salon Magazine September 28^th, 2003 - Bush Administration Is Focus of Inquiry 1 news article by the Washington Post July 17^th, 2003 - A War on Wilson? 1 news article by Time Magazine July 14^th, 2003 - Mission to Niger Column by townhall.com July 6^th, 2003 - What I Didn’t Find in Africa Opinion by the New York Times

Legal Documents Lawsuit I: Civil Suit against Lewis Libby and other White House Officials Lawsuit II: Civil Suit against the CIA over book contract with Simon & Shuster ____________________________________________________________________________________ Lawsuit I: Valerie Plame Wilson & Joseph C. Wilson IV vs. Lewis Libby Jr., Karl C. Rove et al US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit Case No. 07-5257 Action filed: July 27^th, 2007 November 17^th, 2008 - Per Curiam Order “[…] Appellant’s petition for rehearing en banc and the response thereto were circulated to the full court, and a vote was requested. Thereafter, a majority of the judges eligible to participate did not vote in favor of the petition. Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is ordered that the petition be denied. […]” September 26^th, 2008 - Petition “[…] Petition filed by Appellants Joseph C. Wilson, IV and Valerie Plame Wilson for rehearing and for rehearing en banc. […]” August 12^th, 2008 - Per Curiam Judgment & Opinion “[…] This cause came on to be heard on the record on appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and was argued by counsel. On consideration thereof, it is ordered and adjudged that the judgment of the District Court appealed from in this cause is hereby affirmed, in accordance with the opinion of the court filed herein this date. […] “Each claim in the Wilson complaint is based on this disclosure of Privacy Act protected information. In Count One, the Wilsons allege that Joseph Wilson’s First Amendment right to free speech was violated when the information was disclosed in retaliation for his speech. Count Two alleges that Valerie and Joseph Wilson’s Fifth Amendment rights to equal protection of the laws were violated by the disclosure of information because that disclosure treated them differently from others. Count Three alleges that Valerie Wilson’s Fifth Amendment right to privacy was violated when her personal information was publicly disclosed. Count Four alleges that Valerie Wilson’s Fifth Amendment right to property was violated when the information was disclosed because the disclosure eliminated the secrecy of her position which was essential to her employment. “Thus, each Constitutional claim, whether pled in terms of privacy, property, due process, or the First Amendment, is a claim alleging damages from the improper disclosure of information covered by the Privacy Act. “It is true that the Wilsons cannot obtain complete relief under the Privacy Act because the Act exempts the Offices of the President and Vice President from its coverage. […] Thus, even if the Wilsons can prove their allegations against Vice President Cheney, Rove, and Libby, they will not be remunerated for them. Nonetheless, our precedent is plain that the Wilsons are still not entitled to Bivens relief as to Vice President Cheney, Rove, or Libby, provided their omission from the remedial scheme was not inadvertent. […]” May 9^th, 2008 - Oral Argument “Oral Argument held before Judge Sentelle, Henderson and Rogers.” April 18^th, 2008 - Letter Filed “Letter filed by Richard B. Cheney pursuant to FRAP 28j advising of additional authorities.” March 21^st, 2008 - Appellant Reply Brief “Appellant Reply Brief filed by Joseph C. Wilson, IV and Valerie Plame Wilson […] Disclosure Statement: Not Applicable to this Party.” March 7^th, 2008 - Joint Brief “Joint Brief filed by Appellees I. Lewis Libby, Karl C. Rove, Richard B. Cheney, Richard L. Armitage, and USA.” March 7^th, 2008 - Brief “Brief filed by Appellee Richard B. Cheney.” December 20^th, 2007 - Order “[…] Ordered that the following briefing format and schedule apply in this case: “Brief for Appellants - 02/06/08 (not to exceed 14,000 words) “Joint Appendix - 02/06/08 “Joint Brief for Appellees - 03/07/08 (not to exceed 14,000 words) “Individual Brief for Appellee Cheney - 03/07/08 (not to exceed 2,500 words) “Reply Brief for Appellants - 03/14/08 (not to exceed 7,000 words) […]” August 27^th, 2007 - Docket entry “Notice filed by Appellants Valerie Plame Wilson, et al. Final transcript status notice filed. All transcripts necessary for the appeal have been completed and received.” July 27^th, 2007 - Docket entry “Civil-US Case docketed. Notice of Appeal filed by Appellants Valerie Plame Wilson and Joseph C. Wilson.” U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia Case No. 1:06-cv-01258-JDB Action filed: July 13^th, 2006 July 19^th, 2007 - Order & Memorandum Opinion “[…] Upon consideration of defendants’ motions to dismiss, the statement of interest and motion to dismiss filed by the United States, plaintiffs’ opposition thereto, and the entire record herein, and for the reasons given in the memorandum opinion issued on this date, it is this 19th day of July, 2007, hereby ordered that the motions to dismiss filed by the United States and by defendants Richard B. Cheney, I. Lewis Libby, Jr., Richard L. Armitage, and Karl C. Rove are granted; and it is further ordered that this action is dismissed. […]” July 11^th, 2007 - Plaintiff’s Response to Notice of Supplemental Authority July 1^st, 2007 - Notice of Supplemental Authority May 17^th, 2007 - Minute Order Motion Hearing held on 5/17/2007 before Judge John D. Bates: MOTION to Dismiss Amended Complaint filed by KARL C. ROVE; MOTION to Dismiss Amended Complaint filed by RICHARD B. CHENEY; MOTION to Dismiss with Supporting Memorandum of Law filed by RICHARD L. ARMITAGE; MOTION to Dismiss filed by UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; MOTION to Dismiss the Complaint filed by I. LEWIS LIBBY, JR. Motions heard and taken under advisement. May 17^th, 2007 - Transcript of Motions Hearing March 12^th, 2007 - Minute Order “MINUTE ORDER: It is hereby ORDERED that time for oral argument at the May 17, 2007, motions hearing shall be allocated as follows: 60 minutes to counsel for defendants and interested party the United States in support of the motions to dismiss and statement of interest; and 60 minutes to counsel for plaintiffs in opposition to the motions to dismiss and statement of interest. Counsel for defendants and the United States shall jointly submit a notice that lists, by defendant, the agreed-upon apportionment of their allocated time by not later than May 14, 2007. Signed by Judge John D. Bates on 3/12/2007.” February 15^th, 2007 - Defendant Richard Cheney's Reply in Support of Motion to Dismiss January 16^th, 2007 - Plaintiff's Memorandum of Points and Authorities November 14^th, 2006 - The United States’ Motion to Dismiss November 14^th, 2006 - Defendant Karl Rove’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint November 14^th, 2006 - Defendant Lewis Libby’s Motion to Dismiss the Complaint November 14^th, 2006 - Defendant Richard Cheney’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint September 13^th, 2006 - Amended Complaint “[…] 2. This Complaint arises, in part, out of a conspiracy among current and former high-level officials in the White House and actions taken by and on behalf of those officials in 2003 to violate the constitutional and other legal rights of Valerie Plame Wilson and her husband, Joseph C. Wilson IV. Those officials sought to punish Mr. Wilson for his public statements regarding assertions by the President of the United States in the 2003 State of the Union address that he used to justify war against Iraq. As their chief method of punishment, the White House officials destroyed Mrs. Wilson’s cover by revealing her classified employment with the CIA to reporters prior to and after July 14, 2003, the date on which a newspaper column by Robert Novak made public that employment. “3. The Defendants chose not to address publicly, directly, and on the merits why they may have thought Mr. Wilson was wrong or unfair in his statements about the President’s State of the Union address. Rather, they embarked on an anonymous ‘whispering campaign’ designed to discredit and injure the Plaintiffs and to deter other critics from publicly speaking out. The audacity and malevolence of that campaign is compounded by the fact that at the same time the Wilsons were being attacked, the administration in fact was acknowledging the validity of Mr. Wilson’s public statements. Specifically, the administration admitted that claims in the 2003 State of the Union address about Iraqi attempts to buy uranium from Africa were a mistake. But for Mr. Wilson coming forward, it is unlikely that the administration ever would have acknowledged its error. The fact that the administration had to admit its mistake is one likely reason why the Defendants chose to attack the Wilsons. “4. As a direct result of the Defendants’ conduct, both Mr. and Mrs. Wilson have suffered a violation of rights guaranteed them under the United States Constitution and the laws of the District of Columbia. This is a civil action brought under the rule of Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), that also includes statutory civil rights claims and pendent state-law claims. It is brought to recover damages from the Defendants for the constitutional and other injuries they committed against the Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs have no other remedies for the violations of their rights. […] July 13^th, 2006 - Complaint _____________________________________________________________________________ Lawsuit II: Valerie Plame Wilson, Simon & Shuster Inc. vs. Michael Hayden, CIA et al U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York Case No. 1:07-cv-4595 Action filed: May 31^st, 2007 August 3^rd, 2007 - Opinion & Order “[…] Valerie Plame Wilson (‘Wilson’) and her publisher, Simon & Shuster, seek declaratory and injunctive relief against the government defendants under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, the Declaratory Judgment Act, and the Administrative Procedure Act. This dispute arises from the government’s decision to preclude plaintiffs from publishing information in Wilson’s forthcoming memoir concerning her dates of employment for the Central Intelligence Agency (the ‘CIA’ or ‘Agency’). The parties have cross-moved for summary judgment without discovery. For the reasons below, the Court DENIES plaintiffs motion and GRANTS defendants’ motion. […]” July 13^th, 2007 - Notice of Cross-Motion July 3^rd, 2007 - Order June 29^th, 2007 - Notice of Motion of Plaintiffs for Summary Judgment & Permanent Injunction June 28^th, 2007 - Declaration of Benjamin H. Torrance May 31^st, 2007 - Complaint for Declaratory & Injunctive Relief “[…] This is an action by Valerie Plame Wilson and Simon & Shuster, Inc., the publisher of Ms. Wilson’s forthcoming memoir entitled ‘Fair Game’ […] seeking a declaratory judgment that the Executive Branch of government cannot restrain publication of previously or currently unclassifiable information documenting Ms. Wilson’s dates of federal service disclosed in 2006 by the Central Intelligence Agency (‘CIA’) in an official, authorized, and unclassified letter now in the Congressional Record and available world-wide on the Library of Congress website. […]”

The Principal Leakers
Lewis Libby		Karl Rove			Richard Lee Armitage

Photo Credits Background 1) Former CIA operative Valerie Plame testifies on Capitol Hill in Washington before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. - March 16^th, 2007 - Susan Walsh/Associated Press; The Principal Leakers 1) Lewis 'Scooter' Libby listens as his attorney speaks to the media at the U.S. Federal Courthouse in Washington. - March 6^th, 2007 - Jim Bourg/Reuters; 2) White House political strategist Karl Rove stands at the White House complex in Washington. - October 11^th, 2006 - Larry Downing/Reuters; 3) Richard Lee Armitage, former U.S. Deputy Secretary of State from March 29^th, 2001 until February 22^nd, 2005. - Undated file photo - U.S. Department of State;
Back to CIA Lawsuit Index Back to CIA Back to main index