Could Valerie Plame Sue Karl Rove? (Findlaw.com)

[Catchawave]

Part One of a Two-Part Series
By ANTHONY J. SEBOK
[e-mail]
----
Monday, Jul. 18, 2005


In 1998, President Bill Clinton was almost forced from office because he lied about whether he had had "sexual relations" with Monica Lewinsky in a deposition. The deposition was not conducted by Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr, but by the lawyers for Paula Jones -- who had sued the President under federal civil rights law and Arkansas tort law.

One of the greatest features of the American civil justice system--especially its tort law--is that it gives average citizens the power to force anyone, even Presidents, to answer them in court. Could Valerie Plame, the CIA agent whose identity was leaked to the press, take matters into her own hands and use the civil justice system to get Karl Rove - who may, it seems, have been the leaker -- to answer her in court?

Cont'd...http://writ.news.findlaw.com/sebok/20050718.html

[Kagemusha]

1. Unfortunately, "could" is about as far as the question will get

This isn't a realistic option. The real victim is the American People, not Valerie Wilson.

[spooky3]

3. Both are victims, as is Joseph Wilson. Dems. should support the

notion that individuals have rights that must be respected too.

[BlueWolff]

2. The problem is,,,,

Valerie is never allowed to talk about her NOC status...Even if that testimony is sealed.

[unblock]

5. you raise a good point, but it's still possible

she doesn't have to testify herself as to that point, and could probably make a case that her career and safety were damaged anyway, even without claiming to have been noc.

but you are correct that that would certainly add some challenges to pursuing such a case. unless, of course, bush were to declassify that particular bit of information. HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!

[Toots]

4. Possibly.... after actual guilt is established

Right now all we hear is speculation. After fitzgerald finishes his investigation I am sure some will be culpable, possibly even Rove.

[unblock]

6. "actual guilt" is for the courts to decide, and it's easier in civil court

in a civil case, a plaintiff must win merely by a "preponderance of evidence", whereas in a criminal case, a prosecutor must win "beyond reasonable doubt". thus it is often the case that a criminal case is lost or not even pursued, yet a plaintiff may win a civil case.

oj simpson is merely the most obvious one example.

[Catchawave]

7. Olbermann asked Wilson this question

on his show tonight! Yayyyy! Anyhow, the Wilsons are waiting til the investigation is over before they decide whether or not to take this to a civil court.