Ex-Benghazi investigator sues Trey Gowdy for discrimination and defamation
Source: MSNBC
A former investigator for the House Benghazi Committee filed a federal lawsuit against the committee Monday, opening a new chapter in legal skirmishes over the Benghazi attacks and subsequent investigations.
Last month, Brad Podliska, an Air Force Reserve major, alleged the Benghazi committee terminated him based on his military obligations and his refusal to advance an agenda targeting Hillary Clinton. Now, Podliska is detailing those charges in court in a new filing that alleges Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy broke the law by defaming him in their public battle over Podliskas firing.
Gowdy previously said Podliska was terminated partly for mishandling classified information.
Read more: http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/ex-benghazi-investigator-sues-trey-gowdy-discrimination-and-defamation
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)for your eleven hour testimony.
tanyev
(42,610 posts)LiberalArkie
(15,728 posts)Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)Or just Republican business as usual.
riversedge
(70,299 posts)..........So in Podliskas theory of the case, his core legal reason for getting into court military discrimination is inextricably linked to the politically explosive charge that the committee was out to get Hillary Clinton. The suit presses that point by arguing:
During the month that [Staff Director Phil] Kiko and [Deputy Director Christopher] Donesa began to treat Plaintiff differently, the Committees investigation changed significantly to focus on Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the State Department, and deemphasize the other agencies that were involved in the Benghazi attacks and the aftermath of the attacks.
Beyond the legal claims, the filing includes some other detailed accusations sure to draw attention in Washington.
The suit says Gowdy conveyed to staff that he thought his Staff Director and Deputy were incompetent, that senior Republican committee staffers regularly drank alcohol together in the office during the workday, and that a nonpartisan security staff member deleted documents to avoid detection by Democratic committee members.
Podliska is seeking a jury trial, raising the prospect of one of the most high profile Washington courtroom dramas since the 2007 prosecution of Scooter Libby, a senior aide to former Vice President Dick Cheney.
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)Send his ass to jail.
riversedge
(70,299 posts)Committee docs--docs that Dems wanted released but Repubs on the committee said no to. IMHO. I hope so at least.
Volaris
(10,274 posts)Good.
mountain grammy
(26,648 posts)Dont call me Shirley
(10,998 posts)Botany
(70,581 posts)$5,137,000 and counting
http://askedandanswered-democrats.benghazi.house.gov/cost/
TygrBright
(20,763 posts)KansDem
(28,498 posts)alfredo
(60,075 posts)When her husband told the truth about Iraq and yellow cake, his wife a covert CIA operative was outed.
blackspade
(10,056 posts)This coming from that grifter Gowdy?
SunSeeker
(51,697 posts)usaf-vet
(6,207 posts).... he needs to at the very least defend his security clearance. Gowdy accused him of mishandling intelligence. Additionally he should be able to make a good case that he should have been released to serve his activity duty service requirements. I hope his attorney is able to drag out material the repugs have been hiding during the discovery process.
Jarqui
(10,130 posts)Haven't gone through it in detail (don't know that I will any time soon) but at a glance it looks like it's got some teeth
former9thward
(32,077 posts)Surprising since he took an oath to defend it. Article I, Section 6 says that Members of Congress " shall not be questioned in any other place". They can't be sued.
Gothmog
(145,554 posts)First, the speech and debate clause is not an absolute protection for Howdy Gowdy but only protects official acts
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Speech+or+Debate+Clause
The main controversy surrounding the Speech or Debate Clause concerns the scope of the phrase "legislative acts." The phrase obviously encompasses speeches and debates on the floor of the Senate or the House of Representatives. According to the Supreme Court, voting, preparing committee reports, and conducting committee hearings also are legislative acts, but republishing legislative materials for distribution to constituents and accepting a bribe to influence a vote are not.
Howdy Gowdy's actions were not within his official legislative duties but were for the purpose of damage control to attempt to preserve what little reputation that Howdy Gowdy had remaining after this partisan exercise. As such, there is a good claim that the speech and debate clause does not protect Howdy Gowdy.
Second, the main causes of action are under two separate statutes that expressly provide for damages due to congressional actions and so are not subject to the speech and debate clause.
Finally, Paragraph 99 of the petition makes clear that the Plaintiff is not seeking damages against Gowdy but an injunction. The speech and debate clause does not apply to an injunction. Here is Paragraph 99 of the petition:
Howdy Gowdy will attempt to use the speech and debate clause but I doubt that he will be sucessful