CNN / FindLaw: "Should Plame Sue Rove?"

[Bush_Eats_Beef]

By Anthony J. Sebok
FindLawexternal link columnist
Special to CNN.com

Friday, July 29, 2005; Posted: 1:27 p.m. EDT (17:27 GMT)

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/07/29/sebok.rove2/

(FindLaw) -- In my previous column, I raised the possibility that Valerie Plame might want to sue Karl Rove in a private lawsuit, if he indeed revealed her identity as a CIA agent. Since I wrote that column, there have been very few important factual revelations about the Plame affair. However, as recent news reports have made clear, it is not obvious that Karl Rove or anyone in the White House involved in the Plame affair broke any criminal laws.

However, even if no one in the White House committed a crime (or can be proven to have committed a crime), it is possible that someone there wrongfully injured Plame, and that Plame can sue for damages in a civil lawsuit.

If all the White House did was confirm what journalists knew, then Plame's complaint is with those journalists and whoever outside the White House got them their information. But if the White House had a hand in providing Plame's identity to the media, then she might still want to consider suing the individual or individuals in the government who harmed her.

In my last column, I noted that it would be difficult for Plame to sue Karl Rove, or any White House aide, in his individual capacity, unless she could show that her constitutional rights were knowingly violated or that she was harmed by a knowing violation of a federal law. However, if Plame were willing to sue the federal government under the Federal Tort Claim Act (FTCA), she would have an easier time framing a lawsuit that would survive a motion to dismiss.

[Sanity Claws]

1. Her outing is a public harm, not private

A private lawsuit starts with the premise that she has suffered personal harm. Undoubtedly she and her family suffered emotional distress. However, she remains employed by the CIA and so there does not appear to be wage loss. Even to recover her limited personal damages, Plame would have to come up against the well-funded neocon machine. No match.
The emphasis should be on the public harm caused by her outing, not her personal harm.

[Bush_Eats_Beef]

2. Yes, but you know what happens to attorneys when blood is in the water

This is a masturbation fantasy for lawyers, nothing more.

:toast: