Larry Johnson:Source Documents from Valerie Wilson Civil Suits

[cal04]

Today’s decision by one judge who dismissed the civil suit Joe and Valerie Wilson filed against Dick Cheney and others for the leak of Valerie’s covert identity is not unexpected and entirely procedural. If you are really interested you can read the opinion for yourself. I was particularly intrigued that Judge John Bates referred to the claim made by Bush apologists–”that “Valerie Wilson sent her husband to Niger”—as “erroneous” (see page four of the opinion).

http://noquarterusa.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/07/Opinion%20in%20Civil%20Suit.pdf

But wait. There is more. The suit Valerie Wilson and Simon and Schuster brought against the CIA for blocking Valerie’s book has some very interesting items.
http://noquarterusa.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/07/Opinion%20in%20Civil%20Suit.pdf
http://noquarterusa.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/07/Wilson%20Simon%20Shuster%20vs%20CIA%20Statement%20of%20Material%20Facts.pdf

Number 1, and most significant, the Director of Operations for the CIA, Stephen Kapsis, provides a sworn affidavit detailing Valerie’s cover status. Anyone who continues to insist that Valerie was not undercover and not involved in sensitive operations is a goddamned liar, pure and simple.

http://noquarterusa.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/07/Kapsis%20Affadavit%20Re%20Damage%20to%20US%20National%20Security1.pdf

Number 2, check out the statement of facts that the U.S. Government accepts. Most notable is their confirmation, again, that Valerie was an undercover operations officer.

The legal wrangling is far from over. One fact, though, is indisputable—Valerie was an undercover CIA operations officer working to prevent the spread of weapons of mass destruction and she was betrayed by the Bush Administration.

http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2007/07/19/source-documents-from-valerie-wilson-civil-suits/

[seemslikeadream]

1. betrayed by the Bush Administration.

[liberalnurse]

2. So, this is not final....

Good....I'm relieved.

[TahitiNut]

4. Nope. The questionable ruling had no impact on the MERITS of the case - only the jurisdiction.

If anything, it'll lead to elimination of any question of the court's proper authority to hear the case.

IMHO, of course.

[bleever]

9. I agree that this can in fact be turned into an advantage

down the road.

Bates is a toady who kicked the ball away, but it's still in play.

[bonito]

3. Kick

[Annces]

5. I am glad Larry Johnson is staying on this n/t

[Penndems]

6. This ruling is certainly a "first" in our four-hundred-plus-year history

A jurist who supports a treasonous action. What a devastatingly sad day for this country.

"The legal wrangling is far from over." One can only hope, Larry. Ambassador and Mrs. Wilson need to take this to the absolute limits of the judicial system.

I am still in shock and attempting to come to terms with this decision.

[karlrschneider]

7. How odd...this judge appears to be sowing the seed for an appeal.

Is it possible he might actually -want- his own ruling overturned?
Yikes...

[Bitwit1234]

8. So why was a pittling case like Paula Jones against President Clinton

allowed to go forward?