Val's Lawsuit

So Glam Gal Val and Uncle Joe Whatsisname sued Scooter Libby, Karl Rove, Dick Cheney and "John Does No. 1-10" to keep alive the Plame Name Blame Game. After Bob Novak's recent revelations, it's their last best hope to stay anywhere near a tv camera, a front page, or a columnist's word processor. But now, for the first time, they will be subjected to the critical cross-examination they deserve. Not one media person who has interviewed them has asked the tough questions they need to answer. (Infighting among the lawyers for Libby, Rove and Cheney for the privilege and incredible fun of taking Val and Joe's depositions will reach the bloodletting stage very quickly. In every firm I've ever been in, that rivalry would have led to pistols at twenty paces.)

One of the great things about a lawsuit is that you have to support your allegations even before you go to trial. The other side gets to see what papers you have and ask you questions under oath about everything relevant to the case. Having tried a few hundred cases myself over the past 33 years, may I suggest a starting point?

How about Defendants' First Request for Production of Documents? Just for starters (these lists usually go on into the hundreds of items), it should include all documents (a term defined under the federal rules to encompass every recorded human communication including pictures of smoke signals) which contain information related to, referring to or comprising any of the facts alleged in the complaint, including:

1. all communications between or among either or both of the plaintiffs and any employees or columnists of the Washington Post, the New York Times, the LA Times, CBS, NBC, ABC, BBC and whatever other bits and pieces of the MSM the defense lawyers can think of;
2. all communications to or from members of Congress and/or their staffs;
3. all communications between and among the plaintiffs and Patrick Fitzgerald or any of his staff;
4. all communications between either or both of the plaintiffs and employees of either the CIA or the Justice Department regarding the referral of the "leak", alleged in paragraph 18 of the complaint to the Justice Department for criminal investigation;
5. all documents related to conversations between either of the plaintiffs and any of the following persons regarding Plaintiff Joseph Wilson's trip to Niger dated on or before the time Wilson departed for Niger:
a. George Tenet;
b. the CIA deputy director;
c. CIA director of operations;
d. Richard Armitage, Deputy Secretary of State;
e. Mary McCarthy;
f. Plaintiff Plame Wilson or any other employee of the CIA directorate concerned with WMD;
g. any employee of official of the US Department of State not named above;
h. any employee of the United Nations;
i. any nation's representative to the United Nations or any employee of any national delegation; and
j. anyone who is now or has ever been a citizen of France.

And there are all sorts of juicy questions that flow from these documents. Heck, I'd fight anybody for the privilege of taking Val's or Ol' Joe's deposition. This is enough to make practicing law fun again.