From the Tribune:

Cheney, Rove, Libby sued in CIA leak case
Plame, Wilson accuse 3 of violating rights

By Richard B. Schmitt
Tribune Newspapers: Los Angeles Times
Published July 14, 2006

WASHINGTON -- The CIA operative at the center of a three-year federal leak investigation fought back Thursday, suing Vice President Dick Cheney, his former top aide and presidential counselor Karl Rove, accusing them of ruining her career and seeking revenge against her husband, an administration critic.

The one-time operative, Valerie Plame, and her husband, former envoy Joseph Wilson, alleged in a lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court that administration officials illegally conspired to violate their constitutional rights and other laws by leaking Plame's identity to reporters.

The lawsuit, which was filed almost three years to the day after syndicated columnist Robert Novak publicly identified Plame, seeks unspecified financial damages.

The suit marks a new front in a Washington scandal that only a month ago seemed to have run its course--after special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, also the U.S. attorney in Chicago, said he had decided not to bring charges against Rove, a primary focus of the three-year probe.

In addition to Rove and Cheney, the suit names former Cheney aide Lewis "Scooter" Libby, who is to be tried early next year on charges of perjury and obstruction in connection with his role in the case.

"The lawsuit concerns the intentional and malicious exposure by senior officials of the federal government of . . . Valerie Plame Wilson, whose job it was to gather intelligence to make the nation safer, and who risked her life for her country," according to the complaint.

A spokesman for Rove, Mark Corallo, called the allegations "absolutely and utterly without merit."

Lea Anne McBride, Cheney's spokeswoman, said her boss would have no comment. And a lawyer for Libby, William Jeffress, also declined comment.

While legal experts were divided over the strength of their allegations, the suit is likely to become a rallying point for administration critics. The charges are rooted in one of the most divisive and intensely debated issues of the Bush presidency: whether the administration "twisted" the intelligence it used to justify the war in Iraq.

Novak column appears

Novak published Plame's name and her employment in his syndicated column on July 14, 2003, eight days after an op-ed article by her husband appeared in The New York Times. Wilson challenged Bush's assertion in the State of the Union address that year that Saddam Hussein had sought nuclear material in Africa. In 2002, Wilson was sent on a CIA-backed mission to Niger to assess the claim; he concluded in his article that it was unfounded.

Plame had worked as a covert operative on weapons issues; in some circumstances, disclosing the identity of an undercover officer is a federal crime. Wilson and Plame say her identity was leaked in retaliation for her husband's criticism.

Although Rove and Libby initially denied they had anything to do with exposing Plame, an investigation by Fitzgerald showed that both men had spoken with reporters about her, and that Cheney himself was one of the people who gave information about Plame to Libby.

Fitzgerald's probe also revealed that Cheney was concerned about Wilson's criticism and was insinuating privately that Wilson's wife had arranged the Africa trip as a "junket."

There has been no evidence that Cheney urged anyone to expose Plame. But her name ultimately surfaced as administration officials were speaking with reporters about Wilson and his column.

According to the suit, the leak caused widespread damage. Plame resigned from the CIA last year, citing the fallout from the scandal. The suit alleges that the disclosure has left Wilson and Plame fearing for their family's safety because of concerns they had become targets of persons hostile to the U.S. or the intelligence community.

The suit also alleges that by retaliating against Wilson's authorship of the column, the officials violated the couple's 1st Amendment rights, and that by disclosing Plame's identity they violated her right to privacy. The suit was brought in part under a theory that allows citizens to sue federal officials for violating their constitutional rights.

The challenge ahead

Such suits, known as Bivens actions, are difficult to win. The law affords federal officials immunity from suits where they are acting within the scope of their duties.

The law also requires that the officials know that their conduct affects the exercise of particular constitutional rights. Some legal scholars said it would be hard for Wilson to show that his right to speak out was affected by the decision of Rove and Libby to reveal the CIA affiliation of his wife.

"If you are going to be out there criticizing the government, then the government, just like anybody else, will often try to explain why you are in the wrong. That is part of the public debate," said Eugene Volokh, a law professor at UCLA.

Other experts said the ultimate success of the lawsuit, measured in dollars, may be beside the point. They said the suit is likely to give Plame, Wilson and their legal team an opportunity to question the officials under oath and obtain their notes, documents and even statements and grand jury testimony given as part of the Fitzgerald probe.

That could help answer the major unanswered question: the identity of a senior administration official who tipped Novak off about Plame. Novak discussed his role in the investigation this week, but has declined to reveal his main source.

"The key point is that filing the lawsuit will permit Plame/Wilson to subpoena witnesses--such as Robert Novak--to provide testimony," said John Nockleby, a professor at Loyola Law School in California. "As a result, we may finally learn who is the mystery person who first spoke to Novak."