On what grounds would the Wilsons sue?
She retired voluntarily.
What damage was done to her?
She was known as a CIA agent. The fact that there was no criminal prosecution for outing her says all there is to be said about her 'secret' status.
Defamation? Nah. When Joe Wilson wrote in the NYT, the issue became a public one and they became public figures. It is extremely difficult to establish liability for defamation of a public figure.
What's left?
Intentional infliction of emotional distress? Of a tough lady CIA agent who at one time operated covertly? Exhibit A would be the photos of her handling an AK47, which she supposedly did very well. Hmm, she's not too fragile, so that seems a stretch. And as a trained cover operator, she's trained to be very manipuilative; trained to lie, in effect. Is she using her skills before the jury?
Intentional infliction of emotional distress claimed by a former ambassador who started a p***g contest? Not much there, either. Ditto the fragile AK47 wielding hausfrau.
I would love to defend such an action.
Joe Wilson's credibility and his, ah, misrepresentations/outright lies, to lots of people and institutions, including the Senate, would be meat for the lions on cross-examination.
Q. Ambassador Wilson, you lied to the Senate, did you not, when you discussed seeing some documents that did not exist when you claimed you saw them?
A. Ah, well, not really, I didn't lie, I misspoke.
Q. Are you lying now or are you simply misspeaking?
And so on for a couple of hours before a jury.
I'll be stunned if a civil suit is filed. |
