Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Alan Smithee who wrote (49366)	7/14/2006 2:42:00 PM
From: KLP	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

Do the Wilsons have to pay the lawyers bills for the accused parties, if those accused parties are found not guilty? Joe Wilson should be tossed in the clink. How long does he think it's going to take to know that Who's Who had the link the YEAR before anything came out from Novak. It takes at least 6 months and as much as a full year, AFTER you send money and your bio into W'sW so that the book can be printed, and distributed..... Who does Joe Wilson think he is? And does or can discovery find out exactly what he did in Niger....who he saw, and what was said, and how long he was gone. When did he send his "report" in, and to whom did he send the report????? How much were his expenses, and who signed the expense voucher???

To: Alan Smithee who wrote (49366)	7/14/2006 2:45:33 PM
From: Oeconomicus	Respond to of 90947

I'm betting the legal tab is being picked up by some left-wing 527 org just to get them back in the news before elections. Next comes a big PR campaign starring Cindy Sheehan.

To: Alan Smithee who wrote (49366)	7/14/2006 3:07:01 PM
From: mph	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

I've been thinking about this. When Wilson published his article, he put himself in the public eye. Whether it was "widely known" that his wife worked for the CIA, there were certainly people who DID know. Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't he just an unnamed "ambassador" to the extent he was mentioned in any articles before he published his column? Or had he previously been mentioned as the one who was sent on the junket? If it's the former, it would appear that they voluntarily thrust themselves into the fray, in a very big way. I haven't had a chance to do more than just read the complaint, but I'm wondering whether their claims are really actionable. Here's a link to the complaint: thesmokinggun.com (That 's set on the last page, but you can click on 1 and read from the beginning.) I suspect there will be Rule 12 motions. The early meeting of counsel should be a nightmare....