Outed Tripp wins 595,000. How much should we pay Plame ?

Defense Dept. Settles With Linda Tripp

Should Valerie Plame thus be awarded $4 million, 8 million ?
Or is this payout to Tripp actually for services rendered ?

Somebody has to find a culprit first. The search is going to be difficult since they need to find a patsy with enough juice to have had access to CIA info but who cannot be part of Bush’s upper echelon. He will also have to be willing to take a possible federal fall for the Whire House. It’s doubtful that he will have much money left when it’s over and the WH will make sure that he is identified as lone wolf acting without official knowledge or sanction.

IOW, there will be no government wallet to go after in this case, unfortunately.

She ain’t got bubkes yet!

But the government fucked up. She deserves it.

The government wallet that Valerie may be able to sue would be some asshole in the Bush Admin. Perhaps the internal investigation which is ongoing? won’t reveal the source, but a civil suit might. Stay tuned.

So John Ashcroft’s Department of Justice approved a giant payoff, I mean, settlement for Linda Tripp.

Color me unsurprised.

Linda Tripp suing someone for invasion of privacy? That sends the hypocrite meter off the charts.

And guess whose money is going to go into Tripp’s handbag.

I wish I could sue her for breech of time, space, television screen…something!

That’s just what I was thinking.

Hypocritical though it may be, Tripps’ conduct did not violate federal law. Did it?

The government’s conduct did violate federal law. Didn’t it?

If these two suppositions are true - and I’m open to debate on either of them; my question is actual as much as rhetorical - then what’s the problem with this outcome? Is it merely the appearance of impropriety - that is, a Republican-controlled government “admitting” wrongdoing when the beneficiary was such a high-stakes adversary of the previous, Democratic-controlled government?

  • Rick

You seem to be forgetting the little matter of state law. Ms. Tripp only avoided prosecution in Maryland because of the special prosecutor’s grant of immunity.

The exorbitant payoff, I mean, damages.

You seem to be forgetting that that was a State issue, while this is a Federal issue. Not on the same sheet.

How is this fact relevant to this case?

Minty, you are conflating two issues.

Ms. Tripps’ conduct was apparently in violation of Maryland law. But of what relevance is that to a settlement of her claim against the federal government for disclosure of her personal information in violation of the federal Privacy Act?

Would a Maryland prosecution have vitiated her federal claim?

  • Rick

I conflated nothing. I simply pointed out that your observation about federal law was misleading and incomplete.

Of course, in the Plame affair, it is alleged that some six or seven journalists know who the alleged bad actor in the Bush administration is. If they’re so commited to the fawking news, why don’t they just say who it was that ratted on Plame?

Of course, everyone knows that keeping sources confidential is more important than, say, getting some idiot cabinet member fired for being an idiot.

Tom the Dancing Bugs take:

Wait, let’s see if I understand this correctly . . .

From what I recall, a reporter for the New Yorker Magazine was doing a profile on Tripp. While interviewing friends and family, someone (the step-mother, IIRC) revealed that Linda Tripp had been arrested at age 19 . The reporter then contacted the Defense Department to ask whether Tripp’s employee records contained this information. The Defense Dept. said that no, their files did not contain any information on any arrests/criminal record of Tripp.

So, the “release of confidential personal information” by the DoD was when they told the reporter no, Tripp’s file does not include any information on prior arrests? The DoD becomes aware that Tripp failed to disclose this when she applied for her security clearance (in violation of federal law?) but she gets to keep her job, avoid prosecution and now gets a big fat check in the end?

Seems reasonable.

I don’t think minty is saying she had no case. And I was alluding to the fact that it was hypocritical of Tripp to be up in arms about someone violating her privacy whil she seemingly had no qualms about violating someone else’s. Thats all I’m sayin’…

Tripp can use the money for plastic surgery but nothing will remove the ugliness inside of that woman.

I don’t believe the Privacy Act covers Ms. Plame.

Some conservatives might stop and consider the extent of how Tripp’s illegal domestic espionage helped the crusade against Clinton, and call this a just reward, richly earned. I mean, the mileage they got out of her crime, it’s worth twice what she got. Three times.

America! Where anyone can make the big money - all you have to do is come up with a plan, and work hard.

Well, there’s a very simple explanation for that. Ms. Tripp is a hypocritical, backstabbing shitbug.

Unfortunately, the “clean hands” doctrine does not extend quite so far. Ms. Tripp’s hypocritical shitbugginess doesn’t vitiate her federal claim.

  • Rick

Quite correct. Now, would you care to address the grossly exorbitant payoff/settlement? Do you disagree that this thing stinks to high heaven?