Ex-Benghazi investigator sues Trey Gowdy for discrimination and defamation

[Gothmog]

Source: MSNBC

A former investigator for the House Benghazi Committee filed a federal lawsuit against the committee Monday, opening a new chapter in legal skirmishes over the Benghazi attacks and subsequent investigations.

Last month, Brad Podliska, an Air Force Reserve major, alleged the Benghazi committee terminated him based on his military obligations and his refusal to advance an agenda targeting Hillary Clinton. Now, Podliska is detailing those charges in court in a new filing that alleges Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy broke the law by defaming him in their public battle over Podliska’s firing.

Gowdy previously said Podliska was terminated partly for mishandling classified information.

Read more: http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/ex-benghazi-investigator-sues-trey-gowdy-discrimination-and-defamation

[Thinkingabout]

1. Hum, now Benghazi oversight committee needs to investigate the chairman, come on, Trey it is time

for your eleven hour testimony.

[tanyev]

2. Hmm. Didn't Gowdy mishandle classified information?

[LiberalArkie]

3. I have been waiting for this

[Agnosticsherbet]

4. So, should we call this Treyghazi or Gowdyghazi?

Or just Republican business as usual.

[riversedge]

5. He is seeking a jury trial.....Repubs will not be able to ignore this.

..........So in Podliska’s theory of the case, his core legal reason for getting into court – military discrimination – is inextricably linked to the politically explosive charge that the committee was out to get Hillary Clinton. The suit presses that point by arguing:

“During the month that [Staff Director Phil] Kiko and [Deputy Director Christopher] Donesa began to treat Plaintiff differently, the Committee’s investigation changed significantly to focus on Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the State Department, and deemphasize the other agencies that were involved in the Benghazi attacks and the aftermath of the attacks.”

Beyond the legal claims, the filing includes some other detailed accusations sure to draw attention in Washington.

The suit says Gowdy conveyed to staff that he thought his Staff Director and Deputy “were incompetent,” that senior Republican committee staffers regularly drank alcohol together in the “office during the workday,” and that a nonpartisan security staff member deleted documents to avoid detection by Democratic committee members.

Podliska is seeking a jury trial, raising the prospect of one of the most high profile Washington courtroom dramas since the 2007 prosecution of Scooter Libby, a senior aide to former Vice President Dick Cheney.

[Agnosticsherbet]

6. Deleting public documents is a crime...

Send his ass to jail.

[riversedge]

9. yes, but it will have to be proved somehow. I think this will bring to light other Benghazi

Committee docs--docs that Dems wanted released but Repubs on the committee said no to. IMHO. I hope so at least.

[Volaris]

7. And the Clown Car gets another Ring to play in.

Good.

[mountain grammy]

12. Exactly!

[Dont call me Shirley]

17. Bengowdy?

[Botany]

8. Elijah Cummings; Benghazi Investigation: The Cost to Taxpayers ..... so far $5 million and counting

$5,137,000 and counting

http://askedandanswered-democrats.benghazi.house.gov/cost/

[TygrBright]

10. Hey, kids! What time is it? It's... GOWDY DOODY TIME! n/t

[KansDem]

11. LOL!!!

[alfredo]

13. Shades of the Plame debacle.

When her husband told the truth about Iraq and yellow cake, his wife a covert CIA operative was outed.

[blackspade]

14. "Gowdy previously said Podliska was terminated partly for mishandling classified information. "

This coming from that grifter Gowdy?

[SunSeeker]

15. K & R

[usaf-vet]

16. I'm glad to see that this military officer is suing...

.... he needs to at the very least defend his security clearance. Gowdy accused him of mishandling intelligence. Additionally he should be able to make a good case that he should have been released to serve his activity duty service requirements. I hope his attorney is able to drag out material the repugs have been hiding during the discovery process.

[Jarqui]

18. His statement of claim is at the bottom of this link

http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/uncucumbered/trey_gowdy_sued_by_republican_benghazi_panel_whistleblower

Haven't gone through it in detail (don't know that I will any time soon) but at a glance it looks like it's got some teeth

[former9thward]

19. The Major has not read the Constitution.

Surprising since he took an oath to defend it. Article I, Section 6 says that Members of Congress " shall not be questioned in any other place". They can't be sued.

[Gothmog]

20. The Speech and Debate clause will not protect Howdy Gowdy

First, the speech and debate clause is not an absolute protection for Howdy Gowdy but only protects official acts
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Speech+or+Debate+Clause

The U.S. Supreme Court has gradually defined and redefined the Speech or Debate Clause in several cases over the years. The first case concerning the Speech and Debate Clause was Kilbourn v. Thompson, 103 U.S. (13 Otto) 168, 26 L. Ed. 377 (1880). The Court has interpreted the Speech or Debate Clause to mean that members of Congress and their aides are immune from prosecution for their "legislative acts." This does not mean that members of Congress and their aides may not be prosecuted. Rather, evidence of legislative acts may not be used in a prosecution against a member of Congress or a congressional aide.

The main controversy surrounding the Speech or Debate Clause concerns the scope of the phrase "legislative acts." The phrase obviously encompasses speeches and debates on the floor of the Senate or the House of Representatives. According to the Supreme Court, voting, preparing committee reports, and conducting committee hearings also are legislative acts, but republishing legislative materials for distribution to constituents and accepting a bribe to influence a vote are not.

Howdy Gowdy's actions were not within his official legislative duties but were for the purpose of damage control to attempt to preserve what little reputation that Howdy Gowdy had remaining after this partisan exercise. As such, there is a good claim that the speech and debate clause does not protect Howdy Gowdy.

Second, the main causes of action are under two separate statutes that expressly provide for damages due to congressional actions and so are not subject to the speech and debate clause.

Finally, Paragraph 99 of the petition makes clear that the Plaintiff is not seeking damages against Gowdy but an injunction. The speech and debate clause does not apply to an injunction. Here is Paragraph 99 of the petition:

Plaintiff does not seek any damages associated with his common law defamation claim against Chairman Gowdy. Instead, in asserting his common law defamation claim, Plaintiff seeks equitable relief in the form of a declaration that Chairman Gowdy made false and defamatory statements about Plaintiff and a permanent injunction barring Chairman Gowdy from repeating the same false, defamatory, and injurious statements that he has made about Plaintiff beginning on October 10, 2015. Without such an injunction, Chairman Gowdy will likely continue to repeat the same false and defamatory statements about Plaintiff, which will cause Plaintiff to suffer further harm from the repeating and further publication of such injurious statements

Howdy Gowdy will attempt to use the speech and debate clause but I doubt that he will be sucessful