There is an interesting article in the Washington Post this morning about the ongoing investigation into the outing of covert CIA agent Valerie Plame.
The other day, New York Times reporter Judith Miller testified to the grand jury that her secret source was Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby.
We learned back in July that Bush's Brian, Karl Rove, had given the same information to Matthew Cooper of Time (Cooper, not having a martyrdom complex, worked out the deal that allowed him to testify before he was sent to prison).
So, we have two members of the upper echelons of the White House who—wittingly or not—blew the cover of a covert CIA operative in a broader attempt to discredit her husband, Joseph Wilson, who was calling "bullshit" on Bush administration claims that Saddam had attempted to acquire uranium from Niger.
According to the Post, the involvement of Scooter and Rove contradicts statements made to the press in the wake of the July 2003 Robert Novak column that blew the top off of this whole affair.
In October 2003, White House spokesman Scott McClellan told reporters that he personally asked Libby and Rove whether they were involved, "so I could come back to you and say they were not involved." Asked if that was a categorical denial of their involvement, he said, "That is correct."
The real question is whether this lie will have any consequences. The special prosecutor on this case, Patrick Fitzgerald, has been investigating a possible violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. In order to make his case, Fitzgerald has an uphill battle to prove that Scooter and Rove knew that Plame was undercover and deliberately blew that cover.
The blockbuster revelation from the Post is that Fitzgerald might not be barking up that tree after all.
... a new theory about Fitzgerald's aim has emerged ... from two lawyers who have had extensive conversations with the prosecutor while representing witnesses in the case. They surmise that Fitzgerald is considering whether he can bring charges of a criminal conspiracy perpetrated by a group of senior Bush administration officials. Under this legal tactic, Fitzgerald would attempt to establish that at least two or more officials agreed to take affirmative steps to discredit and retaliate against Wilson and leak sensitive government information about his wife. To prove a criminal conspiracy, the actions need not have been criminal, but conspirators must have had a criminal purpose.
Conspiracy charges, as can be seen in the Tom DeLay fracas are easier to bring than straightforward criminal charges. Other lawyers close to the case, however, guess that Fitzgerald has no evidence of criminal intent and will ultimately bring no charges against Scooter, Rove or any other White House official.
Article comments
1 - balletshooz
Interesting but could you elaborate under what basis they need "criminal intent" and what would the criminals have to intend to do?
While they might claim they didnt "intend" to break the law, maybe it is sufficient to "intend" to leak a CIA operative's identity.
2 - Pete Blackwell
ballet,
I'm not a lawyer, but from what I can surmise, "criminal intent" does not have to be proven. Here's specifically what the Post article says: To prove a criminal conspiracy, the actions need not have been criminal, but conspirators must have had a criminal purpose.
I don't know what the legal definition of "criminal purpose" is, but the conspiracy charge as a whole would lessen the burden of the prosecutor to meet the very high standards of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. Instead, I think, they only need to prove that such a thing was contemplated or attempted. I believe it is a way of getting around the fact, if it's true, that Plame's name was not mentioned and her CIA role was not specifically divulged.
It's still going to hinge on the fact that the administrations knew of her covert status *I think*.
Again, I'm not a lawyer so take this all with a grain of salt. Any real lawyers out there? Enlighten us.
3 - James
A "criminal purpose" need merely be "an intentional act that is illegal" and need not be limited to the intent to commit a crime. A crime requires mens rea (mental intention) linked to actus reus (an act that is actual and illegal); a crime does not require that the perp either intend or know that he is doing a crime; only an intentional action; an unintentional act (e.g, an accident) is seldom a crime.
An example of an "illegal act" is "leaking classified information" (a federal criminal statute different from the one about CIA agents) (And we all remember the Republican outrage when a certain Democrat retained possession of copies of his own classified handwritten notes; imagine the apoplexy had he actually leaked them). Another example is "obstructing a federal investigation" (it's the cover-up, stupid!).
Simplisticly, a conspiracy (Google it for more) can be proven by showing that the perps discussed some plan(s) and that at least one of them did at least one illegal act in furtherance of the plan(s) discussed.
So here is my contribution to the parlor game of the hour.
Discussion = Get Joe Wilson.
Illegal Act = leak the classified-S paragraph from the State department memo to a single reporter on a single occasion.
Criminal Purpose = leaking a secret paragraph from a State Department memo.
Alternative Criminal Purpose = hiding Rove and Libby (and apparently Bush and Cheney) involvement from federal investigators."