<p>But what about the outing of CIA agent, and the company she worked for, thus putting others in jeopardy?</p>
<p>And sweetkidsmom, the personal attacks are pretty annoying, I agree, but they do not suprise: people will attack the person, not the argument, I see that with certain posters all the time, and while those of us that have issues with the Administrations actions and policies are seen as liberal moonies, I have refrained from calling names…I would rather argue the points and issues than attack a person</p>
<p>Personal attack? Attacks, plural? I just found this sudden shift in topic completely irrelevant. Will we go to the conspiracy theories related to 9/11 next?</p>
<p>I don’t believe I addressed anyone in particular as a “liberal moonie,” but anyone who thinks the shoe fits should by all means wear it. The moonie reference comes from the number of people here who continue to wishfully repeat the same questions/mantras over and over, ignoring facts when they are offered to them. It’s called gainsaying. As to the issue of Wilson’s shredded credibility, here’s a contemporaneous Washington Post piece by Susan Schmidt, no defender of the Bush administration:</p>
<p>A more recent piece was published today by Michael Barone, one of the nation’s most respected political observors. He says the Bush-bashing is fizzling. Could be.
<p>Okay, let’s just stop talking about personal attacks right now, and stay on topic. I think, considering the volatile nature of the issue and the strength of our various opinions, we’ve done pretty darn well at staying polite and on-topic ! </p>
<p>So I declare a “mulligan” for all above posts regarding each other personally. (Not that I have the right, but I’m saying it anyway . . . ) That ball just veered off into the woods. But we’ve got another one on the tee, and it’s a fresh start, okay?</p>
<p>Now - let’s get back to Rove, Plame and all those other folks!</p>
<p>Let us take Wilson out of the picture, was what the Admin did to out his wife, a good and proper thing? If you have read or heard any of the testimony from CIA employees, from the Judges handling the case, from the reporters, from the other reporters called by the admin, do you think it was right to “out” the company that was front, the people she contacted, the problems we will now have recruiting people to give us real information? Was it right, no matter what you think of Joe Wilson…and if you read the CIA statements, they never said his wife sent him and Wilson never said the VP sent him, he said it was his understanding that someone in CHeney’s office might have some interest in the trip, but he thought probably the VP knew nothing about it himself…</p>
<p>So, was it right to damage our national security in this way, our operatives reputations around the world, and would you trust someone who contacted you from ANY of our security organizations, if you were in a foriegn country, and that person could be outed by the Admin or its staff, even “accidentally”</p>
<p>Yesterday’s report said that whether Iraq sought to buy lightly enriched “yellowcake” uranium from Niger is one of the few bits of prewar intelligence that remains an open question. Much of the rest of the intelligence suggesting a buildup of weapons of mass destruction was unfounded, the report said. "</p>
<p>Yet the President chose to site this in his State of the Union address, even though the CIA suggested strongly not to. </p>
<p>Everything in the address is really important, and talked about, and thought of for weeks at a time.</p>
<p>CGM, you read too fast (not a personal attack). This paragraph immediately precedes the one you quoted, and it clearly refutes your statement “yet the president chose to cite this in his State of the Union address, even though the CIA suggested strongly not to.”
<p>An article in today’s WSJ speculated that Fitzgerald might ask for a 6 month extention of the grand jury, hoping to get Miller’s testimony in. The oounter speculation was that he was under pressure to get it over with and bring charges if he was going to.</p>
<p>Sorry, mini, I think this will die down again in a couple of weeks when the leaks stop. I don’t believe there’ll be any new testimony until Miller decides she wants to sleep in her own bed and the press won’t stick with a story that consists of rehashing what they already know. It will be back later and I suspect we’ll all be a little surprised at what we learn (though not by the spin on either side, I’m afraid).</p>
<p>I’ve read the Post article you posted before; I’ll reserve judgment until I find the Senate report it describes (the link in the article is broken).</p>
<p>The Barone column complains about attempts to “delegitimize” Republican administrations by the New York Times starting with Nixon, and blithely skips Clinton years and the Times role in the Whitewater non-story. </p>
<p>I think it would be fair to call its focus partisan, no?</p>
<p>I’ll confess to been extremely upset by the Florida debacle in 2000, and the Supreme Court’s shameful role in that. But there has been another election since then, so I’ve stopped complaining about Bush’s legitimacy. </p>
<p>I haven’t uttered or typed one word of criticism about Roberts.</p>
<p>It’s possible that Fitzgerald is investigation whether Rove, Libby or others may have violated another federal statute:</p>
<p>50 U.S.C.A. Section 783</p>
<p>(a) Communication of classified information by Government officer or employee</p>
<p>It shall be unlawful for any officer or employee of the United States or of any department or agency thereof, or of any corporation the stock of which is owned in whole or in major part by the United States or any department or agency thereof, to communicate in any manner or by any means, to any other person whom such officer or employee knows or has reason to believe to be an agent or representative of any foreign government, any information of a kind which shall have been classified by the President (or by the head of any such department, agency, or corporation with the approval of the President) as affecting the security of the United States, knowing or having reason to know that such information has been so classified, unless such officer or employee shall have been specifically authorized by the President, or by the head of the department, agency, or corporation by which this officer or employee is employed, to make such disclosure of such information.</p>
<p>Ill distill the elements of this crime (punishable by up to ten years in prison)
It covers officers and employees of the United States.
The actus reus is the communication of classified information, in any manner or by any means, to a person who the officer or employee knows or has reason to believe to be an agent or representative of a foreign government.
The mens rea is (a) knowing or having reason to believe that you are communicating the information to the agent or representative of a foreign government, and (b) knowing or having reason to believe that the information is classified.</p>
<p>Analysis: 1. Rove and Libby were employees of the United States. 2. The law presumes that people understand the natural consequences of their acts; communicating information to members of the national press without cautioning them not to print the information, is a means of communicating that information to readers of the press. Agents or representatives of foreign governments read American newspapers. 3. (a) Rove and Libby had reason to believe that information that makes its way to Novaks column, or Time magazine, will inevitably come to the attention of agents or representatives of foreign governments, and that by leaking information to the press, they would be also by that means be communicating it to such agents or representatives. (b) Rove and Libby either knew or had reason to believe that Ms. Plames status as a CIA agent was classified. Its common knowledge that such information is often classified. Rove and Libby had themselves signed contracts as government employees that included the following:</p>
<p>"I have been advised that the unauthorized disclosure, unauthorized retention, or negligent handling of classified information by me could cause damage or irreparable injury to the United States or could be used to advantage by a foreign nation. I hereby agree that I will never divulge classified information to anyone… I understand that if I am uncertain about the classification status of information, I am required to confirm from an authorized official that the information is unclassified before I may disclose it… I further understand that I am obligated to comply with laws and regulations that prohibit the unauthorized disclosure of classified information.</p>
<p>From an analysis I’ve seen, the courts aren’t going to accept the notion that confirming Novak’s story would constitute a communication to “a person who the officer or employee knows or has reason to believe to be an agent or representative of a foreign government.”</p>
<p>The courts get cranky when you try to twist things that way. Novak would be accountable on that statute (expect for all the reason’s he’s not). He’s the one that communicated the name, not Rove nor Libby.</p>
<p>Giving information to a member of the press, knowing that he will communicate it to his readers, is a means of communicating the information to those readers. I beg to differ with the analysis you’ve seen. (Seen where, by the way?) Telling something to the press, with the expectation that it be printed in newspapers, fits easily into the to “communicate it in any manner, by any means,” to the readers of the press. That’s no stretch at all. Not even a little twisting is required. It’s the most blatant form of communicating such information.</p>
<p>Moreover, it’s precisely what Daniel Ellsberg did when he gave the Pentagon Papers to the New York Times. He was prosecuted for doing so. He fully expected to go to jail for doing so. He doubtless would have, but for the government misconduct that subsequently occured (when Nixon ordered the burglary of the office of Ellsberg’s psychiatrist) that resulted in the dismissal of the case.</p>
<p>I had the statue wrong. Shouldn’t try to work from memory. Baseball Crank’s blog has two discussions on different ideas of why Espionage Act wouldn’t apply to Rove and the one Dean proposed related to 18 USC 641.</p>
<p>That’s an interesting blog. The analysis of the other statutes there looks solid to me. He rightfully rejects John Dean’s analysis, which I had seen and dismissed mentally for similar reasons.</p>
<p>I hope there’s a response to your post. I’d like to see the Crank’s analysis of 783.</p>
<p>Ironically, Rove (or whoever) would be off the hook under Section 783 if Bush authorized him to out Plame to the press.</p>
<p>That would be interesting: the politically damaging answer to “what did the President know, and when did he know it” might prove to be exculpatory in any criminal action.</p>
<p>GB, apparently the Senate is going to have an investigation into Fitzgerald’s investigation. Any comment on the possibility of the Senate’s doing so being a mechanism to give certain individuals immunity from prosecution based on testimony to the Senate?</p>