Elizabeth de la Vega (Common Dreams): How to Prosecute the Plame Case

[Jack Rabbit]

From TomDispatch.com via Common Dreams
Dated Friday August 12

How to Prosecute the Plame Case
by Elizabeth de la Vega

Pundits right, left, and center have reached a rare unanimous verdict about one aspect of the grand jury investigation into the Valerie Plame leak: They've decided that no charges can be brought under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982, because it imposes an impossibly high standard for proof of intent. Typically, writing for Slate on July 19th, Christopher Hitchens described the 1982 Act as a "silly law" that requires that "you knowingly wish to expose the cover of a CIA officer who you understand may be harmed as a result." Similarly, columnist Richard Cohen, in the July 14 Washington Post, said he thought Rove was a "political opportunist, not a traitor" and that he didn't think Rove "specifically intended to blow the cover of a CIA agent." Such examples could be multiplied many times over.

Shocking as it may seem, however, the pundits are wrong; and their casual summaries of the requirements of the 1982 statute betray a fundamental misunderstanding regarding proof of criminal intent.

Do you have to intend to harm a CIA agent or jeopardize national security in order to violate the Intelligence Identities Protection Act? The answer is no.

Before presenting any case, a prosecutor like Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald in the Plame case has to figure out "the elements of the crime"; in other words, the factors he has to prove under whatever statute he is considering. If a grand jury finds probable cause to believe that each element has been proved, it may then return an indictment. At trial, the judge instructs the jury about these same elements. Parties can argue about whether the elements have been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, but neither side can add, delete, or modify the elements even slightly to suit their arguments.

Read more.

[JDPriestly]

1. Great article. Recommended!

[glitch]

2. Good article, thanks for posting. IMO everything this admin has done since

11/00 has been conspiracy to defraud the people and government of the United States of America.

[Benhurst]

3. Recommended NT

[understandinglife]

4. Related thread that contains some other pertinent links:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x4319705


Peace.

[KoKo]

5. An Excellent article and worth the read for those who have time and

can deal with the legal parsing. It's the first article that's given me hope that Plame Leak could bring down this administration. How it will work...I don't know, but she sure made sense to me in laying out how Rove and many others are responsible for conpiring to out a CIA Agent who was working on national security.

[Jack Rabbit]

6. I don't think we'll see the downfall of the regime.

I'm pretty sure that Bush knew about Rove's role in this matter and even more certain that Cheney knew what Libby was doing, but the next question is: Can it be proved in court? To that, I believe the answer is: No.

The Bush crooks have avoided two mistakes the Nixon crooks made. First, Nixon recorded himself committing crimes. No President will ever do that again. Second, the Nixon crooks didn't ask John Dean if he wanted to be the fall guy. He didn't. After he was "volunteered", he dragged a the rest down with him. Rove and Libby know that if they go quietly, they will be rewarded with pardons at the end of the day.

Unless Fitzgerald has some other evidence we don't know about, indictments will go no higher than Rove and Libby.

[KoKo]

7. What you say is probably what will happen. Two fall guys who are pardoned

and live on to carry out more dirty deeds in the future.

But...there may be some other factors we don't know about, behind the scenes. The internet news and those pushing to get the truth out will swing it, I think. The Lies are so overwhelming and the stench is getting so rank that it's a matter of time. So much depends on the Polls and if he can keep his Repugs together.

I go with your scenario. But, hope for more to come out once they are found to be complicit. How much spin can the Faux and Repug Machine keep throwing out before they lose all credibility. They've played most of their cards. All that's left is another terror attack which could backfire on them.

Who knows...:shrug:

[KoKo]

8. A further thought though. I think Fitz

has to indict if Rove and Libby were found to have outed Plame. And the case would be strong according to this article. So, they really couldn't resign quietly without going to trial. Unless Fitz get's totally bought off, Rove and Libby should be tried for something, even the two statutes that John Dean has mentioned. Fitz could also use "unindicted co-conspirators" for any of the others who may be found to have "conspired" to Out Plame with Rove and Libby.

So the Administration is not in a good place. Rove going on trial might just crack that bully. Life has been so good to him for so long. To have his mighty reputation sullied with an indictment and trial might not be something he could tolerate with his swelled ego.

So...again...who knows. Pardoning might not work in this case until "after the fact." Bush had a long time left in office. Enough for a trial and convicition to come about since Fitz would have most of the evidence the trial might be shorter than an Enron type of situation where so much takes a long time to be gone through, and stalling can be done behind the scenes.

Again...who knows... It all depends on Fitz... And we've seen Bushies worm out of everything all these years.. Why should it be different this time...except that WE ALL KNOW what they've been up to and aren't dependent on the NYT's and WaPo any more to filter it all for us. The Faux nutcases will never believe anyone in that administration guilty of anything. But, then, they also didn't think Nixon did anything wrong either. They are a minority without the Repug Spin Machine and it's the "other Repugs" that will be the ones that could swing things against Bush.

:shrug:

[Starfury]

9. There are other laws that are easier to make indictments...

For example, CitizenSpook gives an excellent discussion of 18 USC 793 and 794. Indictments under those statutes are FAR easier than the IIPA everyone has been talking about.
They would certainly help explain why Novak blew up on the CNN set the other day.... :evilgrin: