John Dean: It doesn't look good for Karl Rove (JD oughtta know!)

[blondeatlast]

Rove must have had "authorized access to classified information" under the statute. Plame was an NCO (non-covered officer). White House aides, and even the president, are seldom, if ever, given this information. So it is not likely Rove had "authorized access" to it.

(snip)

By late February 2002, the Department of Justice indicted Randel for his leaking of Lord Ashcroft's name. It was an eighteen count "kitchen sink" indictment; they threw everything they could think of at Randel. Most relevant for Karl Rove's situation, count one of Randel's indictment alleged a violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 641. This is a law that prohibits theft (or conversion for one's own use) of government records and information for non-governmental purposes. But its broad language covers leaks, and it has now been used to cover just such actions.

(snip)

Rove may be able to claim that he did not know he was leaking "classified information" about a "covert agent," but there can be no question he understood that what he was leaking was "sensitive information." The very fact that Matt Cooper called it "double super-secret background" information suggests Rove knew of its sensitivity, if he did not know it was classified information (which by definition is sensitive).

(snip)
There are stories circulating that Rove may have been told of Valerie Plame's CIA activity by a journalist, such as Judith Miller, as recently suggested in Editor & Publisher. If so, that doesn't exonerate Rove. Rather, it could make for some interesting pairing under the federal conspiracy statute (which was the statute most commonly employed during Watergate).

(more)

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/07/15/dean.rove/

[William769]

1. Under this Congress we will never see anything close to Watergate.

[blondeatlast]

2. What's your point?

There's a federal prosecutor involved, and indictments expected soon.

This could be tried in the courts (which would be obious if you'd actually read the article).

[William769]

4. And if you had read my statement

Watergate was not in the courts, it was in hearings in Congress.

[blondeatlast]

5. The first indictments came from the courts. It began as a mere

break-in.

Congress stepped in when conspiracy and obstruction of justice indictments--with solid connections to the WH--were handed down.

Maybe congress won't intervene; it doesn't matter.

Criminal indictments for conspiracy and perjury, possibly obstruction of justice, are pretty clearly coming. Scooter and KKKarl are NOT going to walk.

[Connie_Corleone]

3. What's congress have to do with it?

It's a criminal investigation.

[rumpel]

6. the AG has a duty to give the final report of a special counsel to both

chairmen at the judiciary committee of the house.

[Pallas180]

8. not so sure about that...all this is breaking before 2006 elections

we may see different Congress come back that would be more willing
to impeach these bastids and clean up the police state the formers have instituted

[Pallas180]

7. I've beem waiting for John Dean's comments - he's no dummy -Olberman

very often has him on....I'd certainly like to hear more of what he has to say!