Justice Could Decide Leak Was Not a Crime : Wash Post

[jbfam4]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47860-2004Jan1.html

Justice Could Decide Leak Was Not a Crime

By Mike Allen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, January 2, 2004; Page A04


CRAWFORD, Tex., Jan.1 -- The Justice Department investigation into the leak of a CIA agent's identity could conclude that administration officials disclosed the woman's name and occupation to the media but still committed no crime because they did not know she was an undercover operative, legal experts said this week.

"It could be embarrassing but not illegal," said Victoria Toensing, who was chief counsel of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence when Congress passed the law protecting the identities of undercover agents.

The three-month-old investigation entered a new phase Tuesday when Attorney General John D. Ashcroft recused himself and the Justice Department announced the appointment of a special prosecutor, U.S. Attorney Patrick J. Fitzgerald of Chicago. Democratic presidential candidates complained that the change came too late and did too little to protect against a conflict of interest.


The Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982 specifies that the revelation is a crime only if the accused leaker knew the person was a covert agent. The July newspaper column by Robert D. Novak that touched off the investigation did not specify that Valerie Plame was working undercover, but said she was "an agency operative on weapons of mass destruction." That raises the possibility that the senior administration officials he quoted did not know Plame's status.


Wilson said he believes the White House should be subject to political accountability, as well as legal accountability, if prosecutors discover Bush's aides abetted an attempt to undermine his reputation. "The question is whether the president is going to accept having people on his staff who have engaged in behavior which has to be inconsistent with his own promise to change the tone in Washington," Wilson said. "Just because it isn't criminal doesn't make it ethically acceptable."

Guess now we know why Ashcroft recused himself. It would be too political for Ashcroft to announce this was not a crime.

[jbfam4]

1. Josh Marshall has an interesting article about this

Josh Marshall thoughts about the above article

Toensing, of course, is not only a pricey DC defense lawyer. She's also a professional Republican, one tightly connected to the DC GOP power structure, and someone you could find at pretty much any point in the late nineties as an anti-Clinton "legal expert" on every chat show under the sun.

Using Toensing as the legal expert on this question is like bringing Bruce Lindsey in as your commentator to discuss Lewinsky.

So let's stop the charade. They're guilty as sin. It's now crystal clear that from the very beginning the folks at the White House have known who did it. And pretty clearly the president didn't see anything wrong with it, or didn't care, because he didn't try to do anything about it.


http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/

[7th_Sephiroth]

2. since the legal system is failing

should we just Destroy those who are trying to destroy everything? If some people can ignore the law, why not everyone else?

[nadinbrzezinski]

5. It is not failing

actually it is quickly reaching Nixonian moments

And it is far worst than Nixon, so soon it will surpass the silliness
of Milhaus Nixon.

Yes this is Watergate the sequel, get your popcorn this will continue to get hot, and no DC is not going to be cold or wintry this winter, actually quite tropical... if you ask me

What Josh is pointing to is that this is quickly reaching the moment of decision and soon we should see the Saturday Night Massacre the Sequel... and yes when people start talking like this INSIDE the beltway you know things are hotter than we poor peasants are even allowed to know.

This only tells me that Ashcrofft HAD NO BLOODY CHOICE and they are up to their eyeballs... ah Richard Milhaus Nixon, you were a boy scout compared to these boys.

[7th_Sephiroth]

6. i feel that heads should roll on this

Physically, novak and the leaker, Guillotine them, they comitted treason, these people are above the law, there is no hope, people need to fight back.

[punpirate]

3. Nice try...

... but no cigar, Mr. Allen. If they knew she was a CIA operative, they also had the means to determine her status with the agency. This is the White House, not someone Googling her name on the internet before she became an unwilling public figure.

There is also the question of malicious intent--she was the wife of a detractor of the administration.

This is a very apparent attempt to lay the framework for shifting public opinion in favor of the White House. The simple fact is that crime was committed--and it's not a far stretch to assume that the people doing the leaking knew her and knew what they were doing to her, and by extension, to her husband.

It's often forgotten these days, but the "administration officials" knew what her work was, and also made the assertion that because of her work, she was influential in the selection of her husband for the mission to Niger.

The implication of that is that the administration knew a great deal about her, and their interests in exposing her were, indeed, purely political.

A good prosecutor would see through that ploy in a heartbeat--will Fitzgerald choose to see through it? That's an unknown at the moment.

Cheers.

[scottcsmith]

4. Sneaky bastards

In case anyone is interested, this is the section of United States Code that deals with leaks:

http://tinyurl.com/2sspt

[xchrom]

7. what i find interesting

is that the major media outlets including the pbs news hour has painted the possibility of appointing the prosecutor to close the case down.
close it down?
why is that a goal already -- they admitedly didn't get where they wanted to go with previous efforts so they appoint a prosecutor to close it down?
please mr fitzgerald -- do not let these guys lead you by the nose.

[RBitt]

8. get real

"The three-month-old investigation entered a new phase Tuesday when Attorney General John D. Ashcroft recused himself and the Justice Department announced the appointment of a special prosecutor, U.S. Attorney Patrick J. Fitzgerald of Chicago"

I read this like a book. As soon as this broke you knew Ass-croft was trying to put some distance between frat boy and the white wash. duh.
watch it go away.

[johnfunk]

9. But will it REALLY go away?

Let's assume that the "independent" investigator sweeps the matter under the rug.

Net result: big players in the intelligence community are going to be more than miffed that the outing of a superspy -- and a blow to the war against the proliferation of WMDs -- has gone unpunished.

Believe me when I say these guys know a helluva lot of stuff that that imbecile Bush boy does not want made public -- and if those intelligence mandarins are not satisfied that justice is done, His Smirkness his many handlers will have hell to pay as the dirtiest of dirt flies.

You can also be sure that there are more than a few people at DOJ who know exactly who the leakers are -- and who they leaked to. We know about Novak. So who else? Has anyone else picked up on rumors that both Tony Blankley and John Fund had visits from the FBI concerning allegations of their involvement in the Leakgate mess?

[Gin]

10. story over...this will be the end result.....

gin

[jbfam4]

11. Hate to say it, but I agree

Guess now we know why Ashcroft recused himself. It would be too political for Ashcroft to announce this was not a crime so he is leaving the dirty work to Fitzgerald.....keeps his hands clean. Really hope we are both wrong.

I would be encouraged if Fitzgerald would say he wants all the paper work and records from the white house, not just the ones the attorneys handed over to DOJ.

[Cocoa]

12. I have a better idea

how about having a jury make that decision?

[karlschneider]

13. How the hell can someone leak something they don't know???

How fucking deep is this rabbit hole, anyhoo?
Jeezus.
:eyes:

[Dover]

14. I noticed, in another article, the use of the word "felony"

The article said something like....

"...and there could be a felony conviction if the leaker is identified"

and I thought....hmmmm that's the first time I've seen that word bandied about as regards the legal ramifications of the leak. Did they purposely drop that word in there to begin laying the groundwork for acceptance of that outcome? I thought people were calling this leak treasonous. So which is it?