Redstate

I don't the MOTIVES much matter at all.  If a crime was committed then it needs to be prosecuted.

And it doesn't much matter whether Libby said she worked in the Winpac or in DoO or said she was a secretary for the CIA.  If he knew what she was actually doing at CIA, which I don't know, then he violated the law.

What crime?

Is the crime you suspect one in which knowledge must be proven?  If so, then the knowledge and intent of the alleged criminal is in fact an element of the crime.

So get out of your anti-Rove berserker rage and wait for some facts before you attack again.

I think we should ALL wait for the report, and not speculate idly, and that goes for the media and their Michael Jackson-like ravings, and also for Mark Kilmer here who may come to have serious egg on his face for posting this now.

interesting article at the daily news, apparantly someone in the adminstration is squealing. this can not be good.

http://nydailynews.com/front/story/356858p-304125c.html

Niel, you stole my point!  I had to register, and by the time I had, someone else on the ball had pointed out the obvious.

The MSM has been utterly derelict in pointing out the fact that knowledge of the exposee's covert status is indeed an element of the crime.  As is motive -- there must be an intent to damage US national security.

Why is the MSM trumpeting this case, when it could lead to an absolute shutdown of the leaks upon which they thrive?

its a story that sells alot of newspapers.

lets face it, what is more tantalizing of a story than adminstration scandal over a CIA spy.

Ummmm, ok.  I guess when I said "IF a crime has been committed" I really went over the edge, didn't I?  Sorry from now on I'll just use the Red State Approved© position of "No crime has been committed. End of Discussion"

Is the crime you suspect one in which knowledge must be proven?  If so, then the knowledge and intent of the alleged criminal is in fact an element of the crime.

OK.  Well that explains why Judith Miller hasn't been brought up on charges.  It remains to be seen if other people will be.

None.  I'm simply relating what the media is reporting.  For me offer a meaningful opinion on whether or not there will be indictments, I would have to have sat through Fitzgerald's case to the grand jury.

Neil, I don't think I heard flyerhawk "attack" anyone. Nor did he sound particularly enraged.

Fortunately for everyone, the facts of this case are being handled by an apolitical Fitzgerald and others with intimate knowledge of the details, and not the partisan bloggers and pundits who are idly speculating about whether a crime was or was not committed based largely on their respective party affiliation.

I've never heard so many people with so few actual facts, and more importantly so little real legal expertise, be soooooo confident (one way or the other) about how this case will be resolved.

To me you appeared to be gloating a little over what you think might turn out to be a fairly trivial scandal with a small "s".

Isn't that already a judgment?  And if so, isn't it a bit rash?

I'm glad you registered, because I forgot about the "intent to damage the US" part.  Good point, thanks.

The MSM has been utterly derelict in pointing out the fact that knowledge of the exposee's covert status is indeed an element of the crime.  As is motive -- there must be an intent to damage US national security.

He was insisting that it doesn't matter what the facts of the alleged crime are, when those facts are part of what will determine whether a crime was committed.

Basically, intentionally or not (ha!), he was trying to portray anyone who leaked Plame's CIA status as a criminal, regardless of whether the facts of the leak match the requirements of the relevant law.

So yes, it was pushing a harshly attacking viewpoint, one analgous to Howard Dean's calling for Tom DeLay to go to prison before being indicted of anything.

I expect that short-circuiting on the mainstream press.  I don't think it should be tolerated here.

Work on your reading comprehension.

What I said was that it DOESN'T matter what job Libby told Miller that Plame was doing.  IF, a conjuction meaning In the event that: someone KNEW that she was a covert op and gave her name out as a person in the employ of the CIA then they VIOLATED THE LAW.

This shoot the messenger garbage gets really tiring here sometimes.  How my comment was analogous to anyone suggesting that Delay should go to prison is truly surreal.  

Are you really that incapable of reasoned discourse on this subject?

Crimes do not need to be punished if they serve our interests.

I do not think that it is much of a scandal, and that was apparant in the post.  (The last line especially.)

But about the egg, I doubt anything Fitzerald's GJ finds will convince me otherwise, thus requiring the removal of that egg.

Now that I think of it, a little egg might be good for the complexion.

So all the evidence points to him believing she wasn't a covert agent, and you come out of the blue to say "No, it doesn't matter," and proceed to push your assumption that he knew it and is guilty.

I don't take aim at all messengers, just the ones bearing unwelcome agendas.

It's not as if anything coherent ever came from Daily Kos.

I have no idea whether Patrick Fitzgerald will bring down indictments or, if he does, who will be indicted.  But, whatever his actions, I want to pre-emptively quash any attack on him or his character from any quarter (including this one).  By every account, including accounts of former colleagues of Fitzgerald's whom I trust, Fitzgerald is a stand up, apolitical guy.  Ronny Earle he ain't.  The only quasi-knack that I've heard against him (and this has been publicly reported) is that he can be a bit Javert-like -- i.e., once he gets his teeth in something, he's tenacious, even though the bigger picture may not suggest that the crime warrants the pursuit.*  [Possibly this trait come through in Judy Miller's jailing.]

von

*Partially as a result of his rep, and because of the length and apparent depth of the investigation, I'm 90% sure that someone will be indicted.

What evidence?  The only "evidence" is that there is a grand jury investigation, Judith Miller was sent to jail because she wouldn't divulge her source material, and Karl Rover was recently brought back to the GJ.  

You seem to want to exonnerate everyone based on any piece of evidence possible.  

You are the one with the agenda.  I've had a wait and see attitude about this since Day 1.  

You can't use speculation to prove that administration members talked to the press about Plame, but then ignore that speculation when it suggests that those who talked to the press were unaware of Plame's covert status.

I liked this gem from the bio piece on Plame:

"The same year she met Wilson, the CIA brought her home to headquarters from overseas out of fear that double agent Aldrich Ames might have spilled her name to the Russians."

Now if her cover is in such jeopardy to require a change of station, 1) could someone else have revealed her cover, 2) wouldn't her cover be permanently jeopardized?  Maybe the prosecutor should be investigating Ames and all those involved with that case...

Remember that in the criminal justice system, people are innocent until proven guilty.

You're free to presume them guilty and have whatever  standard you want to prove innocence, but expect to get challenged on it around here.  You'll simply appear to have a political agenda for doing so.

where I said I had "proven" anything.  

It is entirely possible that Libby had no knowledge of Plame's actual identity.  It's possible he heard it on the cocktail circuit.  It's possible that he was fully aware of her identity and tried to be cagey and out her in a backhanded sort of way.  It's also possible that he found out that Plame was a CIA employee through Dick Cheney.  If that's the case then any of the previous possibilities apply to Cheney as well.

We will find out next week what the Grandy Jury believes.

how I can be any more clear in NOT presuming them guilty than this....

And it doesn't much matter whether Libby said she worked in the Winpac or in DoO or said she was a secretary for the CIA.  If he knew what she was actually doing at CIA, which I don't know, then he violated the law

Not only did I say IF he knew I ALSO said I DON'T KNOW if he knew.  What the heck else do you want?  A 2 paragraph disclaimer attached to each post?

Uncalled for in the specific, no matter how I might agree in general.

Do you have ANY evidence at all to support your fantasies about criminals in the administration then?

You seem to want to have it both ways here, Neil.

You attack flyerhawk for using speculation to conclude there was a crime (which he actually doesn't seem to do but whatever), and then you rely on comparable speculation to call into question whethere there was a crime.

Perhaps, in the absence of any real facts, you should simply chill out, and wait to see if there are any indictments.

Well we should know fairly soon anyway.

And you're right we should all have a bit egg on our faces once in a while! :-)  

Raw Story (take it FWIW) is reporting that a Cheney aide, John Hannah, has become a witness for the prosecution.  Hannah is apparently what's turned to investigation on to Cheney (he's saying Cheney either gave him permission or ordered him to leak the name).

fitzgerald didn`t spend 2 years of his life on a wild goose chase, someone is getting indicted, who is the big question.it may not be the crime that`s the problem it may be the coverup.someone

should have fessed up to this a long time ago when it was a minor  offense, now it`s starting to sound like watergate.

should be very greatful to Fitz, whatever happens with the Plame thing, for going after the mother of all RINOs George Ryan, probably one of the most corrupt human beings I have ever seen.

and you didn't bother to say "Mother, may I?" You just figured you'd re-register under a different name, eh?

Why would the CIA refer the outing of a "desk jockey" to the Justice Department for investigation of "possible Federal Crimes"?

Why would the presiding Federal Judge in this case, after reviewing secret evidence in Fitzgerald's possession, agree that Judith Miller's testimony was vital enough to throw her into jail for not doing so?

Why would the Federal Appeals Court panel, consisting of three Federal Judges, unanimously determine that indeed, the secret Fitzgerald evidence that they reviewed caused them to conclude that Miller's testimony was vital in getting to the bottom of the outing of a member of the CIA steno pool, and thus voted not to release her from jail until she testified in front of the Grand Jury?

It would seem to me that this is quite a hubbub for politics as "usual", and also extremely curious, considering that some have determined that Ms. Plame was little more than a member of the secretarial pool at the CIA. You would think that a guy as smart as Fitzgerald could have figured that one out on the first day, let alone four Federal Judges.

How does this "sound like watergate"?

Just curious.

Thanks.

someone in the administration told several reporters that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA?

How bout you show me where I posted any fantasies of criminals in the administration?

Really, if that's a fact, then why can't you say who it is?

Why don't you go read at the top of this thread and see who was continuing the liberal drive to paint the administration as criminal before you tell me to "chill out?"

of criminals "in the administration."  Do you think some automated white house email system told Matt Cooper that Wilson's wife worked for the agency?

The point is, you don't know who leaked what.

You can't prove it was someone in the administration.  For all we know, Joe Wilson leaked it in order to play the victim.

"Why would the CIA refer the outing of a "desk jockey" to the Justice Department for investigation of "possible Federal Crimes"?

Why would the presiding Federal Judge in this case, after reviewing secret evidence in Fitzgerald's possession, agree that Judith Miller's testimony was vital enough to throw her into jail for not doing so?

Why would the Federal Appeals Court panel, consisting of three Federal Judges, unanimously determine that indeed, the secret Fitzgerald evidence that they reviewed caused them to conclude that Miller's testimony was vital in getting to the bottom of the outing of a member of the CIA steno pool, and thus voted not to release her from jail until she testified in front of the Grand Jury?

It would seem to me that this is quite a hubbub for politics as "usual", and also extremely curious, considering that some have determined that Ms. Plame was little more than a member of the secretarial pool at the CIA. You would think that a guy as smart as Fitzgerald could have figured that one out on the first day, let alone four Federal Judges."

_____

"fitzgerald didn`t spend 2 years of his life on a wild goose chase, someone is getting indicted, who is the big question.it may not be the crime that`s the problem it may be the coverup.someone

should have fessed up to this a long time ago when it was a minor  offense, now it`s starting to sound like watergate."

_____

A liberal agenda, maybe?  snickers

I am not an attorney and so acknowledge I may be off-base here, but my understanding is that there have been at least two espionage convictions in past years where there was no intent to harm the US.

I write, of course, of the 1984 conviction of Samuel Morrison and the 2005 conviction of Lawrence Franklin.  Neither were with "intent to harm the US."  I suspect we don't really know how the latter would have played out, but in the former the courts decided (paraphrasing) that a 'reasonable man's expectation of harm' was sufficient whether actual intent to harm was present or not.  Given, that is, the assumption that most "reasonable men" would say that telling the world that this person is one of your nation's spies is a harm.

That, anyway, is my understanding.  And so I'm a little confused as to on what basis mens rea is being claimed in light of this history.

prove it, but again, you just asked for evidence, and I think Matt Cooper testifying before the grand jury (as decribed by him in Time magazine) that Karl Rove told him Wilson's wife worked for the agency certainly qualifies.  

It's hard to meet your requirements when you keep changing them after the fact.  

Please, keep on using Red State to whisper about and smear the administration.

If the people in charge want to keep letting you do it, I just don't care.

You forget that you are dealing with a special prosectutor.   Who knows where he has taken this?   The State Dept. memo may be key, and there are other statutes regarding classified material that he can bring into play as well.  

But just like Starr went from a real estate deal to a stained blue dress, this guy could come back with anything.   The sky is the limit.

I had this same debate last night.  See here for a very familiar exchange:

http://www.redstate.org/comments/2005/10/16/102955/59/23#23

You're doing a good job arguing for a wait and see approach.  Those agruing against you, who already have Rove, Libby, Cheney, and Bush indicted and convicted are the ones building an intellectual house of cards here.

you're a liberal lampooning the more extreme right wingers that comment here.

Either that or you need some basic help.

But again, Fitzgerald can simply find another statute that applies.   He can do anything he wants.

I needed that.

NEIL is the one arguing for a wait and see approach?  

In aggregate, it has been pointed out a lot -- but not in proportion to the number of breathless MSM stories that simply assume that the revelation of Ms. Plame's identity was itself a crime, regardless of knowledge or intent.  And whenever I debate liberals on the issue, I get blank stares when I point out the knowledge and intent elements.

Neil:  Wait and see if anyone gets indicted

flyerhawk:  Wait and see Rove get indicted

flyerhawk, I enjoy reading your posts.  You seem to be a reasonably left of center contributer.  The snark in your last post is beneath you.

I am not sure if any law was broken or not, but I do think your description is outrageous.   I also think it reeks of sexism.  From everything I have read, she had non-official cover, which took some time and money to set up, and when her cover was blown, so was the front cover the CIA set up.

you should go argue with those countless liberals because your point here is wrong.

By your reasoning Jonathan Pollard shouldn't have been convicted of a crime since he had no intention to harm US national security.

But it becomes tiring to be accused of pushing an agenda over and over when I wasn't.  I guess I was frustrated because Neil was putting words in my mouth and then you called him the voice of reason.  

I never once mentioned Karl Rove.  Not one time.  I did mention Scooter Libby merely because he seems, at least at this point, to be more of a focus of the investigation.  

I have no idea if anyone will be indicted.  We'll find out next week.  

This whole attack the media at every turn this is lost on me.   I watch and read a lot of news and I have heard a zillion times from a zillion different sources about how difficult it would be prove the most thrown about charge regarding naming (or outing) Plame.   That is why most pundits have been predicted for so long that we would see obstruction, or perjury charges IF we see anything.

I was wrong to try to use "Rove" as short hand for the center of all liberal attention in the Bush administration.

I'll give you that.

to leak the name of a CIA agent?

Get a grip people. This is much more serious than you think.

How does this "sound like watergate"?

It sounds like it in the way the Finger Of Shame appears to be gradually pointing higher and higher up the ladder.

I'm not saying it is, or even want to argue that.  But that was my understanding of the original poster's comment.

What happens if the CIA is wrong?

Just a question. Let your imagination run wild.

a covert agent.

There are a ton of people who work at the CIA whose employment is not a secret, and whose identity being known would not violate any laws.

Now if somebody else has already pointed this out, then ignore this (I am coming way late to this conversation, given that my job doesn't permit me time to peruse the internet or my favorite blogs during the day).

I wasn't the one who started the diary and I don't comment on this topic EXCEPT in diaries about this topic.  

What is Hilary's involvement? I missed that.

I certainly am NOT competent to even have an opinion about the merits of the case, but FYI, US News has just posted a highly speculative but quite detailed article about Cheney's possible resignation.

Anything that generates rumors about the VP resigning is THAT much of a scandal, my friend.

likely to come from the liberal quarter, if the "right" indictments don't come down.

If Fitzgerald comes down with indictments and has the goods to prove the crime, then whoever is charged should be convicted and punished.

Pollard wasn't convicted of "harming US national security." He was convicted of espionage. Normally, the motive of espionage is to make lots of money. Not in Pollard's case perhaps, but doing it for cash is not necessarily an intent to do the US harm either. But with espionage, the intent is always sinister. It wouldn't be sinister to tell the world that Porter Goss works for the CIA, for example. That's no doubt what Libby thought was the import of what he was saying. Revealing that someone who leaves their home every morning and drives to CIA headquarters might actually work there.

that intent is NOT necessary to convict someone of a crime, especially a crime involving national security.

It's only a breach of national security to leak the name of a covert agent.  Not everyone who works at the CIA is a spy and needs their identity kept secret.  

Thus, it's only illegal to knowingly reveal the identity of a covert agent.

How are you not banned yet by the way?

Ah, now this is really fun.  Someone mentioned betting on the indictments?  Go check out Intrade, look at legal then indictments.  Personally I would be selling Rove short at this point.  Its all a huge craps shoot, especially in light of the basis for a crime.  If you have not read the friend of the court brief, I link to it and discuss here.  It is most enlightening.  And why doesn't intrade have a contract for Judy?  Does anyone else think maybe she hasn't been entirely open?  Especially in light of her refusing to reveal her sources to her own paper.  Can they bring charges against her?  Hahahahahhahaaaa...

This comment puzzles me:

"Normally, the motive of espionage is to make lots of money."

That sounds like the motive of capitalism as a useful economic governing theory. I thought the motive of espionage is to learn or obtain information for your use which you (whether "you" are a government, a company, or an individual) are not entitled to through legal means.

Now, it will be curious if the prosecutor takes this approach, since it could lead to an argument about who has committed espionage against whom, the administration against the CIA or vice-versa.

Should be interesting.

My understanding is that Valerie Plame Wilson was once undercover, but that she was brought back to the US & has worked as an analyst ever since. If so, that would potentially take her out of the statute that people have been focusing on.

As I understand it, her cover was blown by:

1. Aldrich Ames
   
   
2. the Soviets
   
   
3. the CIA (inadvertently sent secure documents to Cuba through unsecured channels)

Take a breath. Relax. And pull back on labelling everyone as "attacking" this or "attacking" that.

No one knows the facts. You don't. Flyerhawk doesn't. I don't. No ones outside of Fitzgerald's inner circle.

Enough with the shrill and hysterical cries about people painting the administration as criminal.

Just wait for Fitzgerald to speak publically. Enough with the speculation.

"What happens if the CIA is wrong?"

Do you maen "when?"  Haven't they been wrong more often than they've been right of late?

than truthful in this, and it bugs me how they get an automatic pass because they are reporters.

As if reporters would never do anything unethical (rathergate anyone).

In the end, Fitzgerald has done an excellent job of keeping the leaks at bay, and this is one situation where I think we just aren't going to know the details until it is all over.

But if I was a betting woman, I wouldn't bet on any indictment involving Rove.  I suspect he probably is in the clear wrt the outing stuff.  Perjury and other investigation related charges, who knows.

Good - now extend your remarks - you're heading in the right direction.

I've never understood why people are inclined to believe anonymous sources at all.  Either they're lying about what they're talking about, or they lied when they promised to keep secret whatever it is they're talking about.

In fact, isn't it a crime to reveal secret grand jury proceedings?  Who's going to believe a criminal?

Let's not loose sight of the fact that Plame has been riding a desk for years, and rolling in her convertible, hair blowing in the wind, from Wilson's house right through the gates of Langley.  007, she is not.  She was once a case officer, but it would seem that no one bothered to take her name off the list, even though she hasn't been an operator for years and years.  I seriously doubt that anyone even knew that she was once a covert operative, or at least I would hope no one would know that.  It's more likely that no one did till Wilson revealed it himself to extricate himself from his web of lies.  It is not a crime to say that someone works for the CIA, and this especially true when that person goes to a desk job in full public view every day.      

Let's not also loose sight that virtually every single sentence Wilson has uttered or written, and presented as fact, has turned out to be a bald faced lie.  The only thing that appears to be true is that the Nigerian Politicos he sipped tea with denied that they sold uranium oxide to an international criminal. When Seyni Kountche, in Niger, publicly says he would sell uranium to the devil, that has more weight in my book than the musings of one discredited former ambassador with a political bone to pick.  You believe who you want to believe, but this whole thing looks like political conniving to me.  

These people are watching too much West Wing and thinking it is true.

Depends how the law is written. The statute that the Plame case revolves around requires some proof of intent to do harm to national security. But, for example, if someone is sneaking nuclear plans out the back door of the DoE, the intent there is pretty clear and the laws reflect that clear intent.

I am pretty sure that a person testifying to the GJ (and I assume their lawyer) may share what they were asked, but beyond that, it is a crime.

That is the question.  There was no crime originally.  At least not according to the pointy headed liberal legals who wrote the brief trying to spring Judy back when she was mother Teresa.  This is a post modern investigation.  No crime, beyond fishing expedition, what a heart breaker if they can't get anybody.  Is Fitz going to turn into Starr?

how you know this.  We don't even know what statute(s) are relevant.  

Seems like I've seen studies or surveys of this issue.  As I recall, the motive for Americans who spy on their own government for the benefit of foreign governments is usually economic.  They're seldom paid very much at all.  In other countries, the motives frequently differ.  You are correct that the motive of the foreign government is usually to learn something useful.  However, that is seldom the motivation for the agent.

about a rumor that Cheney will resign.

Augustine asks if it seems far fetched to anyone else.

No more far fetched then a president resigning because of a burglary.

That said, I don't think Cheney will go, but it would be an opening for the Rice lovers out there.

Then this case gets more unusual. Money doesn't seem to be the motive for any of the players. It's seems purely political/power based.

Which presents either problems or opportunites for the prosecutor.

If motive is irrelevant (in other words, intent doesn't matter, only actions and results) then he goes one way.

If motive is crucial to making a case, he goes another.

It's curious how the various speculations wander all over the place depending on which "facts" seem important on any given day.

Ah - the beauty of the law.

'Hawk

Of course, you know BETTER THAN MOST HERE that many criminal statutes require either general or specific intent with is wholly separate from motive. Intent is WHAT one seeks to do, whereas MOTIVE is why.

And very few crimes are strict liability CRIMES. But, there ares some.

I'll find the statute on this case, but as I recall it dd have a SPECIFIC intent requirement, and if not, then GENERAL. Its a very tightly drawn statute that's hard to violate!

of intent. Motive is usually not a required element of a crime to be proven, however, I think it may be in this case. Intent to commit an intentional act must be proven. Motive evidence is usually presented to counter a defendant's denials.

Intent goes to WHAT one does and whether they meant to do it.

Motive goes to WHY, and is usually not a specific element of the crime.

While, personally I care about the motives - I don't think they are really relevant to the issue (not talking crime one way or the other here)  But anyone involved (as Bush said first) should be thrown out of the administration.

I take this kind of stuff very seriously.  Revelation of even a past operative compromises our ability to gather intelligence, and compromises anyone connected to Plame.  

If the information was leaked unintentionally, the leakers are still horribly incompetent and not fit to run our nation.  I live in the best country in the world and expect the best to run it.  If your not it - get out of office.

There are numerous possible code violations that could occur.  

Here's one that merely requires that a person intentionally disclose the name of a covert agent...

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/50/chapters/15/subchapters/i
v/sections/section_421.html

Disclosure of information by persons having or having had

        access to classified information that identifies covert agent

      Whoever, having or having had authorized access to classified

    information that identifies a covert agent, intentionally discloses

    any information identifying such covert agent to any individual not

    authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the

    information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the

    United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert

    agent's intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be

    fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or

    both.

The issue here is lying about WMD, and the crime conspiring to obstruct justice to support those lies. From my perspective the evidence to support that allegation is so overwhelming, that substantiating those claims warrants minimal documentation. Only those in denial or uninterested in reviewing unclassified and public evidence can fail to see the obvious. We went to war when we did with the army we had because all that was about to be made as crystal clear at home as it is abroad.

As I expect indictments before October 28, I'll let Fitzpatrick provide the explanations. I suspect there will be no egg to wipe off of Mark's face. Has no one read even just the last paragraph on page 83 of the opinion jailing Miller?

"Were the leak at issue in this case less harmful to national security or more vital to public debate, or had the special counsel failed to demonstrate the grand jury's need for the reporters' evidence, I might have supported the motion to quash. Because identifying appellants' sources instead appears essential to remedying a serious breach of public trust, I join in affirming the district court's orders compelling their testimony."

link to case in .pdf is http://tinyurl.com/6s8d6/

The underground super black back room cigar filled dim light word on Plame is that her name was on some Ames paperwork, and that as far as deep cover was concerned, '93 was the end.  Well at least thats what we know from a column by New York Times scribe Nicholas Kristof.  So it looks like we already sent away the real leaker.  And if you are just wanting to protect the CIA as if its some holy non-political institution of enlightenment, sit down.  Protecting ourselves means cleaning house, and thats one house that fights back.

when you don't like the message, you attack the messanger.

So should we just disband the CIA.

Do you think that would be a step in the right direction?

Yes, but not for these reasons. The CIA has been a waste of time, manpower, resources, and spy novels since basically the 1960s, with only a few redeeming events since. To me, the political war the CIA has waged against the Administration is just the icing on the cake.

is obviously in cahoots with the terrorists.

Why does the CIA hate America?

take you best assesment.

Does that mean we should stop with the terror alert system, since it relies on CIA info?

The discussion in the Amicus Curiae brief filed in connection with the Miller & Cooper is of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982, esp. 50 USC Section 421 (see pp 5 - 7 of the brief).  According to the brief, to support a conviction under the act, the government must prove:

1. the US is taking affirmative measures to conceal a covert agent's relationship to the US;
   
   
2. the covert agent is an employee of the intelligence agency;
   
   
3. the covert agent has a relationship with the agency that is classified;
   
   
4. at the time of the disclosure, the covert agency was serving outside the US or had done so within the last 5 years;
   
   
5. the person who disclosed the covert agent's identity must be authorized to have access to classified information that identifies the covert agent;
   
   
6. the person disclosing the information knows the government is taking affirmative measures to conceal the relationship;
   
   
7. the person disclosing the information knows that the information identifies the covert agent;
   
   
8. the disclosure is intentional; and
   
   
9. the identity of the covert agent is disclosed to a person who does not have authorization to receive such information.

I'm not trying to be argumentative, I'm honestly not informed enough to understand what you are talking about.  

The only point I did understand was about protecting the CIA, I never intended to put it on some pedestal.  But I just can't stomach the revelation of one of our countries operatives, even if I think the CIA is a hack political tool (which I do).  The fact that the CIA is a bunch of political hacks doesn't minimize the efforts of sincere individuals who are part of that system.  And I have a real hard time believing the Wilson's had an  anti-bush agenda(he voted for him in 2000).   Wilson probably has an anti-bush motivation now - but I find it hard to blame him for it.

I will also confess - I don't think Rove, Libby or Cheney are stupid.  I believe it was entirely intentional and that kind of pettiness for political cover is not what I expect of any administration.  In their own words this was about damage control - not outing a CIA operative.  Sorry, but that is disgusting in my book.  

But the statutes which seem to be involved here are all very, very specific.  At this juncture, it appears that the relevant statues are the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982, as well as the pertinent statutes involving obstruction of justice & perjury.  Fitzgerald could throw in a few others, but these seem to be the most likely.

The discussion changes significantly when you apply what little we actually now know to the specific statutes.

I had only read the Amici, but lo and behold in the actual proceeding, a argument implying the protection of blogs.  Actually, the "stereotypical blogger" in his or her respective pajamas.  And conspiracy galore, a official could set up a blog in "three or four minutes" and leak information with the full protection of the first amendment.  Its pdf page 29, proceeding page 6, second paragraph.  Thanks for the link.

Not the espionage act, and the perjury and obstruction acts are fairly broad as well. The IIPA has enough conditions that it is limited to very specific application.

Not that there's anything better or worse about narrow or wide statutory language, but it's a bit laughable to think of espionage involved in this case. Secret identities, maybe sorta. Important issues, for sure. Fundamental political disagreements, absolutely.

Any crimes committed are peripheral and of seconday intent, if at all.

Then again, what was Martha Stewart convicted of?

Your imagination can do better than that.

Does the defense department want to take over intelligence gathering? Should it want to? Should it?

"Here's one that merely requires that a person intentionally disclose the name of a covert agent..."

The Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982 requires far, far more than that to support a conviction.

50 USC Section 421 requires:

1. having or having had authorized access to classified information that identifies a covert agent
   
   
2. intentionally discloses any information identifying such covert agent
   

3)to any individual not authorized to receive classified information

4. knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent
   
   
5. and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent's intelligence relationship to the United States

The term "covert agent" is defined in Subsection 426(4):

1. an employee or former employee
   
   
2. whose identity is classified
   
   
3. who is serving outside the US or has done so in the last 5 years
   
   
4. who resides & acts outside the US or in counterintelligence or counterterrorism

Under Subsection 426(1)"classified information" means information which is clearly marked as classified (etc.)

See the discussion at pp 5-7 of the Amicus Curiae brief:

http://www.bakerlaw.com/files/tbl_s10News/FileUpload44/10159/Amici%20Brief%
20032305%20(Final).PDF

(sorry if the link doesn't work)

DoD responsible?

I mean in the end, We should all care about the effectiveness of our intelligence gathering abilities. It really is a matter of National Security.

Especially in these times.

Point me to where I said that, funny boy. Or, contribute something substantive. Your choice.

To whom is the CIA responsible? Is it the same answer as the DoD? Should it be? Why does it seem not to be?

How about the FBI?

How many federal employees have been fired since 9/11? Any? Michael Brown?

First I will agree with you, then rip on your boy Wilson.  It is disgusting.  Politics is always disgusting from one side to the other.  If premeditated, i.e. Rove spent the night in the secret bunker calculating how to rip a whole in the CIA and Wilson, and came up with this, it would be very disgusting.  But probably not illegal.  Conversely, I don't think that was the case because they would have had much more involvement, and it would have been a better plan.  As Wilson claims his whole life has changed, but not because his wife got a staged spread in Vanity Fair.  It changed with the book deal.  And the anti-Bush campaign tour.  As far as him voting for Bush, you think he liked the state dept. under Clinton?  He is a self serving political whore now, but probably not by choice.  And in one sense it is about WMD.  The CIA was very remiss,  so was just about everyone.  They all were in CYA mode.  But Wilson, for some reason, snapped.  He did sloppy work as an ambassador, then created a firestorm which he made a fortune out of.  Not that there shouldn't be a debate on WMD inteligence, or lack of it.  But, I will quote you here, "I believe it was entirely intentional and the kind of pettiness for political cover", only I assign that bit to your boy Joe.  It is disgusting.

That recitation seems to be why all speculative comment now indicates that the IIPA is the least likely law to serve as the basis for any indictment.

However, there's plenty of cause for concern in the other possibilities.

Where there WMD allegedly involved in Watergate? I don't recall that.

a Mexican soap opera.  I quit!

a problem that needs to be addressed, don't you!

We can't have incompetent people in such important capacities!

Cheney's indictment is a scary prospect. While I'd love to see a potential 2008 candidate sitting in that VP slot, it surely would be huge blow to the Republican power.

I do like Condi though :)

There were!  If you mean the Women Meant for Democrats as a weapon.   And speaking of Watergate, our girl Judy just gave out a first amendment award to Deep Throat, small world.

I tried to post it last night in Mark I's diary.

Google - Amicus Brief Judith Miller - and follow the link provided for bakerlaw.com as posted in this parent.

Wilson thought that Bush would be a good Saudi shill like him and his fellow compatriots at the Middle East Institute.

That said I don't think we can ever take anyone's word regarding who they voted for without corroborating campaign contribution information.

I think it has its own agenda, and has no problems stabbing any administration in the back if it doesn't toot to its tune.

So, yeah, let's ditch the whole place.

would be more like this:

It wasn't the "crime" (if there indeed was one), it was the cover-up.

What I see happening is this:  indictments will be handed down.  Against Libby for certain, but there's an outside chance that indictments might also come down against Karl Rove.

Not for outing a CIA agent.

Not for obstruction of justice.

But for perjury.

Not perjury about covering up a "crime," but perjury in actively misleading Fitzgerald and the grand jury.

I believe the reason for these indictments won't be the CIA or Plame or anything like that, I believe it will be over nothing more than the "culture of secrecy" that the White House practices literally backfiring.

Said people may have lied because they felt that they didn't HAVE to divulge that information.

So, instead of answering questions that very well may have exonerated them, they instead lied.

And bang, perjury.

Here's what we know:

1. DC is a small town. Everyone is married to someone else (Cooper to Grunewald, herself a big-wig's daughter; Plame to Wilson, etc) and is involved in various nepotistic conflict of interest issues all around. Including Bolton's former associate who worked with Plame early on and then Cheney's staff.

So that answers how people knew about Plame being Wilson's wife and at CIA. One of her former workplace people remembered her. If she was working at an analyst spot (highly likely) given Bolton's assistant career path there was no way she could be covert. Covert CIA ops don't have jobs in CIA analyst positions.

2. The heart of the real conflict (a leak war between Wilson/CIA and the WH) is based on the small-town-ness of the whole social scene. It's like the politics of a small town university writ large. Wilson/CIA wanted to fix the blame on Bush and vice-versa over WMD predictions being spectacularly wrong.
   
3. Saudi money is involved. Wilson works for the Middle East Institute which is a Saudi front/lobbying group. Much of the opposition to Bush in the CIA comes from the Saudi aligned group who want the status quo ante because that's where the future money is (Saudis hire ex Govt folks for big bucks).
   
4. Wilson is a VERY strange person. He never mentioned supporting evidence in his interviews/op-eds (if only to knock them down) about the Iraq trade delegation's discussion with Niger's PM. Nor could he have seen the forged documents as he claimed because the US govt did not possess them until 8 months after his trip. His 1999 trip to Niger seems a boondoggle arranged by his wife; and his strange debriefing at his home with his wife playing hostess to two CIA analysts (so much for her covertness) as part of an oral debrief. Wilson made ... NO WRITTEN REPORT which I find very odd. As well as his wife's role in his oral debrief at their home. This is all on-the-record sworn testimony by Wilson at the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.
   
5. WHY did Karl Rove make 4 different trips to the GJ for sworn testimony under oath? If I was his lawyer I would NEVER let him just dig a deeper hole for himself; and I wonder WHY none of Rove's GJ testimony has leaked out (a common practice for prosecutors to up the ante on plea bargains). Yet other testimony HAS leaked out. Presumably Miller was central to certain points on Libby, to verify what he said; yet I find it thin soup to indict on the basis of a reporter's notes/recollection differing from an officials. Particularly given the incoherent and somewhat disorganized state of Miller's notes.

My speculation on this latter point is that Rove said something spectacularly politically stupid (likely because it was undeniably true) and is trying to create testimony that spins that statement away. That's my spec on WHY he went before the GJ four times, and why Fitz hasn't leaked his stuff (because while Rove said something un-PC and therefore stupid and TRUE, it wasn't part of his criminal case). That would be why his lawyer allowed Rove to offer additional testimony. No or little risk and allows him to spin poor word choice away (probably said something uncomplimentary about a group's members).

My spec is that given the small-town nature of DC, Fitz is after spilling genuinely classified info from the CIA. That might include Tenet, and others in his staff who leaked classified info to reporters on methods/sources of WMD intelligence.

As per the Floridian piece on secret agent girl, she gave a G to the tree.  So if its correct, the above, Joe and Val maybe fought over hanging chads and he, like most men, chose nooky over right.  That could be the turning point!  We have enlightenment!

I was referring specifically to intent and not to the overall requirements.  IOW, there is no requirement that the accused had an intent to harm the US.   Simply having an intent to disclose the information meets the intent requirements.

I misread 50 USC Subsection 426(4).  My post above should read:

The term "covert agent" is defined in Subsection 426(4):

1) an employee or former employee

2)whose identity is classified

3) who is serving outside the US or has done so in the last 5 years

The other part I included above [4) who resides & acts outside the US or in counterintelligence or counterterrorism]is from Subsubsection B & should not have been included with the requirements of 426(4)(A).

Section 1621. Perjury generally

      Whoever -

        (1) having taken an oath before a competent tribunal, officer, or person, in any case in which a law of the United States authorizes an oath to be administered, that he will testify, declare, depose, or certify truly, or that any written testimony, declaration, deposition, or certificate by him subscribed, is true, willfully and contrary to such oath states or subscribes any material matter which he does not believe to be true; or

        (2) in any declaration, certificate, verification, or statement under penalty of perjury as permitted under section 1746 of title 28, United States Code, willfully subscribes as true any material matter which he does not believe to be true;

    is guilty of perjury and shall, except as otherwise expressly provided by law, be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.  This section is applicable wether the statement or subscription is made within or without the United States.

Section 1623. False declarations before grand jury or court

      (a) Whoever under oath (or in any declaration, certificate, verification, or statement under penalty of perjury as permitted under section 1746 of title 28, United States Code) in any proceeding before or ancillary to any court or grand jury of the United States knowingly makes any false material declaration or makes or uses any other information, including any book, paper, document, record, recording, or other material, knowing the same to contain any false material declaration, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

      (b) This section is applicable whether the conduct occurred within or without the United States.

      (c) An indictment or information for violation of this section alleging that, in any proceedings before or ancillary to any court or grand jury of the United States, the defendant under oath has knowingly made two or more declarations, which are inconsistent to the degree that one of them is necessarily false, need not specify which declaration is false if -

        (1) each declaration was material to the point in question, and

        (2) each declaration was made within the period of the statute of limitations for the offense charged under this section.

    In any prosecution under this section, the falsity of a declaration set forth in the indictment or information shall be established sufficient for conviction by proof that the defendant while under oath made irreconcilably contradictory declarations material to the point in question in any proceeding before or ancillary to any court or grand jury.  It shall be a defense to an indictment or information made pursuant to the first sentence of this subsection

that the defendant at the time he made each declaration believed the declaration was true.

      (d) Where, in the same continuous court or grand jury proceeding in which a declaration is made, the person making the declaration admits such declaration to be false, such admission shall bar prosecution under this section if, at the time the admission is made, the declaration has not substantially affected the proceeding, or it has not become manifest that such falsity has

been or will be exposed.

      (e) Proof beyond a reasonable doubt under this section is sufficient for conviction.  It shall not be necessary that such proof be made by any particular number of witnesses or by documentary or other type of evidence.

we're enjoying your posts

Section 794. Gathering or delivering defense information to aid foreign government

      (a) Whoever, with intent or reason to believe that it is to be

    used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of a

    foreign nation, communicates, delivers, or transmits, or attempts

    to communicate, deliver, or transmit, to any foreign government, or

    to any faction or party or military or naval force within a foreign

    country, whether recognized or unrecognized by the United States,

    or to any representative, officer, agent, employee, subject, or

    citizen thereof, either directly or indirectly, any document,

    writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic

    negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, note, instrument, appliance,

    or information relating to the national defense, shall be punished

    by death or by imprisonment for any term of years or for life,

    except that the sentence of death shall not be imposed unless the

    jury or, if there is no jury, the court, further finds that the

    offense resulted in the identification by a foreign power (as

    defined in section 101(a) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance

    Act of 1978) of an individual acting as an agent of the United

    States and consequently in the death of that individual, or

    directly concerned nuclear weaponry, military spacecraft or

    satellites, early warning systems, or other means of defense or

    retaliation against large-scale attack; war plans; communications

    intelligence or cryptographic information; or any other major

    weapons system or major element of defense strategy.

      (b) Whoever, in time of war, with intent that the same shall be

    communicated to the enemy, collects, records, publishes, or

    communicates, or attempts to elicit any information with respect to

    the movement, numbers, description, condition, or disposition of

    any of the Armed Forces, ships, aircraft, or war materials of the

    United States, or with respect to the plans or conduct, or supposed

    plans or conduct of any naval or military operations, or with

    respect to any works or measures undertaken for or connected with,

    or intended for the fortification or defense of any place, or any

    other information relating to the public defense, which might be

    useful to the enemy, shall be punished by death or by imprisonment

    for any term of years or for life.

      (c) If two or more persons conspire to violate this section, and

    one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the

    conspiracy, each of the parties to such conspiracy shall be subject

    to the punishment provided for the offense which is the object of

    such conspiracy.

      (d)(1) Any person convicted of a violation of this section shall

    forfeit to the United States irrespective of any provision of State

    law -

        (A) any property constituting, or derived from, any proceeds

      the person obtained, directly or indirectly, as the result of

      such violation, and

        (B) any of the person's property used, or intended to be used,

      in any manner or part, to commit, or to facilitate the commission

      of, such violation.

    For the purposes of this subsection, the term ''State'' includes a

    State of the United States, the District of Columbia, and any

    commonwealth, territory, or possession of the United States.

      (2) The court, in imposing sentence on a defendant for a

    conviction of a violation of this section, shall order that the

    defendant forfeit to the United States all property described in

    paragraph (1) of this subsection.

      (3) The provisions of subsections (b), (c) and (e) through (p) of

    section 413 of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control

    Act of 1970 (21 U.S.C. 853(b), (c), and (e)-(p)) shall apply to -

        (A) property subject to forfeiture under this subsection;

        (B) any seizure or disposition of such property; and

        (C) any administrative or judicial proceeding in relation to

      such property,

    if not inconsistent with this subsection.

      (4) Notwithstanding section 524(c) of title 28, there shall be

    deposited in the Crime Victims Fund in the Treasury all amounts

    from the forfeiture of property under this subsection remaining

    after the payment of expenses for forfeiture and sale authorized by

    law.

Section 798. Disclosure of classified information

      (a) Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes,

    transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person,

    or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or

    interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign

    government to the detriment of the United States any classified

    information -

        (1) concerning the nature, preparation, or use of any code,

      cipher, or cryptographic system of the United States or any

      foreign government; or

        (2) concerning the design, construction, use, maintenance, or

      repair of any device, apparatus, or appliance used or prepared or

      planned for use by the United States or any foreign government

      for cryptographic or communication intelligence purposes; or

        (3) concerning the communication intelligence activities of the

      United States or any foreign government; or

        (4) obtained by the processes of communication intelligence

      from the communications of any foreign government, knowing the

      same to have been obtained by such processes -

      Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten

    years, or both.

      (b) As used in subsection (a) of this section -

      The term ''classified information'' means information which, at

    the time of a violation of this section, is, for reasons of

    national security, specifically designated by a United States

    Government Agency for limited or restricted dissemination or

    distribution;

      The terms ''code,'' ''cipher,'' and ''cryptographic system''

    include in their meanings, in addition to their usual meanings, any

    method of secret writing and any mechanical or electrical device or

    method used for the purpose of disguising or concealing the

    contents, significance, or meanings of communications;

      The term ''foreign government'' includes in its meaning any

    person or persons acting or purporting to act for or on behalf of

    any faction, party, department, agency, bureau, or military force

    of or within a foreign country, or for or on behalf of any

    government or any person or persons purporting to act as a

    government within a foreign country, whether or not such government

    is recognized by the United States;

      The term ''communication intelligence'' means all procedures and

    methods used in the interception of communications and the

    obtaining of information from such communications by other than the

    intended recipients;

      The term ''unauthorized person'' means any person who, or agency

    which, is not authorized to receive information of the categories

    set forth in subsection (a) of this section, by the President, or

    by the head of a department or agency of the United States

    Government which is expressly designated by the President to engage

    in communication intelligence activities for the United States.

      (c) Nothing in this section shall prohibit the furnishing, upon

    lawful demand, of information to any regularly constituted

    committee of the Senate or House of Representatives of the United

    States of America, or joint committee thereof.

      (d)(1) Any person convicted of a violation of this section shall

    forfeit to the United States irrespective of any provision of State

    law -

        (A) any property constituting, or derived from, any proceeds

      the person obtained, directly or indirectly, as the result of

      such violation; and

        (B) any of the person's property used, or intended to be used,

      in any manner or part, to commit, or to facilitate the commission

      of, such violation.

      (2) The court, in imposing sentence on a defendant for a

    conviction of a violation of this section, shall order that the

    defendant forfeit to the United States all property described in

    paragraph (1).

      (3) Except as provided in paragraph (4), the provisions of

    subsections (b), (c), and (e) through (p) of section 413 of the

    Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 (21

    U.S.C. 853(b), (c), and (e)-(p)), shall apply to -

        (A) property subject to forfeiture under this subsection;

        (B) any seizure or disposition of such property; and

        (C) any administrative or judicial proceeding in relation to

      such property,

    if not inconsistent with this subsection.

      (4) Notwithstanding section 524(c) of title 28, there shall be

    deposited in the Crime Victims Fund established under section 1402

    of the Victims of Crime Act of 1984 (42 U.S.C. 10601) all amounts

    from the forfeiture of property under this subsection remaining

    after the payment of expenses for forfeiture and sale authorized by

    law.

      (5) As used in this subsection, the term ''State'' means any

    State of the United States, the District of Columbia, the

    Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and any territory or possession of the

    United States.

Section 1510. Obstruction of criminal investigations

      (a) Whoever willfully endeavors by means of bribery to obstruct,

    delay, or prevent the communication of information relating to a

    violation of any criminal statute of the United States by any

    person to a criminal investigator shall be fined under this title,

    or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

      (b)(1) Whoever, being an officer of a financial institution, with

    the intent to obstruct a judicial proceeding, directly or

    indirectly notifies any other person about the existence or

    contents of a subpoena for records of that financial institution,

    or information that has been furnished to the grand jury in

    response to that subpoena, shall be fined under this title or

    imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.

      (2) Whoever, being an officer of a financial institution,

    directly or indirectly notifies -

        (A) a customer of that financial institution whose records are

      sought by a grand jury subpoena; or

        (B) any other person named in that subpoena;

    about the existence or contents of that subpoena or information

    that has been furnished to the grand jury in response to that

    subpoena, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more

    than one year, or both.

      (3) As used in this subsection -

        (A) the term ''an officer of a financial institution'' means an

      officer, director, partner, employee, agent, or attorney of or

      for a financial institution; and

        (B) the term ''subpoena for records'' means a Federal grand

      jury subpoena or a Department of Justice subpoena (issued under

      section 3486 of title 18), for customer records that has been

      served relating to a violation of, or a conspiracy to violate -

          (i) section 215, 656, 657, 1005, 1006, 1007, 1014, 1344,

        1956, 1957, or chapter 53 of title 31; or

          (ii) section 1341 or 1343 affecting a financial institution.

      (c) As used in this section, the term ''criminal investigator''

    means any individual duly authorized by a department, agency, or

    armed force of the United States to conduct or engage in

    investigations of or prosecutions for violations of the criminal

    laws of the United States.

      (d)(1) Whoever -

        (A) acting as, or being, an officer, director, agent or

      employee of a person engaged in the business of insurance whose

      activities affect interstate commerce, or

        (B) is engaged in the business of insurance whose activities

      affect interstate commerce or is involved (other than as an

      insured or beneficiary under a policy of insurance) in a

      transaction relating to the conduct of affairs of such a

      business,

    with intent to obstruct a judicial proceeding, directly or

    indirectly notifies any other person about the existence or

    contents of a subpoena for records of that person engaged in such

    business or information that has been furnished to a Federal grand

    jury in response to that subpoena, shall be fined as provided by

    this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.

      (2) As used in paragraph (1), the term ''subpoena for records''

    means a Federal grand jury subpoena for records that has been

    served relating to a violation of, or a conspiracy to violate,

    section 1033 of this title.

Perhaps but you're confusing the thing and its shadow on the wall.

My point was, if you had read it, and still is, how can you claim this is a trivial scandal when major newspapers are reporting rumors about a VP resignation.

It may be a scandal where ultimately no one, or few people, will be found to have committed a crime, but by any rational definition, it is no longer small.

Intent is not an aspect of espianage according to US law.

but in your previous listing off all the potential crimes, you missed the one which liberals have been mentioning the most:

§ 793. Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information

(a) Whoever, for the purpose of obtaining information respecting the national defense with intent or reason to believe that the information is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation, goes upon, enters, flies over, or otherwise obtains information concerning any vessel, aircraft, work of defense, navy yard, naval station, submarine base, fueling station, fort, battery, torpedo station, dockyard, canal, railroad, arsenal, camp, factory, mine, telegraph, telephone, wireless, or signal station, building, office, research laboratory or station or other place connected with the national defense owned or constructed, or in progress of construction by the United States or under the control of the United States, or of any of its officers, departments, or agencies, or within the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States, or any place in which any vessel, aircraft, arms, munitions, or other materials or instruments for use in time of war are being made, prepared, repaired, stored, or are the subject of research or development, under any contract or agreement with the United States, or any department or agency thereof, or with any person on behalf of the United States, or otherwise on behalf of the United States, or any prohibited place so designated by the President by proclamation in time of war or in case of national emergency in which anything for the use of the Army, Navy, or Air Force is being prepared or constructed or stored, information as to which prohibited place the President has determined would be prejudicial to the national defense; or

(b) Whoever, for the purpose aforesaid, and with like intent or reason to believe, copies, takes, makes, or obtains, or attempts to copy, take, make, or obtain, any sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, document, writing, or note of anything connected with the national defense; or

(c) Whoever, for the purpose aforesaid, receives or obtains or agrees or attempts to receive or obtain from any person, or from any source whatever, any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note, of anything connected with the national defense, knowing or having reason to believe, at the time he receives or obtains, or agrees or attempts to receive or obtain it, that it has been or will be obtained, taken, made, or disposed of by any person contrary to the provisions of this chapter; or

(d) Whoever, lawfully having possession of, access to, control over, or being entrusted with any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it on demand to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it; or

(e) Whoever having unauthorized possession of, access to, or control over any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted, or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it; or

(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense,

(1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or

(2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer--

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

(g) If two or more persons conspire to violate any of the foregoing provisions of this section, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each of the parties to such conspiracy shall be subject to the punishment provided for the offense which is the object of such conspiracy.

(h)

(1) Any person convicted of a violation of this section shall forfeit to the United States, irrespective of any provision of State law, any property constituting, or derived from, any proceeds the person obtained, directly or indirectly, from any foreign government, or any faction or party or military or naval force within a foreign country, whether recognized or unrecognized by the United States, as the result of such violation. For the purposes of this subsection, the term "State" includes a State of the United States, the District of Columbia, and any commonwealth, territory, or possession of the United States.

(2) The court, in imposing sentence on a defendant for a conviction of a violation of this section, shall order that the defendant forfeit to the United States all property described in paragraph (1) of this subsection.

(3) The provisions of subsections (b), (c), and (e) through (p) of section 413 of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 (21 U.S.C. 853 (b), (c), and (e)-(p)) shall apply to--

(A) property subject to forfeiture under this subsection;

(B) any seizure or disposition of such property; and

(C) any administrative or judicial proceeding in relation to such property,

if not inconsistent with this subsection.

(4) Notwithstanding section 524 (c) of title 28, there shall be deposited in the Crime Victims Fund in the Treasury all amounts from the forfeiture of property under this subsection remaining after the payment of expenses for forfeiture and sale authorized by law.

based on the text of the resulting judgement:

"That said, without benefit of the adversarial process, we must take care to ensure that the special counsel has met his burden of demonstrating that the information is both critical and unobtainable from any other source. Having carefully scrutinized his voluminous classified filings, I believe that he has.

With respect to Miller, * * * * * [REDACTED] * * * * *

Regarding Cooper, * * * * * [REDACTED] * * * * *

In sum, based on an exhaustive investigation, the special counsel has established the need for Miller's and Cooper's testimony. Thus, considering the gravity of the suspected crime and the low value of the leaked information, no privilege bars the subpoenas."

And:

"Were the leak at issue in this case less harmful to national security or more vital to public debate, or had the special counsel failed to demonstrate the grand jury's need for the reporters' evidence, I might have supported the motion to quash. Because identifying appellants' sources instead appears essential to remedying a serious breach of public trust, I join in affirming the district court's orders compelling their testimony."

It certainly is hard to argue that no serious crimes have been committed when a judge with full access to the evidence issues a ruling with statements like this.

much as Rove, Libby or any other official telling reporters that Plame recommended Wilson for the trip.

that (fill in the blank with Rove, Libby, etc.)1.revealed Plame's name to Miller 2. that the "outer" was under the belief that making the statement could "cause injury to the United States"?

The second part is the problem-you would have to prove that (blank) not only revealed that Plame was a factor in Wilson's trip, but that (blank) did so knowing that doing so would harm the US.

In that many people knew she worked for the CIA, it is going to be very hard to prove the harm.

"A former intelligence official said Plame did not work at Winpac but for the CIA's clandestine service. The former official, who is familiar with Plame's CIA activities, spoke on condition of anonymity because of the matter's sensitivity."

AahahahahahAHAHAHAHA!  The irony here is so delicious.

I hope Fitzgerald didn't limit his inquiries to administration officials.  The CIA reeks in this one.  Why didn't Wilson have a confidentiality agreement? Why the living room debrief with Plame around? Was this the CIA plan from the beginning?  

There's far, far more to this than any alleged administration plot to "discredit" a lying Wilson.

which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States

I don't see a career prosecutor even indicting when he knows that he'd have to prove that Rove, Scooter, et al., believed that their disclosures could cause injury to the US.  (Now, maybe there are some in the CIA who should be concerned about that . . .)

Patrick Fitzgerald is not Ronnie Earl.

stated that Valerie Wilson's identity was classified as secret.

My understanding of the Secret classification is that it is reserved for information which would damage the national security if revealed.

So, anyone who had seen the memo could reasonably assume that revealing her employment by the CIA would damage national security.

Also, your contention that her status was widely known would seem to be a red-herring for two reasons:

1. I have not seen any solid evidence that her status was known prior to Novak's column. (If you know of any, I would be interested in seeing it.)
   
2. Even if her status was widely known within Washington, that doesn't mean that it was known to terrorists operating in the middle east. But revealing her status to a reporter with the intent that he publish the information would definitely result in her status becoming common knowledge throughout the world.

Merely that they "had reason to believe" it.

The information was classified as Secret in the infamous memo passed around on AF1. She was a covert agent assigned to a WMD task force. That's plenty of reason for anyone who understands national security issues to believe it could cause injury to national defense.

I can't see or understand why Republicans would try and do to Wilson what Wilson and the CIA were trying to do to them, how unfair.

Did the memo state that her identity was secret, or was her identity noted in the memo, which itself was stamped secret?  There is a big difference-a memo classified secret can contain both classified and non-classified information.  I do not recall a notation that the memo stated "Valerie Plame, whose status is secret".  I recall the memo itself being classified.

notes as to classification level.

The line where her identity was disclosed was reported to have had a "(S)" in the margin, denoting it as Secret.

Every on of these blogs I go to, I see Red-Staters NITPICKING until they're BLUE in the Face.

I almost feel bad for these folks. Someone give them a decent scandal.

Feel Bad all you like, Mr. Kilmer.  Look up obscure statutes and technicalities (maybe the BIBLE can clear them, since that's what all of our laws are based on!) and prove Fitzgerald wrong asw much as you possibly can.  

The fact is, the political tide is already turning, and unless you can inject a megadose of integrity, wisdom, eloquence, and humility into the White House, there's nothing you can do.

Personally, I'm happy to see ALL of them, red or blue, squirm.  I think they're all rats, and our country's on the fast track to the sewer no matter WHICH party has the power.            

Don't see Fitzgerald indicting on that.  On these facts (such as we can tell at this point), I'd far rather be defending on that standard, rather than prosecuting.

Assume that Rove, Libby, or some other Big Bad Bushie IS indicted for disclosing Plame's identity.  Fitzgerald now has to prove that the CIA took "affirmative measures" to conceal her covert identity.  Our BBB Defendant is entitled to refute that.  Our Defendant now gets to ask the CIA why Wilson wasn't asked to sign a confidentiality agreement.  Or file a written report.  And to inquire into the circumstances of the debriefing after Wilson's Africa trip.  Not only that, but our BBB Defendant also gets to ask whether Wilson cleared anything with the CIA before that breakfast with Kristoff or publishing the NYT editorial.  I think defense counsel gets access to internal CIA documents, notes, e-mails, etc. about all of those discussions.  Surely there were some, weren't there?  I mean, if Plame's covert identity was so important, who would let Joe Wilson publish an editorial in the NYT calling Bush a liar?

And then we have the tepid response to Novak's inquiries before he published.

Aldrich Ames leaked Valerie Plames name to the press.  Well that is a good defense.

Would you kindly give me a list of all the spies that Aldrich Ames outed that is dated prior to July 14th 2003.

If you can not come up with the list, that is because the list of spies Aldrich Ames outed is not public, and was not outed to every foreign government, just to the russians and the cubans.

I agree that this whole thing is a scandal meriting attention.  Whether that's good attention or bad attention, we may differ.

But my comment was aimed at the deranged musings of folks that the Wilson-Plame imbroglio will force Cheney to resign the Vice Presidency.  They're dreaming or smoking some wacky stuff.

Of course, the man could potentially resign after the mid-terms to allow Bush to appoint a new VP so that person could try to run for POTUS as the heir to the throne, but I don't see that happening either.

The IIPA (or AIPA) is very specific. The espionage act is not. That said, it's laughable to consider this espionage, in the common understanding of the term. It's a political disagreement, and both sides are skating the fringes of the statute, disregarding intent of any kind.

Perjury and obstruction relate to the investigation and prosecution process, not the originating incident (unless abusing the press is now subject to these acts as well). IOW, no investigation, nothing to perjure or obstruct.

All that said, who knows where this is headed.

I have heard and read that the main statute at play requires that the covert agent have been on covert assignment w/i 5yrs of a n otehr wise actionable disclosure and that it had been more than 5 yrs. Can you confirm that?

You're just so far above it all, aren't you?

Just happier than I've been for a while, thanks.  

But trolling and insulting screen names do not honest debate make.

Goodbye.