LAT: Rare Statute Figures in Rove Case ("pointed" law may help Rove)

[DeepModem Mom]

Rare Statute Figures in Rove Case
A 1982 law that criminalizes identifying operatives may be too pointed, and that may help the White House deputy chief of staff.

By Richard B. Schmitt, Times Staff Writer


....(A 1982 federal law called the Intelligence Identities Protection Act) is at the center of the debate over the unmasking of CIA operative Valerie Plame, and the possible involvement of Karl Rove, who is a White House deputy chief of staff, and other Bush administration figures.

Rove's lawyer said he was confident that the long-dormant law could not be applied to his client. History may be on his side.

But some legal experts said that too little was known about what Rove had known about Plame and when he had known it, and that it was therefore too soon to judge whether President Bush's close aide was in the clear. In any event, they said, special prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald may pursue other charges, such as perjury or obstruction of justice, or he may decide against seeking any indictments....

***

The law was meant to crack down on what the act's congressional authors called "conscious and pernicious" disclosures of agents' identities, rather than disclosures arising from casual conversation or other circumstances.

The law only criminalizes disclosures by a person who knows the operative is a "covert agent" and who "intentionally" reveals the information to someone unauthorized to receive it. It also requires that intelligence agencies be actively trying to hide the identity of the agent and that the person revealing the agent's identity be aware of those efforts....


http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-rove15jul15,0,7523183.story?coll=la-home-headlines

[ixion]

1. blah, blah, blah... frog walk the whole crew... funny how they start sayin

that this is too 'pointed' (pointed, in this case, meaning relevant) now. :grr:

[architect359]

2. They know how to manipulate the law

...any which way that they can. I will not be surprised if they weasel their way out of this one too (goddamnit).

[lancdem]

12. There are other laws involved, including the Espionage Act

This is only a small part of what's being investigated.

[Talismom]

3. Yeah, isn't this the group that backs the cristofascist zombies who

go on about liberal relativism and how there is a right and a wrong? You bet your ass there is and they have been caught in the wrong! Period! String 'em up, NOW!:spank:

[Ian David]

4. So, they could Martha Stewart him into jail?

He can be found innocent of the original charge of treason, yet go to jail for perjury or obstruction because he lied about his involvement?

Would that apply to the pResident as well?

[freedom_to_read]

5. I think this is how it will go down

Perjury before a Grand Jury, and/or obstruction of justice.

I don't think they will go after Bush... he is probably too insulated from the day-to-day sliming to have been involved.

But the political damage will affect him.

[Sparkman]

10. Randel, a DEA guy "outed"CIA's Lord Ashcroft a suspected cash launderer

and Lord Ashcroft, sued when the outing hit London papers. With Lord Michael Ashcroft's connections, he got the A.G., in 2003, to indict DEA agent Randel. They couldn't use the Identities Protection Act, BUT under Title 18, sec. 641 of U.S. Code agent Randel was convicted & sentenced to 1 yr in the Fed. Pen. & 3 yrs probation.
Title 18 is for using gov. records & information for personal use.

The above article by Nixon's "John Dean" can be found at FindLaw,
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20050715.html

John Dean's legal opinion carry's some weight, and he was Nixon's special counsel until Erlichmen, Halderman, Nixon targeted John Mitchell and the Dean himself. At which point he tried to extricate himself from the mess of Watergate, turning on Nixon.

[AlGore-08.com]

17. Self delete

Found the answer to my question

[Tippy]

21. Rove has testified

On Friday, Oct. 15, 2004

Karl Rove, one of President Bush’s top White House aides, testified this morning before a federal grand jury investigating the leak of a CIA operative's name by administration sources. Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald questioned Rove about his contacts with journalists in what a source familiar with Rove's situation said was his third appearance before the grand jury. "My client appeared voluntarily before the grand jury and has cooperated with the investigation since it began," said Rove's attorney Robert Luskin. "He has been assured in writing as recently as this week that he is not a target of the

< http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,724804,00.html >

[Sparkman]

6. Nixon's council, JohnDean, said another Law, Title 18, sec.641 U.S. code

"is a law that prohibits theft (or conversion for one's own use) of govern.records & info. for non-gov. purposes."
Citing a recent precedent, "On Jan. 9, 20003, Randel was sentenced to a year in a federal prison, followed by three years probation. This sentence prompted the U.S. attorney to boast that the conviction of Randel made a good example of how the Bush Administration would handle leakers."
"The Randel Precedent-If Followed-Bodes Ill For Rove
Karl 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.""
finally, Dean Concludes, "Cooper has now confirmed that he has told the grand jury he spoke with Rove. IF ROVE's LEAK FAILS TO FALL UNDER THE STATUTE THAT WAS USED TO PROSECUTE RANDEL, I DO NOT UNDERSTAND WHY."

Above from FindLaw, http:/writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20050715.html

[ET Awful]

7. Sure, but perjury, obstruction of justice, etc. aren't so narrowly

defined.

There are plenty of violations to charge him with.

Personally, I think he's guilty of intentionally revealing the name of a known operative, along with perjury, obstruction of justice, and a slew of other violations.

[sattahipdeep]

8. Fitzgerald indictments lmao

Then it was Nixon, now it's George W....

[northzax]

9. funny, the Ashcroft Justice Department

had no trouble trying to apply a law that hadn't been used since 1878 against greenpeace.

[Straight Shooter]

14. You have an incredible memory and an excellent counterpoint.

This administration thinks the law is like Play-Doh, just push and squeeze it into any shape you want.

[northzax]

15. thanks, but one of my friends was on trial there

so that's why I recall it...of course, the case was dismissed as absurd.

[Canuckistanian]

11. Karl Rove not technically guilty, gets off scot-free.

What a resounding endorsement for Rove.
Another triumph for lawyers.

[Kagemusha]

13. This assumes that the prosecutor cares only about one law,

not "the" law

[henslee]

16. COUGH -- BLOW JOB.....

[truthpusher]

18. Rare Statute Figures in Rove Case

http://ktla.trb.com/news/nationworld/nation/ktla-na-rove15jul15-lat,0,7188581.story?coll=ktla-news-1

From the Los Angeles Times
--------------------------------------
Rare Statute Figures in Rove Case
--------------------------------------
A 1982 law that criminalizes identifying operatives may be too pointed, and that may help the White House deputy chief of staff.
--------------------------------------
By Richard B. Schmitt
Times Staff Writer
July 15, 2005
--------------------------------------
WASHINGTON -- In the early 1980s, Sharon Scranage, a clerk for the CIA in Ghana, committed what in retrospect was a historic act of betrayal.

The seven-year agency employee, with a top-secret security clearance, was charged with leaking secrets to her boyfriend, a suspected operative of the Ghanaian national intelligence service. Described by friends as a highly religious person who had never been in trouble, she pleaded guilty in 1985 to disclosing the identity of covert agents.

It was the only time anyone had been prosecuted under a 1982 federal law called the Intelligence Identities Protection Act.

The law is at the center of the debate over the unmasking of CIA operative Valerie Plame, and the possible involvement of Karl Rove, who is a White House deputy chief of staff, and other Bush administration figures.

Rove's lawyer said he was confident that the long-dormant law could not be applied to his client. History may be on his side.

But some legal experts said that too little was known about what Rove had known about Plame and when he had known it, and that it was therefore too soon to judge whether President Bush's close aide was in the clear. In any event, they said, special prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald may pursue other charges, such as perjury or obstruction of justice, or he may decide against seeking any indictments.

More: http://ktla.trb.com/news/nationworld/nation/ktla-na-rove15jul15-lat,0,7188581.story?coll=ktla-news-1

complete story: http://ktla.trb.com/news/nationworld/nation/ktla-na-rove15jul15-lat,0,7188581.story?coll=ktla-news-1

[northzax]

19. I suppose it depends on what the meaning

of is is.

every time you talk to a wingnut, simply repeat this. drives em nuts.

[wallwriter]

20. It's not the crime, it's the conpiracy, the coverup and

the accompanying perjury.

They didn't impeach Clinton for getting a slurpie...

[Rose Siding]

22. The legal analysis at this link makes the case against Rove look strong

snip>
1. In the first two subsections, at the very least, the law requires an element of intent. And the intentional act required is intentional disclosure. The act does not require knowledge on the part of the disclosing party that the person being identified is a covert agent. Just the intentional disclosure of information. The point of this intent requirement is simple. Suppose you know the identity of a covert agent, as permitted by law, and I, too, am permitted by law, to know it. You tell me, and someone overhears you, unbeknownst to us. Say someone taps our telephone conversation. You have disclosed the information to someone not entitled to have it, but not intentionally. You have not violated the law.

2. The information disclosed must identify a covert agent. Not necessarily by name. Or Social Security number. Or DNA. Any method of identification is sufficient. There is no restriction on the type of identification. Suppose you know the identity of a covert agent, as permitted by law, and I am an assassin sent to murder a foreign agent. But I do not know who it is. My government has paid you to tell me. We meet in a restaurant, where the foreign agent is eating, also. You nod your head toward her, and maybe say, "Her, in the blue dress, over there." You have violated the law.

The notion, as floated by Rove's lawyer, that the identification must be by name, is without support in the law. If the drafters of the law had wanted to limit the law in that way, they would have done so, and would have made it essentially useless in doing so.

3. The statute has a knowing element, in addition to the intent element. The thing which must be known is not the fact that the person identified is a covert agent, but that the information disclosed identifies the person. Again, the type of identification is not restricted.....MORE.....

http://thecommonills.blogspot.com/2005/07/legal-analysis-by-visiting-attorney.html

[DeepModem Mom]

23. Thanks, Rose! nt