Plame outing and circumstantial evidence

[RDANGELO]

Although Fitzgerald may never directly prove that one person intentionally outed Plame, how possible is it for him to compile enough circumstantial evidence to prove that it was conceived and orchestrated from the Whitehouse? If it came out that way,would they all be guilty of the crime? Any legal experts out there.

[Rebellious Republican]

1. "circumstantial evidence" ?

Rove's attorney has admitted that Rove told Cooper that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA, while claiming Rove did not mention her name.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valerie_Plame

Whats circumstantial about that? Seems to me its pretty clear, Rove admits he named Wilson's wife, what more do you need?

On Edit:
I was in the Navy for ten years and carried a secret clearance for all ten. They ran a background check on me before I even completed boot camp, because of the nature of work I was going to school for, upon completion of boot camp.

I worked with the intelligence community and spooks, and you can bet that if I had intentionally or "unintentionally" leaked classified material, my ass would have been sitting in Leavenworth faster than you can say Karl Rove.

The net result would have been the same, believe me.

I can say that I also did not have neither the clearance or access to to the type of material he has.

:eyes:

[Hamlette]

6. the best answers I've seen all day...maybe all week

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/7/13/181940/282

Maybe all those on the plane?

Circumstantial evidence is better than direct evidence. I don't know the requirements for proof of treason, someone here posted it requires two witnesses. I love this example of circumstantial vs direct evidence:

Mom bakes chocolate cookies and tells her kids not to eat them before dinner. Later (before dinner) she goes into the kitchen and the cookies are all gone. Her son (Billy) and daughter (Sue) are in the kitchen and she asks: "who are the cookies?" Billy says "Sue ate the cookies." Billy has chocolate all around his mouth and on his hands. Sue is clean.

The chocolate on Billy is curcumstantial evidence. Billy's statement that Sue ate them is direct evidence. Who do you think ate the cookies?

Circumstantial evidence is better than direct evidence because circumstantial evidence can't lie.

[bryant69]

2. I agree with the poster above that it seems likely they will get a name

That said if they didn't I don't think this scenario is very likely. It'd be quite a stetch to say the entire White House (or even just the Senior Staff) are guilty just because you can't figure out exactly who did it.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Jersey Devil]

3. The crime would be 'conspiracy' to out Plame

This is interesting because even if those who passed the info on did not know Plame was an undercover agent those who did know and let it leak to lower levels to be released could be convicted of conspiracy.

[RDANGELO]

4. Thats what I wanted to know ....Thanks.

[mmonk]

5. Plenty of people have

been convicted on circumstantial evidence. The bar is usually high in treason type cases though.