MUST READ: Plame In The Courtroom

[WillyT]

Is the Intelligence Identities Protection Act really impossible to prove?
By Elizabeth de la Vega

Elizabeth de la Vega has recently retired after serving more than 20 years as a federal prosecutor in Minneapolis and San Jose. During her tenure, she was a member of the Organized Crime Strike Force and Chief of the San Jose Branch of the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of California.

**************************************************************************************

This was posted a couple of days ago in a much longer post with multiple sources and sites. I'm reposting here for those who missed it.

<snip>

Pundits right, left, and center have reached a rare unanimous verdict about one aspect of the grand jury investigation into the Valerie Plame leak: They've decided that no charges can be brought under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982, because it imposes an impossibly high standard for proof of intent. Typically, writing for Slate on July 19th, Christopher Hitchens described the 1982 Act as a "silly law" that requires that "you knowingly wish to expose the cover of a CIA officer who you understand may be harmed as a result." Similarly, columnist Richard Cohen, in the July 14 Washington Post, said he thought Rove was a "political opportunist, not a traitor" and that he didn't think Rove "specifically intended to blow the cover of a CIA agent." Such examples could be multiplied many times over.

Shocking as it may seem, however, the pundits are wrong; and their casual summaries of the requirements of the 1982 statute betray a fundamental misunderstanding regarding proof of criminal intent.

Do you have to intend to harm a CIA agent or jeopardize national security in order to violate the Intelligence Identities Protection Act? The answer is no.

Before presenting any case, a prosecutor like Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald in the Plame case has to figure out "the elements of the crime"; in other words, the factors he has to prove under whatever statute he is considering. If a grand jury finds probable cause to believe that each element has been proved, it may then return an indictment. At trial, the judge instructs the jury about these same elements. Parties can argue about whether the elements have been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, but neither side can add, delete, or modify the elements even slightly to suit their arguments. Why can't you change the elements? Because they come from the exact wording of the statute...

<snip>

More: http://www.tomdispatch.com/index.mhtml?pid=11747

Reading this has brought a great big snarky smile to my face. Can one have a snarky smile?

:shrug:

[havocmom]

1. About your snarky smile question: Yes, Cheney does it all the time.

Thank you for your post which has taught me the art of the snarky smile.

Folks, let's keep this one kicked all day.

[Buck Turgidson]

2. Kinda like this...

Or is it a smirk?

[leesa]

3. Is she upgrading her lobotomy?

[earthboundmisfit]

4. Great article - Recommended

Smile, hell - we can all have a great big snarky GRIN with this one!!!

[banana republican]

5. You didn't include the good part:

"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 received classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the U.S. is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent's intelligence relationship to the U.S. ."

By my reading of this all that is necessary is
1) To have access to Classified information re an agent
2) Intentional disclosure
3) to unauthorized individuals
4) That the US was trying to protect their identity.


gotcha Karl..... Do not pass go....

[symbolman]

6. SWEET

I KNEW there was some Massive Spin going on..

"But he never said her NAME.."

SO WHAT? First thing I thought of was, "Gee, Wilson's a Polygamist.. doesn't seem to be his style" :)

This looks to be a GOOD deal, and it was brought to us by Bush Sr I believe which REALLY makes it Ironic as Hell!

[MADem]

14. I suggested that he might have a massive haraam

full of women in gossamer veils, all calling themselves Meeesus WEEEEELSON!!!! It could have been any one of them, eh??

[TahitiNut]

20. But Rove has Tourettes, you see. So he didn't INTEND what he said.

It's like he accidentally dropped a little piece of paper - it was accidental. :eyes: :eyes: :eyes:

The notion that there was no INTENT behind SAYING something to a reporter ANONYMOUSLY would strain the credibility of a vegetable.

[confludemocrat]

7. Kicked and nominated n/t

[converted_democrat]

8. Ditto.......n/t

[Savannah Progressive]

9. My position has been consistent

Don't make the mistake of counting the indictments before they are delivered. Having watched this criminal cabal wiggle out of how many scandals and cover up countless criminal acts, I am unwilling to chill the champagne before it's time.

I am starting to think this is all a big distraction, while they work on other fronts to keep pushing their agenda. I have also realized that this admin doesn't care about opinion polls, nor about public opinion. They just do what they want. I will tell you this, I don't know if I am watching the disintegration of the Repugniks, or if I am watching another rope a dope maneuver beyond our description. Given that it's Rove and Bush, I don't want to make a guess, because each guess we have made in the past hasn't worked to our advantage.

We watched Kerry painted as soft on the war on terror, even though no WMD's were found. We watched the neo-cons redefine war hero right before our eyes, and we figured then they were dead in the water. How many times have we celebrated the pending doom of the Repugniks, only to be slapped in the face by our expectations?

When Rush Limbaugh the fat drug addict was accused of buying drugs on the street, we giggled and cheered, clearly seeing the day in the very near future that Limbastard would be off the air, and we haven't seen it yet. In fact, the Prosecute in that one is the bad guy as well, another Democrat who is supposedly doing it for Political Purposes. DeLay's legal Dream Team has the Prosecution in Texas on the ropes, and we all are distracted by the Fitzgerald investigation. Counting indictments, waiting for Bush to be forced to resign, or give up the Neo-Con agenda.

In the mean time, he is inches away from taking Roe V. Wade from us via a Fundie Nominee to the Court. We will have a good Fundie read of the Constitution, and I am sure that isn't a big deal right?

We wait, hold our breath, knowing this is the end of Bush, but I don't know, I am not so sure. I see the pattern now, knowing that the Rope a Dope technique is great for keeping us distracted, focused on the wrong things, while they move forward on other things.

In the meantime, they are pushing legislation to build more refineries, more nuclear power plants, ripping our rights away via-Bankruptcy Reform, and the Kelo Decision.

I'm not ready to celebrate just yet, and worry we are jumping the gun with our pronouncements that Bush is stopped once and for all.

[mirandapriestly]

11. I'm with you

wasn't it an aide to Gonzalez who gave this "job" to Fitzgerald? It has occurred to me that they could have had their "defense" planned before they decided to pretend to seek justice on this. It just seems to me, they get away with everything and control all arms of the law, why would this be different? I wasn't thinking that way until I saw the article about Miller's testimony, then I got this sinking feeling.

[The Doctor.]

15. It was Ashcroft. n/t

[mirandapriestly]

19. Oh...WELL, then...nt

[FreedomAngel82]

22. I think it was someone who worked for Gonzalez or Ashcroft

A friend of Fitzgerald's worked for Gonzalez or Ashcroft and knew how well a prosecutor Fitzgerald was and nominated him to do so. Gonzalez or Ashcroft probably said "sure whatever" not taking it seriously. Sadly for them Fitzgerald is a man of law.

[WillyT]

12. I Hear Ya...But This Is The Only Joy I'm Gettin These Days, So...

I'll just smile away until the next smack in the gub.

Gotta maintain some hope, right???

:hi:

And a belated welcome to DU!

:toast::bounce::hi::bounce::toast:

Glad ta have ya aboard!

Peace

[freeplessinseattle]

16. ah, no need to worry about us

we can take care of ourselves and are responsible for our own feelings. It sounds like you are overdue for some uplifting self care time:)

[FreedomAngel82]

21. I do see where you're coming from

I too am weary at times but than I look at their actions and how they are falling apart. Cheney is backing away from Bush. He was a supporter of Miers at first but now he isn't. Than at one press conference not long ago Bush did Cheney was there but backed away. Than
on a report by CNN the White House called Fitzgerald a "bully". I do think something is going to happen but until than we can concentrate on 2006. That is the last chance to get justice with Bush. We have to get progressive canidate's who will vote to impeach him.

[Coexist]

10. I am under the impression that Fitzgeral is now going with focusing on

The Espionage Act - in which "evil purpose" is not required. Please correct me if I am wrong:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/11/AR2005101101606_pf.html
<snip>
Some legal sources are focused on their clients' exposure under the broad language of the Espionage Act. They say a prosecutor could argue that any official or private citizen committed a felony by transferring classified information about Plame to reporters.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_Identities_Pr...
"As of July 2005, there has only been one successful prosecution involving the statute. <1> In 1985, CIA agent Sharon Scranage was sentenced to five years, and served 8 months, for giving the names of other agents to her boyfriend in Ghana. <2>"


"United States v. Morison, a 1985 ruling that leaks to the press of classified information by government officials are prosecutable under 18 USC 793(d). The court specifically found that there in no need under this law to show any "evil purpose."


Karl Rove is a Traitor

[MADem]

13. Well, as Dick just might mumble, PLAME ON!!!!

Of course, Judy would hear that as FLAME ON!!! And not ask Dick to spell what he meant, either.......

[texpatriot2004]

17. I have been smiling since I read that. n.t

[Joe Chi Minh]

18. This woman is hilariously satirical!

So much so, reading her article is quite reminiscent of parts of the Gospels, in which Christ again and again shoots down in flames the mymidons of the religious and perforce political Establishment of his day. Heavy irony....well, sarcasm.

Her concluding sentence, overall, had me in stitches, but I've just noticed a brilliant line now, which rather shook me the first time I read it, as I hadn't been anticpating any irony and misread its intent. How about this, then!

"Shocking as it may seem, however, the pundits are wrong;....".

Snarky! The pair of you! That's a good way of putting it!

[TahitiNut]

23. Ms. de la Vega was my (distant) neighbor when I lived in Los Gatos.

No, (I don't think) she knew me, nor I her ... but it just gives me a warm fuzzy about my former community ... which I will always love.

[WillyT]

24. Los Gatos Is Mui Bueno, No ???

:shrug:

[TahitiNut]

25. Yep. I loved it there. A real downtown. Parks. Good people.

It's a bit yuppified but altogether really nice.

[sandnsea]

26. He's got Bush

Miller talked to Libby, then this Air Force One meeting took place, then the leaking, the flooding, began. Bush had an opportunity to stop this leak at this meeting, but it wasn't stopped. It was a catalyst. And we don't even know what the rest of these people have said yet.

"The jury would also probably hear that, within 24 hours of publication of the Wilson piece, Secretary of State Colin Powell and White House Press Spokesman Ari Fleischer were seen holding a State Department memo requested by Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage on the day the Wilson op-ed appeared; that, when seen with the memo, Powell and Fleischer were on Air Force One with President Bush and National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice on the way to Africa; that the State Department memo contained a paragraph about Valerie Wilson's work at the CIA marked "secret"; that on July 8th, Karl Rove talked about Valerie Wilson's work at the CIA with Robert Novak; that, at about the same time, another senior administration official told Robert Novak about Valerie Wilson's work at the CIA; that, on July 12, the day after Rove talked with Cooper, Lewis Libby, speaking "on background," told Cooper he "had heard" the information about Valerie Wilson's CIA status and possible involvement in sending Wilson to Niger; that, on the same day, a "senior administration official who was not Libby" told Washington Post reporter Walter Pincus that "Wilson's trip to Niger was set up as a boondoggle by his CIA-employed wife";"

[WillyT]

27. Kick !!!

:kick:

[WillyT]

28. Last Kick From Me !!!

Hope y'all had a chance to read it!

:hi: