For the longest time, almost everyone, including people who know a whole lot about Novak-Plame-gate, were assuming that the only criminal statute that might have been violated by outing Valerie Plame as a CIA agent was the very-narrow-and-hard-to-prove Intelligence Identities Protection Act. The only people talking about the much broader Espionage Act in relation to Novak-Plame-gate were bloggers (most notably Mark Kleiman). Then, earlier this week, the Act snuck into the NY Times, though it was buried deep in an article focusing on other aspects of the case.
Today, though, the Espionage Act has made it to the headlines. "Prosecutor in Leak Case Is Exploring Range of Crimes," the NY Times proclaims this morning (though not on the front page), and goes on to explain (1) that the Espionage Act is being explored by the special prosecutor and might well apply to this case, and (2) that the Act is alive and well, having been used recently to bring indictments in the AIPAC case among others, as we noted months ago.
Well, it’s about time the media picked up on this. Karl Rove and the rest of his merry band are in real legal peril – as has been previously noted here and elsewhere, the Espionage Act applies with remarkable precision to what Rove is reliably reported to have done in this matter, and it appears that special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald is well aware of that fact. Fitzgerald is holding additional interviews with Rove, Judith Miller, and maybe others next week, after which he will have to move quickly to bring any indictments he’s going to bring before his grand jury expires on October 28. All will be revealed soon.
The possibility that the espionage act is operative here has been out there for a long time. It is the lobotomized media that have failed to see the larger danger to Rove and others.The New York Times has been especially lame in this regard, perhaps because Miller is one of their own and because Sulzburger is so determined to represent her jailing as a first-amendment matter. It never was. She did not write an article and she did not make a speech about the Plame leak. Instead, she was a witness to it, witness in fact to a national-security crime, and she refused to testify to a grand jury. Any citizen in her situation would be compelled to testify or go to jail. Moreover, Miller was not protecting a whistleblower; she was protecting those who punished a whistleblower. But the Times set its hair on fire, screaming “first amendment.” No wonder they couldn’t pay attention to the other dimension of the story, the Espionage Act side.Richard Ward
the Espionage Act applies with remarkable precision to what Rove is reliably reported to have done in this matterO.k. Two questions:1. What in God’s name are you smoking to come up with that? The Espionage Act has nothing to do with this case.2. Aren’t you afraid that people who don’t know what the Espionage Act is might actually go and find out about it?Funny how liberals want Rove and Libby strung up, but are strangely silent about Leaky Leahy, Rockefeller, Wyden, Turban Durbin, Biden, Schumer etc.C’mon, Dick Ward! There was no whistleblower in any of this and you know it.
GayCon: to answer question 1: you obviously haven’t read the posts discussing the Espionage Act as it applies to this case. Some are by me, others by other bloggers. They are linked in the various posts I’ve put up recently. Go read them, think about them, and then come back.To answer question 2: To the contrary, I WANT people to read the Espionage Act. That is why I post a link to it every time I talk about it. If you have any basis whatsoever for your claims that the Act doesn’t apply to Plamegate, let’s hear it. I suspect that you don’t.
Ethyl and Julius Rosenberg were indicted under the Espionage Act and look where that ended.
Trip, let’s assume that the Rosenbergs were innocent. I don’t see how that translates into an argument that Fitzgerald shouldn’t use the Espionage Act in this case. The fact that innocent people may have been convicted of murder doesn’t mean that we should repeal laws against murder, or that people who actually have committed murder shouldn’t be prosecuted. Seems to me the same reasoning applies here.
To Gay Con:What have YOU been smoking? The requirement in the law is that sensitive information be regarded as classified until one is sure it is otherwise. Kleinman’s argument is sound. Rove (and Libby) knew the rules. It is only Rove’s power-mania that could make him so reckless as to declare Valerie Plame “fair game,” whatever the word “fair” could mean in the mouth of a man with Rove’s history of character assassination.In any event, if indictments come down they are likely to involve not just violations of national-security laws, but perjury and obstruction of justice as well. If reports are to be believed, Rove deceived not only the FBI and grand jury, but even his pal Bush, who got it only half right when he gave Rove the sobriquet “turd blossom.”As for divulging classified information in general, you should look up United States vs. Morison–1985, I think. And the relevant act, 18 USC 793d.And as for your preposterous remark that there was no whistleblower, perhaps you should acquaint yourself with pertinent activities of a certain Joe Wilson.As for David’s remark about the Rosenbergs, the more-complete story, based on released Soviet documents, is that they were in fact guilty. Whether they should have been executed is another matter.Richard Ward
I don’t understand what the Rosenbergs have to do with this, other than that they were tried under the Espionage Act, which seems to show that it actually does work. They seem to have been somewhat sympathetic characters, but recent information coming out of Soviet archives seems to indicate that they were guilty.
If an indictment for violating the Espionage Act is fortrhcoming wouldn’t an indictment for treason be justified considering the postions of those that migt be indicted.?