What does it matter -- Republican leaders won't cry foul if the charges are lightweight charges like that, they'll demand that Rove resign and not fight back whatsoever. None of the Republicans have stood up for Delay and his charges are just as lightweight as that scenario. Our Republicans in Washington D.C. believe in the old hold your hands over your ears approach and hope these things go away...

Goddammit, this kind of leaking pisses me off!

"We know that these things are supposed to be secret so we'll just tell the reporters to attribute it to anonymous sources."

These folks should be drawn and quartered.

The way it works is that the 'conspirators' need only agree on intend that a criminal act be undertaken together.

An overt act need also occur, but it need not be that criminal act itself. Something otherwise perfectly legal as long as it's 'in furtherance' of the ultimate criminal act.

You can be guilty of conspiring to rob a bank, even though you never get near the bank, as long as one of the conspirators has say, bought a gun, or something otherwise legal, but toward the illegal end.

Conspiracy is much like 'attempt' law, except that your agreeing with more than one person to do it. At least, that's how I understand it.

What makes what ace alleges "novel'? It sounds like plain old conspiracy to me.

This sounds an awful lot like the DeLay stupidity. If you are conspiring to commit an act that is not illegal, then you don't have a criminal conspiracy.

Harry: The criminal act may not be a violation of any 'revealing CIA assets' laws, but rather 'Obstruction of Justice'. Once again, it may be the cover-up, not the underlying crime (or non crime) that gets em.

Midge,

But any conspiracy requires agreement that a criminal act will be committed.

WHAT criminal act?

The new theory is that there was no actual criminal act committed, or agreed to, but that there was an agreement to commit non-criminal acts with a "criminal purpose."

What purpose?

Let me get this straight, if I'm understanding this properly then: if my wife and I discuss disciplining our children and the means in which to do it, our kids are as good as spanked/grounded?

Libs think we're criminals anyway just because we're breathing and thinking differently than they are, the legal system gives them the "thought police" power they crave?

If Karl Rove gets indicted its because its part of a greater Rovian plan to thwart the liberals once again. Mwahahahahahahah!!!!!!!!!

I question the timing.

Hey, somebody had to say it. You effers are slacking off.

Cheers,
Dave at Garfield Ridge

I believe that to be guilty of conspiracy, the intended goal of the conspiracy must be a crime. If you and I both believed that buying a Slurpee at 7-11 was "a crime" and "conspired" to purchase said Slurpee, we would not be guilty of conspiracy. (Even if we thought it was a crime and took overt acts in furtherance of our "conspiracy" such as withdrawing some money from an ATM--not an illegal act in itself).

The goal of the conspiracy must be criminal, or you can't be guilty.

It's coming to the point where you can be indicted for just being a Republican. Hell, last election I gave money to Bush, which means there is a paper trail linking me to the RICO-like criminal conspiracy. Should I call my attorney, or will that be obstruction of justice?

I'm beginning to think that the population at large is becoming too stupid to empanel a grand jury.

Matt,

That's what I'm saying. Fitzgerald seems to be exploring the theory that you can have a criminal conspiracy without a conspiracy to commit an actual crime.

Just your "purpose" has to be criminal, though I don't know how you can have a "criminal purpose" without a purpose of committing an actual criminal act.

"Blowing an ill-wind which chills political dissent" is not, as far as I know, a defined crime.

How Stupid can Democrats be? Do they really want a pissed off Karl Rove during the 2006 & 2008 elections? I'd imagine that if he is forced to resign - whether justified or not - that he may start freelancing his newly found free-time to any Republician challenging a sitting Democrat. Can you imagine the looks on the faces of the local Democratic political advisers once it is known that the opposition has brought in Mr. Rove?

Ace: Not sure if you read my response to Harry, but I'll try to flesh it out.

If we're talking about the original act, revealing a CIA undercover asset, I don't know that there could be a conspiracy there as there may well have been no crime - Plame may not be a 'protected asset' under the law or the law may well require knowledge that she was undercover. Because you can't conspire to commit an act that isn't illegal, ie it's okay to agree to try to politically bad mouth someone - no crime there.

BUT, it seems a lot of the theories on conspiracy deal with how they may have dealt with the investigation. Perhaps Rove and Libby met and/or spoke together to help cover up in testimony or each other's testimony what they did (even if it turns out what they did wasn't actually a crime). That's the conspiring to commit 'Obstruction of Justice' theory.

Now, I haven't heard anything as to their respective testimonies or communications that back up that Obstruction angle. Nothing. My money is still on no indictments until I hear some even speculative events that would constitute a crime. Until then the rumores are just hypotheticals of hypothetical crimes.

A little bird just told me that Rove's testimony will not be used against Rove or anyone in the adminstration, but rather, it may be used against another agent who acted in bad faith, who was the actual source of the real leak: Joe Wilson, who first mentioned Plame's role as an undercover operative in an interview with The Nation's David Corn.

Until that time, it was only known that Plame worked for the CIA, which is not illegal.

Wilson exposed his own wife.

Of course, it was a drunken, silly bird that told me that, so it is best not to listen to it.

So, lets see. Rove leaked the name of Janice Bond to the press to punish her whistle blower husband for pointing out that Bush said something naughty.

That's the moonbat version of events, right?

The law in question, even if Rove did such a thing, requires

"(b) Disclosure of information by persons who learn identity of
covert agents as result of having access to classified
information
Whoever, as a result of having authorized access to classified
information, learns the identify of a covert agent and
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 five years, or both."

Section 422. Defenses and exceptions

(a) Disclosure by United States of identity of covert agent
It is a defense to a prosecution under section 421 of this title
that before the commission of the offense with which the defendant
is charged, the United States had publicly acknowledged or revealed
the intelligence relationship to the United States of the
individual the disclosure of whose intelligence relationship to the
United States is the basis for the prosecution. (b) Conspiracy, misprision of felony, aiding and abetting, etc.
(1) Subject to paragraph (2), no person other than a person
committing an offense under section 421 of this title shall be
subject to prosecution under such section by virtue of section 2 or
4 of title 18 or shall be subject to prosecution for conspiracy to
commit an offense under such section.

I don't know what this all means, but it seems like you CANNOT have a conspiracy to break this law unless you actually have broken the law. Ace, I think my mishmash of cites answers your question. You can't conspire to break the law without breaking the law.

And I think some of the other points stick out as well, Plame not being a covert agent, Rove not disclosing the info knowing that the disclosure identifies a covert agent, whatever.

Of course, a rule for GOP leadership is to roll over and let the DNC act like asses, like Pissed Off Rethuglican says.

Heck, Bush may even come out and publicly fire his whole cabinet if there is even one Earlish non-indictment.

I don't think the Wash Post linked to this, but all these reporters do is editorialize on what it all means if you arrange the facts their way.

Conspiracy charges are hardly novel.

The classic example is the person who scouts a bank that's going to be robbed, or the person who drives the getaway car. Observing a bank and driving a car are not illegal acts, but those who commit such acts as part of a conspiracy to rob a bank may be found guilty of the same crimes as their co-conspirators who actually robbed the place.

I would also urge folks to stop looking at the IIPA and instead look at the Espionage Act, which is a much more easily proven case.

Just ask Larry Franklin.

Whaaa??

So, if you "scout a bank" but never rob it, then no crime was committed, right?

"Driving a getaway" car is not just "driving a car" either. IANAL, but I'm certain that helping someone flee the scene of a crime is against the law.

Conspiracy requires an act to be taken in furtherance of the crime. Buying a gun or driving to the store may be considered acts in furtherance.
Being the getaway car driver would bring you in the conspiracy. You obviously agreed to do it, and you acted by bringing the car to the crime scene. It would also make you eligible for all sorts of other liabilities as you are now a participant in the whole crime as an accomplice.

However, under the law which has been cited all along as the one Rove allegedly broke, there cannot be a conspiracy unless everyone broke the law.

The abovementioned espionage act applies to people who act to injure "the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation."

Whaaa??

So, if you "scout a bank" but never rob it, then no crime was committed, right?

No, you could still be charged with conspiracy. Conspiracy is an agreement to commit a crime, not actually committing a crime.

Jeebus, this whole rumor shit comes from Larry Odonnell. Anyone see him almost punch out Dahlia Lithwick?

He's a nutter who is trying to read the tea leaves of a comment from Rove's lawyer that may or may not mean that Rove has or has not received a target letter.

My prediction is that there are only going to be perjury charges against certain crazy people who have testified.

Just looking at the act - it really is pretty weak. I mean, is that all you really give someone who sells out real spies (instead of celebrity cocktail-hour spies)?

" Anyone see him almost punch out Dahlia Lithwick?"

NO! Where? When? A "Geraldonudge" sort of thing, or real threat of violence?

Lithwick is my second favorite Slate writer (after Kaus) - yeah, I know, tallest midget - and O'Donnell is one of the most heinous pundits in existence, so I'm very interested. Tell me more!

Dammit! Dave beat me to the "I question the timing" call. I should have checked the blogs before I left the office.

The validity of Rove's charges isn't the problem. It's the tainting of Bush and Republican leadership. The media hype conservative 'crimes' and folks form impressions. When Delay and Rove are absolved as actual facts come out the MSM will briefly whisper them behind their hands. Damage done. Mission accomplished.

Rush nailed it on the head, Earle wants a perp-walk photo opp. Bush and the Tex gov. should come out, say its all political and thusly pardon anyone involved (while having the head of the CIA saying that, "no, of course not, Plame is not a covert agent within the meaning of that law.")

I can wish.

As for Odonnell, I was wrong, it was Siepp. They were discussing Cali teachers, and Donnell got really mad at the suggestion that the public school teachers were substandard. He balled up his fist and turned red.

http://treyjackson.typepad.com/junction/2005/05/video_odonnell_.html

No criminal act but noncriminal acts undertaken for a criminal purpose. That sounds like textbook conspiracy to me. Drawing a large sum from the bank is not a criminal act, but doing it as part of a plan to buy drugs with or from your pals would be conspiracy.

Just a guess, but the theory may go like this: nobody personally released enough info about Plame's identity to out her, but they calculated to release their info so it would out her cumulatively. "Joe's wife did X," "A CIA officer did X," and so on until it's clear that Joe's wife is the CIA officer. Nobody outed her, but they all did. And for conspiracy, they only had to be trying.

Or not. You never know until you see the paperwork.

Just to be clear, it's the intent that makes the act criminal. Sort of like buying baking soda from an undercover cop when you believe it's cocaine. Did you buy cocaine? Nope. Are you going to jail? Yep. You attempted the crime and that's good enough to lock you up.

Perhaps Rove can be charged, in as much as he hasn't refuted that he wasn't uninvolved in not actively failing to avoid denouncing the possible consideration of an act or acts which may later have invited the potential for an approximate criminal activity. I mean, he's Karl Rove, so he must be guilty of something!

I say good riddance to the spin doctor himself, Mr. Rove. If you need someone to spin and what not to push corruption through then you are a sad sad human being.

Law is a human institution and therefore a fallible one. Who among us has not done one thing that was right for the wrong reason or, yet again, wrong for the right reason. Is it any consolance, then, that the laws we write, and our efforts to follow them may tend, from time to time, be right or wrong too? One cannot simply look to the law for mere guidance on simple questions of the legality of a proposed act. No, one cannot expect the law to give such assurances that one will not end up in jail simply for not breaking the law. If that were the case, then free will would be unfettered, people living their lives with the ease of understanding that they could not be incarcerated without wrong. That sort of freedom leads to anarchy and that is why, as a human institution, the law is built to assist the political processes of man. So, if I cross the street, obeying the cross-walk, but my enemy is a policeman, I may-no should-be arrested for jaywalking. That self-same logic leads me to believe that Rove must be perp-walked for his crime or non-crime of having political enemies who are police officers. If not police officers, then meta-quasi-keepers of morality. And, even if his actions do not meet the definition of a crime, at least it is soothing to know that his enemies can create such a crime to let the human institution of law be used to incarcerate him.

That's all I'm saying, screw the law, lets get Karl.

It's the old "fake, but accurate" meme, a Democrat Party disease.

VRWC:

Just to be clear, it's the intent that makes the act criminal. Sort of like buying baking soda from an undercover cop when you believe it's cocaine. Did you buy cocaine? Nope. Are you going to jail? Yep. You attempted the crime and that's good enough to lock you up.

However, if you intended to buy baking soda (mistakenly believing it is a crime to purchase baking soda) and end up buying baking soda, you are NOT guilty of a crime (or conspiracy to commit a crime).

In both cases, you intend to commit a crime, but you are only guilty if the intended act actually is a criminal act.

If Rove and Libby (and/or whoever else) thought it was illegal to "out" Plame and conspired to do it, Rove et al. can only be guilty if "outing" Plame actually was a criminal act (even if they really, really believed it was illegal and/or criminal).

You guys are wrong if you believe a criminal conspiracy can come from a plan to perform what you incorrectly believed was a criminal act. All of the robbing a bank or buying drugs examples miss the boat completely.

A more appropriate example would be the following:
You incorrectly believe that buying baking soda is against the law. Firm in that belief you plan to buy baking soda along with several other people. (The store clerk naturally looks at you sideways when you come to the counter acting like you're breaking the law.) You actually purchase the baking soda.

There is no crime.

Good point, the old mistake of fact with respect to the crime itself point.

Still, it shouldn't matter when it comes to getting Rove. Its the identity of the person committing the thought crime that counts.

Baseball crank blog has the goods on the unlikely use of the espionage act. I suppose anything can happen at this point.

But it makes me wonder if we can get the feds to indict the NYT's for their CIA secret airline story. Maybe if we indict them, they will be forced to opine that the Espionage Act is unconstitutionally vague.

Irony with a capital I. It was Reagan republicans who pushed the boundaries of prosecution that may hang them now.

Read it here. It's very good about why this is NOT a "novel" plan at all.

But follow that link to see why the so-called liberal NYT is just carrying water for the admin -- again.

Well, the lots of tapioca for the retard lawyers to whom tubino links because it sure it helpful to only cite half a statute. The Espionage Act is certainly a new twist to me, but it seems that it has many elements to satisfy.

Tunino links to a reality based communtiy website, so most of stuff you read needs several layers of tin foil hat decoder rings to get through. Essentially, the NYT's is protecting the admin because the elements of the Espionage Act only has the element of transfer of information.

Wrong.

As I said, the application of the EA is new to me, but its been already analyzed. Baseball Crank has some real analysis, citing precedent:

[W]e find no uncertainty in this statute which deprives a person of the ability to predetermine whether a contemplated action is criminal under the provisions of this law. The obvious delimiting words in the statute are those requiring 'intent or reason to believe that the information to be obtained is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation.' This requires those prosecuted to have acted in bad faith. The sanctions apply only when scienter is established. Where there is no occasion for secrecy, as with reports relating to national defense, published by authority of Congress or the military departments, there can, of course, in all likelihood be no reasonable intent to give an advantage to a foreign government.

What looks like the appropriate area of the EA is:

"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 … 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 … information relating to the national defense"

Elements:
Intend Injury to the US
Communication to a bad guy (foreign govt., etc)
of any information relating to national defense.

Yes, we have communication to a non foreign, non bad guy (unless you consider these reporters to be bad guys, fair enough). The elements aren't satisfied.

Baseball Crank as this investigation is the mere criminalization of politics, or winning through the courts once again. Anyone going to prosecute the NYT's for their outing of the CIA secret shuttle service? Isn't that a bigger deal?

In both cases, you intend to commit a crime, but you are only guilty if the intended act actually is a criminal act.

Matt, I hope I haven't let my clarification obscure the point it "clarified." Look right above for the kind of acts I was talking about. The act you take in furtherance of a conspiracy does not have to be criminal. It can even be a constitutionally protected right such as bearing arms or free speech. Only the aim of the conspiracy needs to be a crime.

Hee hee. Pardon me while I GLOAT OVER YOUR HEROES FACING JAIL TIME.

You knuckleheads haven't even figured out what laws apply here. And it's AWFULLY QUIET since Judy "found" those notes.

Fitzgerald is chipping away at the inconsistencies among the stories... and slowly peeling back the criminal intent to earlier than than the July publication of Wilson's op-ed piece.

You can do some catching up here.

Bush will pardon them all, but we might get a chance to see what kind of lies, corruption, gangstyle pressure, and treason went into the pro-war propaganda.

And don't forget that the so-called liberal NYT is implicated in the pro-war propaganda too. They are STILL defending Judy's defense of the Bush traitors.

Maybe some day years from now you'll wonder how you got to the point of defending the outing of a CIA agent for most base of causes.

I say good riddance to the spin doctor himself, Mr. Rove. If you need someone to spin and what not to push corruption through then you are a sad sad human being.

Do you cry yourself to sleep at night, AlanB? BECAUSE OF THE HYPOCRISY?

Murray Waas' article is worth a read.

What's worth noting is how Fitz seems to be getting leverage with the threats of pressing perjury charges.

He may be flipping some insiders by catching the inconsistencies and calling back the players.

What's TRAGIC is that the only meaningful opposition to the Republican agenda is the criminal justice system. It's not supposed to be like this, folks.

It is tought, in a democracy, to be on the losing side, tubino. What with, since Reagan, there will have been 20 years of GOP presidents to 8 years of DNC. And since Clinton was plurality president both times, it would have been a clean sweep without Perot (boo hoo, then, about the Green Party in 2000).

So, I guess the only thing left is to criminalize politics. I guess thats the only way for you to end the tragedy of GOP dominance.

But, you can always leave. I hear the Netherlands is a fine socialistic place. Although you will have to make sure you respect your new Islamic overlords, lest they behead you on video tape for criticising their treatment of women.

I am sure Ace can whip up a fund raiser to help with your plane tickets and religious conversion.

joeindc44,

I'm not shocked at your indifference to the criminality of the Repubs. There's still nearly 40% who support the president of record deficits, record vacation days, and scandals unfolding almost daily, etc., so I'm not shocked.

But that doesn't mean I understand it. Can you help me out? Can you tell me why you support an administration that claims it will get to the bottom of the outing of a CIA agent, then turns out to be complicit in the commission and coverup? Can you help me understand why you want to overextend the military in a poorly-managed and poorly-conceived invasion and occupation marked by the scandalous management of Iraq's funds? Why you support the fiscal irresponsibility of tax cuts during two military events ("wars" if you want) totaling hundreds of billions in expenses? I could go on about scandals, AIPAC/Franklin spying, etc., but you get the idea.

Or if that's too hard to explain, is there ANYTHING this admin could do that would make you favor the law enforcement/criminal justice side against them?

I've excerpted a reminder of where we are today.
--------------
From Frank Rich:
... the White House as a whole is so addicted to its own mythmaking prowess that it can't kick the habit. Seventy-two hours before Ms. Miers was nominated, federal auditors from the Government Accountability Office declared that the administration had violated the law against "covert propaganda" when it repeatedly hired fake reporters (and one supposedly real pundit, Armstrong Williams) to plug its policies in faux news reports and editorial commentary produced at taxpayers' expense. But a bigger scandal is the legal propaganda that the White House produces daily even now - or especially now.

As always, much of it pertains to the war in Iraq. On Sept. 28, to take one recent instance, the president announced the smiting of a man he identified as "the second most wanted Al Qaeda leader in Iraq" and the "top operational commander of Al Qaeda in Baghdad." As New York's Daily News would quickly report, the man in question "may not even be one of the top 10 or 15 leaders." The blogger Blogenlust chimed in, documenting 33 "top lieutenants" of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi who have been captured, killed or identified in the past two and a half years, with no deterrent effect on terrorist violence in Iraq, Madrid or London. No wonder the nation shrugged at the largely recycled and unsubstantiated list of 10 foiled Qaeda plots that Mr. Bush unveiled in Thursday's latest stay-the-course Iraq oration.
-------------

joeindc44: thanks for the travel offer, but I'm staying here will I see your party power in jail. Judy Miller might be one of them. Also I love this country -- and I've lived in others. I'm not going to let a bunch of thugs keep stealing it.

Gotta point out the latest in the takedown of the crooks you all love to love so much.

From billmon.org::
"If Miller revealed Plame's affiliation with the CIA to Libby, she deserves to be in jail -- for conspiracy, at the very least. If Plame was a source of Miller's, and she burned her to Libby (or anybody else in the White House snake pit) then Judy deserves to be executed, as slowly and painfully as possible."

David Corn explains why the NYT is looking worse and worse in this Plame scandal.

"Karl Rove or other top Bush officials may be staring down the barrel of an indictment. This all could become the Big Story of the day. Yet the Times seems to have tied itself up in a straitjacket. Why? To protect Judy Miller? To protect itself from Judy Miller? I don't know. Prior to the Plame/CIA leak scandal (a.k.a. the Rove scandal), Miller had already tainted the paper's reputation in a more significant manner than had Blair with her war-greasing stories on WMDs in Iraq that--whaddayaknow--didn't exist. These days she appears to be causing the Times to screw up its coverage of the most significant scandal yet to strike the Bush administration. Now this, we can say, is a journalist who has an impact."

I'm also not surprised that only the left is pointing out NYT's failures. Are you?

Heh.

My Dear Ace, No amount of doubleplusgoodduckspeak can obfuscate the truth at this eleventh hour. The banshee is wailing and in Fitzgerald's game, clubs are trumps. Think Gangs of New York. These WHIG warmongers would rather stomp and eat their young than to cease pillaging the Federal Treasury for the benefit of their coterie. The pending indictments will catalyse a televisual bloodsport that even Junior's base will be compelled to watch, like crowds at a crash. Please don't move right along ,take a seat,Ace, there is definately something to see here. Yours in Schadenfreude, Jack.