I haven't seen this posted, I'll delete the diary if it was, just let me know.
John Dean wrote an excellent column at the Findlaw site today on Rove's legal problems. Here's the link.
I have no confidence whatsoever in the MSM. They were duped by Rove once in this story yet they continue to use quotes from his lawyer or his "camp" even though they know he excels at spreading propaganda. And they keep jumping to legal conclusions without knowing everything the special prosecutor knows, as in "if Rove didn't know xyz, he didn't do anything illegal" etc.
So reading Dean's column, I have to say the MSM is just plain STUPID! Not only are they patsies, but they aren't even trying to keep the legal aspects of this issue straight.
Dean brings up a recent leak case, recent as in since Bush took office, that of Jonathen Randel. He discussed the case in a 2003 column, here. From today's column:
Most relevant for Karl Rove's situation, Court One of Randel's indictment alleged a violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 641. This is a law that prohibits theft (or conversion for one's own use) of government records and information for non-governmental purposes. But its broad language covers leaks, and it has now been used to cover just such actions.
Randel plea-bargained his way to a one year prison term and 3 years probation pleading guilty to violating that law.
While there are other potential violations of the law that may be involved with the Valerie Plame Wilson case, it would be speculation to consider them. But Karl Rove's leak to Matt Cooper is now an established fact. First, there is Matt Cooper's email record. And 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.
There are stories circulating that Rove may have been told of Valerie Plame's CIA activity by a journalist, such as Judith Miller, as recently suggested in Editor & Publisher. If so, that doesn't exonerate Rove. Rather, it could make for some interesting pairing under the federal conspiracy statute (which was the statute most commonly employed during Watergate).
Isn't confirming classified information the same as leaking it? I believe so. What I really want to know is why the MSM doesn't ask a few lawyers about all of the possible laws involved here and not just the Intelligence Identities And Protection Act. Patsies or stupid, or both, that's what we have for MSM.