David Corn: Fitz can charge Rove like Franklin

Well, we Plamegaters continue to be on pins and needles, waiting for Fitz to drop at least one shoe.  Meanwhile, we seize upon and over-analyze (over-speculate is probably more accurate) every scrap of information that leaks. A good example is the recent Waas piece, which "reported" a previously-known meeting between Judith Miller and Scooter Libby; the only thing new was the actual date, as opposed to "a few days before...." etc.

Now there is something tantalizing from another case. David Corn is pretty excited about the Franklin espionage indictments, because of the implications for Plamegate:

The Franklin indictment is a sign that Rove and any other White House aide involved in the Plame/CIA leak might be vulnerable to prosecution under the Espionage Act.

MORE BELOW THE JUMP

Corn notes, as have many others, that the Intelligence Identities Protection Act.

was narrowly drawn, and to win a conviction Fitzgerald would have to prove that Rove or any other leaker knew that Valerie Wilson was working under cover at the CIA.

However, Corn argues, that after Franklin, Rove's main worry

is section 793 ["transmission of national defense information"]. Rove did communicate classified information which could be used "to the injury of the United States" to a person "not entitled to receive it."

The reason that 793, the espionage statute, may take Rove down is that

...section 793 does not say a violator must be aware he or she is passing on information that could cause harm to the United States if exposed. It only sets as a criterion that the violator "willfully" communicates this information. I assume that means a purely accidental slip of the lip would not be a crime. But Rove--who told at least two reporters about Valerie Wilson's CIA position--cannot argue he was not "willfully" communicating this information to others.

Fitzgerald seems not to worry too much about ruffling a few feathers when he is on the track of evildoers, so I imagine he will use whatever works. Recent leaks about a Libby/Miller meeting are hard to interpret but a close reading would suggest they come from the Miller camp, and would seem to suggest that Miller is losing sleep in jail; one of the most prominent parts of jail is the noise, lots of yelling going on...at least on the men's side. New odors periodically appear from unknown sources, overlaying the baseline Pine-sol/Ammonia/urine cachet. Hairs from unspecified species show up on your "meal" tray. Sadistic jailors appear on weekends. Many of your "classmates" are manipulative drug users who are not unfamiliar with weapons of personal destruction. Virginia cockroaches don't bite but they are not fun to snuggle up with.  Fitz has certainly informed Miller that is would be wasteful to buy any plane tickets for October.  Public opinion has turned against Miller, and the NY Times may soon do the same. If they release Miller's notes, Miller has nothing to trade for leniency. Speculation that Bush would fire Fitz has cooled. All in all, Judith Miller is holding a losing hand. Her ability to make a deal may be time-limited. Meanwhile Russert, Novak, Cooper, et al are in cooler climes, with pina coladas.

My seat of the pants prediction: Miller will blow up soon, claiming something has changed. For example, she can say that since Libby's identity is now known (having been leaked by her lawyers, heh, heh), maintaining confidentiality is moot. I know, what about ethics? But folks, this IS Judith Miller, after all....

Meanwhile, we are waiting for more morsels.....

•  tips, favorite jail stories? n/t

  by seesdifferent on Wed Aug 10, 2005 at 07:52:11 AM PDT

•  I voted 1

  simply because I don't think Fitz will be allowed to drop any shoes.

  by corvo on Wed Aug 10, 2005 at 07:54:41 AM PDT

•  Reporters should start baiting Libby and his att'y

  To pull a Luskin and give Miller an out to testify

  by pontificator on Wed Aug 10, 2005 at 07:59:03 AM PDT

•  Your first paragraph

  is among the best I've seen on dkos.  The rest is just more over-speculation.  

  Remember that we have zero, zip, nada, nothing from Fitzgerald about what he is or isn't doing.  We have no real idea if he's after Rove (in fact, we have claims that he's not).  All we have is speculation and rumor and based on things that are "obvious".  However, it is also "obvious" that the Iraq war was based on a lie and we are still over there, so I wouldn't count on obviousness to predict what happens next.

  by RequestedUsername on Wed Aug 10, 2005 at 08:02:04 AM PDT

  •  The Franklin Case Is Not Speculation

    The Franklin case is not speculation.  The indictment in the case was unsealed for a while so we know what it says.  It also is significant that the Franklin case is based upon Form 312 (a form that Karl Rove had to sign, too).

    It also is known that the Court of Appeals opinion in the Miller case was redacted to remove the factual information that the Special Prosecutor submitteed in support of his position.  The opinions of the Court of Appeals make it clear that the judges found this factual information compelling.

    by eafredel on Wed Aug 10, 2005 at 08:46:22 AM PDT

•  Having just recieved my very own GJ Summons

  I have recently learned that GJ's issue indictments, NOT the prosecutor.  Fitzgerald will never "drop a shoe" since he can't.  But the Grand Jury certainly may, whether or not Fitzgerald is still on the job.

  The fact that Cooper noted the significant number of questions posed to him BY THE GRAND JURISTS in addition to those posed by Fitzgerald indicate a tantalizing prospect of a "runaway" GJ.  It sometimes happens that a Grand Jury outreaches the prosecutor, delving into a deeper and broader investigation than the prosecutor had been pursuing.  Here's hoping that this is just such a jury!

  by ovals49 on Wed Aug 10, 2005 at 08:41:33 AM PDT

  •  I sit corrected.

    by seesdifferent on Wed Aug 10, 2005 at 08:57:57 AM PDT

  •  A Bit of Semantics

    The prosecutor presents material to the grand jury which issues the indictment.  However, in most cases, the prosecutor "drives" the grand jury indictments by presenting the evidence to support specific criminal charges issued by indictment.  

    by eafredel on Wed Aug 10, 2005 at 09:42:14 AM PDT

•  I think that

  I don't think this is simply a few notes and conversations on Miller's part. I think Miller and her lawyer know she did something that will get her prison time and destroy her career if it comes out. Otherwise she would have caved by now.

  If this speculation is true and she's going to deal, she would have to provide Fitzgerald with information that would not only get her out of jail on the contempt charge but also immunity on any other charges Fitzgerald will make. That will probably involve providing the dope on some big names, maybe even bigger than Rove and Libby. Then, she also has to think about some kind of livelihood afterwards. If she brings down all her republican buddies, she'll have no support when all of this is over.

  From Fitzgerald's perspective, he can just wait another month and see what happens. If she caves, he has the information and could even put her on the hook again if she really did do something illegal. If she wants immunity, he can probably hold out for all the big names. If she won't take that deal, she stays in jail and he can do more investigating on his own. If she doesn't cave, he can have the grand jury issue indictments and keep her in jail. He can keep her there on contempt for 18 months. She would be there until after the 2006 elections. But that's a long time to fend off the cockroaches, guards, and bunkmates.

  by TerraByte on Wed Aug 10, 2005 at 10:29:15 AM PDT

  •  Doesn't her GJ expire in October?

    I thought there was some speculation here that Miller is attempting to wait out the current GJ and hope another one isn't empaneled and/or Fitz is fired or 'reassigned'. If she is truly at risk for prison time, wouldn't this be the smart thing to do? Wouldn't Fitz have to question her before the new GJ and then get another contempt ruling from the judge? Doesn't the current contempt ruling by the judge expire with the GJ unless it's turned into a criminal contempt charge? I'm not a lawyer, but my ex-wife was a prosecutor in CA, and I thought this is the way federal GJs work. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

    by skrymir on Wed Aug 10, 2005 at 11:53:27 AM PDT

    •  a new GJ must be empaneled

      it is my understanding he can call her again. In any event, he can also charge her with criminal contempt of court, as opposed to the civil contempt charge she is serving for now. I think it is a foregone conclusion that one way or the other, she is either droppin the dime or doin the time.

      by seesdifferent on Wed Aug 10, 2005 at 01:05:19 PM PDT