This is really an attempt to connect the dots based on the testimony of Cooper and various legal opinions on what kind of case is being constructed against Rove and others.
When you go over the facts that are known it is apparent that Rove and others are indeed in serious trouble and the legal opinions show just how deep that trouble is.
So the $64,000 question is what is Prosecutor Fitzgerald after from Cooper and Miller and what charges will he make should he find confirmation in their testimony and documents?
1. The IIPA probably Doesn't Apply
Now we know that Rove told Cooper about "Wilson's wife" and did not mention her covert status and negates application of the Intelligence Identity Protection Act. There is no indication that he "knowingly" revealed a covert agents identity.
2. The Espionage Act of 1917.
Previously this had been mentioned by Former White House Counsel, John Dean and various other posters on this website. Rove revealed her identity, her employer, and area of expertise when he said:
"Rove did, however, clearly indicate that she worked at the "agency"--by that, I told the grand jury, I inferred that he obviously meant the CIA and not, say, the Environmental Protection Agency. Rove added that she worked on "WMD" (the abbreviation for weapons of mass destruction) issues and that she was responsible for sending Wilson. This was the first time I had heard anything about Wilson's wife."
- Cooper
This could be applied if Plame's status as a CIA employee meets the test of being "classified" information. One CIA official says it does:
"The CIA declined to discuss Plame's intelligence work, but an agency official disputed suggestions that she was a mere analyst whose public exposure would have little consequence."If she was not undercover, we would have no reason to file a criminal referral," the CIA official said, insisting on anonymity because of the sensitivity of the investigation.
Source:http://64.233.187.104/search?q=cache:PMi-X2KWqqMJ:www.billingsgazette.com/index.php%3Fts%3D1%26displ
ay%3Drednews/2003/10/01/build/nation/25-leak.inc+Plame+CIA+referral&hl=es
Certainly the Prosecutor and the Federal Judges in the case believe that a serious breech of national security has occurred.
3. Novak Had Two Sources
We also know from the Novak testimony that Rove only confirmed her CIA status and was Novak's second source. So now we know that there are at least two people in the administration circulating this information.
4. Possible Conspiracy Charges:
We're still back at what type of case is Fitzgerald building and what other possible charges might be coming and who is in the net? Another clue comes from a program with Lawrence O'Donnell where he quotes one of the Appeals Court Justices opinion:
"a federal appeals court justices said in his opinion " the case about these leaks was part of the plot to get Wilson"
Source:
http://www.kcrw.com/cgi-bin/db/kcrw.pl?show_code=lr&air_date=7/15/05&tmplt_type=show
Of course Conspiracies need multiple players and while we don't know if Novak has testified as to his second source's identity or not, it is likely that this was asked by the Grand Jury. So perhaps Fitzgerald is looking for confirmation of Novak or fishing to see who else winds up in the net.
As that I'm not an attorney and I've ridiculed the talking heads for commenting on legal matters when they clearly have no expertise, I'll turn now to a legal expert with extensive experience to ascertain the likelyhood of this scenario and any additional charges. Former White House Counsel John Dean wrote and opinion piece after the Rove e-mails were leaked on their implications:
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20050715.html
5. EMBEZZLEMENT AND THEFT: Title 18, United States Code, Section 641
Deans opinion on this was based on a case recently prosecuted by John Ashcroft, where a DEA analyst Jonathan Randal leaked information that was in DEA files and tied him to a drug case. Dean writes:
"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, faced with a life sentence (actually, 500 years) if convicted on all counts, on the advice of his attorney, pleaded guilty to violating Section 641. On January 9, 2003, Randel was sentenced to a year in a federal prison, followed by three years probation. This sentence prompted the U.S. Attorney to boast that the conviction of Randel made a good example of how the Bush Administration would handle leakers.
The Randel Precedent -- If Followed -- Bodes Ill For Rove
Karl Rove may be able to claim that he did not know he was leaking "classified information" about a "covert agent," but there can be no question he understood that what he was leaking was "sensitive information." The very fact that Matt Cooper called it "double super secret background" information suggests Rove knew of its sensitivity, if he did not know it was classified information (which by definition is sensitive).
United States District Court Judge Richard Story's statement to Jonathan Randel, at the time of sentencing, might have an unpleasant ring for Karl Rove. Judge Story told Randel that he surely must have appreciated the risks in leaking DEA information. "Anything that would affect the security of officers and of the operations of the agency would be of tremendous concern, I think, to any law-abiding citizen in this country," the judge observed. Judge Story concluded this leak of sensitive information was "a very serious crime."
Here are the actual Statutes:
United States Code
TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PART I - CRIMES
CHAPTER 31 - EMBEZZLEMENT AND THEFT
U.S. Code as of: 01/06/03
Section 641. Public money, property or records
Whoever embezzles, steals, purloins, or knowingly converts to his
use or the use of another, or without authority, sells, conveys or
disposes of any record, voucher, money, or thing of value of the
United States or of any department or agency thereof, or any
property made or being made under contract for the United States or
any department or agency thereof; or
Whoever receives, conceals, or retains the same with intent to
convert it to his use or gain, knowing it to have been embezzled,
stolen, purloined or converted -
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten
years, or both; but if the value of such property does not exceed
the sum of $1,000, he shall be fined under this title or imprisoned
not more than one year, or both.
The word ''value'' means face, par, or market value, or cost
price, either wholesale or retail, whichever is greater.
United States Code
TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PART I - CRIMES
CHAPTER 19 - CONSPIRACY
Section 371. Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States
If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense
against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any
agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of
such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy,
each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than
five years, or both.
If, however, the offense, the commission of which is the object
of the conspiracy, is a misdemeanor only, the punishment for such
conspiracy shall not exceed the maximum punishment provided for
such misdemeanor.
Dean also confirms the Conspiracy statutes potential charge:
"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)."