Thomas Sowell is a syndicated columnist and senior fellow for the conservative Hoover Institution. Thomas Sowell’s recent article on the Valerie Plame affair http://www.townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2007/03/09/meatgrinder_politics proves there is a sound reason to have people pass a bar exam before they are authorized to practice law.
Essentially, Sowell wrongly asserts that because Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald learned early on that Armitage leaked information to the press, that there was no reason to continue the investigation. Thus, the Libby prosecution, and conviction for Perjury was unnecessary. While much of the information that Fitzgerald discovered during his investigation still remains classified, several key public facts refute Mr. Sowell’s claim that Fitzgerald should have ceased and desisted in his efforts to pursue the leakers. Let’s start with conspiracy.
We know that there were multiple sources that “leaked” other than Armitage. Libby, in-fact, was one of those leakers. Was there a conspiracy to leak? If not, was Libby an independent leaker with his own motives? Why did Rove leak? Were the Libby and Rove leaks connected? Who else besides Armitage, Libby, or Rove leaked, and why? Who had access to the classified information in the first place? What was the motive (of each of the leakers), because motive is key to the crime. Was the information about Valerie Plame classified at the time of the leak, or, had it been declassified in advance by someone with that power (such as Dick Cheney)?
The question for Fitzgerald was, did Libby (or Rove, or Armitage) leak in a way that was prosecutable under Identities Protection Act. The mere fact of leaking the information is insufficient grounds for prosecution, and so yes, Armitage was eliminated based on examination of the law. But could Libby and Rove also be eliminated in the same way? How would that be known without a vigorous analysis of their actions through an aggressive discovery process? To be prosecuted, it must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the leaker 1) had access to classified information identifying a covert agent; 2) intentionally disclosed it to an unauthorized person while, at the same time, the U.S. was taking affirmative actions to conceal this person’s covert status. The elements of the crime must all be there and there is no way to know if each element is there (or provable) absent a complete investigation which was not even close to complete when Armitage’s role had been made clear. Sowell further asserts that there was “no crime” because Ms. Plame “had a desk job” at the CIA (implying that she was not “covert” and therefore not covered under the law). The CIA has been silent on this, with one exception: it was the CIA itself that requested the Justice Department investigate the leaking of the identity of a “undercover CIA officer,” which is what got this whole thing going in the first place. If the CIA believed she was covered by the statute, you can bet that Fitzgerald got the message and pursued it vigorously in good-faith, just like the Bar Association says prosecutors should act in pursuit of their sworn duties. That Libby lied in the process possibly to protect himself from federal prosecution was Libby’s choice. A jury of his peers said so anyway.
Rich Brock, Resipsa
(Note: this article recently appeared in the Orange County Register)
Filed under: Current Events, Orwell, Politics, brock, constitutional law, double speak, history, iraq, law, middle east, res ipsa loquitur, resipsa, terror | Leave a Comment
No Responses Yet to “Valerie Plame, Joe Wilson, & Scooter Libby”