A brief article here in the Washington Post today reports comments made by Cheney's, Libby's and Rove's attorneys in an attempt to have the lawsuit filed against them by Plame and Wilson dismissed.
The lawyers said any conversations Cheney and the officials had about Plame with one another or with reporters were part of their normal duties because they were discussing foreign policy and engaging in an appropriate "policy dispute."
"Policy dispute" or not, this makes the leaker guilty of violating either the The Espionage Act of 1917 or The Intelligence Identities and Protection Act enacted in 1982. There also is a good argument that the "leaker" committed conspiracy to commit fraud against the government.
Violating any of these is a crime, (let alone all three) punishable by up to 10 years in prison.
If the leaker is Cheney and this doesn’t make Cheney slam-dunk, hands-down impeachable, what will? Many have suspected it was Cheney and that Libby took one for the team... but it seems Cheney's attorney tipped his hand with an unusual claim of executive privilege.
Please follow me:
Today's WaPo article also says that Cheney's attorney
...went further, arguing that Cheney is legally akin to the president because of his unique government role and has absolute immunity from any lawsuit.
Hmmm.... just like Clinton and sexual harrassment suits?
But why bother claiming royal privileges for Cheney if Cheney had nothing to do with leaking Plame's identity and role?
What are they hiding?? ...Probably the Cheney memo that instructed Libby to release the information, but I'm just speculating... Well, why continue going to such great lengths to cover this up, especially if Cheney were entitled to executive privilege? Well, because he's not, and they know it.
In looking up some background on the laws that might apply (I'm not an attorney) I found two old articles (2003) by John Dean discussing what laws might apply should administration officials actually be involved the the leak of Plame's identity. Dean writes here in 2003, long before Libby was convicted, about the Espionage Act and how it might apply:
The Espionage Act... ...continues to criminalize leaks of classified information, regardless of the reason for the leak. (emphasis mine) Accordingly, the "two senior administration officials" who leaked the classified information of Mrs. Wilson's work at the CIA to Robert Novak (and, it seems, others) have committed a federal crime.
He goes on to explain The Intelligence Identities and Protection Act and how it applies:
The Act primarily reaches insiders with classified intelligence, those privy to the identity of covert agents. It addresses two kinds of insiders.
First, .. those with direct access to the classified information about the "covert agents." who leak it. These insiders - including persons in the CIA - may serve up to ten years in jail for leaking this information.
Second, there are those who are authorized to have classified information and learn it, and then leak it. These insiders - including persons in, say, the White House or Defense Department - can be sentenced to up to five years in jail for such leaks.
He explains further about how the statute has requirements by which a leak is deemed criminal and how those requirements are met:
First, the leak must be to a person "not authorized to receive classified information." Any journalist - including Novak and Time - plainly fits.
Second, the insider must know that the information being disclosed identifies a "covert agent." In this case, that's obvious, since Novak was told this fact.
Third, the insider must know that the U.S. government is "taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent's intelligence relationship to the United States." For persons with Top Secret security clearances, that's a no-brainer: They have been briefed, and have signed pledges of secrecy, and it is widely known by senior officials that the CIA goes to great effort to keep the names of its agents secret.
A final requirement relates to the "covert agent" herself. She must either be serving outside the United States, or have served outside the United States in the last five years. It seems very likely that Mrs. Wilson fulfills the latter condition - but the specific facts on this point have not yet been reported.
Thank you, John Dean.
In another October 2003 article Dean discusses the "leaker's" exposure to the federal conspiracy statute
The conspiracy statute in its entirety (US Code Title 18, Section 371)
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.
As Dean explains:
If telephoning reporters to further destroy a CIA asset whose identity has been revealed, and whose safety is now in jeopardy, does not fit this description, I would be quite surprised.
Me too... and I couldn't have said it better.