Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
#1 doesn't depend on anything Armitage said.
As for #2, can it really be true that whether disclosing (a sort of) classified information is legal or not depends on whether someone else has disclosed it? Possibly, but I'll wait for Slave to quote the statute.
|
The elements of IIPA are: (1) authorized access to classified information, (2) learning the identity of a covert agent (3) intentional disclosure of information identifying the agent to (4) an individual not authorized to receive classified information (5) knowledge that the information identifies a covert agent and (6) knowledge that the United States is taking "affirmative measures" to conceal the agent’s role.
(2)has been repeatedly shot down - that being said, the [easy] fact that she wasn't posted overseas in 5 years has been recently put into question. Byron York wrote recently that "
special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald found that Plame had indeed done 'covert work overseas' on counterproliferation matters in the past five years.". This would seem to make it a tougher call. However, despite several attempts by Libby's lawyers to obtain any proof of this finding, Fitz refused to deliver.
(6) is easy. If no one thought she was covert, including most CIA spooks interviewed over the years, its next to impossible to suggest anyone was taking affirmative measures to conceal her identity. Plus, you need to prove scienter. Have fun with that.
As to your second point, no, the law doesn't necessarily say "once out, permanently out", but it logically follows that within a certain period of time, the agent ceases to be covert.
Again, no crime for Armitage. No crime for Rove. Crime for Libby, but perjury related to [probably] unnecessary repeat testimony. Crime that all this pen and ink was wasted on a buffoon like Joe Wilson. And Rove deserves an apology.
