Is obstruction as bad as outing a CIA agent?

[JonScribe]

OK. So we’ve got obstruction of justice, perjury and false statements.

It’s clear from Fitzgerald’s statements that Scooter did reveal Valerie (Plame) Wilson’s name to reporters, but what we can’t know, because of the alleged obstruction, was his knowledge and intent in that act.

From the transcript:

QUESTION: The indictment describes Lewis Libby giving classified information concerning the identify of a CIA agent to some individuals who were not eligible to receive that information. Can you explain why that does not, in and of itself, constitute a crime?

FITZGERALD: That’s a good question. And I think, knowing that he gave the information to someone who was outside the government, not entitled to receive it, and knowing that the information was classified, is not enough.

You need to know at the time that he transmitted the information, he appreciated that it was classified information, that he knew it or acted, in certain statutes, with recklessness.

And that is sort of what gets back to my point. In trying to figure that out, you need to know what the truth is.

So our allegation is in trying to drill down and find out exactly what we got here, if we received false information, that process is frustrated.

But at the end of the day, I think I want to say one more thing, which is: When you do a criminal case, if you find a violation, it doesn’t really, in the end, matter what statute you use if you vindicate the interest.

If Mr. Libby is proven to have done what we’ve alleged – convicting him of obstruction of justice, perjury and false statements – very serious felonies – will vindicate the interest of the public in making sure he’s held accountable.

It’s not as if you say, “Well, this person was convicted but under the wrong statute.”

Essentially, as I see it, Fitzgerald is saying that Scooter is guilty of outing Wilson’s wife, but we can’t prove it. But we can attempt to prove he obstructed justice and perjured himself in an attempt to conceal this act.

As such, should obstruction of justice to conceal a treasonous act carry with it the same penalty associated with the treasonous act?

[Martin_Hyde]

Yeah, there’s no question that Scooter and Rove talked to reporters about Plame. However, it’s only criminal if Libby/Rove were operating off of classified information. If they got the information “via the grape vine” then it isn’t illegal (although it would certain be a good reason for Bush to dismiss them.)

As for obstruction. No, I don’t think obstruction of justice should carry the same penalty as the crime that’s being investigated, that’s not the common legal practice anywhere and I think obstruction of justice should be weighed as its own crime.

[Captain_Amazing]

Just to nitpick, but revealing the identity of a covert CIA agent to a member of the press isn’t treasonous. It’s a crime, and it’s wrong, but it’s not treasonous.

[JonScribe]

@Captain Amazing

Just to nitpick, but revealing the identity of a covert CIA agent to a member of the press isn’t treasonous. It’s a crime, and it’s wrong, but it’s not treasonous.

You’re right. Thanks.

[John_Mace]

The way the law is written, it’s extremely hard to prosecute “outing a CIA agent”. Whether or not Fitzgerald thought that was done, we’ll never know. It’s just as likely that he simply couldn’t put a credible case together. He seems like an extremely bright fellow, so I wouldn’t expect him to ask for an indictment if he didn’t think he could make it stick.