As Time Passes in Leak Probe,
Rove Is Seen as Less Vulnerable
By JOHN D. MCKINNON
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
November 12, 2005; Page A2
WASHINGTON -- Two weeks after a White House aide's indictment in the CIA-leak case, political adviser Karl Rove and possibly other Bush administration officials remain at risk of being charged in the investigation.
But some lawyers believe that with each passing day, the odds of further indictments are diminishing. Unless the indicted aide, I. Lewis Libby, implicates others, or special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald gains some other new evidence, the investigation could end with no one else being charged, they say.
"The longer this goes without any other action by the special prosecutor, the higher the likelihood" that no additional charges will be filed, said Frank Zimring, a criminal-law expert at the University of California at Berkeley.
Some lawyers believe that Mr. Fitzgerald might be hoping to obtain evidence against Mr. Rove from Mr. Libby. Mr. Rove's camp believes he is likely to learn the prosecutor's final decision on an indictment within a matter of weeks, not months, a person familiar with the situation said last week.
"We're not quite done," Mr. Fitzgerald said the day that Mr. Libby was indicted on charges of obstruction of justice, perjury and making false statements. The investigation has focused on how White House officials leaked CIA agent Valerie Plame's identity to several Washington reporters. Ms. Plame's husband, Joseph Wilson, had been raising public doubts about the Iraq war's justification.
Legal experts say Mr. Rove -- identified only as "Official A" in the Libby indictment -- remains the most likely subject of the continuing investigation. That view has been bolstered by the fact that Mr. Fitzgerald and Richard Sauber, a lawyer representing Time reporter Matt Cooper, have talked since the indictment. Mr. Cooper has said that Mr. Rove confirmed Ms. Plame's CIA connection in an interview.
The question is what prosecutors might still be examining in Mr. Rove's conduct. The most plausible scenario, several lawyers said, is that prosecutors suspect Mr. Rove hasn't been forthcoming in his testimony -- in recounting specific conversations with reporters, in explaining how he first learned the agent's identity, or in describing his conversations with Mr. Libby during and after the period when White House officials were talking about Ms. Plame with reporters. Misleading testimony or not being forthcoming can be viewed as obstruction under some circumstances.
Lawyers note, for example, that the indictment says "Official A" told Mr. Libby about a conversation he had just had with a reporter where Ms. Plame "was discussed as a CIA employee." That conversation between Messrs. Rove and Libby might reflect "an agreement between them to get the story out," said Norman Abrams, a UCLA law professor.
Less likely is the prospect that any official will be charged with conspiring to violate the law that criminalizes leaking classified information -- such as Ms. Plame's CIA status. Scholars say the law, the Espionage Act of 1917, is so antiquated and vaguely worded that it might be difficult to use in a prosecution. Mr. Fitzgerald also has pointed out that proving a violation requires showing the defendant had reason to know the information was classified.
Another complicating factor is that a new grand jury would have to be presented with any additional evidence because the grand jury that returned the indictment against Mr. Libby has been disbanded.
Mr. Fitzgerald's statement that Vice President Dick Cheney told Mr. Libby of Ms. Plame's CIA employment has raised the possibility he might be implicated in the case. But the vice president's potential exposure is even murkier, legal experts say.
The indictment says, for example, that the vice president was on board Air Force Two for a flight where Mr. Libby "discussed with other officials aboard the plane what Libby should say in response to certain pending media inquiries" about the CIA's intelligence about Iraq. That suggests that the vice president could have been involved in the discussions -- which in turn could have involved an agreement for Mr. Libby to tell reporters about Ms. Plame.
But even if he took part in such conversations, the legal problems with the Espionage Act would complicate any attempt to charge the vice president, legal experts say. |
