There were several key updates on the Plame scandal over the weekend, each of which suggest the investigation a) hasn’t gone away; b) has a number of prosecutorial options; and c) may include leaders at the highest levels.
The New York Times got the ball rolling on Saturday when it noted that none other than Dick Cheney may have been partially involved with the effort to smear Joseph Wilson, a drive that ultimately led the White House to leak classified information.
A lawyer who knows Mr. Libby’s account said the administration efforts to limit the damage from Mr. Wilson’s criticism extended as high as Mr. Cheney. This lawyer and others who spoke about the case asked that they not be identified because of grand jury secrecy rules.
On July 12, 2003, four days after his initial conversation with Ms. Miller, Mr. Libby consulted with Mr. Cheney about how to handle inquiries from journalists about the vice president’s role in sending Mr. Wilson to Africa in early 2002 to investigate reports that Iraq was trying acquire nuclear material there for its weapons program, the person said.
Also note that Cheney’s partner-in-crime was also implicated over the weekend. On yesterday’s ABC’s This Week, George Stephanopoulos said that “a source close to this” told him that “President Bush and Vice President Cheney were actually involved in some of these discussions.” From context, it seemed Stephanopoulos was referring to smearing Wilson by outing Plame when he referred to “discussions.”
We’ve all been casually aware of this scandal reaching the Oval Office — Bush and Cheney spoke to prosecutors about the case last year — but these are new hints about just how serious Patrick Fitzgerald’s probe might be.
As for the course prosecutors might go, there are a surprising number of options.
Focus was originally on the Intelligence Identities Protection Act and whether the Bush gang met the standards for prosecution. Whether they also violated the Espionage Act has also been the subject of considerable discussion. There’s also been suggestions that Fitzgerald may pursue perjury charges against those whose stories to the grand jury have been contradicted by other testimony.
But over the weekend, a fourth possibility emerged: conspiracy.
But a new theory about Fitzgerald’s aim has emerged in recent weeks from two lawyers who have had extensive conversations with the prosecutor while representing witnesses in the case. They surmise that Fitzgerald is considering whether he can bring charges of a criminal conspiracy perpetrated by a group of senior Bush administration officials. Under this legal tactic, Fitzgerald would attempt to establish that at least two or more officials agreed to take affirmative steps to discredit and retaliate against Wilson and leak sensitive government information about his wife. To prove a criminal conspiracy, the actions need not have been criminal, but conspirators must have had a criminal purpose. […]
One source briefed on Miller’s account of conversations with Libby said it is doubtful her testimony would on its own lead to charges against any government officials. But, the source said, her account could establish a piece of a web of actions taken by officials that had an underlying criminal purpose.
Conspiracy cases are viewed by criminal prosecutors as simpler to bring than more straightforward criminal charges, but also trickier to sell to juries. “That would arguably be a close call for a prosecutor, but it could be tried,” a veteran Washington criminal attorney with longtime experience in national security cases said yesterday.
Stay tuned.