If Karl Rove is going to be indicted for leaking Valerie Plame’s identity, what law will he have broken? As Mark Kleiman noted, John Dean, former WH counsel to Richard Nixon, has found a recent case that could have fascinating implications.
[Jonathan] Randel was a Drug Enforcement Agency analyst, a PhD in history, working in the Atlanta office of the DEA. Randel was convinced that British Lord Michael Ashcroft (a major contributor to Britain’s Conservative Party, as well as American conservative causes) was being ignored by DEA, and its investigation of money laundering. (Lord Ashcroft is based in South Florida and the off-shore tax haven of Belize.)
Randel leaked the fact that Lord Ashcroft’s name was in the DEA files, and this fact soon surfaced in the London news media. Ashcroft sued, and learned the source of the information was Randel. Using his clout, soon Ashcroft had the U.S. Attorney in pursuit of Randel for his leak.
By late February 2002, the Department of Justice indicted Randel for his leaking of Lord Ashcroft’s name. It was an eighteen count “kitchen sink” indictment; they threw everything they could think of at Randel. Most relevant for Karl Rove’s situation, Court One of Randel’s indictment alleged a violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 641. This is a law that prohibits theft (or conversion for one’s own use) of government records and information for non-governmental purposes. But its broad language covers leaks, and it has now been used to cover just such actions.
Randel, faced with a life sentence (actually, 500 years) if convicted on all counts, on the advice of his attorney, pleaded guilty to violating Section 641. On January 9, 2003, Randel was sentenced to a year in a federal prison, followed by three years probation. This sentence prompted the U.S. Attorney to boast that the conviction of Randel made a good example of how the Bush Administration would handle leakers.
And now the same administration has a chance to prove it again.
The circumstances surrounding Randel’s prosecution should keep Rove up at night. Indeed, the sentencing judge insisted that it didn’t matter whether Randel knew information was classified; merely leaking sensitive information was “a very serious crime.”
Since Rove told Matt Cooper that the Plame information was on “double super secret background,” and later added that he had “said too much,” do you suppose Rove knew that he was sharing sensitive information?
Bush and Ashcroft established harsh legal restrictions on leaks — and it’s too late for them undo it.