Reply #66: What I said above about avoiding IIPA penalties particularly applies

[leveymg]

if Miller was an internal conduit within WHIG for Plame's identity.

If Libby and the others could make a plausible claim that their source was Miller, and only Miller -- and that they didn't have access to classified documents revealing Plame's identity as an undercover CIA operative prior to her identity being revealed -- then they might not be liable to prosecution under IIPA.

This then is what the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982 says:

"Whoever, having or having had authorized access to classified information that identifies a covert agent, intentionally discloses any information identifying such covert agent to any individual not authorized to received classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the U.S. is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent‘s intelligence relationship to the U.S. ."

To figure out the elements that must be proved, you simply break this run-on sentence into subparts in the following manner:

A defendant must:

(1) have authorized access to classified information that identifies a covert agent;

(2) "intentionally disclose" the information;

(3) disclose it to one not authorized to receive classified information;

(4) know the information he is disclosing identifies the covert agent (PRESUMABLY BY REFERENCE TO AN AUTHORITATIVE SOURCE, SUCH AS A CLASSIFIED DOCUMENT - IF THE SOURCE IS LESS THAN AUTHORITATIVE (PLAME) THEN THEY MIGHT GET AWAY WITH IT BY CLAIMING THEY THOUGHT IT WAS JUST A RUMOR BEING SPREAD BY A REPORTER); and

(5) know that the U.S. is taking affirmative measures to conceal the covert agent's intelligence relationship to the United States.

Proof of these five elements -- and no others -- is required for a conviction under IIPA.