Bush Admin. previously prosecuted a leaker - there's precedent

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

I apologize in advance if this article has already been posted. An interesting article appeared today at the CNN website in their law section written by John Dean. It describes the prosecution by the Bush Administration of a leaker, an Analyst within the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) named Jonathan Randel. While Rove MAY escape prosecution under the Identities Protection Act because it can't be proven that he knew Plame was covert or that there was an effort to keep her identity classified, he may be more easily prosecuted under U.S. Code Title 18, Section 641. This section prohibits theft of government information for non-governmental purposes and is very broadly construed. As mentioned, Bush used it to get a one year prison sentence against a DEA Agent who leaked the fact that a top British Conservative figure (and contributor to U.S. conservative causes) was in the DEA's files and was being ignored by the Bush Administration.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/07/15/dean.rove/

Here are a few relevant paragraphs from this long article:

"...Leak prosecution precedent

I am referring to the prosecution and conviction of Jonathan Randel. Randel was a Drug Enforcement Agency analyst, a Ph.D. 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, count 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. Precedent bodes ill for Rove..."

[eleny]

1. Dean's article was posted but didn't generate much discussion

You would think it's pretty significant. Good that you posted about it, imo!

[wli]

2. it doesn't say much about Rove

Just that they're willing to abuse the law against real whistleblowers.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

3. This law is another hammer to use against leakers

This has a looser definition than the law about outing CIA agents. Also shows the administration selectively goes after leakers. Also shows that some media person somewhere revealed Randel as a source.

[Jacobin]

4. Kick because its important

Bushco uses the state secret laws to protect drug dealers who contribute to the republican mafia, but won't to protect the country from terrorists with WNDs

[DemsUnited]

5. The last paragraph of that article is also interesting:

"There are stories circulating that Rove may have been told of Valerie Plame's CIA activity by a journalist, such as Judith Miller, as recently suggested in Editor & Publisher. If so, that doesn't exonerate Rove. Rather, it could make for some interesting pairing under the federal conspiracy statute (which was the statute most commonly employed during Watergate)."