The right wing spinmeisters keep asserting that no crime was committed when Valerie Wilson’s name was leaked. They use a variety of arguments. They claim she wasn’t a covert agent. They claim her cover had already been blown to the Russians and Cubans. They claim everyone knew she was CIA…it was an open secret around the District.
We know this much is true: the CIA considered it a crime and the Justice Department agreed it warranted investigation. We know the judges that have seen the accumulated evidence think a very serious crime has been committed.
It may be difficult to prove that who initiated the leak, that it originated with someone who was relying on classified material, that they knew she was a covert operative. Even for Rove, it may be difficult to prove he knowingly confirmed classified information about a covert operative.
However, if it is proven, and the leak itself was a crime, Bush could be in big trouble.
If the investigation ever gets to a point where it is clear that Karl Rove lied under oath, and especially if it is determined that he obstructed justice, we would be confronted with a situation.
The situation would be: “Did Karl Rove mislead the President about his involvement in the leak?”
The President’s failure to discipline Rove would then be seen as powerful evidence that Rove did NOT mislead the President. At that point, it’s hard to see how Bush could avoid charges of obstruction of justice.
If Bush has known for nearly two years that his close aid was not only lying to the press, but lying to investigators, he is in a lot of trouble. Is anyone going to believe that Rove deceived Bush, and Bush didn’t care when he found out the truth?
Any lawyers want to help me out on my reasoning here?
