....the primary requisite intent for the offense of disclosing the identity of a covert operative is intentionally and knowingly. Specific intent is a higher burden for the government to prove than just "knowingly." In other words, the disclosure must have been intentional and in making the disclosure he had to know he was both identifying a covert agent and that the United States was taking affirmative measures to conceal that agent's intelligence relationship to the U.S.
It now looks like Rove may have admitted he disclosed that Joseph Wilson's wife worked for the CIA, but did not mention her name - he maintains he didn't know her name.
On July 7, I wrote:
After Cooper got his call [from his soucrce], the New York Times reports there was a conference between lawyers for Rove and Cooper and Fitzgerald.
Mr. Cooper's decision to drop his refusal to testify followed discussions on Wednesday morning among lawyers representing Mr. Cooper and Karl Rove, the senior White House political adviser, according to a person who has been officially briefed on the case. Mr. Fitzgerald was also involved in the discussions, the person said.
I think during the discussions they disclosed what Cooper's testimony would be and Fitzgerald agreed Cooper did not implicate Rove in a crime.
Earlier today, I wrote:
USA today reported on October 8, 2003:
On Tuesday, Bush spokesman Scott McClellan ruled out three senior Bush aides as possible sources of the leak: Karl Rove, Bush's political adviser; Lewis Libby, Vice President Cheney's chief of staff; and Elliott Abrams, a senior official on the National Security Council. All have been named in Washington speculation.
He said each, when asked by him, denied leaking the name of CIA officer Valerie Plame Wilson to newspaper columnist Robert Novak, who revealed her identity in an article July 14. "They were not involved in leaking classified information, nor did they condone it," McClellan said.
They denied leaking "the name." That is consistent with what Karl Rove and his lawyer have said. Lawyers parse words for a reason. "I did not disclose her name" and "I did not knowingly leak classified information" does not foreclose that he said "Joe Wilson's wife worked for the CIA" without mentioning in what capacity. And I think that's just what Karl Rove told Matthew Cooper, and if Rove did not know that Plame had ever been an undercover operative, then he's probably in the clear on an unlawful disclosure charge.
I don't think Karl Rove is looking at a perjury charge or a charge of unlawful disclosure of an undercover agent. I suspect that was made clear to Rove's lawyer during discussions that took place between Cooper's lawyer, Rove's lawyer and Fitzgerald in the 24 hours before Rove let Cooper off the confidentiality hook. Otherwise, Luskin would never have allowed Rove to release Cooper from his confidentiality pledge.
I think if Fitgerald has a target in sight it is Cheney's Chief of Staff Lewis Libby and possibly other members of the White House Iraq Group. Of course, since Rove attended most of the Group's weekly meetings, he may have some exposure there on a conspiracy charge - or on a false statement or perjury charge if he told investigators or the grand jury something different on an earlier occasion.
And then again, maybe now Fitzgerald will close the investigation and write a report saying he investigated every possible lead with the exception of Judith Miller's source, and without Judith Miller's cooperation, we can't prove a crime against anyone.
But my money's still on Lewis Libby.
Update: The New York Times has quotes from both Karl Rove's and Lewis Libby's lawyers - and both now deny that their clients gave "personal" waivers to Matt Cooper. Luskin said Rove never spoke to Cooper on the day of the hearing. Cooper is now saying by using the word "personal" he meant "specific." But Luskin and Libby's lawyers now say they never did anything but reaffirm the general waiver given to the FBI. It's probably neither here nor there in terms of the investigation, but still, it's curious.