home

What Does the Government Really Want from Miller and Cooper?

Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald has stated in court pleadings that he already knows the identity of Judith Miller and Matthew Cooper's sources regarding the senior white house official who leaked the identity of CIA operative Valerie Plame to Robert Novak.

Miller did some reporting for a story but never wrote an article. She has maintained she intends to go to jail rather than reveal her source -- though Fitzgerald has indicated in court filings that he already knows that official's identity.

So, why is it so necessary for them to provide the information?

As the Wapo article suggests, the investigation has moved from one involving the identity of the White House official to one involving perjury - i.e., a cover-up. The source may have been questioned in front of the grand jury and lied.

Knowing the identity of the source is not enough for a perjury conviction. There must be two witnesses to the perjurious statement. Telephone records would not be enough, because they only provide the number dialed, not the identity of the person speaking. Matthew Cooper's and Judith Miller's e-mails and notes may provide that corroboration.

Remember when former President Clinton was investigated for perjury?

The law is clear that in a perjury prosecution under 18 U.S.C. ' 1621, the falsity of a statement alleged to be perjurious cannot be established by the testimony of just one witness. This ancient common law rule, referred to as the "two-witness rule, " has survived repeated challenges to its legitimacy, and has been judicially recognized as the standard of proof for perjury prosecutions brought under ' 1621. See, e.g., Weiler v. United States, 323 U.S. 606, 608-610 (1945) (discussing the history and policy rationales of the two-witness rule); United States v. Chaplin, 25 F.3d 1373, 1377-78 (7th Cir. 1994) (two-witness rule applies to perjury prosecutions).

The Department of Justice recognizes the applicability of the two-witness rule to perjury prosecutions brought under Section 1621. See Department of Justice Manual, 1997 Supplement, at 9-69.265.

The "two witness" rule, derived from common law, governs the proof required for a perjury conviction under Section 1621. Weiler v. United States, 323 U.S. 606, 609 (1945). The rule means that a perjury conviction may not rest solely on the uncorroborated testimony of one witness. United States v. Hammer, 271 U.S. 620, 626 (1926). The two witness rule, however, does not require two witnesses to every perjurious statement. The falsity of the perjurious statement may be established either by the testimony of two independent witnesses or by one witness and independent corroborating evidence that is inconsistent with the innocence of the accused. Weiler, 323 U.S. at 610. Also, the second witness need not fully corroborate the first, but must substantiate the other's testimony concerning the defendant's perjurious statement. United States v. Chaplin, 25 F.3d 1373, 1381-82 (7th Cir. 1994).

I don't know who the White House official is, but the higher up he is, the more likely the prosecutor would want two live witnesses, not just documents, to support a perjury charge. What do you think of this possibility, from American Prospect in 2004?

Rove also adamantly insisted to the FBI that he was not the administration official who leaked the information that Plame was a covert CIA operative to conservative columnist Robert Novak last July. Rather, Rove insisted, he had only circulated information about Plame after it had appeared in Novak's column. He also told the FBI, the same sources said, that circulating the information was a legitimate means to counter what he claimed was politically motivated criticism of the Bush administration by Plame's husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson.

NewsAmerica Now reports that Lawrence O'Donnell says Rover was the Plame leaker.

< Miller and Cooper Submit Jail Preferences | 4th of July Premium Ad Sale >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Re: What Does the Government Really Want from Mill (none / 0) (#1)
    by Primus on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:46 PM EST
    A second source says Rove. On tonight's McLaughlin Group, MSNBC analyst Lawrence O'Donnell said: "And I know I'm going to get pulled into the grand jury for saying this but the source of...for Matt Cooper was Karl Rove, and that will be revealed in this document dump that Time magazine's going to do with the grand jury." Read more here.

    Rove also adamantly insisted to the FBI that he was not the administration official who leaked the information that Plame was a covert CIA operative to conservative columnist Robert Novak last July. Rather, Rove insisted, he had only circulated information about Plame after it had appeared in Novak's column. So the real issue Miller and Cooper will be attesting to is not "What did he say," but "When did he say it." If their notes show that he gave them Plame's identity before Novakula's column came out, then he lied to the FBI. BANG. "Lying to the FBI"--criminal indictment to follow. I'm looking forward to the rightwing whine machine trying to wriggle off that hook. Got my response all ready. 2 words: "Martha Stewart"

    Re: What Does the Government Really Want from Mill (none / 0) (#3)
    by LibbySpencer on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:46 PM EST
    Best explanation I've seen as to why Novak skated comes from Steven Kite at Kite Tales. He didn't post it there but I posted it here at The Impolitic, with permission. The full explanation is worth reading but in a nutshell: Cooper and Miller, who didn't run the story, go to jail. Government spends a great deal of time, effort, and money sending them, ostensibly for withholding info which the government could have gotten easily in several other ways. Novak, who did what he was told, walks.

    Re: What Does the Government Really Want from Mill (none / 0) (#4)
    by Mreddieb on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:46 PM EST
    Could they be building a case against Novak. This would explain why they have left him alone so far.

    One of the concerns I have with granting reporters a privilge is that it would allow crooks like Rove to break the law and carry on a public relations defense with impunity. Leaking the name was (IMHO) illegal. With a privilege, not only could he leak the name and not worry, but carry on an "anonymous" leaking campaign from the White House against his political adversaries. I don't like it.

    the machine is broke.strike while the iron is hot.rove,harris,santorum,cunningham...going down.

    Re: What Does the Government Really Want from Mill (none / 0) (#7)
    by theologicus on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:46 PM EST
    Novak is small potatoes. They are building a case against Rove. And the yellow-brick road leads from Rove to Cheney. We're not in Kansas any more, Todo. They are snared in the work of their own hands( Ps. 9:16.).

    Plame and the other agents and informants damaged when Rove leaked her name (which led to the outing of the front operation, probably costing the US millions in wasted funds, just like blowing away million dollar soldiers in Airbases-for-Profit) are a bit closer to satisfaction. The other major scandal on this front is the UK-turned Al Qaeda MOLE, in contact reportedly with a terror cell in the US planning an attack, whose NAME was given to the NYT by NatSecAdv Rice, blowing this key piece of humint into the toilet, and forcing UK agents, at considerable added risk, to try to arrest whomever they could that weekend. Mission accomplished -- for traitors. Why Rice's treason hasn't received comparable attention is 'hard to imagine.' Probably her deal with Satan is still jake. He'll even take leather-freak Cheney Dick Square-shoes, and his Imp. No problem: "I'll be dead anyhow." (Chimperator, on the future)

    This is beautiful. The Republicans keep making the same mistakes. Remember next time boys: it's the coverup that kills you not the original conspiracy! Bwahahaha! With any luck this will cripple the right wing juggernaut long enough to prevent them from polluting the Supreme Court with some Christian Taleban POS. What will Bush do without his advisor and personal envoy from Satan (Rove)? Dare I dream that he might be Impeached?!?

    The Shakespearean beauty of the situation is absolutely breathtaking.

    Check out what President Bush said as the Plame scandal was breaking back in 2003: I don't know if we're going to find out the senior administration official. Now, this is a large administration, and there's a lot of senior officials. For more, see: "A Nod and a Wink: Bush on the Plame Scandal"