John Dean says Rove may have violated Federal Conspiracy & Fraud Statute! [View All]

[KoKo]

(This is his latest column where he further state the problems the White House is in with the Wilson/Plame "TreasonGate" citing more laws that have been broken)

Why the Federal Conspiracy and Fraud Statutes May Apply Here

This elegantly simple law has snared countless people working for, or with,
the federal government. Suppose a conspiracy is in progress. Even those
who come in later, and who share in the purpose of the conspiracy, can
become responsible for all that has gone on before they joined. They need
not realize they are breaking the law; they need only have joined the
conspiracy.

Most likely, in this instance the conspiracy would be a conspiracy to defraud
- for the broad federal fraud statute, too, may apply here. If two federal
government employees agree to undertake actions that are not within the
scope of their employment, they can be found guilty of defrauding the U.S.
by depriving it of the "faithful and honest services of its employee." It is
difficult to imagine that President Bush is going to say he hired anyone to
call reporters to wreak more havoc on Valerie Plame. Thus, anyone who did
so - or helped another to do so - was acting outside the scope of his or her
employment, and may be open to a fraud prosecution.

What counts as "fraud" under the statute? Simply put, "any conspiracy for
the purpose of impairing, obstructing, or defeating the lawful function of any
department of government." (Emphasis added.) If telephoning reporters to
further destroy a CIA asset whose identity has been revealed, and whose
safety is now in jeopardy, does not fit this description, I would be quite
surprised.

If Newsweek is correct that Karl Rove declared Valerie Plame Wilson "fair
game," then he should make sure he's got a good criminal lawyer, for he
made need one. I've only suggested the most obvious criminal statute that
might come into play for those who exploit the leak of a CIA asset's identity.
There are others.

More about this......an interesting read:http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20031010.html