Beltway Whodunit: An Agent, a Secret and (at Least One) Big Mouth

July, 12, 2005 — -- Two years after undercover CIA agent Valerie Plame was "outed" in a column by Robert Novak, the investigation into how, and why, her name dropped out of the government's classified files appears to be nearing an end. Here's a look at the case so far, and what it all means.

How did this all get started?

On July 6, 2003, former U.S. ambassador Joseph C. Wilson published an editorial in The New York Times challenging President Bush's State of the Union claim that Iraq had attempted to purchase nuclear materials from an African country.

Wilson wrote that he'd been sent by the government to Africa in 2002 to check out rumors that Iraq had bought uranium from Niger in the late 1990s. After a nine-day investigation, Wilson said he told the CIA and the State Department it was "highly doubtful" the sale ever happened.

Having turned up nothing on his trip, Wilson said he was surprised to hear Bush mention the alleged sale in his speech, and challenged the administration to reveal the evidence behind the claim. He suggested that if his report from Niger simply had been ignored, "then a legitimate argument can be made that we went to war under false pretenses." (The White House later backed off the uranium claim, blaming the CIA and British intelligence for providing the information.)

About a week later, Novak wrote a column identifying Wilson's wife, Plame, as a CIA operative. In fact, Plame didn't just work for the CIA, she was an undercover agent, and the disclosure not only blew her cover, but also -- Wilson claimed -- put them at risk. Wilson soon suggested the administration had leaked his wife's name to undermine his credibility (for more on this, read on).

After months of pressure, then-Attorney General John Ashcroft appointed Chicago U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald as special counsel to investigate the leak of Plame's identity. For more than a year, Fitzgerald has been presenting evidence to a grand jury in Washington.

Why is the White House taking so much heat now?

It all comes down to one person: Karl Rove, the president's chief political adviser.

There have long been murmurings that Rove spilled the beans on Plame, but the White House repeatedly has denied that he had anything to do with the case. Bush told reporters in June 2004 that if someone in his administration had leaked Plame's name, he'd fire them. White House spokesman Scott McClellan several times emphatically insisted that Rove wasn't involved with the leak.

The investigation appeared to be at a standstill until recently, when Time Inc. turned over e-mails and notes from one of its reporters, Matthew Cooper. In a July 11, 2003, e-mail (five days after Wilson's editorial, and three days before the Novak column) obtained by Newsweek magazine, Cooper told his boss about a conversation he'd had with Rove on "double super secret background."

According to Cooper's e-mail, Rove warned him not to give much credence to Wilson's claims, primarily because -- Rove claims -- the trip wasn't commissioned by then CIA Chief George Tenet or Cheney, but rather by Wilson's wife. The subtext: the trip and the report are suspect. The e-mail, however, does not indicate that Rove either used Plame's name, or knew she was an undercover agent.

Adding to the intrigue was a Sept. 28, 2003, report in The Washington Post that a "senior administration official" had been calling around to at least six journalists to reveal the identity and occupation of Wilson's wife. Was the White House shopping around classified information to damage Wilson?

Through his lawyer, Robert Luskin, Rove recently admitted talking with Cooper, and trying to warn him off of Wilson's version of the uranium investigation. However, Luskin insisted Rove never disclosed Plame's name.

Rove's defense is doing little to quell the outrage of Democrats, who are calling on Bush to follow through on his promise to fire leakers of Plame's identity.

Among the witnesses Fitzgerald's investigators have questioned are Bush; Vice President Dick Cheney; Rove; Cheney's chief of staff, Lewis Libby; and former White House counsel Alberto Gonzales, who is now the attorney general.

This all seems like politics -- is there really anything to investigate?

Politics? Undeniably. This is about a potential breach of national security by an administration with a political platform centered on bolstering the national defense. But there are also some serious legal questions at issue.

Under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, it is a crime to intentionally disclose information that could identify a covert agent. Passed in 1981, the act was a Cold War-era response to former CIA agent Philip Agee's campaign to out U.S. covert agents. Along with a 1975 book that detailed CIA operations, Agee was linked with a publication that included a column called "Naming Names" that routinely revealed the identities of undercover CIA operatives.

While the law made headlines when it was passed, it has been the basis of just one prosecution, 20 years ago. Still, it's a serious crime, carrying a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison and $50,000 in fines.

What's the difference between what Rove admits doing, and what might be a potential crime?

There are two key issues in this whodunit: timing and state of mind.

According to the Post, Novak's column was first distributed over news wires on July 11. If this was the case, it potentially puts Plame's name into the public domain three days before the piece actually ran in newspapers around the country. No matter who -- if anyone -- is ultimately fingered as the leaker, a key part of the investigation will have to center on differentiating a potentially illegal disclosure from attempts to spin some mileage out of damaging political news.

There's also some debate over whether Plame's job was much of a secret. "She had a desk job in Langley," Victoria Toensing, who was chief counsel to the Senate Intelligence Committee when the act was enacted, told the Times. "When you want someone in deep cover, they don't go back and forth to Langley." Others, however, maintain that Plame was indeed working undercover, and that revealing her identity put her, and those associated with her, at risk.

Now, to state of mind. To be found guilty under the statute, one needs to have known that the person identified was a covert agent, and to have intentionally disclosed that identity. In other words, knowing that Plame worked for the CIA apparently isn't enough to trigger the statute. One would have to know she was an undercover agent, and to have disclosed her identity on purpose. Rove's lawyer says his client merely was trying to say that Wilson had not been sent to Niger on orders from Cheney, but rather on authorization from his wife.

"A fair-minded reading of Cooper's e-mail is that Rove was trying to discourage Time magazine from circulating false allegations about Cheney, not trying to encourage them by saying anything about Wilson or his wife," Luskin said.

The New York Times reports that Luskin has said he has been told by Fitzgerald that Rove is not a target of the investigation.

Doesn't this have something to do with a reporter going to jail?

Yes, in early July a federal judge found Times reporter Judith Miller in contempt of court and ordered her jailed for refusing to divulge a source to Fitzgerald's grand jury. Miller had done some reporting on the Plame case, but never wrote a story.

Time's Cooper also faced a contempt charge and imprisonment. But in an 11th hour about-face, the reporter said he had been given authority from his source -- Rove -- to cooperate with the federal investigation.

And what about the guy whose column started this whole thing?

Figuring out what Novak did is a popular parlor game in Washington, D.C. -- especially now that Deep Throat's identity has been revealed.

Novak hasn't revealed whether he has testified before the grand jury or been subpoenaed. But on July 15, the New York Times reported that Rove told investigators he learned Plame's identity from Novak. The paper reported that the previously undisclosed telephone conversation, which took place on July 8, 2003, was initiated by Novak, apparently while he was doing his research for the column.

Novak has promised to "reveal all" after the matter is resolved, adding that he believes it is wrong for the government to jail journalists.