Conspiracy Theory -- Again

Here’s the WaPo’s new theory that makes things clearer about the CIA leak probe -- about as clear as mud:

“Fitzgerald would attempt to establish that at least two or more officials agreed to take affirmative steps to discredit and retaliate against Wilson and leak sensitive government information about his wife.”

“To prove a criminal conspiracy, the actions need not have been criminal, but conspirators must have had a criminal purpose.”

So, the actions weren’t criminal, but the purpose was. Yeah, right.

The purpose was to discredit Joe Wilson for the lying liar who tells lies that he is, by exposing the “cronyism” of his wife getting him the Niger trip. As one lawyer noted: answering a critic is politics, not criminal behavior. The purpose was not criminal.

It was common knowledge that Mrs. Wilson, Valerie Plame, was CIA, she was not covert at the time; even so, she had already been “outed”, and she wasn’t mentioned as Valerie Plame until Novak’s column.

Officials’ actions were not criminal and the purpose was not criminal.

CQ: “If Fitzgerald cannot find a single act of criminal behavior, then he almost assuredly cannot establish the mens rea necessary for a criminal conspiracy. For a conspiracy to exist, it has to involve the explicit intent to break the law. If no laws get broken in the commission of this conspiracy, it presents a prima facie argument against intent altogether.”

--LynZee