FITZGERALD: That's a good question. And I think, knowing that he gave the information to someone who was outside the government, not entitled to receive it, and knowing that the information was classified, is not enough.
FITZGERALD: You need to know at the time that he transmitted the information, he appreciated that it was classified information, that he knew it or acted, in certain statutes, with recklessness.
And that is sort of what gets back to my point. In trying to figure that out, you need to know what the truth is.
So our allegation is in trying to drill down and find out exactly what we got here, if we received false information, that process is frustrated.
But at the end of the day, I think I want to say one more thing, which is: When you do a criminal case, if you find a violation, it doesn't really, in the end, matter what statute you use if you vindicate the interest.
--------------------------------------------
How can *the interest* be vindicated when you not only admit that you cannot prove that Plame was a covert agent, you also admit that, from a legal perspective, even providing information about a person with classified status is not even a crime?
This prosecutor is unwise.
Unwise, and I expect he will get his head handed to him during trial.
Doesn't matter what statute you use?
Good grief.
"Unwise"? No, he's just a "gotcha" guy, who just wanted another notch on his belt.