but patrick fitzgerald was not appointed only to investigate whether the IIPA was violated. look at his letter of appointment. it delegates to him "all the authority of the Attorney General with respect to the Department's investigation into the alleged unauthorized disclosure of a CIA employee's identity, and [directs him] to exercise that authority as Special Counsel independent of the supervision or control of any officer of the Department." in a follow-up letter fitzgerald's investigatory and prosecutorial authority was further clarified:
At your request, I am writing to clarify that my December 30, 2003, delegation to you of "all the authority of the Attorney General with respect to the Department's investigation into the alleged unauthorized disclosure of a CIA employee's identity" is plenary and includes the authority to investigate and prosecute violations of any federal criminal laws related to the underlying alleged unauthorized disclosure, as well as federal crimes committed in the course of, and with intent to interfere with, your investigation, such as perjury, obstruction of justice, destruction of evidence, and intimidation of witnesses; to conduct appeals arising out of the matter being investigated and/or prosecuted; and to pursue administrative remedies and civil sanctions (such as civil contempt) that are within the Attorney General's authority to impose or pursue. Further, my conferral on you of the title of "Special Counsel" in this matter should not be misunderstood to suggest that your position and authorities are defined and limited by 28 CFR Part 600.(emphasis added)while the media and the blogisphere have latched onto the IIPA, nothing limits fitzgerald's authority to that particular act. indeed, the bit i quoted above expressly authorizes him to bring perjury, obstruction of justice and other similar charges. furthermore, as others have pointed out, even if fitzgerald were only allowed to look into the outing issue, the IIPA is not the only relevant statute. (see, for example, the espionage act).
not only does fitzgerald have full authority to bring charges beyond the IIPA, some of the people now arguing that perjury is not a serious offense are going to run into a bit of a consistency problem if you look back at their statements during the clinton impeachment. the argument could prove to be a dangerous one indeed, for it gives an opening to raise the I word with regard to the current president, or at least vice president.
so the official republican party line is a loser on both legal and political grounds. they're going to have to come up with something better if they want to weasel out of this one.
