Quote:
Originally Posted by Binary_Digit  Regardless of the leak to Cuba almost 20 years ago, Plame's identity as a covert CIA agent was not public knowledge when Novak published his article. Novak's article exposed Brewer Jennings Associates, a CIA front company charged with conterproliferation of WMDs and nuclear weapons. If the CIA agreed with you, they wouldn't have had her working at Brewer Jennings. The CIA doesn't agree with you. Her CIA status was classified when Novak's article came out, and nothing you say can ever change that. |
I don't care if the CIA agrees or not all I care about is the law and the law clearly states that it is a defense if
"before the commission of the offense with which the defendant is charged, the United States had publicly acknowledged or revealed the intelligence relationship to the United States of the individual the disclosure of whose intelligence relationship to the
United States is the basis for the prosecution," it doesn't get any clearer than that. Once her name was leaked by the CIA it could not be leaked again thus no crime was committed, now as to your point that it wasn't public knowledge (which in actuality is irrelevant) well if that is what section 422 hinges upon (which it doesn't) then it did become public knowledge either after Wilson or Plame shopped around their yellow cake story to every media outlet in the country, or after Armitage talked to Novak, now if they want to prosecute Armitage or Wilson they can be my guest, but that's not going to happen because this was never the point of this spectacle in the first place, the left thought they had their watergate on Bush, they were wrong.
Quote:
|
I held a Secret clearance in the U.S. Navy and I can tell you for a fact that some ridiculous alaby claiming that someone else leaked the same information you did wouldn't wash at all. Both heads would roll.
|
Not legally as per Section 422 of U.S. Code Title 50.
Quote:
|
I never claimed that Rove or Libby leaked to Novak, you must have me confused with someone else. All I'm saying is that this investigation is legitimate and the President is willfully obstructing it.
|
For there to be an obstruction of justice case a crime must have been committed, no crime = no obstruction of justice.