Originally Posted by cascadian

I don't see how the Cubans intercepting classified CIA documents qualifies as "the United States had publicly acknowledged or revealed". I would like to see this opinion argued in front of a judge TYVM.

Originally Posted by jallman

He doesn't have to argue it in front of a judge. He has privilege and total authority over what is classified and what isn't.

Originally Posted by Binary_Digit

Bush claims privilege to withhold CIA leak records - Yahoo! News

Granted, it would be ridiculous for the President to have to explain every minor detail of his actions throughout his Presidency. But when a law has been broken, it wreaks of guilt for the President to claim executive privilege in order to avoid cooperating with the investigation.

And for those who believe Richard Armitage was the only leaker, and thus the investigation is a farce, don't forget that Robert Novak cited "two senior administration officials" as his sources. Armitage was one, so who was the other? Obviously Bush doesn't want you to know...

Somebody else besides Armitage leaked classified information to the press. A law may have been broken, which put peoples' lives at risk, and the President is obstructing the investigation to find out if and who. I think it's time for George W. Bush to be held in contempt of Congress.

Originally Posted by section eight

Executive privilege will not apply if the prosecutor can show that the testimony is necessary for proving a crime, but as I have shown no crime was committed because the CIA had already divulged her name as did Wilson and then later Armitage.

Originally Posted by section eight

A) It's not the public that is the concern it is hostile foreign governments you are completely misinterpreting the intent of Section 422.

Originally Posted by section eight

B) Even if you were correct in your assertion that the CIA disclosure doesn't count then guess what? Both Wilson and Armitage both her identity public knowledge as soon as they talked to the press so if you want to prosecute one of them go for it.

Originally Posted by cascadian

Like I said, I would like to see this argued in front of a judge. Do you have precedent or simply an opinion on its intent?

Originally Posted by section eight

Just my use of logic to determine that the reason why they don't want the names of covert agents to be mentioned in the press is so that that information won't fall into the hands of hostile foreign governments like the one in Havana.

Originally Posted by cascadian

The operations and intentions of CIA may very well be more complicated than that. Also the term "public acknowledgement" may have very well been inserted to differentiate between the operations of other covert entities to divulge information.

Regardless this remains speculation without some legal precedent.

Originally Posted by section eight

....once Armitage leaked the name no further leakage could occur.

Originally Posted by American

Valerie Plame was a slut and a traitor. She got what she deserved. She got passed around CIA HQ like a party favor.

Originally Posted by Coolguy

Fact: After a lengthy investigation, no crime of having revealed Plame's status has ever been charged.