"*JimH*" wrote in message
...

On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 20:41:07 GMT, "Doug Kanter"

wrote:


"*JimH*" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
oups.com...


John H. wrote:

What law did Rove violate?

--
John H.

Section 421 of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act:



You are a lawyer now Kevin? Amazing.


No, stupid. He's one of the select few whose reading comprehension
abilities
fall into the category of "adult".

I guess that rules you out. So all that is left on *your* side of the
fence
is Kevin Noble.

You must be awful proud Dougy.

And wrong

************************************************** **************************
*****

"It's time for a timeout on a misguided and mechanical investigation in
which there is serious doubt that a crime was even committed. Federal courts
have stated that a reporter should not be subpoenaed when the testimony
sought is remote from criminal conduct or when there is no compelling
"government interest," i.e., no crime. As two people who drafted and
negotiated the scope of the 1982 Intelligence Identities Protection Act, we
can tell you: The Novak column and the surrounding facts do not support
evidence of criminal conduct.

When the act was passed, Congress had no intention of prosecuting a reporter
who wanted to expose wrongdoing and, in the process, once or twice published
the name of a covert agent. Novak is safe from indictment. But Congress also
did not intend for government employees to be vulnerable to prosecution for
an unintentional or careless spilling of the beans about an undercover
identity. A dauntingly high standard was therefore required for the
prosecutor to charge the leaker.
At the threshold, the agent must truly be covert. Her status as undercover
must be classified, and she must have been assigned to duty outside the
United States currently or in the past five years. This requirement does not
mean jetting to Berlin or Taipei for a week's work. It means permanent
assignment in a foreign country. Since Plame had been living in Washington
for some time when the July 2003 column was published, and was working at a
desk job in Langley (a no-no for a person with a need for cover), there is a
serious legal question as to whether she qualifies as "covert."

The law also requires that the disclosure be made intentionally, with the
knowledge that the government is taking "affirmative measures to conceal
[the agent's] relationship" to the United States. Merely knowing that Plame
works for the CIA does not provide the knowledge that the government is
keeping her relationship secret. In fact, just the opposite is the case. If
it were known on the Washington cocktail circuit, as has been alleged, that
Wilson's wife is with the agency, a possessor of that gossip would have no
reason to believe that information is classified -- or that "affirmative
measures" were being taken to protect her cover. "

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...2305-2005Jan11

************************************************** **************************
****8