ANY communication of a secret operative's name by someone Who Should KNow Better is against the law, and in a very big way, at that. It doesn't matter if the story was published, or if it was to a reporter or your milkman. The law is about the leak, not who the leak is to.
--- In [email protected], anonymousff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > What am I missing here? I agree Rove's action look a bit smoking > gunish. But at this point all that is known publically (the grand jury > may know far more) is that in a rushed two minute convo, on double > deep background, he told a reporter, Cooper, that Joe Wilson could not > be trusted and he only got the African gig because his wife worked at > the CIA and recommended him. A sort of incidental aside. In that > context, at face value, it is far cry from maliciously leaking the > operatives name in order invoke revenge on Wilson. At face value, it > was not public disclosure of a CIA agents identity. > > What matters is who told Novak. Novak outed Plume, not Cooper. If Rove > did tell Novak, yet to be demonstrated, he is gonzo, and probably on > his way to prison. But those dots have not YET been connected by > viable facts. > > Again, the evolution of things look a bit sickish, like when any > scandal unfolds. But regardless of your thoughts on Rove, just becasue > you hate a guy, thats not sufficient to lynch him (except maybe in > Texas). The current public facts about his actions seem pretty ho hum. > But the story has more legs. Lets stay tuned, But keep the rope in the > trunk for now bubba. > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "jim_flanegin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > > --- In [email protected], "jim_flanegin" > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], Peter Sutphen > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Notice that the White House is silent about this so > > > > > far. Trying to find a spin to make it okay. It's not. > > > > > Mr. Rove is f-cked. > > > > > > > > > Agreed that he is, but more as a personal opinion ;) > > > > The pattern has been when they get into trouble, i.e. some of > > the > > > > filth begins leaking out, there is a 'security incident'. > > Distracts > > > > the press, and keeps the sheeple in fear. I would like more than > > > > anything to see Rove have a boot planted solidly on his ample > > > > posterior- He certainly deserves it. > > > > > > A "security incident" isn't going to derail the > > > criminal investigation, though, nor even change > > > its course, so that wouldn't get them out of > > > trouble. And if Rove ends up being indicted, a > > > security incident could distract attention from > > > that event and the subsequent trial for only so > > > long. > > > > > > (I mean, unless it's a Really Really Big Security > > > Incident, with massive casualties and martial law > > > and the whole nine yards.) > > > > Based on what I'm hearing, a criminal prosecution is not likely. > > Apparently Rove worded his weaseling to avoid actually saying > > Wilson's wife's name, and that gets him off the hook per committing > > a crime. Hopefully new evidence will come to light to render this > > moot though... To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
