--- In [email protected], "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- In [email protected], [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Re Rowe -- the relivant statue states in part one must be a > persent or past UNDRE cover CIA employee & or past in the statue is 5 > yrs. She left te under cover work 9 yrs ago & was in administration -- > management there so no violation of the relivant statue even IF > outed 2 Yrs. ago or since. > > It's difficult to make the case that the CIA, which > was the entity that asked the Justice Department to > investigate the leak, was mistaken about the status > of one of its own employee, and that the Justice > Department hasn't yet realized the CIA got it wrong. > > It's not impossible that the statute you cite is > not, in fact, the relevant one, however. John > Dean, among others, has suggested that the relevant > statue is one having to do with espionage (don't > have the details to hand). > > But one way or another, it makes no sense to claim > the investigation isn't about a potential crime.
As long as any of her operatives were active, SHE was active and undercover. 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/
