Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Blame For Plame -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: manalagi who wrote (29)	7/4/2005 10:55:38 AM
From: redfish	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 99

The statute is pretty complex and probably hard to prosecute someone under. This just got posted: Lawrence O'Donnell: No Crime in Plame Case MSNBC commentator Lawrence O'Donnell, who broke the news Friday that notes taken by Time magazine's Matthew Cooper indictate that top Bush advisor Karl Rove leaked the name of CIA employee Valerie Plame to columnist Robert Novak, said Sunday it's likely that Rove broke no laws. Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin, acknowledged on Saturday that his client had indeed spoken to Cooper before the Novak column hit in July 2003. But Luskin insisted that Rove never revealed Plame's identity. Speaking to WABC Radio host, Internet guru Matt Drudge late Sunday, O'Donnell noted: "What [Luskin] has said is very careful lawyer language. . . We live in a world where we have to discover, in the 90s, that there are people who aren't sure what the meaning of 'is' is." The MSNBC talker posited: "That could simply mean he did not use the words 'Valerie Plame.' He may have said [Joseph] Wilson's wife, for example. He may have said all sorts of things that still fit what we're talking about." But even if Rove was behind the disclosure, it doesn't mean he broke any law, he argued. "[Luskin] is insisting that Karl Rove did not commit a crime," O'Donnell told Drudge. "That may very well be the case." The MSNBC talker said he had studied extensively the statute allegedly broken in the Plame case, concluding that is "a very difficult statute to violate." For one thing, he said, "Perhaps [Plame] really wasn't a covert agent - doesn't fit the statute's definition of covert agent. I think that's possible." Another factor that could mitigate allegations of an illegal disclosure, said O'Donnell, was that whoever revealed Plame's identity "would have had to intentionally disclose it knowing that the CIA is trying to hide it. "Karl Rove may not have known that," he added. If indeed Rove was behind the disclosure: "All [of the above] would add up to the fact that no crime was committed in the transmission of this information by Rove to Cooper," O'Donnell said. newsmax.com