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 : Sioux Nation -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tonto who wrote (28359)	7/15/2005 9:29:44 AM
From: Karen Lawrence	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 362447

Then the charge would be conspiracy: There are stories circulating that Rove may have been told of Valerie Plame's CIA activity by a journalist, such as Judith Miller, as recently suggested in Editor & Publisher. If so, that doesn't exonerate Rove. Rather, it could make for some interesting pairing under the federal conspiracy statute (which was the statute most commonly employed during Watergate). writ.news.findlaw.com

To: tonto who wrote (28359)	7/15/2005 10:00:19 AM
From: Knighty Tin	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 362447

Yup. Revealing classified information is against the law even if it's already been revealed. The law is simple. You don't have to be a Republican or Democrat to know it. Here's a copy of The Espionage Act of 1917. thirdworldtraveler.com And, of course, he is guilty of perjury in his sworn statements to the FBI. Lying isn't against the law in public, though it should be reason for dismissal from his position, and he certainly lied about not knowing Plame's name. I realize the Republicrooks will try to spin the law. They always do, as in Watergate and Iran/Contra. As a criminal conspiracy of a party, they have no choice.