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 WHITE HOUSE -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: jlallen who wrote (11299)	11/23/2007 11:56:49 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 25737

Correct on both counts... but I believe that fancy legal lingo you pulled on us there ("dumbass") actually resolves to something akin to obstruction of justice and or perjury.... And, as far as 'No charges were brought for "outing" ' --- believe that that particular law is so restrictively written that NO ONE has EVER actually been convicted of violating it. This one came pretty close. :-) Since the law requires - one of several preconditions, I believe - that the exposed agent have been posted overseas without interruption for a preceding five year time span before the exposure is a 'crime' under it's terms... and Plame missed that 'uninterrupted five year period' by a couple of MONTHS, this one case probably came closer then any others since the law was first enacted. Missed it by 'that much'. <G>