That means you can’t tell us, but not necessarily that you don’t know. But we have ways to make people talk…
That has a nicer ring to it, to be sure. Perhaps accompanied by a rending of your own garments, that would be an excellent approach to your future concessions.
The thing that really pisses me off is that these bumpkins are going to get away with it. Despite Brickers assertions, there is no doubt that a law has been broken. The only question is who broke it.
I just know that the bastards are going to end up saying that Karl just happened to glance at the report on AirForce One that contained the info on Plame but that he did not read enough to find out that she was a covert operative. So see no law was broken, if he did not know she was covert then it was not against the law for him to reveal it. Of course it is a coincedence that her husband had just royally pissed off the administration.
Move along there is nothing to see here. Now about that all important flag burning amendment…
Bricker: Perhaps accompanied by a rending of your own garments
I love this sort of lawyerly caution that explicitly specifies that the garments rent by elucidator must be his own. Whose-else garments is an anonymous stranger communicating virtually on a message board gonna be able to rend? 
I’m pretty sure knowledge can be constructive as well as direct for the purposes of this law.
But you’re missing the most juicey of possibilities: that Rove might be indicted for lying under oath about something related to the investigation, not the actual leak itself.
This would be the juiciest of ironies: certain folk on the right once claimed that lying under oath was a crime of such weighty importance that a President should be impeached. It’s not about the sex (or now leaks), it’s about the Rule of Law. Coudl these ruleOfLawers now claim that in Rove’s case that perjury is an offense of no consequence?
I can’t imagine it.
I’d be interested in seeing if I’m wrong, but the matter to me is blindingly obvious: perjury in front of a federal grand jury is a federal crime, and should be punished as such. Period.
They can and will. For fuck sake its not like he lied about anything serious like a extra marital blowjob…
Bricker, I don’t think this statute can be read to include any “constructive” knowledge element. If so it would say “know or reasonably should have known”.
Mark my words, nothing of consequence will come of this. These bastards are above the law.
So, why wouldn’t revealing the name of every covert agent in a time of war fall under the category of aid to the enemy?
The Model Penal Code takes the view that “knowledge” means actual or constructive knowledge.
But I were to begin tearing his clothes, it might lead to a most unfortunate misapprehension of my intent…
Isikoff (the Newsweek guy who claimed it was Rove) was interviewed on Hardball today. He was a bit equivocal when asked if he still thought it was Rove.
If, in fact, it was Rove and a crime was committed, wouldn’t we expect a resignation by now so that he can “spend more time with his family”? Actually, the thought of Rove having a family is a bit scary…
Point of order. The Novak revelations, IIRC preceded the onset of the military action in Iraq.
Additionally, in the absence of a formal Congressional Declaration and Articles of War, it can be argued that no “time of war” exists or existed at the time.
Sorry.
Obviously, I’m a jerk.
It came out more harsh and less playful than I meant it. Please accept my humble apologies for that.
But, know that I wouldn’t hold it against you if you were an ass. Some of my best friends ( and the one friend they all have in common 
)are asses. Most of them smart ones at that.
We were in Afghanistan.
Perhaps but there still are enemies actively engaging in warfare against the United States Military and revealing the entire CIA roster would certainly aid them.
“It’s good to be the king.”
–Mel Brooks, History of the World Part I
You don’t seriously believe Rove is gonna go down in flames over this, do you? The “quit to spend more time with his/her family” bullstuff is for shoving underlings out the door.
Ah yes, the infamous “glorified secretary” quote – the source hinted that she might have just been a low-level CIA employee, with no covert status to protect.
Why on earth, then, did the White House feel it was necessary to pass info on Plame’s employer to a member of the media, and why did Novak mention it in his column?
No constitutional issues at stake here, just wondering what non-revenge reason there could be for such a chain of events to occur.
I’m going to be extremely amused - and by that I mean extremely, extremely amused - if someone in the administration immediately following Bill Clinton’s is brought down for lying to a grand jury.
Entirely sufficient.
I know no one who would agree. None.
Refused. It is irrational to accept an apology for something I am quite certain never happened. No evidence can be offered to persuade me otherwise. It is impossible.
Both of mine are. I can love the meek, the dull and the self-effacing. But friendship? No, no, that asks too much. Scorn me, ignore me, forget me, but sweet Jesus! don’t bore me.
I did not have covert relations with that woman, Valerie Plame.