The law in question has several provisos:
(1) that the CIA must have tried to keep the agent's identity a secret for the five years previous to his being named;
(2) that the person releasing the name must know that the agent is operating covertly;
(3) that the revealer's intent must be to damage the USA's spying capacity, and must have shown that intent through a history of similar acts.
None of these provisos were met, so there is no case whatsoever. IMHO, the dims are simply trying to get back at Rove for his derisive (but true) commentary on liberals' shameful behavior regarding 9-11.
"None of these provisos were met, so there is no case whatsoever. IMHO, the dims are simply trying to get back at Rove for his derisive (but true) commentary on liberals' shameful behavior regarding 9-11."
They don't need to worry about the facts, since they have a hammerlock on the media. (They are the media.)
Of course it is just another way to get back at Bush for winning the election. The media is war by another means. As is the court system.
This bogus story also serves to keep attention away from the London bombings. After all, none other than John Le Kerry (D-France) assured us that the threat of terrorism has been exaggerated by the Bush WH.
They want to keep this ball in the air until they get all their info from Larry Flynt on the possible Supreme Court nominees.