[Boundless]

>> would Fitzy have then tried to charge on the supposed
>> original leak?

> Plame (not Libby) has to meet three conditions for there
> to be a charge for revealing her identity:

I wasn't referring to the 1982 law, but Libby's general
requirement to not disclose classified info.

I suspect everyone except barking moonbats agree by now
that Plame wasn't covered by the 1982 law.

[angkor]

I wasn't referring to the 1982 law, but Libby's general requirement to not disclose classified info.

Maybe that's why there's been only one (known) prosecution under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act.