To: Arrowhead1952
**White House is going after Media Leaks.** Keeping with the "Libby Rule," doesn't the government first have to establish that the leak could be in violation of criminal statute, before they start asking whodunnit?
419 posted on
03/05/2006 9:17:28 AM PST by
Cboldt
To: Cboldt
doesn't the government first have to establish that the leak could be in violation of criminal statute, before they start asking whodunnit?Do you have doubts that the existence of prisons in Europe and the NSA terrorist surveillence program were classifed?
431 posted on
03/05/2006 9:23:49 AM PST by
Bahbah
(An admitted Snow Flake and a member of Sam's Club)
To: Cboldt
leak could be in violation of criminal statute
Was it not you that originally posted the article on the "Whistle blower law"? Based on the info in that one, I thought National Security "whistle blowers" were allowed to talk to appropriate Congresspersons, NOT to people without the proper clearance. Talking to the Times about classified data instead of a Congressperson with the appropriated clearance is a crime.
432 posted on
03/05/2006 9:24:30 AM PST by
MNJohnnie
("Good men don't wait for the polls. They stand on principle and fight."-Soul Seeker)
To: Cboldt
Not if you are Peter Fitzgerald.
433 posted on
03/05/2006 9:25:54 AM PST by
Txsleuth
(Bush-Bot;WaterBucket Brigader;and fan of defconw)
To: Cboldt; OldFriend
Keeping with the "Libby Rule," doesn't the government first have to establish that the leak could be in violation of criminal statute, before they start asking whodunnit? You'd think so, but I laughed at the reply by OldFriend in this reply.
O'Reilly commented to Katie Couric one morning that he's waiting to see Russert taken away in handcuffs....re this Plame story!
#209
451 posted on
03/05/2006 9:50:46 AM PST by
Arrowhead1952
(Don't mess with Texas.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson