No -- which is probably a point in my favor. Would you consider Laurence Tribe to be an authority on Federal laws that cover the illegal dissemination of classified U.S. intelligence information?
Why don't you call his show and straighten him out?
The last time I corresponded with Mr. Levin (right here on FreeRepublic) he came across as such an ignorant fool about the matter in question (the Dubai Ports World issue) that I found myself questioning the legitimacy of his legal credentials. Based on his posts here on FR and his conversations with callers on his radio show, it was readily apparent to folks like me that he had no idea what the Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States (CFIUS) is, what Section 721 of the Defense Production Act of 1950 was, and how this law was modified under Section 5021 of the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988 (also known as the "Exon-Florio Provision" of the law).
It must have pretty humiliating for Mr. Levin to learn that he had gone out on a limb with rabid, partisan Democrats like Chuck Schumer and Hillary Clinton, and silly, ignorant Republicans like Michael Savage Weiner and Rep. Peter King to criticize the Bush administration for its actions in the Dubai Ports World case . . . only to find out later -- from people here on FR and callers to his radio show with no legal training whatsoever -- that the Bush administration had done exactly what was called for under the Federal statute in question.
So while Mark Levin is usually right on target on most issues, his "constitutional lawyer" act means absolutely nothing to me.
"Would you consider Laurence Tribe to be an authority on Federal laws that cover the illegal dissemination of classified U.S. intelligence information?"
Why don't you cite Naom Chomsky while you're at it? Michael Ratner? Rachel Meeropol?