Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: afnamvet

But he asked the wrong question.

This investigation should never have even have gotten to the point of trying to learn who said what to whom in June, 2003, because:

1. Plame doesn't fall under the class of people covered by the law.

2. She was already "outed" long before the events in question.


2,544 posted on 10/28/2005 12:05:46 PM PDT by B Knotts (JRB for SCOTUS!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2474 | View Replies ]


To: B Knotts
LOL.

We're pissed. Liberals are pissed.

Fitz probably thinks he got it just right!

2,557 posted on 10/28/2005 12:06:42 PM PDT by Dems_R_Losers (2,4,6,8 - a burka makes me look overweight!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2544 | View Replies ]

To: B Knotts
This investigation should never have even have gotten to the point of trying to learn who said what to whom in June, 2003, because:

1. Plame doesn't fall under the class of people covered by the law.

2. She was already "outed" long before the events in question.

If this is fact then where is there a national security breach? What was the CIA's official response to Plame's "outing" prior to the events in question? Was there any? If they issued a statement that she was or is a classified employee then a crime was committed but not by Libby, IMO.

2,750 posted on 10/28/2005 12:23:52 PM PDT by afnamvet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2544 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson