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

To: conserv13

I'd like it confirmed by NAMED sources - and then they should be prosecuted for leaking the info, which is secret (from the grand jury).


9 posted on 02/09/2006 10:43:59 AM PST by MortMan (Trains stop at train stations. On my desk is a workstation...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: MortMan
Ohhhhhhhh the irony of it all.

The grand jury investigation of a "leak", in which the grand jury proceedings are to remain confidential, and you have a "leak". Try wrapping your head around that one.

(this is all bases on the assumption that the story is true, which it probably is not.)
75 posted on 02/09/2006 3:00:54 PM PST by A Texan (Oderint dum metuant)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]

To: MortMan
I'd like it confirmed by NAMED sources - and then they should be prosecuted for leaking the info,"""

What if it was Libby who leaked it, or his lawyer acting to further Libby's litigation strategy? Would you still want the leaker prosecuted?

84 posted on 02/09/2006 3:50:07 PM PST by churchillbuff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | 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