Alter (Newsweek): Rove's Plame naming = NO criminal court

[Gloria]

Says that "The conventional wisdom in Washington this week is that Karl Rove is out of the woods."

Why???

"Because Rove’s apparent violation is covered by executive order, not legislated law, the issue of his security clearance is unlikely to wind up in criminal court. But he may face a civil suit from the Wilsons, who could seek damages because of the damage done to Plame’s CIA career by the leak."

He's refering to:

Under Executive Order 12958, signed by President Clinton in 1995, such a disclosure is grounds for, at a minimum, losing access to classified information.

Section 5.1 of Clinton’s executive order prohibits “any knowing, willful or negligent action that could reasonably be expected to result in an unauthorized disclosure of classified information.” While the law against revealing the identity of a CIA operative requires that the perpetrator intentionally disclosed such classified information (a high standard, which may be one reason Fitzgerald did not indict on those grounds), the executive order covers “negligence,” or unintentional disclosure."


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9899512/site/newsweek/

Is this really the case???????

[goclark]

1. I hope Alter is WRONG!

[Tom Joad]

2. We hope for criminal charges, but even if he only loses his job...

it will be a great victory. He can still lose his job, if it is made clear to the US public that he leaked the name, it should be difficult for Bushy to keep him on board. After all, Bushy said that if any were involved in the leak, they will no longer work at the White House.

[Gloria]

3. This article speculates that he would lose his security clearance

but still hang around.....

[kestrel91316]

4. He would hang around, and they would all ignore the fact that he has

lost his clearance. In other words, they will just thumb their noses at the law. It has worked until now............

[leesa]

5. Why do they say it was executive order vs legislated law....there is no

way Rove's disclosure of Plames identity to a reporter was either "negligance" or "unintentional disclosure". This hasn't been determined yet (and is highly doubtful). Rove does nothing without intent.

[Brundle_Fly]

6. the plot thickens....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2218118&mesg_id=2218118

this was on here early today, can anyone find out what bush altered?

[cassiepriam]

7. Laws? who cares, they certainly don't follow them.

The laws are just for the rest of us, the great unwashed.

[ElectroPrincess]

8. At times,

Both Alter and Corn seriously freak me out! A la Chris Mathew's TWEETY. :puke:

[mmonk]

9. You can still charge someone

of something worse. Of course, you have the burden of proof in court.