As Kausfiles reports, the New York Times has disclosed that the Valerie Plame leak wasn't really a violation of law after all. The story here, in case anyone missed it, is that Ms. Plame was allegedly outed as a CIA operative by the Bush Administration, in retaliation for her husband's anti-Bush activities. The FBI has been investigating this as possible crime, and the Times as well as other news sources rarely questioned whether in fact any laws had been broken. Now this from yesterday's Times:
Meanwhile, an even more basic issue has been raised in recent articles in The Washington Post and elsewhere: the real possibility that the disclosure of Ms. Plame's identity, while an abuse of power, may not have violated any law. Before any reporters are jailed, searching court review is needed to determine whether the facts indeed support a criminal prosecution under existing provisions of the law protecting the identities of covert operatives. [my emphasis].
This is the Times trying to juggle two awkward issues; special protections for reporters, and an apparent Bush administration scandal. The latter seems about to hit the floor. A perfectly legal abuse of power may be an unsightly wart on the skin of Presidency, but just doesn't generate enough subpoenas to become malignant.
Recent Comments