Sad: That they won't pursue any further suits or charges against other administration officials. It's like they're saying "yep he's guilty of obstructing justice, but it worked!"
Well, the problem there is, all the signs point to the "leak" originating with Bush himself. If Bush tells someone to talk to the press about something, it's not a leak. They just wanted it to look like a leak because what they did was underhanded and cowardly. But not, apparently, against the law.
I'm not a lawyer, but according to everything I've read on the subject it doesn't matter who does it; it's still treason.
Anyway it makes no difference whether it's a "leak" or "a planned attack to discredit a critic". Talking is not criminal. Outing a covert agent of the government is, by whatever means. Lying under oath and obstruction of justice are crimes. Why not prosecute Karl Rove for his part?
Man, it seems like a great time for a double impeachment.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
branchandroot![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2007-03-06 09:12 pm (UTC)Sad: That they won't pursue any further suits or charges against other administration officials. It's like they're saying "yep he's guilty of obstructing justice, but it worked!"
(no subject)
Date: 2007-03-06 09:51 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-03-06 10:05 pm (UTC)Anyway it makes no difference whether it's a "leak" or "a planned attack to discredit a critic". Talking is not criminal. Outing a covert agent of the government is, by whatever means. Lying under oath and obstruction of justice are crimes. Why not prosecute Karl Rove for his part?
Man, it seems like a great time for a double impeachment.