From: "Robert G Lewis" 


"George J. Sherwood"  wrote in
message news:44364168{at}w3....
> Robert G Lewis wrote:
>
>>
>> Voters, Congress and the courts ( in some cases) .  Of
course I also
>> expect the President to obey the law ( I'm NOT saying that Bush has
>> violated the law) and should he break the law face criminal charges.
>> That's why my
>> questions.  I wonder if the president declassifies something but doesn't
>> inform the Agencies it anyone can subsequently be charged if they leak it
>> ?
>
> You can't be charged with leaking something that is not classified.  But I
> am not sure that the President could authorize (and I don't think he did)
> the release of a covert agent's name.  This is a different situation then
> declassifying information and the having that information released or
> leaked.  That is well within the right of the President.  There is a
> specific statute protecting covert agents. I don't know all the details,
> but it would seem to me to be an entirely different case then the other.
> He would have to declare the person to not be a covert agent to get around
> the law.

I doubt very much that Bush explicitly said out his wife , or said to
release her name. My feeling is that as members of the administration
talked about how to go after Wilson they kept thinking of  more and more
outlandish ways until someone just screwed up and went overboard.


>
>>
>> Well I think it is a given that her name was leaked. I would also think
>> that anyone who worked with her ( or even for the front companies she
>> worked for)would be consider suspect by foreign governments. I do not see
>> how that helped the Presidents case other than to serve to try and
>> discredit a critic, not to counter the critics arguments. Personally I
>> think it was a bad for the country for the information ( her identify) to
>> be leaked. Leaking facts to counter facts ( or allegations if you prefer)
>> is one thing.
>
> What isn't clear is if the exposure of her name was against the law.  The
> law that protects covert agents is very clear with the conditions that
> have
> to be met.  This is why I have found it interesting that no one was charge
> in the actual leak of the name.  The only charge is perjury during the
> course of the investigation.
>
> George

Well at the time the CIA was concerned enough to refer it. I suspect that
it cannot be proven who  leaked what when . This would seem to be
low hanging fruit so to speak. Or they want to 'turn Liddy". Pure
speculation though.

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5