Sunday, July 17, 2005


Re Learned Foot's analysis of the statute that Karl Rove is alleged to have violated: agreed. Based on what we know so far, it seems impossible to prove scienter, and scienter is key. My post wasn't intended to suggest that the "any information" clause was more pivotal than the scienter ones (infelicitous, hatched-after-midnight headline to the contrary notwithstanding), only that the statute doesn't actually require that the source of the information the discloser discloses be classified material, which seems weird at first glance but maybe not so weird upon further reflection. I hadn't seen--and still haven't seen--anyone else make this point, and I have seen others wrongly assert the opposite. For instance, in a post published a few hours before mine, Power Line's Scott Johnson said that "It appears highly likely that another element of an offense under the IIPA may be lacking as to Rove -- knowledge of the CIA officer's identity from classified information." And let me tell you, I am shocked, shocked that Mr. Johnson--who is typically among the most faithful of our millions of readers and who habitually (and quite undignifiedly; show some self-respect, Scott!) rushes to grab a seat next to ours when we get the briefings from the Right Wing Noise Machine and Daisy Chain, Inc. in the basement of the Governor's Mansion--hasn't hastened to correct his inaccuracy in the wake of my pathbreaking and incisive legal analysis.


Just using your post as a jumping-off point, Monk. I was planning on writing that same thing anyway. (BTW thanks for saving me the trouble of having to actually look up the law.) Dementee has no plans to eat you.

And judging from the volume of comments to all three of our posts on this subject, I don't think anybody cares it anyway.

By Blogger LearnedFoot, at 7:57 AM  

Post a Comment