Could the Reason Libby Isn't Being Charged With Leaking...

[DoveTurnedHawk]

...be because that charge only applies to the first/primary leaker? I seem to recall, way back when, that people were saying Novak would not have been the guilty party because he wasn't the first person who leaked the name.

Maybe this means that the crime of leaking the name goes higher than Libby? Can anyone say Dick Cheney?

No clue on the law, just speculating.

DTH

[bryant69]

1. Could also be

this is a twist of the screw to get libby to roll over?

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[unblock]

2. given that libby had clearance, no.

if cheney told libby even though libby didn't have a legal "need to know", then yes, cheney would be guilty.

if libby then told someone who didn't even have clearance, then libby, too, would be guilty.

now rove, assuming he did NOT have the requisite clearance, would NOT be guilty, at least not of violating the laws governing security clearances and the proper handling of classified information. those laws are binding only on people who have agreed to be bound by them in exchange for gaining legal access to classified information.

that being said, there are other laws that could pertain, such as abuse of power laws.

[Roland99]

3. That's what I'm thinking. And if he learned from DICK!!

[JerseygirlCT]

4. Sounds to me like

the obstruction Libby caused has made the identity of the leaker too hard to prove.

Fitz sounds frustrated that b/c Libby obstructed justice and perjured himself, he now cannot PROVE the leak.

[Democrats_win]

5. Libby "threw sand in our faces" so Fitz couldn't find the truth.

That's why he's being charged with perjury.

[cassiepriam]

6. Then this is it? It's all over?

[toska]

7. It's still a leak

Not a lawyer, but I don't think the law has any specifics about first/primary leaker. The second leaker is just as important as the first.