|
I took the time to carefully read the National Review article, and all its links.
In it I could find nothing whatsoever that could be used as a legal defense for Karl Rove.
The critical points of the article can be summarized thusly:
--Robert Novak's original article never stated that Valerie Plame had covert status.
--Valerie Plame's covert status may have been first brought up a few days after Novak's article.
--A reporter stated without any source references that the Russians and the Cubans may have managed to find out about Plame earlier.
--The law may protect someone who identifies a covert operative if that operative's covert status was already publicized by the U.S.
I don't see how any of this could be used to defend Rove. In fact the article's primary intent seemed to be to sarcastically bash the media for not prominently reporting these assertions. Apparently, that seems to morphed in some people's minds into some kind of defense of Rove.
If I've missed something here feel free to educate me.
|