Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I agree almost entirely with Kinsley, whose op-ed is here. I don't understand why you think it's a rejoinder to anything I've said. His point is that newspapers should not have been complicit in spreading Libby's leaks. I agree. The mainstream press was shameful.
|
Wait a minute. Kinsley says there is something vague about whether or not outing a CIA agent is breaking the law, and then seems to piece together an analogy that basically says because the Press views the freedom to publish leaks as sacrosanct, there out to be a freedom to leak on the other side, and that putting Libby in a bind where he either had to confess involvement in a (potential crime) or perjure himself was improper.
First, this is crap logic. Second, there is something called the fifth amendment that is basically a get-out-of-jail free card for those caught in a perjury trap. Invoke it, and the prosecutor inevitably offers you immunity so you can tell the truth. There was no trap for dear old Scooter - just a choice between telling the truth about his little cabal who were busily outing a CIA agent for political gain or breaking the law yet again. He chose to break the law yet again.
