Comments on: Fired Leaker Caught in Sting Operation?

By: legion

legion — Mon, 24 Apr 2006 20:43:46 +0000

Well, it's not unsurprising that someone willing to do what she did might have a history of Dem leanings & support. But the idea that this was some sort of 'sting' operation is 100% batsh*it insane. The idea that the US would release such damaging info, even if untrue, is waaaay beyond rational. Kevin Drum brings up an excellent point on this... Apparently, McCarthy was _not_ an Operations-side CIA person - she worked in the Inspector General's office. So, how exactly would she have even known this info to leak it in the first place? While some nutbars will insist it was "all part of the plan", Occam's Razor suggests that it's much more likely there was an IG inquiry taking place about the whole affair...

By: Doug

Doug — Mon, 24 Apr 2006 04:03:38 +0000

If it was indeed a "sting operation" then why were the cuffs not slapped on her immediately?

Sting my ass. They knew it was her for months, maybe years, the anti-Bush Dems that is.

By: Herb

Herb — Sun, 23 Apr 2006 11:53:01 +0000

About 30 years in the slammer is appropriate for this trator.

By: John Burgess

John Burgess — Sat, 22 Apr 2006 20:16:04 +0000

The difficulty the judge is having with the Rosen/Weissman case is that while the law is pretty clear about the divulging of secrets by a government official, it's not quite so clear--in fact, the issue is unprecedented--in its application to non- government employees. Rosen and Weissman were both lobbyists, not government employees. If the law does pertain to them, then it also might pertain to journalists and academic researchers. Neither of those parties is particularly keen on that interpretation, for obvious reasons. I think the gov't needs to come out with a new and explicit security warning for its employees. It needs to delineate just who is authorized to speak to the media or researchers, what they are authorized to say (generally), who is able to authorize it, and the consequences of fouling up. If the law is held to pertain to non-govermental people, then another explicit notice needs to be sent to those who might receive such information, warning of the legal consequences of receiving unauthorized-for-dissemination materials. There may be a substantive problem with the Rosen/Weissman case in that it's not clear that they, as non-gov't employees, could have had fair warning that their behavior was illegal. Franklin, the gov't employee who passed on the information, has already been found guilty and was sentenced to 14 years.

By: yetanotherjohn

yetanotherjohn — Sat, 22 Apr 2006 19:04:32 +0000

FYI,
Instapundit points to several other posts on this. Including a total of $7,500 given to democrats (and so far none to republicans) since she lost her position on the national security council when Bush took office in 2000.

She apparently is also connected to the Sudan nerve gas/aspirin factory.

By: Unpartisan.com Political News and Blog Aggregator

Unpartisan.com Political News and Blog Aggregator — Sat, 22 Apr 2006 18:04:40 +0000

Source of Classified Leak at CIA Is Fired...

The CIA fires an employee for leaking classified intelligence to the media. Former intelligence offi...