I was thinking about the substance of the case this morning, and it may be that a crime was not committed, or at least not committed intentionally, which I guess is the same thing. But the real question here is: Why did the White House offer to fire the person responsible for the leak if it's not a crime? Why are they backing down from that stance now?
Matthew Small Web Developer American City Business Journals 704-973-1045 [EMAIL PROTECTED] -----Original Message----- From: Robert Munn [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2005 1:56 PM To: CF-Community Subject: Karl Rove, whistleblower http://opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110006955 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Purchase Captivate from House of Fusion, a Macromedia Authorized Affiliate and support the CF community. http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=52 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:164602 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
