Quote:
Originally Posted by xilsharn  Don't understand how Bush is directly responsible for something a columnist wrote. |
The law holds you responsible for reasonably forseeable consequences of your actions. Bush and his admin had reason to know, or rather it is reasonably forseeable that giving the name/telling someone to give the name of a covert CIA operative to a member of the press would result in disclosure of that name.
He is directly responsible in the eyes of the law. Period. He knew it was going to happen, he conspired to cover it up.
Chaos is right. If you or I did this we'd be convicted so fast it'd make your head spin.
Edit: Chaos picked up on something that I did not. The crime is the initial disclosure from admin to journalist not journalist to public. What I said is correct in terms of intent/forseeable consequences but it is wholly irrelevant under these circumstances because the initial crime was disclosure to the journalist in the first place. The forseeability aspect is merely evidence in this case, of intent.
