This weekend, Jane Harman had a meltdown on one of the talking head shows.
The ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee complained on Sunday that the fired CIA employee who leaked classified information to the Washington Post about top secret interrogations of al Qaeda suspects was being held to a higher standard than President Bush.Um….no.
First off, this is (among other things) a battle of semantics, and I’m tired of giving the lead to the spinmeisters on the left. ‘Leaks’ happen when you have radiator hoses, or don’t change your kid’s diapers in time. ‘Leaks’ is just too dammed cute a word for Criminal Disclosure of Classified Information to An Unauthorized Person which, at the minimum, is in violation of Title 18 USC, but due to the nature of the information might also be in violation of Title 50 USC.
"While leaks are wrong, I think it is totally wrong for our president, in secret, to selectively declassify certain information and to empower people in his White House to leak it to favored reporters so they can discredit political enemies,"It is neither a ‘leak’ nor an Unauthorized Disclosure, Jane, it is a Declassification and Public Release of Information. That you do not like that it was done, or how it was done means absolutely diddly-squat.
"That is wrong, that is unprecedented," Harman claimed. "I have never, ever heard about that happening in other administrations."
Then why it is a "Washington aphorism" that "The ship of state is the only vessel that leaks from the top?"
"[Bush] wasn't breaking the law because the president claims to have power that no one else has," she complained.This is my favorite, Jane.
Tip: He DOES have powers that no one else has.
You're "The ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee"?
"He should be reminded that . . . . the inherent powers of the presidency are not unlimited."Why? Between you lefties and the RINOs, Congress often stymies him. I think it far more likely Jane, that YOU need to be reminded that the inherent powers of Congress ARE limited.