Victoria Toensing floated the "theory" that there is no crime in the release of information shortly after Plame was outed, but since it was the CIA's general counsel that demanded the FBI investigation it didn't seem to make much sense. The theory is a necessity for the right since the crime was so despicable that some sort of explanation had to be given for the dittos.
Newsmax is now circulating the story again presumably because they want their followers reminded that there was no crime before indictments are issued. Toensing often sounds like she and/or her husband Joe diGenova represent Novak, although there is no confirmation of this that I am aware of, if they were honest about that representation even the RWCM would have to mention it when they are used for commentary.
The fun part of today's version of the no crime story is that the right now expects its followers to believe that the reporters will go to jail rather than present the legal defense that there was no crime, because the reporters are embarrassed to admit that truth.
more below
It's persecution not prosecution.
skip
Says Toensing, "The Novak column and the surrounding facts do not support evidence of criminal conduct."
For Plame's outing to have been illegal, the one-time deputy AG says, "her status as undercover must be classified." Also, Plame "must have been assigned to duty outside the United States currently or in the past five years."
skip
The law also requires that the celebrated non-spy's outing take place by someone who knew the government had taken "affirmative measures to conceal [the agent's] relationship" to the U.S., a prospect Toensing says is unlikely.
Other signs that no laws were broken include the fact that after Plame was outted, the CIA's general counsel took no steps to prosecute Novak, as has been done to other reporters under similar circumstances.
This is my favorite part, Newsmax explains that the reporters aren't defending themselves because they are embarrassed to admit there wasn't a crime. That could happen.
skip
So why - with a special prosecutor now threatening to toss Time magazine's Matthew Cooper and New York Times reporter Judith Miller in jail if they don't give up their sources in the Plame case - aren't their lawyers invoking the "no laws were broken" defense?
Explains the National Review's Rich Lowry: The Miller-Cooper defense hasn't made this argument because it would be too embarrassing to admit that the Bush administration's "crime of the century" wasn't really a crime at all, especially after a year and a half of media chest-beating to the contrary.
skip
"That's the truth that the media will go to any length to avoid."