Use this tool to learn about websites, specifically the one you just entered.
If you find some aspect of it inappropriate it is not our fault.
If you are the owner of this website: yes we are a real search engine, we do have a real web crawler called FyberSpider and you can block it if you feel the urge.
Is It Cataloged?
We are in the process of updating this tool. Until we are done just use our search results to check the inclusion status of your site.
Find out if your site has been cataloged by top search engines for only $8.99.
Below you will see site info taken directly from the URL you entered in real time. This is also known as our URL Breakdown tool and can be used independently of our site info tool.
Page Title
The Volokh Conspiracy - -
Stripped Text Content
This is just a sample of the content found on this website. Please visit the website to read the entire page.
"The Volokh Conspiracy
Who Are We? Subscribe
E-Mail Policy Linking Policy Stuff Blogroll Archives Pre-2004 Archives Search Home
1000
Wednesday, July 21, 2004
[ Juan Non-Volokh ,
July 21, 2004 at 8:43pm ] Trackbacks
Read the Whole Thing:
Mark Kleiman complains that the WSJ editorial page is "full of Bush lit" for suggesting that the Joseph Wilson controversy might have a legal bearing on whether the leaker of Valerie Plame's identity can be prosecuted. As evidence, he cites a news story in yesterdays WSJ which reports: Whether or not it damages [Wilson] or not, the report, in strictly legal terms, should not have any effect on Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald's investigation into whether the White House violated a law that makes it a crime to disclose the name of a clandestine intelligence officer. So the WSJ editorial page flubbed the story, right? Not necessarily. Just One Minute notes that the very news story Kleiman cites provides support for the editorial page's claim. Prosecutors are still trying to determine who leaked Ms. Plame's identity and why. The question, says a law-enforcement official, is whether the individual had a security clearance that gave him or her access to Ms. Plame's identity — and also leaked her name to damage national security. "We still have to prove that, and it's not easy to do," the official says. "That's why nothing ever happens with these cases." [Substantial excerpts of the story are available here .]
I don't know enough about the relevant statute to know whether intent might matter. But given the story in question, Kleiman has not substantiated his charge.
Update: Kleiman has now updated his post, citing the relevant statute . It suggests that any prosecution of the Plame leaker would have many hurdles, including knowledge that Plame was a "covert agent" and that the government was actively seeking to c"
....
read entire page
