The President of the United States and his closest advisor conspire to release secret information, against the law, to reporters in an effort to discredit a major critic and quell a brewing scandal.

A special counsel and raft of lawyers investigate. Courts find, in fact, that a crime was committed.

Surely, the president would be removed from office and his top aide would be forced to resign and face criminal proceedings, right?

Well, no. Not in the Kathleen Willey case. Here's a federal court ruling that the "Executive Office of the President" broke the law by releasing confidential personnel records of Ms. Willey. (It was upheld by an appeals court.)

In the Willey case, presidential advisor Bruce Lindsey advised President Clinton to release letters Willey had written, fawning over the president. The intent was to discredit Willey after she accused the president of sexual misconduct. White House employees were told to run database searches on Willey, they did, the letters were found and released. And here is what a federal judge wrote:

...(W)hen the President and the EOP (Executive Office Of the President) released the letters, they were fully aware of this court's ruling that the Privacy Act was applicable, and the disclosure of the letters was therefore prohibited by the Privacy Act.

"...(T)he release of the letters was a criminal violation of the Privacy Act," the judge wrote.

What consequence did President Clinton face for a criminal violation of the law? None.

What consequence did Bruce Lindsey face? None.

Now, granted, the Plame case involves alleged violations of national security. But both involve privacy issues nonetheless. Further, it's not even clear that the leaking of Plame's name was against the law, as was the leaking of the Willey letters.