[« "The word bipartisan usually means some larger-than-usual deception is being carried out." --George Carlin] [Thought for the Day: »]
07/07/2005: More about Plame-Gate:
Let’s start with this lead off Boston Globe article by Robert Kuttner (Co-editor of The American Prospect) [Emphasis mine]:“….It is a felony for a public official to expose the identity of a CIA agent. After Novak's column was published, Democrats in Congress demanded and got the administration to name a special counsel to investigate the leak. Attorney General John Ashcroft recused himself. His deputy named Chicago US Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald, supposedly a man of high principle and unblemished reputation.
Fitzgerald interviewed many people. He ultimately went after two reporters who had worked on the story of who had leaked to Novak. They were Miller of the Times and Matt Cooper of Time magazine. Both now face jail, as early as this week.
Both have refused to disclose sources despite court orders obtained by Fitzgerald. The Times has stood behind Miller. Time Warner management last week shamefully caved in and turned over notes to the prosecutor. The Supreme Court has declined to review the case.
But what about Novak? He obviously knows who leaked the name to him. Why is Miller, who never even wrote an article, facing jail? If anyone should be threatened with contempt of court, it is Novak.
There are only two possibilities. Either Novak did tell the prosecutor the names of the officials who leaked the name and the prosecutor is going easy on them, or Novak refused and the prosecutor is going easy on Novak. Either explanation reeks of favoritism, selective prosecution, and cover-up.
One leading suspect of having leaked Plame's identity is the president's chief political adviser, Karl Rove. Given how utterly Machiavellian Rove is, readers who take press reports of Fitzgerald's pristine independence at face value are touchingly naďve.
Given the stakes, do you really think this administration would let a Justice Department official just pick some highly independent prosecutor to launch a wide ranging probe -- one that could net Novak, a reliable administration toady, and the chummy high officials Novak talks to, say, Rove or Vice President Dick Cheney?…”
Which has been a question floating around ever since this despicable event occurred.
And “What About Bob?”.
That purveyor of opinions that were calcified fossils of brain-dead weight during the Nixon era not part and parcel of this investigation? Why is this mummified codger who’s opinions lean so Far to the Right he caused himself to tip-over in the shower and break his hip recently, allowed to roam freely the airwaves of CNN and pen ditties for the Chicago Sun Times?
And IF he fully cooperated and divulged these ‘government sources” – why the two years of “cloak and dagger” speculation as to the leaker’s identity? And why is the Administration not “aware” of who this traitorous malcontent is –which would have been exemplified by a judicious demotion of their exalted government position?Nor is it an accident that this investigation, rather than fingering whoever inside the administration broke the law by outing Valerie Plame, is instead putting the squeeze on two news organizations that just happen to have been critical of the Bush administration, Time magazine and The New York Times, and by extension the entire press corps.
There is no federal press shield law protecting the right of reporters to protect sources, though several states have such laws. And the Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision back in 1972, rejected the contention that the First Amendment implicitly gives reporters immunity from betraying sources.
As a result, reporters remain vulnerable to selective prosecutorial harassment. In the past, the press has taken big risks to pursue the public interest and has resisted prosecutors' demands to betray sources. Some prosecutors and judges have trod lightly, balancing the First Amendment against other public imperatives, though others disdain the idea of journalistic privilege, and some reporters have indeed served time.
This case is particularly outrageous because a partisan prosecutor is training his guns on the wrong culprits, because the whole affair smells of politics, and because the press as a whole has been far too intimidated instead of standing with the Times and turning a bright spotlight on Fitzgerald and Novak.
The old adage is that ”Bad Cases Make Bad Laws” and could equally apply to this set of facts.
It may also be true that this may be a back-handed way for this Administration to strike at these two particular news organizations with ”selective prosecutorial harassment”, but this entire issue is about a Federal crime which no “reporter shield for sources” could or should cover in this instance. I'm going to refer back to the first sentence: “It is a felony for a public official to expose the identity of a CIA agent.
And finally- “What About Bob?”.
Karen on 07.07.05 @ 05:01 AM CST
