Can someone explain the CIA leak story to me?

[WoodDraw]

I haven't followed it at all.

But anyway, why are these two journalists being targeted and not Novak? What's the whole story behind it?

[memyselfI]

I haven't followed it at all.

But anyway, why are these two journalists being targeted and not Novak? What's the whole story behind it?

Novak has been :holdman: for the administration. At least one of the two others have not. I'm not sure about the other.

[Michael Michigan]

Novak has been :holdman: for the administration. At least one of the two others have not. I'm not sure about the other.

Do you get a lot of headaches?

[alanm]

Do you get a lot of headaches?ROFLROFLROFL

[Taco John]

Do you get a lot of headaches?



Why don't you explain for us what happened with the whole Valerie Plame deal? I'd be curious to get the conservative take on this whole affair.

[Michael Michigan]

Why don't you explain for us what happened with the whole Valerie Plame deal? I'd be curious to get the conservative take on this whole affair.

I'm not privy to that information, but Safire is a friend of Miller and a conservative and here's his opinion that appears in tomorrow's NY Times:

The Jailing of Judith Miller
By WILLIAM SAFIRE

Washington

LEGEND has it when Henry David Thoreau went to jail to protest an unjust law, his friend, the philosopher Ralph Waldo Emerson, visited him and asked, "Henry, what are you doing in here?" The great nature writer replied, "What are you doing out there?"

The Supreme Court has just flinched from its responsibility to stop the unjust jailing of two journalists - not charged with any wrongdoing - by a runaway prosecutor who will go to any lengths to use the government's contempt power to force them to betray their confidential sources.

The case was about the "outing" of an agent - supposedly covert, but working openly at C.I.A. headquarters - in Robert Novak's column two years ago by unnamed administration officials angry at her husband's prewar Iraq criticism.

To show its purity, the Bush Justice Department appointed a special counsel to find any violation of the 1982 Intelligence Identities Protection Act. That law prohibits anyone from knowingly revealing the name of a covert agent that the C.I.A. is taking "affirmative measures" to conceal. The revelation must be, like that of the 70's turncoat Philip Agee - "in the course of a pattern" intending to harm United States intelligence.

Evidently no such serious crime took place. After spending two years and thousands of F.B.I. agent-hours and millions of dollars that could better have been directed against terrorism and identity theft, the prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, admits his investigation has been stalled since last October. We have seen no indictment under the identities protection act.

What evidence of serious crime does he have that makes the testimony of Judith Miller of The New York Times and Matthew Cooper of Time magazine so urgent? We don't know - eight pages of his contempt demand are secret - but some legal minds think he is falling back on the Martha Stewart Theory of Prosecution. That is: if the underlying crime has not been committed, justify the investigation by indicting a big name for giving false information.

Thus, if the reporters resist the coercion of the loss of their freedom, the prosecutor can blame them for his inability to go to trial on the "heavy" charge. But if they cave in, he can get some headlines on the ancillary charge of false statements. (I have known Judy Miller, a superb and intrepid reporter, for a generation; she'll never betray a source.)

The principle at stake here is the idea of "reportorial privilege," embraced in shield laws in 49 states and the District of Columbia, but not in federal courts. That privilege not to testify - held by lawyers, members of the clergy, spouses and others - gives assurance to whistleblowers that information confided to a reporter revealing corruption or malfeasance in government will not result in loss of job or more severe retaliation from on high. (Most of the states' attorneys general, recognizing the value of press leads in law enforcement, strongly supported the reporters in this case.)

To every privilege there are exceptions; a lawyer, for example, cannot conspire with his client in committing a crime, and a reporter's testimony may be necessary in a capital case. But this investigation has shown no national security crime at all, as defined in the identities act. Maybe an official misled an agent, or even perjured himself to save his job; is that sufficient cause to incarcerate innocent journalists and impede the entire press's traditional means of exposing official corruption?

Here's what needs to be done now:

1. The judge should resist the prosecutor's pressure for coercive, lengthy and possibly dangerous confinement. Judy won't crack and should not be made to suffer.

2. The prosecutor should submit an information bewailing his witness difficulties in fingering sources in false denial, but showing why no major national-security crime had been committed.

3. Mr. Novak should finally write the column he owes readers and colleagues perhaps explaining how his two sources - who may have truthfully revealed themselves to investigators - managed to get the prosecutor off his back.

4. The Congress should urgently hold hearings on shield bills to conform federal practice to the states' laws based on Congress's 1975 directive to the Supreme Court to apply "reason and experience" to extending privilege - which the court did in its 1996 Jaffee decision to psychotherapists.

The contempt epidemic is spreading fast. Yesterday, a federal appeals panel in the District of Columbia followed up the Supreme Court flinch by forcing a New York Times reporter and three other journalists in a different case to burn their sources or be sentenced. Along with Judy and Matt, these endangered journalists can look at plumber-prosecutors, smirking media-bashers and the wimps taking official handouts and ask:

"What are you doing out there?"

[Taco John]

I didn't ask you what Safire's take on the situation was. I asked for you to explain the story (as you understand it) from a conservative's perspective.

[penchief]

I'd love to know who the scumbag is that leaked Plame's name. Then, to sit back and let these reporters and their families suffer for their act of retribution makes whoever it is a double-scumbag.

Interesting. The "liberal" press takes a beating on this board for mostly politically motivated reasons but when it comes down to it there can be no doubt where the lack of integrity lies in this particular case. On one hand, the press stands up for one of our country's most cherished principles. On the other hand, the Cheneyburton administration continues to set the bar for dishonesty and pettiness.

Cheney, Rove, or whomever the neocons ultimately scapegoat for their chickenshit behavior should rot in hell for this one.

[mlyonsd]

I didn't ask you what Safire's take on the situation was. I asked for you to explain the story (as you understand it) from a conservative's perspective.

I'm not speaking for MM here but it's refreshing to see someone say they don't know much about the subject but still go to the trouble of finding a point of view you were looking for.

Instead of making up wild theories based on little fact that is such the rage in this forum.

[Cochise]

Boy the Supreme Court is really tearing it up these days :rolleyes:

[Radar Chief]

I'd love to know who the scumbag is that leaked Plame's name. Then, to sit back and let these reporters and their families suffer for their act of retribution makes whoever it is a double-scumbag.

Interesting. The "liberal" press takes a beating on this board for mostly politically motivated reasons but when it comes down to it there can be no doubt where the lack of integrity lies in this particular case. On one hand, the press stands up for one of our country's most cherished principles. On the other hand, the Cheneyburton administration continues to set the bar for dishonesty and pettiness.

Cheney, Rove, or whomever the neocons ultimately scapegoat for their chickenshit behavior should rot in hell for this one.

I'm not speaking for MM here but it's refreshing to see someone say they don't know much about the subject but still go to the trouble of finding a point of view you were looking for.

Instead of making up wild theories based on little fact that is such the rage in this forum.

:hmmm: ROFL Rep.

[Michael Michigan]

I didn't ask you what Safire's take on the situation was. I asked for you to explain the story (as you understand it) from a conservative's perspective.

What part of privy don't you understand?

[Ugly Duck]

the Cheneyburton administration continues to set the bar for dishonesty and pettiness.It is amazing that the Planet righties can muster support for this, even this. But I comfort myself in believing that their reasoning is an "end-justifies-means" thingie rather than an evil or stoopidity thingie. Kinda like if the RoveGB attacks you, its really only because they have the country's best interest in mind. Sacrifice the good of the one for the good of the many.

[Cochise]

What's the whole story behind it?

"Bush is teh debbil"

[whoman69]

Evidently no such serious crime took place. After spending two years and thousands of F.B.I. agent-hours and millions of dollars that could better have been directed against terrorism and identity theft, the prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, admits his investigation has been stalled since last October. We have seen no indictment under the identities protection act.
Talk about jumping to a conclusion. That there are no indictments means they have yet to catch those that are guilty of a crime. I guess by the standard Safire has given, Watergate was not a crime either.

[Ugly Duck]

That there are no indictments means they have yet to catch those that are guilty of a crime. We'll probably never know. Show of hands... who actually thinks that a Bushron Justice Dept would ever allow a true investigation of the RoveGB?

Anybody?

I thought not.

[Radar Chief]

Talk about jumping to a conclusion. That there are no indictments means they have yet to catch those that are guilty of a crime. I guess by the standard Safire has given, Watergate was not a crime either.

Exactly, that’s why we should be expecting indictments for the Whitewater Scandal any day now.

[Taco John]

I'm not speaking for MM here but it's refreshing to see someone say they don't know much about the subject but still go to the trouble of finding a point of view you were looking for.

Instead of making up wild theories based on little fact that is such the rage in this forum.



I didn't find it refreshing at all... I found it cowardly, but par for the course when dealing with MM, the all knowing conservative who doesn't say anything worth anything.

Plus, his link was worthless to the question that I had. I wasn't looking for a random point of view. I was looking for his.

[Taco John]

What part of privy don't you understand?



What part of explain the story as you understand it don't you understand?

[Taco John]

Nothing? You can't so much as give your perspective on the story?

What a coward.

[Michael Michigan]

Nothing? You can't so much as give your perspective on the story?

What a coward.

Good technique. Does it ever work with adults?

[Taco John]

At least when Rush gets bitchslapped, he STFU. You still tawking?

[Michael Michigan]

At least when Rush gets bitchslapped, he STFU. You still tawking?


I understand that this whole Internet persona thing is important to you--but you're just so bad at it.

Sophomoric insults and chest thumping may work when you're fetching coffee for the adults down at the old "PR" firm, but I'm really not that impressed.

You got anything else?

[Taco John]

Hey, you were asked a simple question. Explain the CIA leak story as you understand the facts. The only thing you've been able to do is act like a cowardly bitch, and post someone else's take on the recent developments of the story.

You want to talk about being bad at it? You can't even come up with a decent hack's spin at this.

Just explain the story as you see it. Go out on a limb. What are you so afraid of?

I'm happy to sit here and expose you for what you are. And I'm happy for you to sit here and confirm it all day long. But at some point in time, I figure pride might kick in and you might say something for yourself worth reading. Your cowardly one or two sentance barbs don't cut the mustard.

...and if you don't have anything to say... Then just shut up.

[Michael Michigan]

You asked:

I'd be curious to get the conservative take on this whole affair.

I gave you Safire.

I understand you're not well read, [no internet message boards don't count] but google his name and perhaps you'll get a feel for who he is.

[Michael Michigan]

Your cowardly one or two sentance barbs don't cut the mustard.

That's all you are worth.

[Taco John]

I know who Safire is. I'm not asking for Safire. I'm asking for you, the Almost Famous hack at the Planet. You can't give your personal take on this story? WHy are you so afraid to do so? Why go through all these theatrics to avoid it? Maybe a little embarassed?

[Michael Michigan]

I know who Safire is. I'm not asking for Safire. I'm asking for you, the Almost Famous hack at the Planet. You can't give your personal take on this story? WHy are you so afraid to do so? Why go through all these theatrics to avoid it? Maybe a little embarassed?

Embarrased of what?

[Taco John]

Hell if I know... I've never seen a guy squirrel around an issue so much when asked for his take on it. You're like a friggen Whackamole...

[Michael Michigan]

Hell if I know... I've never seen a guy squirrel around an issue so much when asked for his take on it. You're like a friggen Whackamole...

I answered you with my first post.

You then called me a coward, a hack and a cowardly hack, claimed some sort of victory and then tried "Whackamole."

While that last one was a bit creative, name-calling is the first sign of one losing a debate.

Did you miss that class at "PR" school?

[penchief]

A bigger question is why in hell is Robert Novak getting off scott free?

[Michael Michigan]

A bigger question is why in hell is Robert Novak getting off scott free?

Patience...

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/30/novak.reporters/

Novak: 'I will reveal all'

[CNN] -- Time Inc. announced Thursday it will turn over the subpoenaed records from journalist Matt Cooper regarding the leak of a CIA operative's name, following a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court not to hear an appeal in the case.

Cooper, Time's White House correspondent, and New York Times reporter Judith Miller are facing up to four months in jail for refusing to reveal their confidential sources in the matter to a grand jury.

Chicago Sun-Times columnist and CNN political analyst Bob Novak was the first to reveal the CIA employee's identity and CNN's Ed Henry spoke with Novak Wednesday about the ruling.

ED HENRY: Bob, first, what's your reaction to the Supreme Court saying they would not hear this case?

BOB NOVAK: Well, I deplore the thought of reporters -- I've been a reporter all my life -- going to jail for any period of time for not revealing sources, and there needs to be a federal shield law preventing that as there are shield laws in 49 out of 50 states. But, Ed, I -- my lawyer said I cannot answer any specific questions about this case until it is resolved, which I hope is very soon.

HENRY: In general, though, you believe in the principle of keeping the identity secret of confidential sources. Have you ever revealed the identity of one of your confidential sources?

NOVAK: Well, people know -- who have read my column know there have been special case[s] where I have. But the question of being coerced to by the government and being put in prison is, I think, something that should be protected by act of Congress.

HENRY: In general, have you cooperated with investigators in this case?

NOVAK: I can't answer any questions about this case at all.

HENRY: OK. Now, just in general about the principle at stake here -- William Safire, fellow conservative, wrote an op-ed in The New York Times saying that at the very least, he believes that you owe your readers, and in this case, your viewers, some explanation. He said, "Mr. Novak should finally write the column he owes readers and colleagues perhaps explaining how his two sources, who may have truthfully revealed themselves to investigators, managed to get the prosecutor off his back." I think that's the question. Why sit that there are two reporters out there who may go to jail, Bob, but it doesn't appear that you are going to go to jail?

NOVAK: Well, that's what I can't reveal until this case is finished. I hope it is finished soon. And when it does, I agree with Mr. Safire, I will reveal all in a column and on the air.

HENRY: Do you understand why in general there's frustration among fellow journalist[s] after 41 years of distinguished work, where you've always pushed and been a fierce advocate of the public's right to know, you're not letting the public know about such a critical case, and two people may go to jail.

NOVAK: Well, they are not going to jail because of me. Whether I answer your questions or not, it has nothing to do with that. That's very ridiculous to think that I am the cause of their going to jail. I don't think they should be going to jail.

HENRY: Yes. But I didn't say you were the cause. But there are some people...

NOVAK: Yes, you do did.

HENRY: No, but some people feel if you would come forward with the information that you have, that maybe they would not go to jail.

NOVAK: But you don't know -- Ed, you don't know anything about the case. And those people who say that don't know anything about the case. And unfortunately, as somebody who likes to write, I'd like to say a lot about the case, but because of my attorney's advice I can't. But I will. And there might be some surprising things.

HENRY: We'll all be waiting to hear that story finally told, Bob.

[Taco John]

I answered you with my first post.

You then called me a coward, a hack and a cowardly hack, claimed some sort of victory and then tried "Whackamole."

While that last one was a bit creative, name-calling is the first sign of one losing a debate.

Did you miss that class at "PR" school?



Debate?

You haven't even said anything yet!

Again. I didn't ask you for Safire's latest article on this. I asked for your personal take.

Boy, I'd love a debate on this! We're three pages in, and you can't bring yourself to do anything but dodge.

So what's your position? What is your take on this whole ordeal?

[Michael Michigan]

Debate?

You haven't even said anything yet!

Again. I didn't ask you for Safire's latest article on this. I asked for your personal take.

Boy, I'd love a debate on this! We're three pages in, and you can't bring yourself to do anything but dodge.

So what's your position? What is your take on this whole ordeal?

My position is established. Let's hear yours.

[Taco John]

My position is established. Let's hear yours.



Well can I read it somewhere? I don't recall you establishing anything for yourself. I remember you posting someone elses position on the matter, by way of his latest article. I don't remember you actually using the words "I think," or "I believe," or "It's my position that..."

I don't call you a hack just to call you names. I call you a hack because that's what you do. You don't establish positions for yourself. You sit back and let other people establish positions, and then you hack at them. You're too much of a coward to put yourself out, and take a position. Instead, you'll defer to other people to do the heavy lifting, while you hack, hack, hack... The most dialogue anyone can get out of you is a couple of sentances, and a smug, superior attitude, and the occassional posting of someone else's opinion.

Your position is established... :rolleyes: Right.

You're position is that you're not going to establish a position, because you don't want to have to defend a position. You want to hack.

[Michael Michigan]

...and a smug, superior attitude...


So I've been told.

[Taco John]

*dodge*

[Michael Michigan]

*dodge*

Actually--I just read that in an e-mail earlier.

The lady then called me a POS.

She was very articulate.

[Taco John]

You are the blessed media, afterall...