Reporter jailed for refusal to name leak source

[lawyerlee]

I'm so pissed off about this. Judith Miller is sentenced to jail, while Robert Novak suffers exactly what recurpussions? Oh, that's right. None. :mad: :mad: :mad: This is total bullshit! :mad:

Reporter jailed for refusal to name leak source (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8417075/)
Times' Miller disobeyed order to testify on disclosure of CIA agent’s name

The Associated Press
Updated: 3:39 p.m. ET July 6, 2005

WASHINGTON - A U.S. judge ordered New York Times reporter Judith Miller to jail Wednesday for refusing to divulge her source in the investigation of the leak of an undercover CIA officer's name.

"There is still a realistic possibility that confinement might cause her to testify," U.S. District Judge Thomas Hogan said. Miller stood up, hugged her lawyer and was escorted from the courtroom.

Earlier, Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper, in an about-face, told Hogan that he would now cooperate with a federal prosecutor's investigation into the leak of the identity of CIA operative Valerie Plame because his source gave him specific authority to discuss their conversation. "I am prepared to testify. I will comply" with the court's order, Cooper said.

Cooper took the podium in the court and told the judge, "Last night I hugged my son goodbye and told him it might be a long time before I see him again."

"I went to bed ready to accept the sanctions" for not testifying, Cooper said. But he told the judge that not long before his early afternoon appearance, he had received "in somewhat dramatic fashion" a direct personal communication from his source freeing him from his commitment to keep the source's identity secret.

Floyd Abrams, a prominent First Amendment lawyer, told reporters after Miller's jailing, "Judy is an honorable woman, adhering to the highest tradition of her profession and the highest tradition of humanity." He called Miller's decision a choice "to take the personal burden of being in jail" rather than breaking her promise of confidentiality to her source.

Time Inc. previously surrendered e-mails and other documents in the probe.

The prosecutor, Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, opposed a request that Cooper and Miller to be granted home detention — instead of jail — for remaining tight-lipped about their sources.

Fitzgerald said allowing them home confinement would make it easier for them to continue to defy the court order.

Last week, Time magazine said it was delivering the notes of reporter Matt Cooper to the special prosecutor investigating who in the Bush administration leaked the identity of undercover CIA officer Valerie Plame.

The case is among the most serious legal clashes between the media and the government since the Supreme Court in 1971 refused to stop the Times and The Washington Post from publishing a classified history of the Vietnam War known as the Pentagon Papers.

The U.S. Supreme Court has refused to hear the reporters’ appeal and the grand jury investigating the leak expires in October. The reporters, if in jail, would be freed at that time.

Time: 'Chilling effect' on press freedom
In a statement released last week, Time said it believes “the Supreme Court has limited press freedom in ways that will have a chilling effect on our work and that may damage the free flow of information that is so necessary in a democratic society.”

But it also said that despite its concerns, it would turn over the records to the special counsel investigating the leak.

“The same Constitution that protects the freedom of the press requires obedience to final decisions of the courts and respect for their rulings and judgments. That Time Inc. strongly disagrees with the courts provides no immunity,” the statement said.

Novak says he 'will reveal all' eventually
Fitzgerald, the U.S. attorney in Chicago, has been investigating who in the Bush administration leaked Plame’s identity days after her husband, former Ambassador Joe Wilson, publicly undercut the president’s rationale for invading Iraq.

Plame's name was first published in a 2003 column by Robert Novak, who cited two unidentified senior Bush administration officials as his sources. Novak has refused to say whether he has testified or been subpoenaed.

Novak told CNN he “will reveal all” after the matter is resolved, adding that it is wrong for the government to jail journalists.

Cooper wrote a story subsequently about Plame. Miller did some reporting but did not write a story.

Time turned over Cooper's notes and other documents last week, four days after the Supreme Court refused to consider the case. Cooper's attorneys argued that producing the documents made it unnecessary for him to testify.

Reporters could go to jail Wednesday
Miller and Cooper could be ordered to jail as early as Wednesday when U.S. District Judge Thomas Hogan will hear arguments from Fitzgerald and lawyers for the reporters about whether they should testify.

Hogan has found the reporters in contempt of court for refusing to divulge their sources and he indicated last week that he is prepared to send them to jail if they do not cooperate.

In his court filings, Fitzgerald said it is essential for courts to enforce their contempt orders so that grand juries can get the evidence they need.

Fitzgerald said it would be up to the judge to decide whether to send Cooper to the District of Columbia jail or some other facility. On Friday, Cooper's lawyers argued against sending him to the D.C. jail, saying it is a "dangerous maximum security lockup already overcrowded with a mix of convicted offenders and other detainees awaiting criminal trials."

Miller's lawyers argue that there are no circumstances under which she will talk, but Fitzgerald disagreed.

"There is tension between Miller's claim that confinement will never coerce her to testify and her alternative position that this court should consider less restrictive forms of confinement," the prosecutor wrote.

Time magazine is part of the media company Time Warner Inc.

Thirty-one states and the District of Columbia have shield laws protecting reporters from having to identify their confidential sources. Legislation to establish such protection under federal law has been introduced in Congress.

[lawyerlee]

New York Times reporter jailed (http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/07/06/reporters.contempt/index.html) CNN

Time magazine reporter agrees to testify about sourcing

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A federal judge ordered New York Times reporter Judith Miller jailed for contempt of court Wednesday for refusing to testify to a grand jury investigating the leak of a CIA operative's name. She was taken into custody immediately.

Miller faces up to four months in jail, the length of time before the term of the federal grand jury in the case expires.

"We have to follow the law," U.S. District Judge Thomas Hogan said.

"If she were given a pass today, then the next person could say as a matter of principle, 'I will not obey the law because of the abortion issue,' or the election of a president or whatever. They could claim the moral high ground, and then we could descend into anarchy."

Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper, who also faced jail time, was spared confinement after agreeing to testify.

Outside the courthouse, he defended his decision, saying the source had released him from confidentiality that day.

"That source gave me a personal, unambiguous, uncoerced waiver to speak to the grand jury," Cooper told reporters.

He would not disclose the source.

Time Inc. released a statement saying that "by personally and directly releasing Matt from his obligation to confidentiality, his source has made the decision for Matt to testify a simple one, as other journalists have already testified in this case after being released by their sources."

New York Times' executive editor Bill Keller called Miller's imprisonment "a chilling conclusion to an utterly confounding case."

Publisher and chairman of the New York Times Company, Arthur Sulzberger Jr., said the company "will do all that we can to ensure Judy's safety and continue to fight for the principles that led her to make a most difficult and honorable choice."

He urged Congress to "move forward on federal shield legislation, so that other journalists will not have to face imprisonment for doing their jobs."(Full statement)

Floyd Abrams, a lawyer for Miller and the newspaper, said the reporter "should be honored" for serving time to protect a source.

"What Judy has done is, as I've said, in the tradition of journalists throughout our history," he said. "And I'll say another part of that tradition has often been that journalists were punished for their position."

Reporter's privilege at issue

The showdown between special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald and the two journalists stems from the federal investigation into who leaked the identity of undercover CIA officer Valerie Plame.

In court documents filed Tuesday, Fitzgerald wrote that even though Time magazine surrendered Cooper's notes in the case, the journalist's testimony is still needed in the investigation.

"First, Cooper's own article noted that the conduct of the officials involved an attack on an administration critic, not whistle-blowing," Fitzgerald wrote.

"Second, at a time when journalists seek a reporter's privilege akin to the attorney-client privilege, they ought to recognize that an attorney can be compelled to testify if his client communicates to the attorney for the purpose of committing a crime or fraud. ... Third, journalists are not entitled to promise complete confidentiality -- no one in America is."

Fitzgerald also opposed Cooper's and Miller's request for home detention -- rather than a jail sentence -- for refusing to reveal their sources.

"Special treatment for journalistic contemnors may negate the coercive effect contemplated ... and enable, rather than deter, defiance of the court's authority," Fitzgerald wrote. (Full story)

The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press expressed disappointment with the government's position.

"I had been hoping by Time turning over Mr. Cooper's notes that would keep Mr. Fitzgerald happy," said Lucy Dalglish, executive director of the organization, which advocates press freedoms. "We're disappointed and more than a little bit perplexed."

Leak as retribution?

Plame was first identified as a CIA operative in a column by Robert Novak, a CNN contributor and former "Crossfire" co-host, citing two unidentified senior Bush administration officials as sources.

The column was published shortly after Plame's husband, former Ambassador Joe Wilson, had publicly challenged the White House's claim that Saddam Hussein's government tried to obtain uranium in Africa in an effort to develop a nuclear weapons program.

Wilson, who wrote a July 6, 2003, piece in The New York Times on the matter, has said his wife's name was leaked as retribution.

Cooper then wrote an article for Time naming Plame, but Miller only gathered information without writing about it.

Novak has declined to say whether he testified before the grand jury, but he has avoided contempt charges in the case.

On Sunday a lawyer for Bush's top political adviser, Karl Rove, acknowledged that Rove talked to Cooper before Plame's name became public, but that he did not disclose any confidential information.

Last week Timesurrendered Cooper's notes and e-mail to Fitzgerald's office after the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal of Hogan's ruling finding the reporters in contempt.

The prospect of two prominent journalists going to jail has led to a renewed push on Capitol Hill by free press advocates for a federal shield law that could provide legal protection to journalists seeking to keep sources' identities confidential.

CNN's Terry Frieden contributed to this report.

[jesvet]

Unbelievable. W.T.F.

[lawyergirl25]

I'm disgusted with Novak, personally. And I *really* don't want to hear "He was just doing his job." I can be disgusted with someone for just doing his job. See Gonzales, Alberto.

[lawyerlee]

I'm disgusted with Novak, personally. And I *really* don't want to hear "He was just doing his job."
Novak broke the law, plain and simple. He should be prosecuted and go to jail, not Judith Miller. :mad:

And going along with your theory, plenty of soldiers in Nazi Germany were "just doing their jobs". :rolleyes: Shitty argument. :mad:

[MLA]

I have the utmost respect for Judith Miller. She's standing up for her ethical code. It's terrible that they're jailing her, but I'm so glad she's fighting the good fight!

[dionysia]

I despise Robert Novak.

The new news I guess is that Cooper's source is none other than Karl Rove, though the Puppetmaster claims he never actually said outright that Valerie Plame was a CIA agent?

Di

[Kopper]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8504290/

Rove told reporter about Plame’s role at CIA
But Bush aide didn’t identify covert agent by name, attorney says
By Josh White

Updated: 5:21 a.m. ET July 11, 2005
White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove spoke with at least one reporter about Valerie Plame's role at the CIA before she was identified as a covert agent in a newspaper column two years ago, but Rove's lawyer said yesterday that his client did not identify her by name.

Rove had a short conversation with Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper on July 11, 2003, three days before Robert D. Novak publicly exposed Plame in a column about her husband, Joseph C. Wilson IV. Wilson had come under attack from the White House for his assertions that he found no evidence Iraq was trying to buy uranium from Niger and that he reported those findings to top administration officials. Wilson publicly accused the administration of leaking his wife's identity as a means of retaliation.

Outing a federal case
The leak of Plame's name to the news media spawned a federal grand jury investigation that has been seeking to find the origin of the disclosure. Cooper avoided jail time last week by agreeing to testify before the grand jury about conversations with his sources, while New York Times reporter Judith Miller was jailed for refusing to discuss her confidential sources.

To be considered a violation of the law, a disclosure by a government official must have been deliberate, the person doing it must have known that the CIA officer was a covert agent, and he or she must have known that the government was actively concealing the covert agent's identity.

Cooper, according to an internal Time e-mail obtained by Newsweek magazine, spoke with Rove before Novak's column was published. In the conversation, Rove gave Cooper a "big warning" that Wilson's assertions might not be entirely accurate and that it was not the director of the CIA or the vice president who sent Wilson on his trip. Rove apparently told Cooper that it was "Wilson's wife, who apparently works at the agency on [weapons of mass destruction] issues who authorized the trip," according to a story in Newsweek's July 18 issue.

White House link to leak?
Rove's conversation with Cooper could be significant because it indicates a White House official was discussing Plame prior to her being publicly named and could lead to evidence of how Novak learned her name.

Although the information is revelatory, it is still unknown whether Rove is a focus of the investigation. Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin, has said that Special Prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald has told him that Rove is not a target of the probe. Luskin said yesterday that Rove did not know Plame's name and was not actively trying to push the information into the public realm.

Instead, Luskin said, Rove discussed the matter — under the cloak of secrecy — with Cooper at the tail end of a conversation about a different issue. Cooper had called Rove to discuss other matters on a Friday before deadline, and the topic of Wilson came up briefly. Luskin said Cooper raised the question.

"Rove did not mention her name to Cooper," Luskin said. "This was not an effort to encourage Time to disclose her identity. What he was doing was discouraging Time from perpetuating some statements that had been made publicly and weren't true."

‘Nothing to hide’
In particular, Rove was urging caution because then-CIA Director George J. Tenet was about to issue a statement regarding Iraq's alleged interest in African uranium and its inaccurate inclusion in President Bush's 2003 State of the Union address. Tenet took the blame for allowing a misleading paragraph into the speech, but Tenet also said that the president, vice president and other senior officials were never briefed on Wilson's report.

After the investigation into the leak began, Luskin said, Rove signed a waiver in December 2003 or January 2004 authorizing prosecutors to speak to any reporters Rove had previously engaged in discussion, which included Cooper.

"His written waiver included the world," Luskin said. "It was intended to be a global waiver. . . . He wants to make sure that the special prosecutor has everyone's evidence. That reflects someone who has nothing to hide."

Cooper had indicated he would go to jail rather than expose a confidential source, but he agreed last week to cooperate with the grand jury after getting clearance from his source to testify. Luskin said Cooper had been clear to testify all along — because of the waiver signed 18 months ago — but that the waiver was "reaffirmed" on Wednesday, the day of a hearing to decide whether he and Miller would go to jail.

© 2005 The Washington Post Company

[Delta]

What Rove did/is doing is really, really crappy and I am disgusted.

First, I do not believe he knowingly outed a covert agent or did anything illegal. I do think that the point he was making about Wilson's wife and his motives was legitimate.

BUT, if he had just stood up and explained the whole situation back in 2003 when all of this broke, it would spare the public and the administration all of this brouhaha and investigation. A reporter is in freaking jail because of it! People in and out of the administration have had to hire lawyers and testify. Scott McClellan looks like a total dumbass now because of his previous remarks saying Rove had nothing to do with it, which Rove let him go out there make. Un-freaking-believeable. :mad:

[meganth]

I don't get why this isn't a bigger news story - i would think this should be a HUGE story but it's barely being mentioned!

[Alicia]

I don't get why this isn't a bigger news story - i would think this should be a HUGE story but it's barely being mentioned!

This is a HUGE news story- been on the front of many major newspapers. and certainly all over the blog world. Judy Miller went to jail July 6, so much of the coverage has probably been overshadowed by the London attacks.

ETA:
After reading back through the thread, I saw this:
First, I do not believe he knowingly outed a covert agent or did anything illegal.
Of course he knew what he was doing or at least had some clue, otherwise he wouldn't have requested that this be on "double super secret background" (this totally cracks me up!).

[meganth]

This is a HUGE news story- been on the front of many major newspapers. and certainly all over the blog world. Judy Miller went to jail July 6, so much of the coverage has probably been overshadowed by the London attacks.

I agree, that aspect of the story has been in the news a lot, but it doesn't seem like the Karl Rove aspect has been as big of a story as it seems it should be. Maybe i haven't been seeing the right news sources.

[Alicia]

I agree, that aspect of the story has been in the news a lot, but it doesn't seem like the Karl Rove aspect has been as big of a story as it seems it should be. Maybe i haven't been seeing the right news sources.

I saw Rove splattered all over Good Morning America, NBC Nightly News and the Today show in the past few days.... national outlets are more likely to cover this than your local news organizations. (but b/c i have a personal interest in the story - it's my professional field, maybe I'm just *noticing* these stories more)

[LittleFredPunkinHead]

The latest from the NY Times: White House Still Silent on Rove's Role in Leak (http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-CIA-Leak-Investigation.html?hp&ex=1121227200&en=b1ea03377dbcf2ed&ei=5094&partner=homepage)

[LittleFredPunkinHead]

BTW- Why isn't Novak in jail for not outing his source?

[paiger]

BTW- Why isn't Novak in jail for not outing his source?

i thought the article said that he had agreed to testify and say his source, so there was no problem with him. however, wasn't what he did illegal? i don't understand how it was okay for him to out her as a CIA agent. is there some other legal action that will be taken against him?

[Alicia]

BTW- Why isn't Novak in jail for not outing his source?

I believe Novak gave up his source when asked about it. Judy Miller did not, even after federal prosecution... it was Cooper (or should I say Time Magazine) who came clean to avoid prosecution, which is why we know it was Rove, why Judy is now behind bars and why Cooper is free as a bird.

Here's an interesting transcript on www.fishbowldc.com (it's a media blog that i take with a grain of salt, but his transcripts are usually right on). Not sure the date of the interview, this was posted on June 29:

Wednesday, Jun 29
Novak Gets Grilled
"Inside Politics" guest host Ed Henry just grilled Bob Novak on Matt & Judy. Here's the rush transcript:



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

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 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: Okay. 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 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.

[Alicia]

i thought the article said that he had agreed to testify and say his source, so there was no problem with him. however, wasn't what he did illegal? i don't understand how it was okay for him to out her as a CIA agent. is there some other legal action that will be taken against him?

That's a good question... I'm not sure the legalities of it, but I'm pretty sure it has to do with the fact that many CIA agents work undercover and once a cover is blown, that person can no longer effectively do their jobs - probably all sorts of confidentiality agreements have been signed, etc. etc.

[paiger]

That's a good question... I'm not sure the legalities of it, but I'm pretty sure it has to do with the fact that many CIA agents work undercover and once a cover is blown, that person can no longer effectively do their jobs - probably all sorts of confidentiality agreements have been signed, etc. etc.

yea, that's why i asked b/c i read that Vanity Fair article about Plame and Wilson (which was really good), and she basically lost her ability to do what she was for the CIA. i thought it said something about that it was illegal to out a CIA agent, but maybe it is the source leaks that are responsible or something.

[LittleFredPunkinHead]

I believe Novak gave up his source when asked about it. Judy Miller did not, even after federal prosecution...
Aahh... I thought that Novak hadn't yet, since we haven't heard who his source was.

[villanelle75]

Based on what I've read (can't remeber the source, unfortunately), I think it is illegal for a person with offical knowledge of an operatives identity to reveal that info, but for a regular civilain to pass long knowledge he obtained is not illegal. In other words, Bush can't tell me that my uncle Fred is a CIA agent, but if Cousin Bill tells me, that's okay and I can tell anyoen I want.

[lawyerlee]

Based on what I've read (can't remeber the source, unfortunately), I think it is illegal for a person with offical knowledge of an operatives identity to reveal that info, but for a regular civilain to pass long knowledge he obtained is not illegal. In other words, Bush can't tell me that my uncle Fred is a CIA agent, but if Cousin Bill tells me, that's okay and I can tell anyoen I want.
If I am understanding you, you are correct. It is illegal for a person with official knowledge to disclose that information and it is illegal for a person who found out through illegal means to disclose that information. Therefore, Rove and Novak have broken the law. But Cooper and Miller did not break the law by merely reporting on what Novak had done.

[lawyerlee]

Of course he knew what he was doing or at least had some clue, otherwise he wouldn't have requested that this be on "double super secret background" (this totally cracks me up!).
No kidding! I sure didn't learn about that in J school. :rolleyes:

[lawyerlee]

I believe Novak gave up his source when asked about it. Judy Miller did not, even after federal prosecution... it was Cooper (or should I say Time Magazine) who came clean to avoid prosecution, which is why we know it was Rove, why Judy is now behind bars and why Cooper is free as a bird.
That's not why Novak should be in jail. He should be in jail because he broke the law by divulging the identity of an undercover agent, the identity of whom he obtained through illegal means.

[lawyerlee]

White House: Bush confident in Rove (http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/07/12/cia.leaks.ap/index.html) CNN

Some Democrats call for chief adviser to be fired

WASHINGTON (AP) -- After two days of questions, the White House said Tuesday that President Bush continues to have confidence in Karl Rove, the presidential adviser at the center of the investigation into the leak identifying a female CIA officer.

Prominent Democrats are calling for Rove to be fired.

Bush did not respond to a reporter's question Tuesday about whether he would fire Rove, in keeping with a June 2004 pledge to dismiss any leakers of Valerie Plame's identity.

At a White House briefing afterward, spokesman Scott McClellan was pressed about Rove's future.

"Any individual who works here at the White House has the confidence of the president. They wouldn't be working here at the White House if they didn't have the president's confidence," McClellan said.

The White House said two years ago that Rove wasn't involved in the leak. According to a July 2003 e-mail that surfaced over the weekend, Rove told Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper that the woman "apparently works" for the CIA, Newsweek magazine reported.

It added that the woman had authorized a trip to Africa by her husband, U.S. Ambassador Joe Wilson, to check out allegations that Iraq had tried to buy uranium from Niger for nuclear weapons.

At the time of Rove's conversation with Cooper, Wilson had accused the Bush administration of manipulating intelligence to justify the invasion of Iraq.

Cooper's e-mail is in the hands of federal prosecutors who are hunting down the leakers inside the Bush administration who revealed Plame's name to the news media.

The revelation about Rove prompted Democratic calls for Bush to follow through on his promise to fire leakers of Plame's identity.

Former Democratic presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts said Tuesday that "Karl Rove ought to be fired." With Kerry on Capitol Hill was Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-New York, also a possible 2008 presidential contender, who indicated her agreement with Kerry's view.

"I'm nodding," she told reporters.

The issue triggered 61 questions during two press briefings Monday by McClellan. It was McClellan who had provided the previous assurances about no role for Rove, but he refused to repeat those assurances Monday.

"Did Karl Rove commit a crime?" a reporter asked McClellan.

"This is a question relating to an ongoing investigation," McClellan replied.

McClellan gave the same answer when asked whether President Bush has confidence in Rove, the architect of the president's successful political campaigns.

[Alicia]

That's not why Novak should be in jail. He should be in jail because he broke the law by divulging the identity of an undercover agent, the identity of whom he obtained through illegal means.

i don't think i was trying to explain why he SHOULD be in jail, rather than why he's not.... but a lot of the Novak stuff is still fuzzy in my mind and when I was writing up the posts i was too lazy to research it :o
--------------
And in response to the article you posted:
I try to stay out of the heated political debates (my debating skills stink and i'm too much of a wimp, which i'll gladly admit!).... but McClellan is such a thorn in so many people's asses! but if you look at his responses to questions compared with bush's lack of intelligence(ducking for fear of upcoming flames), a clearer picture seems to emerge.

[lawyerlee]

And in response to the article you posted:
I try to stay out of the heated political debates (my debating skills stink and i'm too much of a wimp, which i'll gladly admit!).... but McClellan is such a thorn in so many people's asses! but if you look at his responses to questions compared with bush's lack of intelligence(ducking for fear of upcoming flames), a clearer picture seems to emerge.
Don't expect any from me. I tend to agree. ;) :) McClellan is the master at saying absolutely nothing, even when it seems like he's saying something.

[Delta]

I feel bad for Scott. Rove and whoever else let him go out there and defend them and say they had nothing to do with this whole thing. Shameful. He really has no choice but to sit there and get hammered by the press corps now. If I were him I'd quit on the spot, but he won't.

Even more shameful that there is a reporter in jail because all this.

[lawyerlee]

I feel bad for Scott. Rove and whoever else let him go out there and defend them and say they had nothing to do with this whole thing. Shameful. He really has no choice but to sit there and get hammered by the press corps now. If I were him I'd quit on the spot, but he won't.

Even more shameful that there is a reporter in jail because all this.
ITA, Delta. Rove is such a slimy bastard.

[lawyerlee]

GOP on Offense in Defense of Rove (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/12/AR2005071200093_pf.html) Washington Post

By Jim VandeHei
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, July 13, 2005; A01

Republicans mounted an aggressive and coordinated defense of Karl Rove yesterday, contending that the White House's top political adviser did nothing improper or illegal when he discussed a covert CIA official with a reporter.

With a growing number of Democrats calling for Rove's resignation, the Republican National Committee and congressional Republicans sought to discredit Democratic critics and knock down allegations of possible criminal activity.

"The angry left is trying to smear" Rove, RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman, a Rove protege, said in an interview.

A federal grand jury is investigating whether anyone in the Bush administration unlawfully leaked the name of a CIA official, Valerie Plame, to the news media. Although the White House has previously said Rove was not involved in the episode, a recently disclosed internal Time magazine e-mail shows that Rove mentioned Plame, albeit not by name, to reporter Matthew Cooper before her name and affiliation became public in July 2003. The grand jury is scheduled to hear from Cooper today.

The emerging GOP strategy -- devised by Mehlman and other Rove loyalists outside of the White House -- is to try to undermine those Democrats calling for Rove's ouster, play down Rove's role and wait for President Bush's forthcoming Supreme Court selection to drown out the controversy, according to several high-level Republicans.

The White House said Bush retains full confidence in Rove, but for a second day officials would not answer a barrage of questions about Rove's role in the leak scandal on the grounds that the investigation is not complete. But the RNC -- effectively Bush's political arm -- weighed into the controversy in a major fashion.

Mehlman, who said he talked with Rove several times in recent days, instructed GOP legislators, lobbyists and state officials to accuse Democrats of dirty politics and argue Rove was guilty of nothing more than discouraging a reporter from writing an inaccurate story, according to RNC talking points circulated yesterday.

"Republicans should stop holding back and go on the offense: fire enough bullets the other way until the Supreme Court overtakes" events, said Rep. Peter T. King (R-N.Y.).

Rove has not been asked by senior White House officials whether he did anything illegal or potentially embarrassing to the president and he spent most of the day strategizing on Bush's Supreme Court nomination, aides said.

"No one has asked him what he told the grand jury. No one has deemed it appropriate," said a senior White House official, who would discuss the Rove case only on the condition of anonymity. "What you all need to figure out is, does this amount to a crime? That is a legitimate debate." Still, some aides said they were concerned about the unknown. "Is it a communications challenge? Sure," the official said.

Privately, even Rove's staunchest supporters said the situation could explode if federal prosecutors accuse Rove or any other high-level official of committing a crime. William Kristol, a conservative commentator with close White House ties, said it would be hard to imagine a prosecutor conducting an investigation that has landed one reporter in jail and challenged the constitutional rights of the journalism profession without indicting someone. Special prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald "is the problem for the White House, and we have no idea what he knows," Kristol said.

Bush has said if any White House officials were involved, they would be fired. The president yesterday twice refused to answer questions on whether Rove should be dismissed.

[lawyerlee]

I find some of the views of the people interviewed in this article misinformed and narrow, which is extremely frightening and dangerous to Democracy. :(

Legal Analysts Critical of N.Y. Times Reporter's Stance in Leak Probe (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/12/AR2005071200093_pf.html) Washington Post

By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, July 13, 2005; A07

Tim Russert of NBC, Walter Pincus and Glenn Kessler of The Washington Post and Matthew Cooper of Time were all subpoenaed in the Valerie Plame leak investigation. But only New York Times reporter Judith Miller is in jail today.

Although many media advocates hail Miller's sacrifice for what she and the Times see as a bedrock journalistic principle of protecting a promise to a source, some legal analysts say her imprisonment stems from a confrontational legal strategy adopted by the Times.

Geoffrey Stone, a University of Chicago law professor, said journalists, like doctors and lawyers, are under no obligation to remain silent about a source who has waived confidentiality. "It's the source's privilege, not the reporter's," he said. "If the source doesn't want confidentiality, the reporter has no business insisting on it. . . . If it's a matter of conscience instead of a matter of law, you can do whatever you want. As a legal matter, it's absurd."

U.S. District Judge Thomas F. Hogan sent Miller to the Alexandria Detention Center last week after she refused to testify in the probe of whether Bush administration officials illegally disclosed that Plame was an undercover CIA operative. Plame's identity was revealed in a column by Robert D. Novak eight days after her husband, former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, wrote an op-ed piece in the Times criticizing White House assertions about Iraq's nuclear program during the run-up to the U.S. invasion.

The White House directed high-level officials to sign general waivers releasing journalists from any pledge of confidentiality on the Plame matter, but Cooper said last week that such waivers "are not worth the paper they're written on" because they are inherently coercive. Cooper agreed to testify after announcing that his source had personally released him from his promise of anonymity. Miller has steadfastly refused to testify.

Earlier in the investigation, NBC and Post journalists who were subpoenaed worked out agreements with special prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald to provide limited testimony in ways they said did not compromise their promises to sources. Novak and his attorney have refused to say whether he cooperated with the prosecutor.

Floyd Abrams, the veteran First Amendment lawyer who represents Miller, said the situation faced by the other reporters may have been different. But he added: "Their willingness to reach an accommodation with Mr. Fitzgerald may have been greater than Judy's.

"We pursued every angle on this case in terms of trying to avoid the current situation, while still preserving Judy's honor and her compliance with her promises to sources," he said.

Times Executive Editor Bill Keller said Miller is doing a "brave and honorable" thing. "The simple fact is that Judy made a promise to a source that she would protect his anonymity. That source has not granted her any kind of a waiver from that promise, at least one that she finds persuasive or believes was freely given, and she feels bound by that pledge. And more than that, she feels that, if she breaks that pledge, she will compromise her ability to do her job in the future."

[LittleFredPunkinHead]

Wait a minute- so are they saying that Miller's source waived the confidentiality thing and she's still refusing to testify? Do we know for sure that her source was Rove, or could it have been someone else?

[paiger]

Times Executive Editor Bill Keller said Miller is doing a "brave and honorable" thing. "The simple fact is that Judy made a promise to a source that she would protect his anonymity. That source has not granted her any kind of a waiver from that promise, at least one that she finds persuasive or believes was freely given, and she feels bound by that pledge. And more than that, she feels that, if she breaks that pledge, she will compromise her ability to do her job in the future."

no, it says here that the source has not granted her a waiver.

[lawyerlee]

The real Rove scandal (http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-oe-rscheer12jul12,1,5999867,print.column) LA Times Op/Ed
by Robert Scheer

July 12, 2005

If you can't shoot the messenger, take aim at his wife.

That clearly was the intent of White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove in leaking to a reporter that former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV's wife, Valerie Plame, was a CIA agent. To try to conceal the fact that the president had lied to the American public about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program, Rove attempted to destroy the credibility of two national security veterans and send an intimidating message to any other government officials preparing to publicly tell the truth.

Rove's lawyer now says that Rove didn't break the law against naming covert agents because he didn't know Plame's name and therefore couldn't have revealed it. Perhaps he can use such a technicality in court, but in the meantime he should resign immediately — or be fired by the president — for leaking classified information, trying to smear Wilson and possibly endangering Plame's life.

"The White House promised if anyone was involved in the Valerie Plame affair, they would no longer be in this administration," said Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.). "I trust they will follow through on this pledge."

The background on this story is crucial. Ambassador Wilson had been honored as a patriot by President George H.W. Bush for standing up to Saddam Hussein in a face-to-face confrontation in Baghdad on the eve of the Persian Gulf War. But in 2003, Wilson committed an unpardonable crime in the eyes of the second Bush White House. He exposed its lies about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs.

In 16 now infamous words in Bush's 2003 State of the Union speech, the president — desperate to gain support for an invasion he was dead set on initiating — tried to scare Americans into believing Iraq was close to making nuclear weapons. "The British government," he told the nation, "has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." But the key documents that the claim was based on had already been proved to be fakes, and other intelligence reports along these lines were extremely speculative.

In fact, it was a CIA-organized mission by Wilson to the African country of Niger (where he had served as ambassador) that determined the reports were false. Wilson was therefore shocked to hear the uranium claims in the president's speech. When he exposed the chicanery in a New York Times commentary, Wilson became a prime target for a White House smear job.

According to e-mails that Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper sent to his editor (which were revealed by Newsweek over the weekend), Rove told Cooper that Wilson's devastating expose should be discounted because the Niger fact-finding trip had been authorized by Wilson's wife, who worked at the CIA.

This was three days before Robert Novak, citing two White House sources, outed Plame as a CIA agent in his column and put forward the same notion: that Wilson's information was suspect because the CIA had hired him on the advice of his wife.

In the end, though, what Rove's leak and Novak's column really exposed was the depravity of the administration's deliberate use of a false WMD threat and its willingness to go after anyone willing to tell the truth about it.

It's ironic that the expertise of this couple should be turned against them by a White House that has demonstrated nothing but incompetence in dealing with the WMD issue. But clearly truth and competence are virtues easily shed by the Bush administration in the pursuit of political advantage, even when this partisan game jeopardizes national security.

This is the most important issue raised by the Plame scandal. It has been unfortunately obscured by the secondary debate in the case: whether reporters should ever reveal their sources. Yet what the emerging Rove scandal demonstrates is the ease with which a wily top White House official can subvert the Bill of Rights' protection of the free press to serve the tawdriest of political ends.

[lawyerlee]

no, it says here that the source has not granted her a waiver.
Further, I really don't find that the most relevant issue in this situation. A court should not be dragging a reporter who has committed no crime into court demanding she disclose the identity of a confidential source when that information can be obtained through other means. If a court can simply threaten the reporter with jail, how is that anything other than a coercive manuever to force her source to disclose his or her identity, resulting in a situation where the reporter's word means absolutely nothing? And if a reporter cannot promise confidentiality and have that mean anything, how many really big stories will go untold? How much will our democracy suffer for that?

[meganth]

I feel bad for Scott. Rove and whoever else let him go out there and defend them and say they had nothing to do with this whole thing. Shameful. He really has no choice but to sit there and get hammered by the press corps now. If I were him I'd quit on the spot, but he won't.
Do you guys think McClellan knew anything about it?

[Delta]

Re the waiver --

Apparently Karl Rove signed a waiver back when this whole investigation started permitting any reporter to whom he talked to testify about their conversations re Plame. Some reporters didn't accept this waiver as legit because as Matthew Cooper said, it could have been signed under duress. When it came time last week for Cooper to testify or go to jail, Cooper's lawyer called Rove's lawyer at the last minute to ask for express permissision from Rove to testify. Luskin was surprised at the call (he says) because he thought that was the purpose of the waiver Rove signed and didn't realize that Cooper was hesitant to accept the waiver. Somehow this discussion turned into the "express agreement" that he was released to testify, which Cooper mentioned last week after his hearing. Now, that waiver obviously applies to Judith Miller too but she apparently refuses to accept it as permission for reasons similar to what Cooper articulated earlier -- that it could have been signed under duress. Plus she and NYT are trying to make a statement.

That is what I understand, at this point at least.

Do you guys think McClellan knew anything about it?
No. No way would he have gone out there and lied to the reporters' faces saying nobody in the WH including Karl Rove had anything to do with this. He was duped as well.

[lawyerlee]

Now, that waiver obviously applies to Judith Miller too but she apparently refuses to accept it as permission for reasons similar to what Cooper articulated earlier -- that it could have been signed under duress. Plus she and NYT are trying to make a statement.

That is what I understand, at this point at least.
Same here, Delta. At this point, I think she's fighting for principle.

[LittleFredPunkinHead]

Now, that waiver obviously applies to Judith Miller too but she apparently refuses to accept it as permission for reasons similar to what Cooper articulated earlier -- that it could have been signed under duress. Plus she and NYT are trying to make a statement.
Okay! I think I get it now. Thanks! :)

[lawyerlee]

This is an interesting premise for an article. I would have expected the President to defend Rove wholeheartedly and am suprised that he didn't. But is this making a mountain out of a molehill? I'd be interested in hearing some other thoughts. :)

On further reflection, perhaps this is what the President should have done all along: declined to make any specific comment pending the outcome of the investigation. His past comments on this topic sure are coming back to bite him in the ass now. So it is probably difficult to assert that his behavior says anything about Rove's future.

Bush Passes on Public Endorsement of Rove (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050713/ap_on_go_pr_wh/cia_leak_investigation&printer=1;_ylt=Ajtpjfhvd10FEFQuEnqvF8YGw_IE;_ylu=X 3oDMTA3MXN1bHE0BHNlYwN0bWE-) AP

By TOM RAUM, Associated Press Writer

President Bush passed up a chance Wednesday to express confidence in senior aide Karl Rove in a political fight over a news leak that exposed a CIA officer's identity. The lack of endorsement surprised some White House officials who had been told Bush would back his embattled friend.

"This is a serious investigation," Bush told reporters after a Cabinet meeting, with Rove sitting just behind him. "And it is very important for people not to prejudge the investigation based on media reports."

Later in the day, White House spokesman Scott McClellan insisted that Rove did have Bush's support. "As I indicated yesterday, every person who works here at the White House, including Karl Rove, has the confidence of the president," McClellan said.

Bush said he would not discuss the matter further until a criminal investigation is finished.

Across town, a federal grand jury heard more testimony in its probe into whether anyone in the administration illegally leaked the name of CIA officer Valerie Plame in July 2003. Her husband, former ambassador Joseph Wilson, a critic of the administration's rationale for invading Iraq, has said the leak was an attempt to discredit him.

Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper, who wrote an article that identified Plame, appeared before the grand jury for 2 1/2 hours.

"I testified openly and honestly," Cooper said outside the courthouse, without divulging details. "I have no idea whether a crime was committed or not. That's something the special counsel's going to have to determine."

The dispute has taken a toll on the White House and its allies, threatening to jeopardize the president's domestic agenda and leading to an aggressive GOP campaign to blunt Democratic calls for Rove's firing or resignation. With urging from the White House, Republican congressmen lined up in support of Rove and most GOP politicians outside Washington followed suit.

"It's a tempest in a teapot," said Denzil Garrison, former state GOP leader in Oklahoma. But some Republicans said Rove may need to go. "I think he should resign," said Jim Holt, a Republican state senator in Arkansas who is running for lieutenant governor. "I hope Karl Rove doesn't come gunning for me."

[Delta]

On further reflection, perhaps this is what the President should have done all along: declined to make any specific comment pending the outcome of the investigation. His past comments on this topic sure are coming back to bite him in the ass now. So it is probably difficult to assert that his behavior says anything about Rove's future.
Yup.

I wonder the age-old question - what did the president know and when did he know it?

[LittleFredPunkinHead]

Forewarning: This is coming from an unGodly liberal blog, (http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/7/13/133038/037) so I don't want anyone's head exploding... ;) But I do think the "two choices" he gives are what it boils down to:
There are only two possibilities:

-Karl Rove lied to the President of the United States about his involvement.

-The President of the United States lied to the nation about Karl Rove's involvement.

BTW- dailyKos mentions that George H.W. Bush fired Karl Rove for lying at some point. As I am super lazy at the moment, does anybody recall anything more specific about that incident?

[lawyerlee]

Here ya go, LF:

The man behind the man: Rove is the White House's key player (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2002380528_rove14.html) Seattle Times
The leaking of Plame's identity recalls an incident from the 1992 presidential campaign, in which Rove was fired from the elder Bush's re-election team because of suspicions that he had leaked information to columnist Robert Novak — the same columnist who first reported Plame's CIA role in 2003, citing anonymous administration sources.

At the time, Bush's campaign was in trouble, and there was concern he might not even win his home state of Texas. The Novak column described a Dallas meeting in which the campaign's state manager, Robert Mosbacher, was stripped of his authority, because the Texas effort was viewed as a bust.

Mosbacher complained, expressing his suspicion that Rove was the leaker. Rove denied the charge, but he was fired nevertheless.

A smarter man would listen to his wiser, more experienced father.

[Delta]

LF -- See that is exactly what it boils down to me too. And that is why this whole thing bothers me so damn much. And not just that Rove could have lied to the President, but to everyone, and had the WH spokesman go out and declare his innocence to reporters and the American people. And the other option is even worse.

lawyerlee -- I was just wondering last night what his father thinks about all of this. And his mom, too.

[LittleFredPunkinHead]

And the other option is even worse.
Absolutely. I really hope that it's discovered that it was all Rove. As much as I do not like Bush and wish there was a different person in the position, I don't think it'd be positive at all for the U.S. to go through another big "lying" scandal in the White House.

[dionysia]

Absolutely. I really hope that it's discovered that it was all Rove. As much as I do not like Bush and wish there was a different person in the position, I don't think it'd be positive at all for the U.S. to go through another big "lying" scandal in the White House.ITA, LF.

Di

[lawyerlee]

I definitely agree with all of you about hoping it's Rove and not GWB.


CIA officer's husband calls for Rove dismissal (http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/07/14/cia.leaks.ap/index.html) CNN

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Former Ambassador Joseph Wilson called on President Bush on Thursday to fire deputy chief of staff Karl Rove, saying Bush's top-level aide engaged in an "abuse of power" by discussing Wilson's wife's job at the CIA with a reporter.

Wilson decried what he called a White House "stonewall" in the wake of revelations that Rove, a longtime Bush confidant, was involved in the leak to the news media that Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, was a CIA officer.

Bush said Wednesday that he would not comment on discussions that disclosed her name because it is the subject of an ongoing investigation by special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald.

White House press secretary Scott McClellan said the president still has confidence in Rove.

The White House previously has said Rove was not involved in the leak. But an internal Time magazine e-mail disclosed over the weekend suggested Rove mentioned to reporter Matthew Cooper that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA.

[miel]

Delta-- If you are the WC Delta then you were my favorite online conservative! How are you doing? How's the baby? (Or maybe I just imagined you were conservative?)

Apologies if you aren't the WC Delta or you are and weren't conservative and I'm having a brain spasm!

[lawyerlee]

The Devil And Judy Miller (http://radaronline.com/fresh-intelligence/#report_001810)

Did Robert Novak rat on New York Times reporter Judith Miller? While some have suggested Miller—who never wrote a word about CIA spook Valerie Plame—was dragged into the leak probe when her name turned up on a White House call log, several beltway insiders close to the investigation say special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald learned of Miller’s involvement from Novak himself.

Though the GOP hatchetman claims he’s never spoken to the grand jury about the column, a well-known Democratic pundit tells Radar, “Novak is the media’s Joseph Valachi,” referring to the 1960’s mafia capo who was the first mobster to testify against La Cosa Nostra. “There’s no question he rolled over.” According to our sources, Miller shared Plame’s identity with her perfidious fellow neocon after deciding not to publish it herself; Novak then called his two White House sources—one of whom was Karl Rove—for confirmation and wrote the July 14, 2003 column that blew Plame’s cover.

Soon after, Fitzgerald dispatched agents to question Novak about his sources and he promptly spilled the beans. The special prosecutor then subpoenaed Miller, who’s currently in jail on a contempt charge. Plame’s husband, former ambassador Joseph Wilson—whose Times’ op-ed triggered the leak in the first place—is open to the theory. “If Novak met with the special counsel and satisfied all their needs, they wouldn’t have any need to call him in front of the grand jury,” Wilson tells Radar. “As for what he told them [about Miller], why don’t you ask Novak?”

Repeated calls and e-mails to the Prince of Darkness went unanswered, and Times spokesman Toby Usnik would only say, robotically, that “Ms. Miller learned about Valerie Plame from a confidential source or sources whose identity she continues to protect to this day.” Noble, indeed. As for Novak, we hear fellow pariah Michael Jackson is looking for a ghostwriter.

[miel]

OK, that explains why they are going after Miller instead of Novak. I couldn't figure that out.

[LittleFredPunkinHead]

"Prince of Darknes..." Snicker!

[LittleFredPunkinHead]

Top Aides Reportedly Set Sights on Wilson (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-leak18jul18,0,4779848.story?coll=la-home-headlines) LA Times
Top aides to President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney were intensely focused on discrediting former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV in the days after he wrote an op-ed article for the New York Times suggesting the administration manipulated intelligence to justify going to war in Iraq, federal investigators have been told.

Prosecutors investigating whether administration officials illegally leaked the identity of Wilson's wife, a CIA officer who had worked undercover, have been told that Bush's top political strategist, Karl Rove, and Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, were especially intent on undercutting Wilson's credibility, according to people familiar with the inquiry.

Although lower-level White House staffers typically handle most contacts with the media, Rove and Libby began personally communicating with reporters about Wilson, prosecutors were told.

[LittleFredPunkinHead]

In Shift, Bush Vows to Fire Aides in Leak if They Broke Law (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/18/politics/18cnd-rove.html?ei=5094&en=2663df379f95d150&hp=&ex=1121745600&adxnnl=1&partner=homepage&adxnnlx=1121705378-/6++ZAC5tCmGCVOSYTFIvA) NY Times
President Bush changed his stance today on his close adviser Karl Rove, stopping well short of promising that anyone in his administration who helped to unmask a C.I.A. officer would be fired.

"If someone committed a crime, they will no longer work in my administration," Mr. Bush said in response to a question, after declaring, "I don't know all the facts; I want to know all the facts."

For months, Mr. Bush and his spokesmen have said that anyone involved in the disclosure of the C.I.A. officer's identity would be dismissed. The president's apparent raising of the bar for dismissal today, to specific criminal conduct, comes amid mounting evidence that, at the very least, Mr. Rove provided backhanded confirmation of the C.I.A. officer's identity.

[lawyergirl25]

All I read was "backpedal backpedal backpedal."



Edited b/c I was introduced to spell check ;)

[PG-rated]

I've been following the case itself, but haven't read too much about the parallel story of Miller/Cooper/Novak. Wondering what you all think about this article from Slate:

the big idea
The Anonymity Trap
Norm Pearlstine didn't go far enough.
By Jacob Weisberg
Posted Tuesday, July 12, 2005, at 1:33 PM PT



It's been open season on Norm Pearlstine since the Time Inc. editor in chief decided to turn over Matthew Cooper's notes to Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald. In the New York Times, Frank Rich accused Pearlstine of elevating corporate interests over press freedom. Times media columnist David Carr went on to chide him for transforming Time "into a lifestyle bible that often leaves the more ambitious stories to others." The New York Observer contributed a savage précis of Pearlstine's entire career.

This gang-bang speaks more to journalistic groupthink than to any real moral or legal reasoning. Pearlstine hasn't argued his case beyond the quotes he has supplied in a couple of interviews, but he's clearly struggled with the issue more deeply than New York Times publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr., whose decision on the other side evinces no difficulty and no doubt. Can the nation's leading newspaper really find it an easy call to defy the nation's high court when faced with a ruling it doesn't like? Is corporate disobedience—which would have been a new one on Thoreau and King—really a principle the Times wants to establish?

Pearlstine's conclusion that having traveled every legal avenue on behalf of its view of the First Amendment, a publication should obey the law seems persuasive to me. Indeed, this was the Times' own position in the landmark Pentagon Papers case, in which the paper clearly would have complied with the Supreme Court's ruling and withheld publication had it lost—even though a far more fundamental right was at issue than today.

But Pearlstine's thoughtful and courageous rejection of the view of the journalistic establishment of which he is (or was) a pillar doesn't go far enough. There's a strong argument that journalists at Time and elsewhere should not just cough up the names of the Valerie Plame leakers in court, but share them with their own readers as well.

Journalists make a fetish of anonymous sources. They do so for reasons ethical, psychological, and anthropological, including genuine principle, the lure of heroism, and—especially in Washington—a culture of status based on access to inside information.

But let's ignore the ulterior motives and focus on the principle Judith Miller has so forcefully asserted by going to prison. To Miller and the Times, confidentiality is the trump value of journalism, one that outweighs all other considerations, including obedience to the law, the public interest, and perhaps even loyalty to country.

This is indeed a strong principle, but it is a misguided one. In the Mafia, keeping confidences is the supreme value. In journalism, the highest value is the discovery and publication of the truth. When this paramount value comes into conflict with others—such as following the law, keeping your word, and so on—hard choices have to be made.

Thoughtful journalists sometimes do choose the value of revealing truth over the value of confidentiality. One example: Testifying to the Iran-contra committee in 1987, Oliver North defended lying to Congress by citing what he claimed were congressional leaks of classified information. As an illustration, North cited details about the capture of the PLO terrorists who had hijacked the Achille Lauro in 1985. Jonathan Alter pointed out in Newsweek that North himself had leaked the details of that military operation to a Newsweek reporter. Alter's argument for outing North was that reporters who knew North was the leaker shouldn't be party to his deception.

There are other examples of journalists unilaterally declaring a source's promised anonymity inoperative. In his book Uncovering Clinton, Michael Isikoff put Linda Tripp's off-the-record dealings with him on the record. His argument was that Tripp's grand jury testimony about their conversations had subsequently become public, so it would be ridiculous to continue to suppress his version. Bob Woodward was always planning to name Deep Throat after he died. His argument was the interest of history. In 1988, Milton Coleman of the Washington Post revealed that Jesse Jackson had used the terms "hymie" and "hymietown" in a private conversation with him. His argument was that prejudice on the part of a presidential candidate was too important to keep secret. In various instances, publications have fingered campaign operatives attempting to leak negative stories about opposing candidates, on the theory that the fact of the dishing was dishier than the dirt being dished.

The argument for reporters outing the Plame leakers combines elements of several of these examples, and is slightly different from any of them. Talking to a source "on background" cannot be an offer of blanket immunity in all circumstances. If someone goes off the record to offer a journalist a bribe, or threaten violence, the importance of what the source has told a reporter may simply supersede the promise to keep mum. To take an extreme example, any reporter of integrity would reveal off-the-record information about an upcoming terrorist attack or serious crime. In the Plame case, the crime under investigation consists in speaking to reporters. No plausible shield law would, or should, protect a reporter in this situation, because there's no way for a prosecutor to develop a case against a perpetrator without evidence from the recipients of the leak. The New York Times might argue that the law against leaking undercover CIA agents' names should be repealed (as Christopher Hitchens does here). But the paper can't coherently argue that the law should be enforced and that its own reporter should prevent its enforcement.

The argument against ever outing sources is instrumental. Insiders won't leak to the press if they can't rely on a reporter's pledge of confidentiality, the argument goes, and so the public's interest in discovering wrongdoing ultimately won't be served. This is mostly humbug. As most modern presidents have discovered, leakers are a hardy breed. They act from various motives, of which unalloyed public-spiritedness is probably the rarest. Outing the Plame leakers wouldn't undermine the use of confidential sources. It would merely put leakers on notice that their right to lie and manipulate the press is not absolute and not sacred.

Jacob Weisberg is editor of Slate and co-author, with Robert E. Rubin, of In an Uncertain World.

Article URL: http://slate.msn.com/id/2122509/

[LittleFredPunkinHead]

To quote "The Continental" as portrayed by Christopher Walken: "Wowee wow-wow!"

Wall Street Journal enters Rove fray: State Dept. memo made clear info 'shouldn't be shared' (http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Wall_Street_Journal_enters_Rove_fray_State_Dept._m emo_made_clear_info_shouldnt_be_shar_0719.html)

[miel]

Little Fred--you are funny...Why couldn't this have happened before the last election?

[lawyerlee]

Here are some really interesting pieces on this topic from FindLaw Legal Commentary.

In light of the WSJ article LF posted above, however, it is clear that Dean is giving Karl Rove WAY too much benefit of the doubt in this article. ;)

It Appears That Karl Rove Is In Serious Trouble (http://writ.news.findlaw.com/scripts/printer_friendly.pl?page=/dean/20050715.html)
By JOHN W. DEAN
----
Friday, Jul. 15, 2005

As the scandal over the leak of CIA agent Valerie Plame's identity has continued to unfold, there is a renewed focus on Karl Rove -- the White House Deputy Chief of Staff whom President Bush calls his political "architect."

Newsweek has reported that Matt Cooper, in an email to his bureau chief at Time magazine, wrote that he had spoken "to Rove on double super secret background for about two min[ute]s before he went on vacation ..." In that conversation, Rove gave Cooper a "big warning" that Time should not "get too far out on Wilson." Rove was referring, of course, to former Ambassador Joe Wilson's acknowledgment of his trip to Africa, where he discovered that Niger had not, in fact, provided uranium to Iraq that might be part of a weapons of mass destruction (WMD) program. Cooper's email indicates that Rove told Cooper that Wilson's trip had not been authorized by CIA Director George Tenet or Vice President Dick Cheney; rather, Rove claimed, "it was … [W]ilson's wife, who apparently works at the agency on [WMD] issues who authorized the trip." (Rove was wrong about the authorization.)

Only the Special Counsel, Patrick Fitzgerald, and his staff have all the facts on their investigation at this point, but there is increasing evidence that Rove (and others) may have violated one or more federal laws. At this time, it would be speculation to predict whether indictments will be forthcoming.

When Is Nonviolent Civil Disobedience Justified? The Case of Judith Miller (http://writ.news.findlaw.com/scripts/printer_friendly.pl?page=/hilden/20050719.html)
By JULIE HILDEN
julhil@aol.com
----
Tuesday, Jul. 19, 2005

At the same time that we believe it's usually right to obey the law, most of us also think there are some cases in which it's right to disobey it - especially if the disobedience takes a non-violent form.

To draw on an obvious but compelling example, few would suggest that African-Americans were wrong to protest segregation in the South by sitting at whites-only lunch counters and refusing to leave, or by refusing to move to the back of the bus.

We can all agree on these basic examples of justified civil disobedience. Even though these actions broke the law, we still believe they were the right thing to do. Hence, we see the protesters as civil rights heroes - not scofflaws. And we read Martin Luther King's "Letter From Birmingham Jail" as a key philosophical tract, not a felon's memoir.

The most recent high-profile instance of civil disobedience is that of New York Times reporter Judith Miller. After a federal judge found Miller in contempt of court for refusing to comply with a grand jury subpoena, she has been held in a federal penitentiary. Every court to review the subpoena has proclaimed it legally valid, but Miller believes it to be unconstitutional.

As I discussed in a prior column, Miller's view of the First Amendment is reasonable - and, in my opinion, correct. She believes - and her attorneys have argued - that the press is not truly free, as the Constitution guarantees it must be, unless reporters can protect their confidential sources from subpoenas, and court orders, that would reveal their identity.

More specifically, she and her lawyers contend that without enforceable confidentiality promises, sources won't speak, and that the sources who demand confidentiality are often those who hold information of the most intense public interest - information that is at the very core of the First Amendment's freedom of the press protections. Thus, they argue for a First Amendment-based privilege for journalists who are protecting confidential sources.

But the Supreme Court has held otherwise, in Branzburg v. Hayes, and has recently declined to grant review in Miller's case, which would have given the Court a chance to change its mind.

By going to jail, rather than testifying before the grand jury, Miller has chosen to disobey all the courts that have ruled against her, and their interpretation of the law and the Constitution. At the same time, another journalist - Time's Matthew Cooper - has taken another path, ultimately choosing to cooperate with the grand jury after negotiating a waiver of confidentiality from his source.

Are Miller's actions rightly viewed as justifiable civil disobedience, or is she merely a scofflaw?

In this column, I will consider some factors that may play into the determination of when nonviolent civil disobedience like Miller's is - or is not - warranted.

Could Valerie Plame Sue Karl Rove? (http://writ.news.findlaw.com/scripts/printer_friendly.pl?page=/sebok/20050718.html)
Part One of a Two-Part Series
By ANTHONY J. SEBOK
anthony.sebok@brooklaw.edu
----
Monday, Jul. 18, 2005

In 1998, President Bill Clinton was almost forced from office because he lied about whether he had had "sexual relations" with Monica Lewinsky in a deposition. The deposition was not conducted by Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr, but by the lawyers for Paula Jones -- who had sued the President under federal civil rights law and Arkansas tort law.

One of the greatest features of the American civil justice system--especially its tort law--is that it gives average citizens the power to force anyone, even Presidents, to answer them in court. Could Valerie Plame, the CIA agent whose identity was leaked to the press, take matters into her own hands and use the civil justice system to get Karl Rove - who may, it seems, have been the leaker -- to answer her in court?

In offering possible answers to this question, I need to also offer a caveat: Media reports on this case may be incomplete and are, in some cases, based on second-hand information and leaks. The facts may turn out to be very different once more is known.

However, as I will discuss in my next column, the holes in the public record may themselves motivate Plame to sue: A civil suit can be an excellent way to force information into the open.

This column explores whether Plame can start that process.

[lawyerlee]

Bush’s ‘Big Time’ Leak? (http://radaronline.com/fresh-intelligence/2005/07/19/index.php#report_001913)

http://radaronline.com/fresh-intelligence/cheney_inside.jpg

Did Robert Novak’s other White House source leak from an undisclosed location? Now that Karl Rove has been outed as one of two administration sources who confirmed the columnist’s Valerie Plame smear, Beltway insiders are speculating the other White House big mouth belongs to Vice President Dick Cheney.

“People have to understand that [Judith] Miller, [Matt] Cooper, and Novak were all Iraq War zealots starting as early as 2001, and Cheney was relentless about going to war—he was ready to literally destroy anyone who got in his way,” a Capitol Hill insider tells Radar.

Since Cooper’s recent revelation that Cheney’s chief of staff, Lewis “Scooter” Libby, corroborated Plame’s CIA status for him, media attention has been focused further down the White House chain of command. Whoever ultimately emerges as Rove’s partner in crime, senior Dem officials are determined to do a little House cleaning.

“I don’t know for sure it was Cheney, but this is an administration that won two Presidential elections by discrediting their opponents,” says one Democratic congressman. “If a Democratic administration had engaged in this type of behavior, the impeachment hearings would have started by now.” A spokesman for Cheney’s office did not return calls for comment by press time.

[LittleFredPunkinHead]

From the Washington Post's front page:
Plame's Identity Marked As Secret
Memo Central to Probe Of Leak Was Written By State Dept. Analyst (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/20/AR2005072002517.html)
A classified State Department memorandum central to a federal leak investigation contained information about CIA officer Valerie Plame in a paragraph marked "(S)" for secret, a clear indication that any Bush administration official who read it should have been aware the information was classified, according to current and former government officials.

[lawyerlee]

Leak Investigation: An Oversight Issue? (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8853002/site/newsweek/)
Newsweek

Aug. 15, 2005 issue - The departure this week of Deputy Attorney General James Comey, who has accepted the post of general counsel at Lockheed Martin, leaves a question mark in the probe into who leaked the identity of CIA operative Valerie Plame. Comey was the only official overseeing special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald's leak investigation. With Attorney General Alberto Gonzales recused, department officials say they are still trying to resolve whom Fitzgerald will now report to. Associate Attorney General Robert McCallum is "likely" to be named as acting deputy A.G., a DOJ official who asked not to be identified because of the sensitivity of the matter tells NEWSWEEK. But McCallum may be seen as having his own conflicts: he is an old friend of President Bush's and a member of his Skull and Bones class at Yale. One question: how much authority Comey's successor will have over Fitzgerald. When Comey appointed Fitzgerald in 2003, the deputy granted him extraordinary powers to act however he saw fit—but noted he still had the right to revoke Fitzgerald's authority. The questions are pertinent because lawyers close to the case believe the probe is in its final stages. Fitzgerald recently called White House aide Karl Rove's secretary and his former top aide to testify before the grand jury. They were asked why there was no record of a phone call from Time reporter Matt Cooper, with whom Rove discussed the CIA agent, says a source close to Rove who requested anonymity because the FBI asked participants not to comment. The source says the call went through the White House switchboard, not directly to Rove.

—Michael Isikoff

[lawyerlee]

Judith Miller's Tale Under Scrutiny -- At Her Own Paper (http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/columns/shoptalk_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001010779)
Editor & Publisher

It's quite possible that Miller had no ulterior or activist role in the leaking of CIA officer Valerie Plame's identity, and her journalistic champions are justifiably standing by her. But a counter view is strongly emerging now, with a surprising number of Timesmen and Timeswomen (off the record) believing it, or at least fearing it is true.

By William E. Jackson, Jr.

(August 05, 2005) -- There are basically two possible and quite divergent scenarios surrounding jailed New York Times reporter Judith Miller's involvement in the Plame/CIA leak case. It is quite possible that she had no ulterior or activist role in the leak and she really is just protecting her source(s) and her journalistic champions justifiably are standing by her. But a counter view, which I have been suggesting since February, is strongly emerging now, with a surprising number of Timesmen and Timeswomen (off the record) believing it, or at least fearing it is true.

One would think that, as worries about Miller's true role rise with every day she spends in jail, The Times would finally answer a few questions about what it knows and when it knew it. Yet, in his eye-opening internal review of July 28, the paper's intelligence reporter in Washington, Doug Jehl, revealed: "Bill Keller, the executive editor of The New York Times declined to address written questions about whether Ms. Miller was assigned to report about Mr. Wilson's trip, whether she tried to write a story about it, or whether she ever told editors or colleagues at the newspaper that she had obtained information about the role played by Ms. Wilson."

Here we have a hint of the "split" at The Times. On one level is the top management -- Publisher Arthur Sulzberger, Jr. and Bill Keller -- who endorse Miller's version that she was actually "reporting" on Plame in July 2003 and her view of herself as valiant defender of the First Amendment. A Times spokeswoman summed up the corporate bottom line last week: "Judy is an intrepid, principled, and Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist who has provided our readers with thorough and comprehensive reporting throughout her career."

On another level, some of the paper's elite reporters -- not to mention some Times columnists -- suggest in various pieces on the Plame affair that they are somewhat skeptical of her claim that she was contemplating writing a story on Plame in early summer 2003. The issue is critical because, if she was not actually talking to people about a story, what was she talking to them about?

[lawyerlee]

I know Arianna isn't exactly the most *ahem* neutral source, but I think she has some good points in this piece. :)


Judy Miller: Do We Want To Know Everything or Don't We? (http://www.alternet.org/story/23814/)
AlterNet

By Arianna Huffington

Not everyone in the Times building is on the same page when it comes to Judy Miller. The official story the paper is sticking to is that Miller is a heroic martyr, sacrificing her freedom in the name of journalistic integrity.

But a very different scenario is being floated in the halls. Here it is: It's July 6, 2003, and Joe Wilson's now famous op-ed piece appears in the Times, raising the idea that the Bush administration has "manipulate[d]" and "twisted" intelligence "to exaggerate the Iraqi threat." Miller, who has been pushing this manipulated, twisted, and exaggerated intel in the Times for months, goes ballistic. Someone is using the pages of her own paper to call into question the justification for the war -- and, indirectly, much of her reporting. The idea that intelligence was being fixed goes to the heart of Miller's credibility. So she calls her friends in the intelligence community and asks, Who is this guy? She finds out he's married to a CIA agent. She then passes on the info about Mrs. Wilson to Scooter Libby (Newsday has identified a meeting Miller had on July 8 in Washington with an "unnamed government official"). Maybe Miller tells Rove too -- or Libby does. The White House hatchet men turn around and tell Novak and Cooper. The story gets out.

This is why Miller doesn't want to reveal her "source" at the White House -- because she was the source. Sure, she first got the info from someone else, and the odds are she wasn't the only one who clued in Libby and/or Rove (the State Dept. memo likely played a role too)... but, in this scenario, Miller certainly wasn't an innocent writer caught up in the whirl of history. She had a starring role in it. This also explains why Miller never wrote a story about Plame, because her goal wasn't to write a story, but to get out the story that cast doubts on Wilson's motives. Which Novak did.

This version of events has divided the Times into two camps: those who want to learn everything about this story, and those who want to learn everything as long as it doesn't downgrade the heroic status of their "colleague" Judy Miller. And then there are the schizophrenics. Frank Rich is spending his summer in the second camp, while at the same time writing some of the most powerful and brilliant stuff about the scandal: "This case is about Iraq, not Niger. The real victims are the American people, not the Wilsons. The real culprit...is not Mr. Rove but the gang that sent American sons and daughters to war on trumped up grounds... That's why the stakes are so high: this scandal is about the unmasking of an ill-conceived war."

But this unmasking -- if it is to be complete -- has to include Judy Miller and the part she played in the mess in Iraq. Of course, the division over Miller is nothing new... it predates her transformation into media martyr by many months. For an early look at this rift, check out Howard Kurtz' May 2003 reporting on the way Miller ferociously fought to keep Ahmad Chalabi, her top source on WMD, to herself and the anger it caused at the paper. And also the paper's extraordinary mea culpa from May 2004, in which its editors admitted that the Times' reporting on Iraq "was not as rigorous as it should have been" -- yet steadfastly refused to even mention the less-than-rigorous reporter whose byline appeared on 4 of the 6 stories the editors singled out as being particularly egregious. "It looks," the Times' public admission concluded, "as if we, along with the administration, were taken in." And yet just two months earlier, Times Executive Editor Bill Keller called Miller, who was one of the main reporters "taken in," a "smart, well-sourced, industrious and fearless reporter." Nothing about her less than "rigorous" reporting. Nothing about her reliance on Chalabi being less than "well-sourced."

Any discussion of Miller's actions in the Plame-Rove-Libby-Gonzalez-Card scandal must not leave out the key role she played in cheerleading for the invasion of Iraq and in hyping the WMD threat. Re-reading some of her pre-war reporting today, it's hard not to be disgusted by how inaccurate and pumped up it turned out to be. For chapter and verse, check out Slate's Jack Shafer . For the money quote on her mindset, look to her April 2003 appearance on The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, where, following up on her blockbuster front page story about an Iraqi scientist and his claims that Iraq had destroyed all its WMD just before the war started, Miller said the scientist was more than a "smoking gun," he was the "silver bullet" in the hunt for WMD. The "silver bullet" later turned out to be another blank -- and the scientist turned out to be a military intelligence official.

Amazingly, however, even as her reporting has been debunked -- and her sources discredited -- Miller has steadfastly refused to apologize for her role in misleading the public in the lead up to the war. Indeed, in an interview with the author of Bush's Brain , James Moore, she, in the words of Moore, "remained righteously indignant, unwilling to accept that she had goofed in the grandest of fashions," telling him: "I was proved ****ing right."

As recently as March 2005, in an appearance at Berkeley, she stubbornly refused to express regret. Indeed, she showed that she shares a key attitude with the Bush administration: an unwillingness to admit mistakes when faced with new realities. She even compared herself to the president, saying that she was getting the same information he was getting... and suggested that since he hadn't apologized, why should she? Maybe she's angling for the Tenet treatment: promote faulty intel, get a Medal of Freedom. Miller also echoed the words of Don Rumsfeld ("You go to war with the Army you have") when she justified her flawed reporting on WMD by saying "You go with what you've got." Really? Wouldn't it be better to wait until what you've got is right?

It's nice that Bill Keller is visiting Judy in jail giving updates about how hard this is for her, having to be away from her family and friends. But it would be even nicer if we'd had some acknowledgement from Miller of her complicity in sending 138,000 American soldiers away from their family and friends. And, unlike Miller, they won't be returning home in October. Indeed, as of today, 1,785 of them won't be returning home at all.

This story gets deeper with every twist and revelation, including the reminder (via Podhoretz) that Fitzgerald had a previous run in with Miller over her actions in a national security case, and the speculation (via Jeralyn at TalkLeft) that Fitzgerald is considering seeking to put Miller under criminal contempt, rather than the civil contempt she's now under.

But one thing is inescapable: Miller -- intentionally or unintentionally -- worked hand in glove in helping the White House propaganda machine (for a prime example, check out this Newsweek story on how the aluminum tubes tall tale went from a government source to Miller to page one of the New York Times to Cheney and Rice going on the Sunday shows to confirm the story to Bush pushing that same story at the UN).

So, once again, the question arises (and you can't have it both ways, Frank): when it comes to this scandal, do you want the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth or do you want the truth -- except for what Judy Miller wants to keep to herself?

[lawyerlee]

Pieces like this have such a tendency to remind me of Dave Chapelle's "Black Bush". ;)


Side Issue in the Plame Case: Who Sent Her Spouse to Africa? (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/10/AR2005081001918_pf.html)

By Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, August 11, 2005; A08

The origin of Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV's trip to Niger in 2002 to check out intelligence reports that Saddam Hussein was attempting to purchase uranium has become a contentious side issue to the inquiry by special counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald, who is looking into whether a crime was committed with the exposure of Valerie Plame, Wilson's wife, as a covert CIA employee.

After he went public in 2003 about the trip, senior Bush administration officials, trying to discredit Wilson's findings, told reporters that Wilson's wife, who worked at the CIA, was the one who suggested the Niger mission for her husband. Days later, Plame was named as an "agency operative" by syndicated columnist Robert D. Novak, who has said he did not realize he was, in effect, exposing a covert officer. A Senate committee report would later say evidence indicated Plame suggested Wilson for the trip.

Over the past months, however, the CIA has maintained that Wilson was chosen for the trip by senior officials in the Directorate of Operations counterproliferation division (CPD) -- not by his wife -- largely because he had handled a similar agency inquiry in Niger in 1999. On that trip, Plame, who worked in that division, had suggested him because he was planning to go there, according to Wilson and the Senate committee report.

The 2002 mission grew out of a request by Vice President Cheney on Feb. 12 for more information about a Defense Intelligence Agency report he had received that day, according to a 2004 report of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. An aide to Cheney would later say he did not realize at the time that this request would generate such a trip.

Wilson maintains that his wife was asked that day by one of her bosses to write a memo about his credentials for the mission--after they had selected him. That memo apparently was included in a cable to officials in Africa seeking concurrence with the choice of Wilson, the Senate report said.

Valerie Wilson's other role, according to intelligence officials, was to tell Wilson he had been selected, and then to introduce him at a meeting at the CIA on Feb. 19, 2002, in which analysts from different agencies discussed the Niger trip. She told the Senate committee she left the session after her introduction.

Senior Bush administration officials told a different story about the trip's origin in the days between July 8 and July 12, 2003. They said that Wilson's wife was working at the CIA dealing with weapons of mass destruction and that she suggested him for the Niger trip, according to three reporters.

The Bush officials passing on this version were apparently attempting to undercut the credibility of Wilson, who on Sunday, July 6, 2003, said on NBC's "Meet the Press" and in The Washington Post and the New York Times that he had checked out the allegation in Niger and found it to be wrong. He criticized President Bush for misrepresenting the facts in his January 2003 State of the Union address when he said Iraq had attempted to purchase uranium from Africa.

[miel]

Totally off the subject but you know I wish the outrage over the torture at Abu Ghraib and Gitmo were on the same level as the outrage over Karl Rove...Or at least the media coverage. When you compare the coverage of verified murder and torture committed by U.S. armed servicement to the coverage of the Michael Jackson trial it makes you sick to your stomach. We want to 'get him' and of course I want that too since he is loathesome but why aren't human rights atrocities sufficiently scandalous to hurt this administration?

[lawyerlee]

When you compare the coverage of verified murder and torture committed by U.S. armed servicement to the coverage of the Michael Jackson trial it makes you sick to your stomach.
Our priorities are disgustingly out of whack. :(

[lawyerlee]

Will the Precedent Set by the Indictment in a Pentagon Leak Case Spell Trouble for Those Who Leaked Valerie Plame's Identity to the Press? (http://writ.news.findlaw.com/scripts/printer_friendly.pl?page=/commentary/20050815_klarevas.html)
FindLaw's Writ

By LOUIS KLAREVAS
----
Monday, Aug. 15, 2005

Tomorrow, August 16, a former Pentagon official and two former employees of a pro-Israel lobby organization, the American-Israeli Political Action Committee (AIPAC), are scheduled to be arraigned in a federal district courthouse in Alexandria, Virginia. All three are being charged by U.S. Attorney Paul McNulty with violating a little known provision of the Espionage Act.This provision makes it a crime to conspire to communicate classified information without proper authorization.

Meanwhile, across the Potomac River in Washington, D.C., Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald will be continuing his grand jury investigation. Fitzgerald has been making headlines with his probe into whether senior Bush administration officials who leaked classified information regarding the identity of covert CIA operative Valerie Plame (a.k.a. Valerie Wilson) to columnist Robert Novak and others in the press committed a crime.

So far, defenders of the White House have been quick to point out that Karl Rove and others who appear, from information so far made public, to have played a role in disclosing Plame's identity have not violated the stringent thresholds of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. That Act makes it a crime to publicly disclose the identity of a secret agent in certain circumstances.

But those circumstances may not apply in the Plame case - as FindLaw columnist John Dean has explained. The IIPA sets a high threshold for prosecution, including proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused knew the person being outed had "covert" status. This, in turn, requires a variety of conditions relating to "covertness" to first be established. (For example, the prosecution must prove that the agent had served outside the U.S. within the past five years).

In contrast, the Espionage Act requires no such proof of "covert" status. For this and other reasons, it can be construed more broadly than the IIPA.

I will argue below that, if McNulty's interpretation of the Espionage Act serves as a guide, then the Plame leak, too, could easily be construed as a violation of the Act.

And that, of course, could spell legal trouble for those in the Bush administration who outed Plame, for even if Intelligence Identities Protection Act charges based on the Plame leak won't stick, other charges well may.

[lawyerlee]

A CIA Cover Blown, a White House Exposed (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-leak25aug25,0,61238.story?coll=la-home-headlines)
LA Times

By Tom Hamburger and Sonni Efron
Times Staff Writers

August 25, 2005

WASHINGTON — Toward the end of a steamy summer week in 2003, reporters were peppering the White House with phone calls and e-mails, looking for someone to defend the administration's claims about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

About to emerge as a key critic was Joseph C. Wilson IV, a former diplomat who asserted that the administration had manipulated intelligence to justify the Iraq invasion.

At the White House, there wasn't much interest in responding to critics like Wilson that Fourth of July weekend. The communications staff faced more pressing concerns — the president's imminent trip to Africa, growing questions about the war and declining ratings in public opinion polls.

Wilson's accusations were based on an investigation he undertook for the CIA. But he was seen inside the White House as a "showboater" whose stature didn't warrant a high-level administration response. "Let him spout off solo on a holiday weekend," one White House official recalled saying. "Few will listen."

In fact, millions were riveted that Sunday as Wilson — on NBC's "Meet the Press" and in the pages of the New York Times and the Washington Post — accused the administration of ignoring intelligence that didn't support its rationale for war.

Underestimating the impact of Wilson's allegations was one in a series of misjudgments by White House officials.

In the days that followed, they would cast doubt on Wilson's CIA mission to Africa by suggesting to reporters that his wife was responsible for his trip. In the process, her identity as a covert CIA agent was divulged — possibly illegally.

For the last 20 months, a tough-minded special prosecutor, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, has been looking into how the media learned that Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, was a CIA operative.

Top administration officials, along with several influential journalists, have been questioned by prosecutors.

Beyond the whodunit, the affair raises questions about the credibility of the Bush White House, the tactics it employs against political opponents and the justification it used for going to war.

What motivated President Bush's political strategist, Karl Rove; Vice President Cheney's top aide, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby; and others to counter Wilson so aggressively? How did their roles remain secret until after the president was reelected? Have they fully cooperated with the investigation?

The answers remain elusive. As Fitzgerald's team has moved ahead, few witnesses have been willing to speak publicly. White House officials declined to comment for this article, citing the ongoing inquiry.

But a close examination of events inside the White House two summers ago, and interviews with administration officials, offer new insights into the White House response, the people who shaped it, the deep disdain Cheney and other administration officials felt for the CIA, and the far-reaching consequences of the effort to manage the crisis.

[lawyerlee]

Legal Experts Call Current Law A Poor Fit for Leak Prosecutions (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/06/AR2005090601582_pf.html)
Washington Post

By Christopher Lee
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, September 7, 2005; A23

Convictions for leaking sensitive government information to the media are almost as rare as sightings of the ivory-billed woodpecker.

Only twice have government employees gone to prison for such misdeeds. And legal experts say prosecutors will have a hard time putting away anyone in the administration for violating the Intelligence Identities Protection Act in the revelation of CIA operative Valerie Plame's identity in 2003.

The bar for breaking the 1982 law is high. Whoever makes the disclosure must know that the person was a "covert agent" and must intentionally reveal the agent's identity to someone not authorized to know it.

There is, however, another statute that federal officials have used to go after government leakers. Some legal experts say it is not out of the question that prosecutors in the Plame case could bring it out again -- although it, too, seems a long shot.

The provision, Section 641 in Title 18 of the U.S. Code, nominally deals with prohibitions on the embezzlement of public money, property or records for private use. It typically would be used to go after a federal employee who, say, absconds with government laptops.

Prosecutors used the statute -- somewhat creatively, legal experts say -- to help build successful cases against Samuel L. Morison, a former Navy intelligence analyst who was sentenced to two years in prison in 1985 after being convicted of espionage and theft in leaking secret U.S. spy satellite photographs to a British magazine, and Jonathan Randel, a former Drug Enforcement Agency intelligence research specialist who in 2003 was sentenced to a year in prison for selling restricted information.

The statute "is used by the government from time to time in lieu of not having a criminal prohibition on leaking classified information, generally," said William Banks, a national security law expert at Syracuse University. "It isn't a good fit, but it's the best available."

Kevin M. Goldberg, a partner at Cohn and Marks LLP in Washington and an expert on First Amendment issues, said that prosecutors might try to use it.

"I think that's a really bad precedent to set, however," Goldberg said. "Essentially, you are just creating almost an Official Secrets Act in which all government information belongs to the government, and can never be given out to a member of the public."

[Alicia]

This was posted at 8:31 p.m. tonight: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/29/AR2005092901972.html
Judith Miller is released from jail tonight after agreeing to testify in the investigation into the disclosure of the identity of a covert CIA officer. The AP is quoting sources at the moment... the link above should refresh itself throughout the night if more news comes in.

ok-time to discuss... enjoy :)

[Delta]

The source that finally released her was Scooter Libby.

What took so long?

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/29/politics/29cnd-court.html?ei=5094&en=ab3e643986deb5a5&hp=&ex=1128052800&partner=homepage&pagewanted=print

[lawyerlee]

Miller's Big Secret (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2005/09/30/BL2005093000669_pf.html)
Washington Post

By Dan Froomkin
Special to washingtonpost.com
Friday, September 30, 2005; 12:03 PM

Can it be? That after all that, New York Times reporter Judith Miller sat in jail for 12 weeks to protect the confidentiality of a very senior White House aide -- even though the aide repeatedly made it clear he didn't want protecting?

That somehow Miller was more intent on keeping their conversations secret than the aide was?

Miller was released from jail yesterday and showed up this morning at a federal courthouse to testify before the grand jury investigating the leak of Valerie Plame's identity as a CIA operative.

The man she was protecting, it turns out, was I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, the chief of staff for Vice President Cheney -- sometimes called "Dick Cheney's Dick Cheney" on account of his considerable influence in the White House.

Over the course of the investigation, Libby had freed several other reporters from any obligation to keep their conversations with him secret -- and his lawyer had apparently told Miller's lawyer more than a year ago that she was free to talk, as well.

So what was Miller doing in jail? Was it all just a misunderstanding? The most charitable explanation for Miller is that she somehow concluded that Libby wanted her to keep quiet, even while he was publicly -- and privately -- saying otherwise. The least charitable explanation is that going to jail was Miller's way of transforming herself from a journalistic outcast (based on her gullible pre-war reporting) into a much-celebrated hero of press freedom.

I'm confused, too. :confused: It seems that Scooter Libby was very clear that he didn't need/want her to keep quiet for him. :confused: Why was she on this moral high horse for nothing? :( Is this just her way of being a patriot? WTF?! :(

[LittleFredPunkinHead]

My guess is Miller's been making free with the wacky-tabacky, if you know what I mean!

Okay, no. But, I do wonder if she was maybe just being a publicity hound.

[LittleFredPunkinHead]

More on the Plame thing...
US officials brace for decisions in CIA leak case (http://today.reuters.com/news/newsarticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyid=2005-10-06T010649Z_01_KWA603946_RTRUKOC_0_US-BUSH-LEAK.xml) Reuters
The federal prosecutor investigating who leaked the identity of a CIA operative is expected to signal within days whether he intends to bring indictments in the case, legal sources close to the investigation said on Wednesday.

As a first step, prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald was expected to notify officials by letter if they have become targets, said the lawyers, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the matter.

Fitzgerald could announce plea agreements, bring indictments, or conclude that no crime was committed. By the end of this month he is expected to wrap up his nearly two-year-old investigation into who leaked CIA operative Valerie Plame's identity.

The inquiry has ensnared President George W. Bush's top political adviser, Karl Rove, and Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, Lewis "Scooter" Libby. The White House had long maintained that Rove and Libby had nothing to do with the leak but reporters have since named them as sources.

Rove's attorney, Robert Luskin, declined to say whether his client had been contacted by Fitzgerald. In the past, Luskin has said that Rove was assured that he was not a target.
More at link.

[Delta]

Karl Rove to give additional testimony in CIA leak case:
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/10/06/D8D2NGH80.html

Federal prosecutors have accepted an offer from presidential adviser Karl Rove to give 11th-hour testimony in the case of a CIA officer's leaked identity but have warned they cannot guarantee he won't be indicted, according to people directly familiar with the investigation.

And this is freaky:
http://www.radarmagazine.com/the-wire/2005/10/05/index.php#wire_003399
EXCLUSIVE: The D.C. rumor mill is thrumming with whispers that 22 indictments are about to be handed down on the outed-CIA agent Valerie Plame case. The last time the wires buzzed this loud — that Tom DeLay would be indicted and would step down from his leadership post in the House — the scuttlebutters got it right.

Can it be a coincidence that the White House appears to be distancing President Bush from embattled aide Karl Rove? “He’s been missing in action at more than one major presidential event,” a member of the White House press corps tells us.

22 indictments? :confused:

[LittleFredPunkinHead]

22 indictments?
That does seem rather excessive... I know this is a pretty self-involved thing to say, but I hope they break the news - whatever it is - sooner rather than later. I'm awfully curious.

[pocket]

I find the whole Judy Miller thing completely confusing. It’s unclear to me what happened or why she went to jail in the first place. Jon Carroll (local columnist) had a column about it this week that pretty much sums up my confusion:

Everyone pretty much knows that the Judith Miller story doesn't add up, except for her employers at the New York Times, who continue to insist that Miller was a martyr to the cause of principled journalism.

The Times has had practice in defending Judith Miller. Way back before the war in Iraq started, Miller wrote a series of pieces that promoted the reality of weapons of mass destruction in Iraqi hands, always quoting "sources" but rarely quoting the many other "sources" (like, say, Hans Blix) who said the opposite. Her main source turned out to be Ahmad Chalabi, the duplicitous Iraqi knave who told the Pentagon exactly what it wanted to hear, thus promoting the war in Iraq as a raid on Saddam's Secret Nukes.

No doubt Miller had very good sources inside the White House -- she was clearly a friendly reporter who would spin their tales in the way they wanted them spun. The Times continued to stand by Miller because her reporting was sourced (albeit anonymously) and carefully hedged, although, you know, wrong.

So then there was the White House leak that Valerie Plame, also known as Valerie Wilson, was a covert CIA agent. Plame is the wife of Joseph Wilson, the diplomat who dared question the administration's rationales for the attack on Iraq. This leak was so egregious (and potentially illegal -- you're not supposed to blow the cover of CIA agents) that a special prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, was appointed to investigate it.

The leaked info first appeared in a column by Robert Novak, who has not been charged with anything. That's curious right there. Judith Miller never wrote about the Plame case, but she was subpoenaed to testify before a grand jury. That's also curious. Miller, citing a reporter's obligation to protect her sources, refused to testify, and was carted off to the slammer for obstructing an investigation.

[snip]

Finally, Miller agreed to name her source (it turned out to be Scooter Libby, right-hand man to Dick Cheney) after receiving an explicit waiver from him. That was front-page news for the Times, which told its readers in the third paragraph that Miller was "really tired" from her time in jail.

[snip]

So now here's the really odd part -- Libby's lawyer said that Miller had received an "explicit waiver" from Libby about a year ago, saying that it was OK to testify. Miller says that she did not hear it from Libby directly but only from his lawyer.

Did she think his lawyer was lying? And if so, why didn't she pick up the phone and just ask Libby what the deal was? Alternatively, why didn't Libby, when he realized that Miller was going to protect him, pick up a phone and call her? Or send a message with John Bolton? What changed between waiver A and waiver B? All the explanations offered by Miller and her defenders at the Times just don't make sense.

I understand and approve of a reporter going to jail to protect her sources. The reporter has made a promise, and she needs to abide by her promise. (There are, of course, exceptions, even as there are exceptions to doctor-patient confidentiality.) I can even see the philosophical argument that a promise is a contract between an individual and his honor, not between an individual and another individual, and no one can release you from a sacred pledge. But that's clearly not the position that Miller is taking.

[snip]

http://www.sfgate.com/c