Are Judith Miller of the New York Times and Matthew Cooper of Time magazine facing time because the prosecuters just need someone to confirm who Novak named? It seems reasonable to me, otherwise, why isn’t Novak the one in front of the judge?
I dunno, I’ve wondered that myself. If they need someone to shove bamboo splinters under his fingernails, I’m ready…
Judith Miller is the New York Times reporter who gave up her role as journalist and became a media hose-beast for the Administration, uncritically regurgitating whatever swill the Bushies fed her as fact during the build-up to war in Iraq. Specifically, she printed several stories about WMD in Iraq that were patently untrue. I hope she goes to jail, she’s a disgrace to reporting generally. I hope she suffers a lot in jail, she deserves to.
Betcha the Plame leak was a “reward” for her hose-beast service to the Administration.
Is Novak by any chance a potential defendant and entitled to claim a privilege against self incrimination? I had thought the only criminal act was for a person who knew classified information to reveal it, not for the non-government recipient of the leak to publish it, but maybe not. Maybe we do have something like the British Official Secrets Act and it is criminal to reveal and publish after revelation. Anybody know?
I know that this I am resurrecting this right on the edge of propriety, but recent developments would seem to favor keeping this current.
Still trying to figure out how these two are facing prison time, and Bob Novak is in the clear.
I know the thinking at the time was that the leaker was Karl Rove. I wonder if we will get to see the documents to see if this is true.
By not cooperating, they’re in contempt. For one reason or another, he is not. Either he has cooperated or he has not been asked to. I think it boils down to one of those two options.
I wonder what the Ashcroft/Gonzales spin will be when it turns out that Novak was never asked the question?
Lawrence O’Donnell, MSNBC political analyst, is saying that Karl Rove was the leaker. Is Rove likely to be in any real trouble over this? Crossing my fingers…
Only if “it’s-OK-to-torture-'em-if-we-want-to-believe-they’re-really-bad-guys” Gonzales actually chooses to take action.
(Of course, O’Donnell could be wrong and Rove may not be guilty of this crime.)
C’mon, guys! Is it *really * his fault that his soul was pledged to the Dark Lord before his birth?
I caught about half of the final Capital Gang show the other night and I got the definite impression that Mark Shields really doesn’t like Robert Novak.
But then, who would?
Can’t remember who said it but its like you think Novak is a smug prick until you realize there’s a pretty good guy under that, but then you realize under that is a smug prick.
So, if it was Rove who outed Ms. Plame, he goes to jail, right? I mean, if people wanted to impeach a president for lying to Congress about an extramarital affair, certainly their anger will burn like a thousand suns for someone who lied to Congress about exposing the identity of a CIA operative, right?
Rove already has his pardon in his pocket.
It’s casper weinberger redux There is only one remedy for a lawless, flagrant despotism run amok, and it starts with taking back ALL of congress in '06, followed by the emergency impeachment of the whole pack of motherfuckers, starting with dumb george and slick dick.
In fact, it would be best if Rove went scot free till after Nancy Pelosi is sworn in, so he won’t be able to wriggle off the hook.
Because Rove is only a special advisor to the president or some other title, I don’t believe that he has a security clearance. Therefore, it isn’t a crime for him to reveal the names of CIA operatives. The person on the hook is whoever gave the name of a CIA officer like Plume to someone without clearance like Rove.
I believe I misspoke. In this thread , Squink said:
So maybe I should have said “Grand Jury” instead of “Congress.” My stupid, but perjury’s perjury, right?
Agreed, probably one or the other. However, I just can’t figure out what the hell is going on here.
From NPR’s On the Media:
BROOKE GLADSTONE: …It’s still not clear if the leakers actually broke the law. It is clear that by refusing to cooperate with investigators, Miller and Cooper did. Cooper spoke to us last December.
We’re living in the Bizarro world. These reporters are in contempt of court in a criminal case and may go to jail, while it is a distinct possibility that the source won’t be tried for criminal charges and may not do time.
I have that old sinking feeling again :rolleyes: In my worst dreams, this is what will happen:
-Cooper goes to jail for writing about this only after Novak broke the story
-Miller goes to jail, even though she didn’t actually write about it, but because she knew about it and a little knowlege is a dangerous thing
- It turns out that Karl Rove was the one who outed Plame. However, because he didn’t have the security clearance for this, he can’t be charged with treason for leaking classified information.
-Instead, to beat the rap, he testifies against *his * source, some military patsy who is being set up for this because he trusted his CIC’s advisor.
-Novak rolls over on Rove because no harm/no foul. And gets rewarded with plum reporting assignments because he’s a company guy.
So, no friend of the administration gets hurt, someone in the military is fed to the wolves, and the administrations gets a lot stricter reading of reporters’ confidentiality from the courts.
Machiavelli would have very proud of his protege…
I think Novak might be able to claim the 5th before the Grand Jury if it is possible he could be indicted for revealing Palme’s name. IOW if his defense would be “It wasn’t a crime because I didn’t knowingly reveal the information” and a reasonable person could say “You did too knowingly reveal it.” Even if that would be a tough case for the government to make to make, Novak could still reasonably plead the 5th in front of the Grand Jury.
I think. I am not 100% positive about that – but “pretty sure”.
I think “Novak took the 5th” fits most of the facts that we (think) we know of this case.