The syllogism is like this:
[ul]
[li]Rove is a Republican.[/li][li]The tin-foil hat brigade of the extreme Left doesn’t like Republicans.[/li][li]So the TFHBoftXL accuses Rove of (among other things) spreading lies about his political opponents without any evidence.[/li][li]TFHBofXL = pot.[/li][li]Rove = kettle. [/li][li]TFHBotXL still doesn’t have any evidence. [/li][li]Therefore, TFHBotXL repeats their accusations in a louder tone, and hopes nobody notices.[/ul][/li]
See? Clear as crystal.
It’s generally accepted that a journalist has the right to keep sources absolutely confidential from everyone except his or her superiors at whatever shop he’s at (i.e. his assistant managing editor or higher).
There’s been some noise about changing that but I’ve never seen such ‘shield laws’ successfully challenged at the highest levels.
Lawyers…feel free to bring me up to speed if I missed one.
Curious that there could be no recourse. As has been discussed elswhere on this board, free speech does have its limits, particularly when human life is in question.
Shodan,
Assuming that Novak is not a liar (I’ve met the man a number of times and he never struck me as the Coulter/Hannity type, rabid as he is), would you support an investigation into the allegations? If Novak is telling the truth, then at least two senior administration officials have committed a very serious crime. Whether you believe Wilson or not, surely you support looking into the issue.
i will grant you that Rove’s detractors (some of whom are Repubs BTW) have no evidence that Repub partisans will accept. That’s because no such evidence exists, or can exist. Call it ‘unobtainium’ if you will. Repub partisans have long ago learned that if they are going to back a Repub adminstration, they all have to be Egyptian royalty, i.e., Queens of De Nile.
Evil Captor, a syllogism is not simply a conclusion preceded by the reasons why the author believes that conclusion to be true. I would suggest that you not use terms that you do not understand, but you do not seem amenable to any advice that would get in the way of your obsession with critizing all thing Republican.
Gee, Ryan, you seem to have missed the not-so-subtle distinction I made in my post between Repub partisans and Repubs. You also seem to have missed the part where I point out that some of Rove’s detractors are Repubs, mostly Repub candidates who were treated to the same dirty tricks in the primaries that the Dems get treated to in the, um, secondaries. Before you get too worked up about me being obsessed, you need to ease those blinkers off your own eyes a bit.
In brief: the CIA asked the Justice Department to investigate the outing of Plame by one of its top officials. She was, in fact, an undercover agent, and outing such an agent is a felony.
A Senior Administration Official told the Washington Post that two “top White House officials” called at least six journalists and revealed the identity of Wilson’s wife. When asked why this was done, the official said the leaks were “wrong and a huge miscalculation, because they were irrelevant and did nothing to diminish Wilson’s credibility.” (In other words, the leak was in fact intended as a political attack on Wilson.) Condi Rice was ducking the matter on some of the Sunday shows today.
So, to sum up, the administration has admitted that two of its top officials committed a felony and compromised an undercover agent (not to mention probably ruining that agent’s career) in an attempt to undermine the credibility of one of its critics.
By “on the record”, I guess you mean someone by name, rather than the unnamed Senior Administration Official from the Post story? (Marshall speculates that this official was George Tenet, but his reasoning seems to be a little thin.)
Also, since you’re here–I know that SAO generally refers to someone cabinet level or higher. Is there any such convention for someone referred to as a “top White House official”?
You’re right that ‘Senior Administration Official’ is shorthand for a cabinet-level official. That could be any of the department secretaries or heads of independent agencies or even be the President speaking off the record.
‘Top White House Official’ is slipperier because it could refer to any of the folks on the non-admin (i.e. political) side as well. That could certainly refer to Rove or the other campaign advisors.
One wishes in vain for a comment from the Usual Suspects. In vain, one suspects, because the Party Line has not yet been formulated.
Legally speaking, by the way, there’s not much legal protection for incriminatory statements given to a journalist, even if the statement is putatively off-the-record, background, not for attribution, etc. There is basically nothing preventing the US Attorney from calling the relevant journalists in front of a grand jury tomorrow morning to force them to spill the beans on who spilled the beans. Nevertheless, I’m not holding my breath on that one.
I find it well nigh impossible to believe that everyone in the White House does not know exactly who made those calls. Even if it wasn’t Rove or Rice, they know damn well who it was and they also know that those individuals have broken a federal law and endangered the life of an innocent operative. If they have any professional ethic at all, how can they allow those individuals to continue their association with the administration. Shouldn’t they be the first to frog march the perps out in handcuffs?
[off topic]
minty, I’m sorry to bother you but I wonder if I could get your opinion on the topic in this thread. I’ve been hoping to get some lawyerly insight into this case but so far no lawyers have shown up in the thread. Thank you for your time and my apologies to everyone else for the interruption.
If it can be proven that someone in the administration ‘outed’ a CIA agent, that person should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
If it can be shown that there was a conspiracy to launch dirty tricks which knowingly included this tactic, the conspirators should also be charged with felonies.
If adminstration officials found out about it after the fact and kept the information to themselves, they too should be prosecuted, although I’m not sure for what.
There are some things that are way beyond the pale, and partisan politics should go out the window in the interest of national security. Intentionally blowing someone’s cover for political purposes falls into that category.
What’s to say? It’s a content-based restriction on speech, which is obviously illegal under the First Amendment unless the administration proves “that its regulation is necessary to serve a compelling [governmental] interest and is narrowly drawn to achieve that end.” Arkansas Writers’ Project, Inc. v. Ragland, 481 U.S. 221, 231 (1987); Simon & Shuster v. New York Crime Victims Bd., 502 U.S. 105 (1991).
Sorry for continuing the hijack here, but I think arguing with some of the participants in that thread would be likely to result in severe nausea on my part.
I guess that it’s in Ashcroft’s hand now. DCI Tenet made the request for the investigation. That has to carry some weight. (Unless as has been suggested, this investigation is a farce.) If DCI is involved, then that leads me to believe that there was some wrong doing on someone’s part. What the Justice dept will do about it remains to be seen.
Jonathan Chance is right on target labeling this whole affair Kabuki. The interesting act/scene is coming up next. Will this administration, learning from the mistakes of past administrations (of all political stripes, I should add), quickly identify the culprits and throw them to the lions, or will they try to stonewall the inquiry and protect their buddies, thereby producing the usual stream of charges of perjury and obstruction of justice?