Some See Indictment as 'a Devastating Day for Journalism'

Los Angeles Times ^ | October 29, 2005 | James Rainey and Matea Gold, Times Staff Writers

[Anthem]

"has had an obvious chilling effect on other reporters" around the country, Specter said.

It also has a chilling effect on Pols. They're the ones leaking and therefore the beneficiaries of the shield. This is another political Rorschach test -- those who support a shield law are the con artists that don't want their constituents to know what they're doing.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Weren't the Ellsberg papers classified?

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

See this:

Pentagon Papers

[snowsislander]

This "case" and the DeLay "case" are the biggest bunch of hooey that I can remember.

The only person telling palpable lies with any resemblance to national security matters is Mr. Wilson, yet somehow three reporters who disagree under oath with Mr. Libby as to what he said to them is somehow a five-alarm felony case?

I had the misfortune of hearing on the radio a few minutes of Mr. Fitzgerald's news conference, and from it I repose no added confidence in him as a fair or honest prosecutor -- and I had none to begin with.

[FormerACLUmember]

I especially relish Hillary Clinton's role being explored in all this. The Time Magazine vermin is married to one of Hillary's key employee/strategists.

I can't wait for Liddy's lawyer to do some discovery with these low-lifes.

[FormerACLUmember]

You raised an outstanding point. Wilson blatantly and repeatedly lied under oath, and there are no indictments of this sc*mbag?

What gives? What kind of "investigation" was this?

[marty60]

Looks like the party is over for the mealymouth slimey reporters.

[tjg]

"Indictments are a sure indication that some republican politicians and their minions are not overly smart, chatting off the record with MSM. Dumb they are and if Libby lied, put him in jail."

Good post. If Libby did in fact do what he is accused of, he's too stupid to be wandering around freely.

[danmar]

Therein lies the problem - the jury will be picked from that sterling population of Washington DC, which is about 99.9% democrat. Libby doesn't have an iceberg's chance in hell (but better chance in global warming) of getting a fair trial.

Someone correct me if I am wrong, (kinda shaky on legal grounds) but because of you just said, the defense might want to move the trial else were were the odds are better for a true and fair trial.

[pepperdog]

Thank you for that very timely explanation. I've always wondered why anyone in a responsible position in private industry or the government would bother to "shoot the breeze" with today's "journalists".

It is interesting to know that a person who receives classified info isn't responsible for protecting it, even if he knows it to be classified. It is, as you said, an idiotic law.

I find this whole scenario very frightening for the country as it appears the CIA, in conjunction with the press, has cleverly manipulated the Vice President's Chief of Staff into a position where he can be prosecuted. That is if you can believe the testimony of the presstitutes, which I question.

[CedarDave]

Libby's team now has the right of discovery.

Read on one of yesterday's threads that the right of discovery does not extend to this type of indictment in Federal Court. Correct or incorrect? Any lawyers out there?

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Read on one of yesterday's threads that the right of discovery does not extend to this type of indictment in Federal Court.

I find that hard to believe.

[Yardstick]

Further they are not eyewitnesses to the crimes Libby is charged with.

Exactly. Libby's not being indicted for misleading the reporters. He's being indicted for misleading the grand jury. Libby committed no crime when he misrepresented to Russert, Cooper, et al his knowledge of Plame's being employed by the CIA. So there's no way they were "eyewitnesses" to the crime. In fact, there was no crime until he gave misleading testimony to the GJ, when he claimed he wasn't aware of Plame's employment status at the time he spoke with Russert and the rest, when in fact he did.

You can lie to reporters. You can't lie to grand juries. It's odd how this thing is being perceived by some as being about Libby lying to reporters. Over at NRO you can see a Corner entry in which Michael Ledeen seems to make this error.

[CedarDave]

I find that hard to believe.

So do I; that's why I asked the question, which has not been answered

[editor-surveyor]

My money is on Libby rather than the squirming toad-brained mock-journalists cited in this article. This is all due to Fitzgerald's reluctance to bring indictments against Miller, and Cooper for attempting to create crime with their rumor.

[editor-surveyor]

"What doesn't make any sense is why Libby would lie about something that wasn't a crime in the first place? There was no reason to give false information or cover-up a non crime. Who was giving him legal advice??"

You seem to assume that he did lie; why? Do you see any credible evidence or witnesses to cause such a belief?