Posted on 02/15/2005 7:35:47 AM PST by KidGlock
Edited on 02/15/2005 8:17:37 AM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
Good. There is no such thing as a "journalistic privilege to refuse to disclose source."
Never existed under the law or common law.
It is an invention of the liberal media and Carter-era appointees to the federal courts.
It needs to go.
Hahaha!
I disagree.
I trust the media more than government. Only slightly more, mind you, but I want "unnamed sources" to feel free to rat out the permanent government.
Fabulous news.
The best privilege is when you keep your mouth shut.
Therefore, the 2nd best answers are:
"I don't know."
"I have no recollection."
FYI Ping
Nome of them trust anybody anywhere. Throw himover the side!!!
Thanks! I got a note on another thread telling me that MSNBC reported this. I've been surfing the cables and looking for an article.
I am on record as predicting this would be the ruling.
Well!
\ Worked for Hillary.
You are absolutely correct and I want to spit in their haughty faces when they say this. However, they CAN, and hey I'd even encourage, choose to go to jail rather than testify.
Of course then the public gets all boo-hoo, poor lying journalist in jail. Then that's part of the plan.
Anyway, the Plame case is a waste of money although, tween you and I, I think the administration knows that whoever dropped the dime about Valerie Plame is a DEM operative.
Which is why I think the administration kept up the hunt. It was like, okay, Dems, you get what you ask for. The Dems never wanted this followed through this far. It was a grand scheme they concocted we all know this.
Methinks their yarn is about to come unraveled and I'm not convinced those journalists want to go to jail for Valerie's honest husband. Who is, by now, a proven liar who wasted America's time on a fraud meant to damage the President's re-election campaign.
I could be wrong here. But just a hunch.
Now maybe we'll get to the bottom of this story.
Pretty good hunch, if you ask me.
Will Jeff Gannon appear in costume?
One of the reporters will now have to decide if they want to go to jail...or tell who the leaker was.....who cracks first.
What the hell is that supposed to mean?
Cooper
well, this sounds like something important.
They'll have to choose to talk or not, but I doubt it's about "the leaker" as I don't think that's the angle being investigated as she more than likely wasn't undercover and there was no crime in telling reporters she in fact recommended her husband for the Niger trip.
Rather, I think there are other aspects of the story being looked into. Maybe leaking, but not of her "name". Maybe other documents.
They did work.
As a chaplain and pastor, much of what is said to me is protected by privilege. It would hold up in a court.
The best way to handle it is never to speak about it at all, ever, anywhere. Then it never becomes an issue that you have information about any subject.
The second best thing is to realize that you can never remember anything perfectly, and that, therefore, it is honest to say, "I don't recollect."
I've always been impressed by that line that goes: "Anything you say can and will be used against you." They REALLY mean that. So, if you're even the slightest bit askew in your recounting of something, it could have tragic consequences for someone else.
"I don't recollect" is an honorable response when another's privacy or reputation is at stake.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.