look at this clip:
"What Novak has done or failed to do as a journalist remains shielded in mystery because Novak refuses to talk. Traditionally, journalists have publicly explained their status and their position in such controversies — as have various other reporters in the Plame affair. Knowing where Novak stands in this case would be important because the other journalists involved — especially Judith Miller of the New York Times — need to know his position so they can form a unified front against government threats."
I am shocked at Turley - essentially saying here that Novak must reveal his testimony to Miller/Cooper, so they can figure out what their testimony should be. If they want to avoid perjury, they can tell the truth.
Does Turley really believe that "shield laws" should afford protection to reporters whose source has committed a felony?
To my knowledge, the other "shield laws" don't.
I think what Turley is saying is that it is senseless for the two reporters to go to jail if Novak has already fessed up.
It does seem senseless to me for them to keep holding out if Novak has already revealed the source. But they just don't know for sure.
I would like to know what Novak said if I was them.
Novak's testimony has nothing to do with what the prosecutor wants to talk to Cooper and Miller about. The prosecutor wants to know the substance of other conversations that the reporters had with the leaker on other subjects (per Fox news) . I heard, months ago that there was a collateral investigation which grew out of the Plame investigation, regarding a leak from the CIA to reporters, warning a terrorist supporting group of an imminent raid on their premises just hours before it happened. My guess is that the prosecutor is going after the CIA agent and it is this source that the reporters are protecting.