Questions Remain on the Leaker and the Law

Washington Post ^ | July 8, 2005 | Dan Balz

[Bogeygolfer]

The jailing of New York Times reporter Judith Miller on Wednesday put the issue of press freedom and the confidentiality of sources on front pages across the country, but the heart of the case remains what it has been from the outset: whether senior Bush officials broke the law in the disclosure of a CIA covert operative's identity.

[Bogeygolfer]

Here we go again...

[doug from upland]

JOE WILSON: LYING WEASEL

[Pikamax]

poor balz is making twists and turns to smear rove when the passage that fits the case is here.


"Fitzgerald long has made a distinction in his investigation between conversations held before Novak's column was publicly available (it was moved to his newspaper clients on July 11, 2003) and after, on the assumption that once Plame's name was in the public domain, there was no criminal liability for administration officials to discuss it. Which may be one reason it could be difficult to obtain indictments. After almost two years, Fitzgerald finds only one person in jail as a result of his inquiry -- a reporter who never wrote an article about the leak. "

[cyncooper]

At a minimum Fitzgerald could turn up embarrassing information that may yet become public about how the Bush White House operates.

Oh yes, it's soooooooo embarrassing to be caught trying to present facts to reporters when confronted with lies and attacks.

[cyncooper]

After almost two years, Fitzgerald finds only one person in jail as a result of his inquiry -- a reporter who never wrote an article about the leak. "

And what does the grand jury wish to hear from Miller? What a "specified government official" not only said about Plame, but Wilson's trip or what was said about Iraq attempting to obtain uranium.

[One Proud Dad]

I do not see in the constitution where sources are protected, just speech. Jail her.

[Bogeygolfer]

I think this article finally removed any doubt for me. I've been worried for awhile now since I figured the downside to this turning out to be Rove was far worse than the possible upsides of it not being Rove. I've been reading your posts and others for awhile now and have been trying to get some confidence going and I'm finally there. This entire piece is about nothing. Hopefully we won't have to wait until October for more definitive info.

[fso301]

Well, if Judge Hogan and the prosecutor know who the leaker(s) are, so does everyones counsel. If anyone thinks counsel are keeping the identities quite, I have a bridge to sell you. Media and political elites know who the leaker(s) are and they know if any crimes may have been committed. If Rove was really at risk, there would be a firestorm from Congress and the media.

[Eric in the Ozarks]

Bingo.

[MizSterious]

I agree with you. I do think that some people (even Freepers) want it to be Rove, so as far as they're concerned, Rove's "it." Even if it is categorically proven that it's someone else, they'll doubtless continue to believe it's him.

[robomurph]

I think Fitzgerald would also still like to get Judith Miller in front of the grand jury to discuss who leaked the raid on the Islamic charity. I think this is why she is holding out.

My guess is that Fitzgerald has expanded his scope to leaking beyond the Plame affair.

I've been following your postings on this case and think your analysis is spot-on.

[cyncooper]

Hopefully we won't have to wait until October for more definitive info.

I agree!

[KC_Conspirator]

The question should be whether Joe Wilson should be jailed since he was the one that "outed" his wife on his website. Furthermore, she is an analyst and not an operative who has a secret identity.

[okie01]

There is a word for this kind of reporting: Obtuse.

[SampleMan]

Concur. The Constitution gives no protection to "reporters" from being called to testify. If someone shares involvement in a crime with me, and I am called to testify, then I must, as long as it isn't self-incriminating.

Reporters make the case that their ability to carry out their jobs can be hurt. So what?! This applies to almost everyone.

[Dr.Hilarious]

The lefties have been absolutely hilarious on this, on the cable news channels and in print. Their position is ludicrous: "Don't blame us when we disperse government secrets, blame the person who gave us the info--our job isn't to keep certain facts secret, we're just simple, childlike robots who report everything, how can you accuse US of spreading secrets???"

Reporters know all kinds of things they don't report for various reasons. The logic here seems to be that they should not be required to investigate names they are given to find out what might happen if they actually print the material they dig up.

Watching Matthews and his guests twist and turn to make this the fault of anyone but the reporters is truly funny. They are trying to cover their butts, portraying themselves as lowly, humble messengers, when all reporters choose what to report, how and when to report it, and what info to put in or leave out.

A couple months back reporters were squabbling after Dick Durbin said they "get their marching orders" from FOX or editors or whoever. On the shows the reporters were adamant that THEY themselves decided what they write. Funny how that high dudgeon has been replaced with meek little chirps of "Hey, don't blame us, we just print everything we hear, we're more like word processors than computers, actually."

Wusses.

[cyncooper]

There is a word for this kind of reporting: Obtuse.

I prefer "malicious".

[Nathan Zachary]

Joe Wilson is the one who "outed" his own wife, when he was lying his arse off about uranium in Africa to that Town hall reporter.

[alnick]

They are trying to cover their butts, portraying themselves as lowly, humble messengers, when all reporters choose what to report, how and when to report it, and what info to put in or leave out.

Not to mention how to twist it.

[okie01]

There is a word for this kind of reporting: Obtuse.

I prefer "malicious".

How about "maliciously obtuse"?