Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Novak: My role in Plame leak probe (LEAKER = JOE WILSON ???)
Chicago Sun-Times ^ | July 12, 2006 | ROBERT NOVAK SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST

Posted on 07/12/2006 3:55:19 AM PDT by Chi-townChief

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-117 next last
To: AmishDude
I hate the smugness of journalists and their claims to additional rights. No one has the right to an anonymous source. The first amendment has to do with the right of free speech from reprisals when one expresses oneself publicly.

I agree with you 100%, but I don't think this necessarily applies to Novak. The item below clearly indicates that he knew exactly what the legal ramifications would be if he refused to cooperate with the prosecutor (highlight is mine):

My attorneys advised me that I had no certain constitutional basis to refuse cooperation if subpoenaed by a grand jury. To do so would make me subject to imprisonment and inevitably result in court decisions that would diminish press freedom, all at heavy personal legal costs.

81 posted on 07/12/2006 7:37:38 AM PDT by Alberta's Child (Can money pay for all the days I lived awake but half asleep?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: MinuteGal

Sounds about right; they have to stay on the offensive in Iraq, Iran, NK, UN, etc. and we need to cover their back as best we can against the fifth column.


82 posted on 07/12/2006 7:38:20 AM PDT by Chi-townChief
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: Chi-townChief
One of my points is they CAN'T be on the propaganda offensive in Iraq, Iran, the UN, etc. unless they concurrently counter the media fifth column here.

I should think the administration has the smarts to do both. It's not like trying to rub your head and pat your tummy at the same time.

All indications are the Administration has the smarts and the means, but not the will.

We peons have the will AND the smarts, but not the means that the Administration has (if it would chose to get out of the fetal position and use it).

Leni

83 posted on 07/12/2006 7:52:37 AM PDT by MinuteGal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: Chi-townChief
In Novak's very first comments about this case, back when he was still on "Crossfire", he said Joe Wilson outted his own wife by bragging on her CIA status in "Who's Who".
84 posted on 07/12/2006 7:57:17 AM PDT by Deb (Beat him, strip him and bring him to my tent!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Bogus Pachysandra
That just does not compute. It is not what someone says when he is asked to confirm a story.

Think about what a typical conversation would be like when Novak calls Karl Rove. His object is to get Karl to either confirm or deny that Vallery Plame got Joe Wilson hired to investigate if Saddam tried to purchase yellow cake from Niger.

Reporters don't pussy foot around. Here is very likely what Novak asked.

Hello Bob... Hello Karl.

Novak: Karl, I've been told that Joe Wilson's wife works at the CIA. My source says she got him the job of going to Niger. Wilson's wife's name is Vallery Plame. Can you confirm it?

The response of "Oh you know that too!" makes no sense.

Novak did not call discuss something he knew to be a fact. He called to confirm something that he did not know was a fact. Rove had to be quite aware that Novak was looking for a second source to confirm the primary source.

Rove: "I've heard that. too!" makes a lot more sense.

What would be NOVAKS response to the "Oh you know that too!"? Would he just say thanks, and hang up, or would Novak have said.. "No Karl, I don't know it. I heard it. I am asking you to confirm or deny it."

Rove : "I've heard the same story, Bob, that is all I can say."

What would Novaks response be to "I've heard that too!"?

Would he again just hang up? Or would he persue the matter further by asking.

Novak: Can you confirm or deny the story.

Rove: "I don't know any more than you do Bob. I can't confirm or deny it. It is just a story I have heard!"

I think there may be more to this conversation than what we now know. Reporters don't normally take a comment as the answer to a question with out at least asking one more time for a direct answer.

The only other explanation is Novak knows Rove well enough to understand he is not going to confirm it. So Novak hangs up with no follow up and goes after another confirmation source.

But the "You know it too" reply makes no sense at all. There is no way Novak would have called to confirm a confirmed story. Know is a word that is almost never used by reporters. They ask people to comment on things other people claim to be true. I can't remember a reporter claiming to know something. I'll bet Rove can't either.

My opinion is Howard Kurtz did not accurately quote Novak.. He may have "misunderstood" Novak. It is not the first time Kurtz has presented his "misquotes" as news.

85 posted on 07/12/2006 8:08:34 AM PDT by Common Tator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: R.W.Ratikal

Not any more.


86 posted on 07/12/2006 8:11:55 AM PDT by justshutupandtakeit (If you believe ANYTHING in the Treason Media you are a fool.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: angkor

Because there was nothing revealed that was covered by Law.


87 posted on 07/12/2006 8:12:37 AM PDT by justshutupandtakeit (If you believe ANYTHING in the Treason Media you are a fool.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: LS

Excellent! Congratulations!


88 posted on 07/12/2006 8:13:09 AM PDT by twigs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: twigs

All reporters need a harsh lesson in constitutional law and how to report and NOT report! It's really out of control - reporters think THEY are ABOVE the law!


89 posted on 07/12/2006 8:22:10 AM PDT by princess leah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: Jeff F; Red Badger

I'm glad you cleared that up. I think No-facts went to some pains to try to clarify it was NOT a WH person but an "administation" source, which I interpreted to mean State Dept, i.e. Richard Armitage or Colin Powell (for whom everyone likes to provide cover).


90 posted on 07/12/2006 8:24:17 AM PDT by shalom aleichem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: shalom aleichem
...identified in the column as two senior Bush administration officials and an unspecified CIA source.

When Fitzgerald arrived, he had a third waiver in hand -- from Bill Harlow, the CIA public information officer who was my CIA source for the column confirming Mrs. Wilson's identity. I answered questions using the names of Rove, Harlow and my primary source.

We know,

1. Rove was 1 "Senior Administration Official"

2. Bill Harlow was the CIA source.

3. Fitz KNEW the identity of the other Senior Administration Official BEFORE he talked to Novak.

Since Harlow was the CIA source, the CIA Director (Name? Mental Blank) can be discounted as the other Sr. Admin Official.

The Primary Source had to be someone like Rove and who had access to info such as this. My guess is Andrew Card or someone very close to him.......

91 posted on 07/12/2006 8:37:10 AM PDT by Red Badger (Follow an IROC long enough and sooner or later you will wind up in a trailer park..........)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: angkor
So the question is, why hasn't Fitz indicted the primary source?

Because the Primary Source hasn't broken any laws...........

92 posted on 07/12/2006 8:39:57 AM PDT by Red Badger (Follow an IROC long enough and sooner or later you will wind up in a trailer park..........)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: MinuteGal

Not a propaganda offensive, the real offensive; and it's up to we peons to do the piddling stuff with the media. That's what we're here for.


93 posted on 07/12/2006 10:04:09 AM PDT by Chi-townChief
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: AmishDude
I seem to recall Novak saying that he would reveal his source's name.

He did. And I believe he said everyone would be surprised.

I wonder what the substance of the "differed from my recollection" was all about. And doesn't Novak record his conversations?

I read (and who knows how reliable the source?) that Rove recalls that when Novak asked about Valerie Plame, he said "I heard that too." And Novak recalls that Rove said something like, "Oh, you know that too?"

94 posted on 07/12/2006 10:14:07 AM PDT by maryz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: shalom aleichem

Joe was very careful when he talked about the yellow cake. He said that there was none issued through legal purchase channels and if they did get any, it was obtained illegally. In other words, who knows?


95 posted on 07/12/2006 10:21:04 AM PDT by Sacajaweau (God Bless Our Troops!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: BadAndy

You know who must have known about Valerie...Joe's attorney. Valerie and Joe were both divorced. There's paper work. And guess who lived next door to Joe...for years...his attorney, Christopher Wolf.


96 posted on 07/12/2006 10:26:28 AM PDT by Sacajaweau (God Bless Our Troops!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Chi-townChief

Damn it. Who is the third?


97 posted on 07/12/2006 10:28:03 AM PDT by Danae (Anál nathrach, orth' bháis's bethad, do chél dénmha)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Chi-townChief
He wasn't because Fitz KNEW THERE WAS NOTHING ILLEGAL...cause his wife was NOT COVERT!!! Novak mentions just that........yet Fitz indicted Libby for forgetting the exact conversations he had had over Plame. Not that Libby didn't have enough to remember!!!

What a political HACK Fitz is and what a disgrace!!!

PLEASE MR. PRESIDENT DO NOT REAPPOINT FITZ!!!

98 posted on 07/12/2006 10:31:46 AM PDT by shield (A wise man's heart is at his RIGHT hand; but a fool's heart at his LEFT. Ecc. 10:2)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RBMN

Now if Novak had written that both Joe and Valerie Wilson were/are "operatives" for the DNC he would have been more accurate!! These two frauds have been carrying water for the Demagogic Party from start to finish in this sordid affair. It's long past time that they be fully exposed, tarred & feathered, and then jailed for a long time.


99 posted on 07/12/2006 10:37:02 AM PDT by Enchante (Keller & Sulzberger: Forget elections, WE are the self-appointed judges of everything)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: hershey

The AP had a story in our morning fish wrap that never mentioned Joe Wilson either. They were trying to heap it all on Rove. We have such wonderful MSM reporters. It's all the news they want to write as being true.


100 posted on 07/12/2006 10:38:41 AM PDT by conservative blonde (Conservative Blonde)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-117 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson