Posted on 11/19/2005 7:27:40 PM PST by Daralundy
WE'VE SAID from the start of the investigation into the leak of Valerie Plame's identity that if administration officials deliberately set out to unmask a secret agent, they should be punished. But we've also said that, absent evidence of such behavior, criminalizing communication by officials to journalists would run counter to the public interest. Special prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald's investigation is continuing -- he said yesterday he's going back to a grand jury -- and new facts may come to light. But the principle remains valid: It's not in the public interest for reporters to be forced to reveal their confidential sources in cases such as this. That's why Post reporter Bob Woodward should not be vilified for protecting the identity of his source in this complex affair.
Here we remind readers that the editorial page operates separately from those who gather and publish news in The Post. Mr. Woodward doesn't answer to us, and he has no input on our page. Like other interested observers, we have noted that Executive Editor Leonard Downie, to whom Mr. Woodward does report, has faulted his investigative reporter for failing to tell him sooner what was going on and for expressing personal opinions on television about the Fitzgerald investigation, and Mr. Woodward has apologized. Both rebukes strike us as reasonable -- as does Mr. Downie's characterization of Mr. Woodward as "one of the most careful, accurate and fair journalists I have ever worked with."
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Lies, lies, lies ~ the editorial, news and advertising pages run in concert at the Washington Post.
The Compost is circling the wagons around their star, Woodward, while firing a warning shot at Fitz - don't even think about questioning any journalists in this. Just keep hammering away at the administration. They may also be trying to subtly tell Joe Wilson to take his demand for an investigation of Woodward and cram it.
Walter Pincus ought to be getting very nervous right about now. The Compost has just pinned a set of horns on his head, in the event a sacrificial goat is required at some point.
Seems that sauce for the goose is suddenly not sauce for the gander.
"That's why Post reporter Bob Woodward should not be vilified for protecting the identity of his source in this complex affair."
But it was wrong for him to remain quiet while Libby faced prosecution. Woodward only allowed himself to be deposed because he had no choice. His information was material to Libby's case.
Did Woodward suborn perjury when he asked Pincus to 'keep him out of this'?
Fitz's persistence and eagerness will definitely absolve the W.P. but no problem for Fitz, this independent prosecutor will find a victim on the "right" side eventually.
After two years of Fitz's investigations he's starting anew.
To save face he needs to go on with a new grand jury to avoid exposing his double talk but then find the guilty one.
Otherwise Fitz's career would be kaput.
If they're involved in a crime or political cover up, yes, they should be forced to testify. No one should be held above the law. He should be called to testify like everyone else. Period.
Does Fitzgerald care?
you and I both know the answer - it renders your other questions moot.
Or the other way around - but Woodward testified first, so I'd think Fitz would give him the benefit of the doubt over Pincus. At any rate, the Compost has just more or less said that they will back Woodward if their hand is forced. My guess is that if Fitz calls on Pincus to testify (and that's a big if, IMO), the Compost will try to fight the subpoena and keep him from testifying for as long as they can. But if it comes down to it, they will throw Pincus to the wolves if necessary to protect their star.
Pincus did testify. He received permission to testify without revealing the name of his source, and his source testified independently about his conversation with Pincus. Pincus then published an article in WaPo explaining what he did without revealing any names. .
I suppose it does, but with Libbys ass in a ringer, and now Fitz is going to have to come to grips with his premature indictments based on inadequet and shoddy investigative work, I would like a litte payback. If I were Fitzgerald I would be fit to be tied, that people who 'study' the news (Woodward) would have exculpatory information, but was content to let Libby hang, and let Fitzgerald look like an idiot. The thing is, Fitz is the one with real power to give payback. I hope he drops the case against Libby and then goe after the people who set up this sordid affair, starting with the Wilsons.
It was Col. Mustard in the Study with the pipe! Argh. My head is spinning with all this stuff. All that matters, sadly, is the immediate damnation not the ultimate truth. (which always comes out later) the majority reads the headlines not the guts. People think Libby is guilty and the WH too.
Thanks for correcting me - I really need a scorecard to keep up with who did what in this ridiculous non-case. That just means Pincus' butt is really in the wringer.
Now that one of their own is in the firing line, the Washinton Compost takes a 180-degree turn. How principled!
>>It's not in the public interest for reporters to be forced to reveal their confidential sources<<
In the context of current methods of law enforcement, this is utter nonsense. However, it can be rephrased and get (or should get) a lot of conservative support.
I don't believe the government has a right (obviously; the govt. doesn't have any constitutional rights) to compel testimony from anyone, regardless of whether that testimony would tend to incriminate that person. If we look at things in this context, then one doesn't have to think about it in terms of how so-called journalists think of it: that they should be above the law because, according to them, they are working in the public interest.
In other words, make this a constitutional argument rather than a holier-than-thou argument from a bunch of self righteous nobodys.
I called that months ago. Where's my prize?????
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.