Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Emails Will Reveal that Rove Outed CIA Operative Valerie Plame (Page 1)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 6 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6   
Author Topic: Emails Will Reveal that Rove Outed CIA Operative Valerie Plame
David Ricardo
Member
Member # 1678

 - posted      Profile for David Ricardo     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000972839

quote:
MSNBC Analyst Says Cooper Documents Reveal Karl Rove as Source in Plame Case

By Greg Mitchell

Published: July 01, 2005 11:30 PM ET updated 1:00 PM Saturday

NEW YORK Now that Time Inc. has turned over documents to federal court, presumably revealing who its reporter, Matt Cooper, identified as his source in the Valerie Plame/CIA case, speculation runs rampant on the name of that source, and what might happen to him or her. Friday night, on the syndicated McLaughlin Group political talk show, Lawrence O'Donnell, senior MSNBC political analyst, claimed to know that name--and it is, according to him, top White House mastermind Karl Rove.

Today, O'Donnell went further, writing a brief entry at the Huffington Post blog:

"I revealed in yesterday's taping of the McLaughlin Group that Time magazine's e-mails will reveal that Karl Rove was Matt Cooper's source. I have known this for months but didn't want to say it at a time that would risk me getting dragged into the grand jury.

"McLaughlin is seen in some markets on Friday night, so some websites have picked it up, including Drudge, but I don't expect it to have much impact because McLaughlin is not considered a news show and it will be pre-empted in the big markets on Sunday because of tennis.

"Since I revealed the big scoop, I have had it reconfirmed by yet another highly authoritative source. Too many people know this. It should break wide open this week. I know Newsweek is working on an 'It's Rove!' story and will probably break it tomorrow."

Here is the transcript of O'Donnell's McLaughlin Group remarks:

"What we're going to go to now in the next stage, when Matt Cooper's e-mails, within Time Magazine, are handed over to the grand jury--the ultimate revelation, probably within the week of who his source is.

"I know I'm going to get pulled into the grand jury for saying this but the source of...for Matt Cooper was Karl Rove, and that will be revealed in this document dump that Time magazine's going to do with the grand jury."

Other panelists then joined in discussing whether, if true, this would suggest a perjury rap for Rove, if he told the grand jury he did not leak to Cooper.

Besides his career at a TV journalist, O'Donnell has served as a producer and writer for the series "The West Wing."

According to published reports, Patrick Fitzgerald, the special prosecutor in the case, has interviewed President Bush and Vice President Cheney and called Karl Rove, among others, to testify before the grand jury.

"The breadth of Fitzgerald's inquiry has led to speculation that it has evolved into an investigation of a conspiracy to leak Plame's identity," the Chicago Tribune observed on Friday, "or of an attempt to cover up White House involvement in the leak."

Cooper and New York Times reporter Judith Miller, held in contempt for refusing to name sources, tried Friday to stay out of jail by arguing for home detention instead after Time Inc. surrendered its reporter's notes to a prosecutor.

Miller argued that it was pointless to imprison her because she will never talk. She submitted letters from soldiers and military officers with whom she was embedded during the war in Iraq attesting to that. (Miller's pre-war coverage of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction has drawn much criticism.)

She asked the judge for "very restrictive home detention," if confined at all, including an electronic bracelet and excluding Internet access and cellular phones. As an alternative, she asked to be sent to the federal prison camp for women in Danbury, Conn.

Meanwhile, on Capitol Hill, Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., said Friday that several unidentified Senate Republicans had placed a hold on a proposed resolution declaring support for Miller and Cooper.

``Cowards!'' Lautenberg said of the Republicans. ``Under the rules, they have a right to refuse to reveal who they are. Sound familiar?''

Lautenberg's resolution is co-sponsored by Sens. Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) and Christopher Dodd (D-Conn.) It says no purpose is served by imprisoning Miller and Cooper and that the First Amendment guarantees freedom of the press.

You would think that this Administration would be far too busy fighting against Muslim fundamentalist terrorism to waste their time outing our own CIA covert operatives (who happen to specialize in Middle East WMD nonproliferation, no less). But no.

Looks like Karl Rove really was the slimeball who outed Joe Wilson's wife's secret identity within the CIA.

Sidenote: Regardless of whether or not you think Time magazine was wrong or right to hand over documentation revealing Matthew Cooper's source, you still have Administration officials engaging in what can only be characterized as high treason.

[ July 04, 2005, 10:23 PM: Message edited by: David Ricardo ]

Posts: 1429 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
As much as I'd like it to be Rove, since it has to be someone, I'm not sure that these documents are going to point to him. We'll wait and see, yes?
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
David Ricardo
Member
Member # 1678

 - posted      Profile for David Ricardo     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
As to the seriousness of Rove's actions, I think George H.W. Bush put it best:

George H.W. Bush (excerpt from a 1999 speech he delivered at the CIA):

quote:
Even though I'm a tranquil guy now at this stage of my life, I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the trust by exposing the name of our sources. They are, in my view, the most insidious of traitors.


[ July 04, 2005, 10:30 PM: Message edited by: David Ricardo ]

Posts: 1429 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 2212

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm skeptical. Rove and his lawyer just denied it again, after the documents were released to the prosecutor. If we know one thing about Rove, it's that he's good at spinning things. A flat denial that will have to be contradicted days later is not good spin. So I don't think it was Rove.

As Ev said, we'll have to wait and see.

[ July 04, 2005, 10:30 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]

Posts: 2061 | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Dagonee-
I'd appreciate it, if you abreviate my name, you use Ev. Thanks.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 2212

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
you still have Administration officials engaging in what can only be characterized as high treason.
Do we need to trot out the constitutional defintion of treason again?
Posts: 2061 | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 2212

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Sorry, Ev.
Posts: 2061 | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
David Ricardo
Member
Member # 1678

 - posted      Profile for David Ricardo     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Dagonee, we are at war right now. If a civilian official in our government endangered American national security in wartime (which is exactly what happens when CIA covert operatives get outed), then that is high treason. Enough said.
Posts: 1429 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 2212

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Actually, it's not enough said, because you're flat out wrong. Endangering national security during war time is not treason. A very specific definition was put into the constitution for a very specific reason. This isn't it.
Posts: 2061 | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Dagonee is right, David. Treason is waging war against the us, or adhereing to our enemies giving them aid and comfort. That requires actually being on the side of our enemies.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
David Ricardo
Member
Member # 1678

 - posted      Profile for David Ricardo     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Here's another take on the story:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8445696/site/newsweek/

quote:
July 11 issue - Its legal appeals exhausted, Time magazine agreed last week to turn over reporter Matthew Cooper's e-mails and computer notes to a special prosecutor investigating the leak of an undercover CIA agent's identity. The case has been the subject of press controversy for two years. Saying "we are not above the law," Time Inc. Editor in Chief Norman Pearlstine decided to comply with a grand-jury subpoena to turn over documents related to the leak. But Cooper (and a New York Times reporter, Judith Miller) is still refusing to testify and faces jail this week.

At issue is the story of a CIA-sponsored trip taken by former ambassador (and White House critic) Joseph Wilson to investigate reports that Iraq was seeking to buy uranium from the African country of Niger. "Some government officials have noted to Time in interviews... that Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, is a CIA official who monitors the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction," said Cooper's July 2003 Time online article.

Now the story may be about to take another turn. The e-mails surrendered by Time Inc., which are largely between Cooper and his editors, show that one of Cooper's sources was White House deputy chief of staff Karl Rove, according to two lawyers who asked not to be identified because they are representing witnesses sympathetic to the White House. Cooper and a Time spokeswoman declined to comment. But in an interview with NEWSWEEK, Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin, confirmed that Rove had been interviewed by Cooper for the article. It is unclear, however, what passed between Cooper and Rove.

The controversy began three days before the Time piece appeared, when columnist Robert Novak, writing about Wilson's trip, reported that Wilson had been sent at the suggestion of his wife, who was identified by name as a CIA operative. The leak to Novak, apparently intended to discredit Wilson's mission, caused a furor when it turned out that Plame was an undercover agent. It is a crime to knowingly reveal the identity of an undercover CIA official. A special prosecutor was appointed and began subpoenaing reporters to find the source of the leak.

Novak appears to have made some kind of arrangement with the special prosecutor, and other journalists who reported on the Plame story have talked to prosecutors with the permission of their sources. Cooper agreed to discuss his contact with Lewis (Scooter) Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's top aide, after Libby gave him permission to do so. But Cooper drew the line when special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald asked about other sources.

Initially, Fitzgerald's focus was on Novak's sourcing, since Novak was the first to out Plame. But according to Luskin, Rove's lawyer, Rove spoke to Cooper three or four days before Novak's column appeared. Luskin told NEWSWEEK that Rove "never knowingly disclosed classified information" and that "he did not tell any reporter that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA." Luskin declined, however, to discuss any other details. He did say that Rove himself had testified before the grand jury "two or three times" and signed a waiver authorizing reporters to testify about their conversations with him. "He has answered every question that has been put to him about his conversations with Cooper and anybody else," Luskin said. But one of the two lawyers representing a witness sympathetic to the White House told NEWSWEEK that there was growing "concern" in the White House that the prosecutor is interested in Rove. Fitzgerald declined to comment.

In early October 2003, NEWSWEEK reported that immediately after Novak's column appeared in July, Rove called MSNBC "Hardball" host Chris Matthews and told him that Wilson's wife was "fair game." But White House spokesman Scott McClellan told reporters at the time that any suggestion that Rove had played a role in outing Plame was "totally ridiculous." On Oct. 10, McClellan was asked directly if Rove and two other White House aides had ever discussed Valerie Plame with any reporters. McClellan said he had spoken with all three, and "those individuals assured me they were not involved in this."


Posts: 1429 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
David Ricardo
Member
Member # 1678

 - posted      Profile for David Ricardo     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
True, Dagonee, you are right on the technical basis. But, for all practical purposes, it is still treason in my book. Outing our covert CIA operatives during a time of war against Muslim fundamentalist terrorists hurts our war effort much more than if the same Bush Administration official had taken up arms against the United States.

[ July 04, 2005, 10:41 PM: Message edited by: David Ricardo ]

Posts: 1429 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 2212

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
signed a waiver authorizing reporters to testify about their conversations with him.
This makes me doubt Rove is the leaker even more, if what I've read about the waivers is accurate (namely that a reporter will testify about a source who has signed such a waiver).

I'll be very interested to hear who O'Donnell's sources are.

quote:
But, for all practical purposes, it is still treason in my book. Outing our covert CIA operatives during a time of war against Muslim fundamentalist terrorists hurts our war effort much more than if the same Bush Administration official had taken up arms against the United States.
You may be right, all there's considerable evidence Plame's name was known before hand.
Posts: 2061 | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
David Ricardo
Member
Member # 1678

 - posted      Profile for David Ricardo     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
In a brilliant parody of Clinton's "I did not inhale" excuse, it looks like Rove is adopting a "I never knowingly disclosed classified information" defense.

Laurence O'Donnell elaborates:

quote:
Karl Rove's lawyer, Robert Ruskin, had his holiday weekend ruined on Friday when I broke the story that the e-mails that Time delivered to the special prosecutor that afternoon reveal that Karl Rove is the source Matt Cooper has been protecting for two years. The next day, Luskin was forced to open the first hole in the Rove two-year wall of silence about the case. In a huge admission to Newsweek and the Los Angeles Times, Luskin confessed that, well, yes, Rove did talk to Cooper. It is a huge admission in a case where Rove and Luskin have never, before Friday, felt compelled to say a word about Rove's contact with Cooper or anyone else involved in the case.

Luskin then launched what sounds like an I-did-not-inhale defense. He told Newsweek that his client "never knowingly disclosed classified information." Knowingly. That is the most important word Luskin said in what has now become his public version of the Rove defense.

Not coincidentally, the word 'knowing' is the most important word in the controlling statute ( U.S. Code: Title 50: Section 421). To violate the law, Rove had to tell Cooper about a covert agent "knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent's intelligence relationship to the United States."

So, Rove's defense now hangs on one word--he "never knowingly disclosed classified information." Does that mean Rove simply didn't know Valerie Plame was a covert agent? Or does it just mean that Rove did not know that the CIA was "taking affirmative measures" to hide her identity?

In Luskin's next damage control session with the press, let's see if any reporter can get him to drop the word 'knowingly' from the never-disclosed-classified-information bit.

It's all word twisting yet again. Rove outed Plame, yet he didn't "knowingly out her classified and secret CIA identity" -- even though she was described as a covert CIA operative in Novak's infamous column two years ago. Oh please -- that's just legalese damage control by an overpaid defense attorney.

The next thing you know, we'll be debating the meaning of what "is" is.

[ July 04, 2005, 10:50 PM: Message edited by: David Ricardo ]

Posts: 1429 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 2212

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Then explain why two reporters were willing to go to jail rather than name Rove as the source if Rove did, in fact, sign a waiver.
Posts: 2061 | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
David Ricardo
Member
Member # 1678

 - posted      Profile for David Ricardo     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
BTW, Rove also lied before the grand jury about whether or not he leaked Valerie Plame's identity before Robert Novak's column appeared. That's what he said to the grand jury...

Now, however, it seems that he leaked Plame's name to Michael Cooper three days before the Novak column appeared. That's already perjury.

As far as Rove's waiver, it apparently was not broad enough for FBI prosecutor Fitzgerald's liking. It was specific only to the point of the actual identity of the leaker.

Fitzgerald wanted more than just the name(s) of the leaker. Cooper and Time only started objecting to Fitzgerald's investigation when Fitzgerald demanded the documentation itself. So, while Rove did have a waiver that released journalists from dicussing the identity(ies) of the leaker(s), Cooper refused to cooperate when Fitzgerald kept pushing for the documentation regarding the entire sordid Valerie Plame affair.

[ July 04, 2005, 11:03 PM: Message edited by: David Ricardo ]

Posts: 1429 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
FIJC
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
"I'm skeptical. Rove and his lawyer just denied it again, after the documents were released to the prosecutor. If we know one thing about Rove, it's that he's good at spinning things. A flat denial that will have to be contradicted days later is not good spin. So I don't think it was Rove.

As Ev said, we'll have to wait and see."

Yes, we will indeed have to wait and see. I never thought it was Rove, but there is still a lot of room for me to be wrong. I thought that it may be someone in the intelligence community.

And I also want to add that if it does turn out to be Rove, he ought to be punished to the fullest extent of the law and of course, fired from his job.

[ July 04, 2005, 11:55 PM: Message edited by: FIJC ]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Treason is waging war against the us, or adhereing to our enemies giving them aid and comfort. That requires actually being on the side of our enemies."

My qustion: how doe we decide what being on the side of the enemies is? Does it require a manifesto a la Osama bin Laden? Or just proof that a political hack placed his own or his party's political fortunes above the safety of those in potential harm's way?

The question is especially intersting in light of the nebulous nature of our cuyrrent enemies vis a vis the War on Terror.

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Futher note: plausible deniability is such a powerfully useful tool that its users sometimes use it one time too many for a "task too far" and find themselves with their own square pegs bearing the imprint of round holes.

Ooh... I feel SO clever with that one. Maybe I;ll get another thank you from canadian? [Wink]

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lewkowski
Member
Member # 2028

 - posted      Profile for Lewkowski   Email Lewkowski       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Crazy liberals. Mad at Rove so they make some stuff up.

I'd lay 100 to 1 odds Rove will never be found guilty of what O'donnell is charging him with.

Posts: 890 | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I love you, Lew. YOu fill me with a sense of cosmic order, with the sense of security of a freshly loaded PEZ dispenser. Thumb the cap and you know what will happen next.
Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 2212

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I'd lay 100 to 1 odds Rove will never be found guilty of what O'donnell is charging him with.
It's not really fair to make that the standard here. There's very little chance anyone is convictable under the law in question. The law was written to stop one specific act by one specific guy. There's very serious question that Plame's status at the CIA is covered by the law, regardless of who leaked it. Throw in doubts about the leaker's status, and there's very little chance of a conviction.

If you knew the identity of the leaker for sure, you could make the same bet about the leaker and win.

Posts: 2061 | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I'd lay 100 to 1 odds Rove will never be found guilty of what O'Donnell is charging him with.
That's just what I'm afraid of, Lew. That he did leak the name, but the Administration will make sure he is never found guilty of the charge.
Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 2212

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Or, that no crime was actually committed.
Posts: 2061 | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lewkowski
Member
Member # 2028

 - posted      Profile for Lewkowski   Email Lewkowski       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Right... so essentially your going to say.

"1. Rove is a bastard look at this crime he committed."

"2. I'm not going to have any objective standards used (like a conviction or even a trial) to determine if it actually happened. I'll just say it happened because I hate Rove for getting Bush elected!"

Under what circumstances in the next ten years will you be able to come to a reasonable conclusion on what happened? What will have to happen for you to think yes he did it or no he did not?

Posts: 890 | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 2212

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Actually, I'm not saying Rove is a bastard or that he committed a crime. And anyone who thinks I hate Rove for getting Bush elected has left the realm of the actual.

Oh, and I don't think he did it, although I'm reserving full judgement until the emails are released. My point was, and is, quite simple: whether Rove did it or not is almost totally unrelated to whether or not he'll be found guilty, because it's very likely that NO CRIME was committed.

There are objective standards of right and wrong beyond what's legal and illegal.

Posts: 2061 | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I love you, Lew. YOu fill me with a sense of cosmic order, with the sense of security of a freshly loaded PEZ dispenser. Thumb the cap and you know what will happen next.
Vast wry amusement is hereby noted.
Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Prosecutor Urges Judge to Jail Reporters Who Refused to Testify .

Anyone else feel that this prosecutor guy is pushing it? Especially since he hasn't really exhausted his options like, oh, I dunno, summoning a certain Bob Novak and his records? Has he?

Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 2212

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
We don't know if he has, and it would be illegal for anyone except Novak (or someone authorized by Novak) to say if he testified before the grand jury.

Edit: This is why many grand jury rooms are monitored by the press, although this has gotten more difficult. It's not illegal to say so-and-so went into the jury room. Just for prosecutors, staff, and grand jurors to talk about what happened in there.

Grand jurors' restrictions only last until the grand jury is dismissed, if I recall correctly. The rest are permanent.

[ July 05, 2005, 05:09 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]

Posts: 2061 | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Drake
Member
Member # 2128

 - posted      Profile for The Drake   Email The Drake   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Some of us remember back when there was another thread, and a teacher who defied a court order was threatened with jail.

Now we've got a reporter defying a court order, threatened with jail. It will be interesting to see who flip-flops.

Posts: 7707 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Funean
Member
Member # 2345

 - posted      Profile for Funean   Email Funean   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
We need to get you your own official Ornery tally sheets, Drake. I certainly do a lousy job of keeping track of such things (which should be done, if only for my own glee) and so I'm grateful that you take care of it. [Smile]
Posts: 5277 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Drake
Member
Member # 2128

 - posted      Profile for The Drake   Email The Drake   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Actually, I don't do the accounting work. I just throw out a potential accusation, and let people incriminate themselves by justifying how the two scenarios are different.

OOh, the giveaway! Well, now it probably won't work. [Frown]

Posts: 7707 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Adam Masterman
Member
Member # 1142

 - posted      Profile for Adam Masterman   Email Adam Masterman   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Actually, Ricky, I'm not so sure on this one. The confientiality protection for sources is important, but its important for a reason, namely to protect wistle-blowers. These reporters, knowingly or not, needlessly endangered a life and compromised national security. The person who leaked her identity is definately guilty of a heinous act with no redeeming moral justification (such as Deep Throat had). I don't see a reason here for protecting the identity of the source, unless one is broadly worried about precedent. What am I missing?
Adam

Posts: 4823 | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Is there any particular reason why, if these reporters have been found to be in contempt, they shouldn't be jailed?

Hey, I'm all for reporters protecting sources if they've talked on the condition of remaining anonymous - but the reporter takes full responsibility when using such sources. Up to and including going to jail for it.

It's the reporters' choice - they could certainly choose not to go the unattributed route. But if they do, I'll certainly respect them for standing firm and paying the price of being stand-up guys.

Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Another question:
Why isn't NOVAK being threatened with jail? He obviously knows who leaked him the information, correct? I mean, he wrote the story, after all. So unless he got the content of the leak from one of the two reporters in question, wouldn't it be just as easy, if not easier, and certainly more direct, to force him to reveal his sources? The Times, and Time Magazine have been critical of the Bush Administration, while novak hasn't been nearly as critical. (I've heard him described as a Toady for the Bush Administration). If the prosecutor is not putting pressure on novak, but only on writers for organizations that oppose Bush, is this REALLY a non-partisan investigation, especially when it is the Bush supporter who should have the clearest information?

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
EarlFlen
Member
Member # 2520

 - posted      Profile for EarlFlen   Email EarlFlen   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Everard:
Another question:
Why isn't NOVAK being threatened with jail? He obviously knows who leaked him the information, correct? I mean, he wrote the story, after all. So unless he got the content of the leak from one of the two reporters in question, wouldn't it be just as easy, if not easier, and certainly more direct, to force him to reveal his sources?

Ya missed something along the way, bro. But that's understandable the way this story is dribbling out. The conservative AND liberal TV/Radio reports are all saying that Novak ratted out his "source" to the investigators from the git-go. He made an undisclosed deal, apparently. It's just that none of the principals are saying anything about it, and Novak prolly won't be writing any columns where he talks about this or names Rove as his source publically. The consensus is Novak ain't in jail because he already cooperated. Nobody needed to force him to cooperate, it looks like.
Posts: 19 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Hrm. I guess I did miss something. I wonder what he disclosed.

I friggin hate how, when something like this is national news, we don't have the important bits.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 2212

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It's possible he testified and it wasn't reported. He would have incentive not to and no one else in the grand jury room could.

All the reports I've seen saying he did make a deal are working from conjecture. It does seem the most likely reason he's not been threatened w/ contempt.

Edit: So the reason we don't have this important bits is there's no way for a reputable media outlet to report this.

[ July 06, 2005, 11:16 AM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]

Posts: 2061 | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 2212

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
From Fox News - Cooper to Testify

quote:
Late last week, Time magazine handed Cooper's notes over to the Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald (search), over their reporter's objections. Said editor in chief Norman Pearlstein: "When the courts rule that a citizen's obligation to testify before a grand jury takes precedence over the press's First Amendment right, to me, going against that finding would put us above the law."

But on Wednesday, Cooper changed his mind, saying that before his appearance before the judge, his source contacted him directedly and gave him permission to reveal his or her identity.

It was not clear what Cooper's change of heart meant for Miller, who has been adamant about her refusal to reveal her source. Hogan could sentence her to up to 18 months behind bars.

In a court filing Tuesday, Fitzgerald stated that a source had relieved the reporters of their promise to protect him or her. But it has never been clear if Cooper and Miller got their information from the same, single source or if there were multiple sources.

I'm trying to imagine a credible scenario that has Rove issuing a denial days before giving permission to Cooper to testify. I can't come up with one.

The Post is reporting Miller is being jailed today.

Posts: 2061 | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KnightEnder
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Dagonee is right, David. Treason is waging war against the us, or adhereing to our enemies giving them aid and comfort. That requires actually being on the side of our enemies.--Ev "

How is telling our enemies in the War on Terror who our secret agents are not "giving aid to the enemy".

And I hope it is Rove, since I've been saying it is all along and I would hate to have to apologize to the SOB. Besides, it would be nice to get rid of two birds with one stone. Get the traitor that leaked the information and get rid of the smartest guy in the GOP. And isn't there some way to bring Novak up on charges?

And as the principle member of OA that kept bringing this situation up I would like to say; thank God something is finally being done! And in all honesty; is there some reason it has taken so long? (The latter is a nonpartisan legal question.)

KE

[ July 06, 2005, 03:37 PM: Message edited by: KnightEnder ]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 6 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1