<p>What about this in the Washington Post:
</p>
<p>The suggestion is that it was Judy Miller who outed Plame to Rove, not the other way around.</p>
<p>
Novak makes the same assertion in the CNN interview posted by FF. HE (Novak) brought the subject up, and the official said “Oh, you know about her?” It’s also quite clear that Novak cleared his pending story with the CIA before publication. He’s not a target.</p>
<p>I’m still curious to know how wide a net the special prosecutor can throw. If it were an ordinary citizen, like me or you, who had been leaked to, could we be thrown in jail for refusing to name our source, or is this just a journalist hunt? The part that astounds me is that Judith Miller DIDN’T write the story; she just had the info. This has enormous implications. </p>
<p>I’m also very intrigued by the cross-partisan nature of this whole affair. It seems that the left and right are at times combatants and at times on the same side of the firing line. They both seem to to be hiding something and reason to hide it.</p>
<p>“This has been nothing more than wishful thinking on the fringe ever since Novak’s article first appeared…”</p>
<p>Wow, Driver – define “fringe” for me. How many people , in your estimation, comprise a “fringe”? (And where do you get your figures anyway…?)</p>
<p>It could be the source Ms Miller is protecting is herself. Can you take the fifth before the grand jury?</p>
<p>Miller - “Karl I heard Wilson’s wife got him the job and comment?”
Rove - “Oh you heard that rumor too?”
Miller to her editor - “Rove just confirmed Wilson’s wife got him the job.”</p>
<p>If you ask me Wilson probably outed Plame himself. He’s could a big mouth and can’t keep it shut and loves attention. In fact he definitely is the reason we know the front company Plame worked for because he went over the limit on his political contributions and had to re-file with the FEC and put half of it in his wifes name. When he did that he used the front company as her employer.</p>
<p>BTW she couldn’t have been NOC at the time of the disclosure because she was married to Wilson who had diplomatic immunity which would have covered her. So at the very least she had not been a covert agent for years.</p>
<p>All of this is a tempest in a teapot. Meanwhile Jihadist are killing and maiming.</p>
<p>
In this context, “fringe” would mean those who are actually hoping–or salivating, as FF put it–that some criminality will be found that will hurt the president. I emphasize “hoping,” rather than “concerned about.” Numbers? I have no idea, but my instinct and experience tell me the percentage is far higher on this board than it is in most of the country.</p>
<p>
momrath, it’s often overlooked that both CIA and State have huge populations of “non-political” employees, as well as political appointees that remain after changes of administrations. Bush was actually roundly criticized in conservative circles for not cleaning house in both. The appointment of Porter Goss and Condi Rice represent the beginning of a process that should have occurred earlier. As executive departments, both are part of “the administration,” and can be used by reporters when citing “anonymous administration sources.” We saw a lot of this in the summer leading up to the last election. There are many people who have reasons to hide things in this affair, no doubt. But the assumption that it’s the Bush people…no. Wishful thinking on the fringe.</p>
<p>You can take the fifth before a grand jury.</p>
<p>Greybeard, please confirm, you can or you can’t. If can, why hasn’t this been used in this case?</p>
<p>Driver, because of the small size of the “official American” community here I get exposed to a lot of careerists in State, CIA, Commerce etc. and I wholeheartedly agree that housekeeping was way overdue. </p>
<p>Patuxent, The idea of Wilson himself as the leaker is very intriguing!
(By the way, could you please explain what your name means?)</p>
<p>The Patuxent River is the largest river entirely in the state of Maryland. It is also the name of a state park, a US Naval Air Station, and a hospital for the criminally insane. If you can convince a jury you are crazy they will send you there and if you can convince the doctors you are not they must immediately release you. I am not sure which is harder.</p>
<p>Paxtuxent, if I’m ever called by a grand jury to reveal my source I’ll remember that. :)</p>
<p>Anyone can be jailed for contempt of court for refusing to reveal information that isn’t the subject of a privilege to a grand jury.</p>
<p>There are many recognized privileges under the law - the privilege against self incrimination, the attorney-client privilege, the spousal privilege, for example. There are exceptions to these privileges - the 5th amendment doesn’t allow you to refuse to provide a DNA sample, for example. You can’t ask a lawyer to assist you in the commission of a crime, or fraud, and expect the privilege to attach to the communication.</p>
<p>There was no journalist-source privilege under the common law, and it would take considerable judicial activism to read one into the 1st Amendment. Many states have enacted what are commonly referred as “shield” laws; Congress could do the same.</p>
<p>I’m a card-carrying member of the ACLU, and quite frankly can’t get too excited about this issue. It should be a crime to reveal the identity of a covert CIA agent, and there was no compelling national interest in getting that information out. There’s a much better argument that there’s a compelling national interest in concealing this information. This doesn’t sound like a situation where a reasonable reporter would have promised confidentiality, frankly.</p>
<p>The Patuxent River is the largest river entirely in the state of Maryland</p>
<p>Patuxent, every time I see your SN Im reminded of my middle school days; sailing out of the Magothy River into the Chesapeake Bay. We lived on the shore and our sailboat was just steps away, blue-crab and Old Bay. Do you live on the Patuxent?</p>
<p>FountainSiren -</p>
<p>I live on the Severn and we just caught a dozen crabs over the weekend.</p>
<p>Greybeard, any thoughts on the speculation I’ve seen that Fitzgerald isn’t focused on the leak of Plame’s identity but perjury and obstruction of justice after the fact? This special prosecutor and grand jury stuff is murky to me. Give me somethink like Iraq that I can read like a book at high noon.</p>
<p>Oh please let it be Rove (my little prayer). For him and for W, I would settle for the discovery of a sex slave in the basement, overdoses of Prozac, a gay lover, whatever - I’m not picky.</p>
<p>Whoever it was, it is treason and should be treated as such. Of course, we are dealing with a crooked President who promptly sealed information about insider trading for himself and his buddy Cheney - so my expectations are very, very low on this - if it’s one of them, there will be no consequences - it’s good to be the king.</p>
<p>I comfort myself with the thought that with regard to the 51% of the voters who voted for W, the sum of the Shaivo case, this investigation, and the other little scandals and obvious carpet-bagger policies will finally push the light bulb switch on and allow them to get a clue instead of continuing to jerk that knee up again and again.</p>
<p>2006 will show if the average political consciousness of the country has been raised or not.</p>
<p>
I thought that was what 2004 was supposed to test?</p>
<p>wgdkf,fvvvv sfefff dfdfgrg vbsbb </p>
<p>Pardon the above line - my darn knee keeps jerking up and hitting the keyboard.</p>
<p>Reprinted in Tom paine</p>
<p>Save the First Amendment – from Karl Rove </p>
<p>By Bill Israel
Editor & Publisher</p>
<p>NEW YORK, JULY 6, 2005 </p>
<p> Full article reprints are not admitted on CC. </p>
<p> Bill Israel teaches journalism at the University of Massachusetts (Amherst). He has worked for several leading newpapers.</p>
<p>Hmmm… this guy teaches journalism? I guess with today’s standard of journalism, that is no surprise.</p>
<p>Here is what Rove’s attorney said according to the LA Times <a href=“Rove Talked But Did Not Tattle, His Attorney Says”>Rove Talked But Did Not Tattle, His Attorney Says; </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yet somehow this gets twisted to:
<a href=“This%20past%20weekend,%20in%20confirming%20that%20Rove%20was%20indeed%20a%20source%20for%20Matthew%20Cooper,%20Rove’s%20lawyer%20said%20his%20client” title=“never knowingly disclosed classified information.”>quote</a>
[/quote]
implying that Rove was the source of the CIA leak, when in fact the opposite is what was reported.</p>
<p>He also repeats the usual canard about “retaliation by Rove was never in doubt.” This despite the clear statement by Bob Novak that it was he (Novak) who approached his source to get the information. Not the other way around. </p>
<p>I guess whatever it takes to create a bogus story if the target is big enough.</p>
<p>I’m sorry, are you saying you trust ANYTHING said by Rove or his goonies??? And there are WMD in Iraq and we’ll be out of there in a Jiffy. etc etc etc</p>