Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Post State Dept. Reporter Questioned in Leak Probe (Plame)

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
shraby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-23-04 02:07 AM
Original message
Post State Dept. Reporter Questioned in Leak Probe (Plame)
A Washington Post reporter was questioned yesterday by the special prosecutor investigating the possibly illegal leak of a CIA employee's identity by Bush administration officials.

State Department reporter Glenn Kessler submitted to a tape-recorded interview that will be provided to a grand jury investigating the disclosure last summer of CIA employee Valerie Plame's name to columnist Robert D. Novak.

Kessler said he agreed to be interviewed about two phone conversations he had with I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, chief of staff to Vice President Cheney, at Libby's urging. At the prosecutor's request, Libby and other White House aides have signed waivers saying they agree to release reporters they have talked to from keeping confidential any disclosures about Plame.

(more)

<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A62265-2004Jun22.html>
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
AP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-23-04 02:15 AM
Response to Original message
1. I argued here at DU that the WH officials who spoke to the press shouldn't
be able to be claimed by the reporters as confidential sources whose identities need to be protected.

If you're a government official who is acting within your official capacities, it doesn't make sense that a reporter should be able to protect you as a source.

Deepthroat is one thing. A whistleblower whose job is NOT to talk to the press is one thing. But if a press secretary calls you, performing their job, what interest is a reporter serving by protecting your confidentiality? A press secretary's job is to serve the public by talking to the press.

I'd love to hear a debate on this issue because I'm not sure which way this one should go.

But I suspect the WH employees signed waivers perhaps because they were acknowleding that they don't deserve the same sort of confidential status as your average information leaker.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Algomas Donating Member (576 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-23-04 02:30 AM
Response to Reply #1
4. Sounds like they are more concerned...
with protecting their jobs than their sources. What repulsive toads they are. If they took the Bu$hco leak (so to speak) that means they are in the "loop". It is unnatural for a rat to rat on a fellow rat, unless of course it becomes expedient. Like when the ship starts sinking...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Snazzy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-23-04 03:32 AM
Response to Reply #1
6. treason ought to trump all
I'd guess this reporter was on the margins and a Scooter pal. I don't recall the name on the shop around--it was somebody else at WaPo, wasn't it?

What exactly is the popular press read of the agreement that is made when they go "on background"? There was some (blog?) meme recently which made sense, more about Condi I think. That when your admin. on-background source turns out to be feeding you a bunch of politically self-serving shit that is later proved fabricated, that sure as hell should pierce the identity shield. The agreement is a vehicle to offer your readers inside information--a scoop of a sanctioned leak, which for one degree of policy subtlety, the admin. doesn't want to be "on record" saying. The historical enforcement mechanism is now somehow gone with reporters being happy happy admin. stenographers: if the information is bogus, the leaker should be exposed. For the good of the readers/viewers and the integrity of the media outlet.

That's getting off Plame a bit, but there is a ballpark relationship here. If somebody is making the rounds with highly partisan (and in this case, ask me, treasonous) information--which is so out-there that only a scumbag like Novak lacks the integrity and sense to say no and not run it--didn't whichever media just get a story? Why not run it? The admin. said: here's something illegal, hardball and nasty we want to get around. Ethics correctly prevented most media from saying "Plame" but it shouldn't prevent them from saying "no deal on 'on-background,' you just gave me a story."

Somehow this admin. has stretched on-background to include almost everything they do, and there is no consequence, no defacto contract with the press. The justification you hear is access, which is bull for major media. The WH can't just stop talking to major media (or even needing to make PR deals with them)--it's a strawman.

Of course, the media are also to blame--you need the balls to enforce the contract. Someone should testify who got the Plame info--maybe it will make their ass grass in Wash., but it can fix the contract and someone else will take their place. It's a more important principle, giving teeth to the public watchdog than shielding what I think you rightly postulate is a source not worthy of protection.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
grasswire Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-23-04 02:15 AM
Response to Original message
2. does this make sense?
He testified that Libby did not release Plame's name?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Syrinx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-23-04 02:26 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. maybe the actual leak came from higher up
Edited on Wed Jun-23-04 02:26 AM by syrinx9999
Or maybe the reporter has been bribed or threatened.

:shrug:

(I really hope this relates to Josh Marshall's "tectonic shifts.")

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aquart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-23-04 02:55 AM
Response to Reply #2
5. Just the info that Wilson's wife, who works for the Agency on WMD ...
Edited on Wed Jun-23-04 02:59 AM by aquart
got hubby the Niger trip. Since it wasn't a secret who Wilson's wife is, the name is not as important as revealing she's an agent.

Edit. Not Libby. Uh huh. Perhaps the butler?

I'm sleepy and I read it wrong. But if Scooter is clean, does that kick it upstairs? Lower level people wouldn't know. That means, Look up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
meg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-23-04 07:27 AM
Response to Reply #5
7. So, you bought the WH lie
Wilson said it was NOT common knowledge about what his wife did. She worked for some company - Brewster something. WH shills passed the story that people knew otherwise.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HootieMcBoob Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-23-04 07:44 AM
Response to Reply #5
8. Wilson's wife didn't get him the job
He was the most qualified person. He had worked in Africa and Iraq for a very long time. He was in fact, the last person to talk with Saddam before the first gulf war. He actually had the guts to personally stand up to Hussein himself. That Wilson's wife "got him the job" is the way the administration and it's right wing echo chamber spun it. And on top of that it was not well known that she was an agent - quite the opposite in fact. She was the deepest kind of undercover agent. Outing her not only ruined her career but killed and entire undercover company along with all of the other people who had worked in that company and all of the contacts that they had made. That company and Ms. Plame were all working on tracking the proliferation of WMD! Over a decade of work was flushed down the drain!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Dec 26th 2024, 10:14 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC