Does Fitzgerald Have the Gannon Story?

[Stephanie]

Because if he is not a journalist, he has no right to protect his source.

[Roland99]

1. Oooo....good angle!!

[lavenderdiva]

2. very, very interesting observation...

I hope someone picks up on this....

[paineinthearse]

3. Enlighten me????

What is the Fitzgerald story?

[NewJeffCT]

4. Fitzgerald is the prosecutor in charge of the Plame case

He is supposedly very thorough. H2OMan knows a lot more about it than me, though.

Edited to add - Valerie Plame is the CIA undercover operative outed by a senior White House person in an act of political revenge to get back at Ambassador Joe Wilson for writing a negative story on Bush exposing the uranium from Niger lies. The outing is a felony.

[H2O Man]

11. Re: "The Bulldog" Fitzgerald

See this article. I think this link is still good.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A55560-2005Feb1.html

[NewJeffCT]

15. thanks - good article

I'm still hoping beyond hope that something big will really come out of this.

[H2O Man]

17. Count on it.

It is a matter of time before the federal court returns a decision.

[Swamp Rat]

22. Excellent article!

I just saved it and added it to my archive. :hi:

[H2O Man]

23. I liked it

a lot!

[Stephanie]

6. Fitzgerald is the federal prosecutor investigating the Valerie Plame leak

Joseph Wilson's wife, the CIA agent, who was outted by someone in the White House as revenge when Wilson, a former diplomat, wrote a NYT op-ed asserting that the 16 words in the SOTU (stating that Iraq attempted to buy uranium from Niger) were a lie and the WH knew it was a lie because he was the guy sent to investigate the case at Cheney's request. How's that for a run-on sentence?

Go to www.dailykos.com and read SusanG's interview with Wilson just posted today.

[Walt Starr]

5. Better yet, if the guy received pay from the WH

If this guy was paid by the White House, he's a co-conspirator in this one. Here's evidence from Guckert himself preserved for us on FR:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1168703/posts?page=108#108

He's all over this thread about it:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1093819/posts

Three posts here:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1092073/posts

More...

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1049592/posts

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1048813/posts

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1048813/posts

[Stephanie]

7. Could you re-post some of it?

I'm afraid to go over there!

:scared:

[Roland99]

12. That links to some articles apparently scrubbed off Talon's site

[King Coal]

34. Washington Bureau Chief for Talon News LOL!

[Walt Starr]

8. Evidence from FreeRepublic exists

If this guy was paid by the White House, he's a co-conspirator in this one. Here's evidence from Guckert himself preserved for us on FR:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1168703/posts?page=108#108

He's all over this thread about it:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1093819/posts

Three posts here:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1092073/posts

More...

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1049592/posts

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1048813/posts

[Nothing Without Hope]

20. I suggest you take steps to preserve this FR info - it will disappear

I have no doubt that once someone over there catches on that their site contains info possibly damaging to their GOP bosses, the posts will be scrubbed.

In the meantime, thanks for the info - I can't stomach FR long enough to get anything useful.

[Nothing Without Hope]

9. Yes, someone should send this to Fitzgerald. Also, I suspect BLACKMAIL

I'm betting that "Gannon" has been blackmailing someone within the White House. Why else would he have held his cushy position so long despite what even a cursory check would have revealed as a potential major embarrassment to the Morality Administration? No-ethics "journalists" are a dime a dozen these days, so why pick a guy with such baggage?

I smell the sickly sweet scent of BLACKMAIL. I hope Fitzgerald can get the truth and that it goes to the top.

[KittyWampus]

16. IMO, Child & Male Prostitution Ring Info Would Implicate Quite A Few

GOP hypocrites.

They can't act on their homosexuality in public cause of the Far Right "Morality" theme so they do covert stuff. Illegal covert stuff.

Remember last SOTU when Jr. mentioned child prostitution?

IMO, that was a veiled warning to some in the Beltway.

Oh Yeah, the BFEE definately has shit they blackmail with.

Gannon is probably too much the tool to do that shit on his own... but maybe not...

[Nothing Without Hope]

18. Oh my, you raise some interesting ponts.

Remember last SOTU when Jr. mentioned child prostitution?
IMO, that was a veiled warning to some in the Beltway.

Yes, that has the ring of truth. Why else bring it up, with so many other things to talk about?

Oh, I hope this scandal can open the way to unraveling some of this slime. So far, I have seen NOTHING about the "Gannon" scandal in the online AP, Reuters, or general Yahoo news stories. So far, there's a news blackout -- except that Keith Olbermann, bless him, says he's going to be talking about it in his show tonight. (MSNBC 8 PM EST)

[Roland99]

19. As long as it results in at least some high-level resignations

esp. Evil Karl


Or even some impeachment hearings!

[tanyev]

25. I don't think blackmail was needed in the least.

I think Jeffie is very friendly with someone in the WH and that's how he got planted into the press corps.

[davidinalameda]

10. Jeff Gannon - -A Voice of the New Media - The voice goes silent.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1339334/posts

boo hoo

[Roland99]

14. WTF?!?!??!

To: Miss Marple
Oh, I'm so disappointed. He asked the BEST questions at the White House press briefings. He was just terrific.



15 posted on 02/09/2005 5:41:12 AM PST by Peach

[Nimrod]

30. Sweet Baby Jesus!

DAMN but those are some scary people!

Just when you think humanity has hit the absolute bottom, it turns out you were right.

[H2O Man]

13. We are at a time

when it is important to define what is -- and isn't -- a "journalist." The truth is that for decades, people who have been employed by intelligence agencies have have "cover" as journalists. One need read no further than E. Howard Hunt's "Undercover: Memoirs of an American Secret Agent," {NY; Berkley} to find that he was OSS in WW2 when he was a LIFE correspondent. There are other examples, such as Bob Woodward and Judith Miller, who fit the same description.

Are they journalists? Intelligence agents? Both?

[Nothing Without Hope]

21. My own definition of a journalist is simple

To me, a journalist is a person who uses their training to search for the signficant truth among rumors and secrets and then reports it. The word "significant" is a tricky one here, but I include it to indicate that a real journalist searches for important stories that affect people, not trivial sleaze to feed tabloids.

These days, there are precious few of these people. Keith Olbermann is almost the only real journalist left on TV news. There are more in the print media, with Seymour Hersh being an example.

[H2O Man]

24. That's a good definition.

I like that definition.

The problem is that every major media has at leasy one intel asset working at some level. It may be a swine like the fellow being discussed on this thread; I believe that he is related to the late David Ferrie.

There are people from competing agencies in different papers, magazines, and tv stations. There are also pathetic shits like Robert Novak, who is a lap dog eager to print some tid-bit tossed to him by anyone in authority.

Who determines what constitutes a "journalist" in a court-room situation? Tough question ... one we would be wise to consider at length. Equally important is keeping the current frame-work of protections for the press .... which allows them to be prosecuted for commiting crimes, and to be called to testify to federal grand juries in limited situations.

[Nothing Without Hope]

26. You're right. Quite apart from what a journalist really is...

...is the LEGAL definition. Does being given press credentials, as "Gannon" apparently was, constitute sufficient qualification? It certainly shouldn't.

I would like to know what the legal definition of a journalist is. It may differ in different states and the fed govt, since it was probably established in court cases. I have no idea what those precedents are, but you're right, this is an important legal point that is going to come up repeatedly.

[H2O Man]

27. While you & I would

agree that the person in the news is NOT a journalist (he just played one on tv), we need to keep in mind that any legal restrictions could come back to haunt us. Just two examples: many people have "blogs." Are the journalists? In what context? Should the "government" in all of their manifest forms be able to treat a blogger differently than say, Robert No Facts Novack? Or in my case, I am an editor of a Native American newspaper and a frequent contributor to numerous left-wing papers. Am I a journalist? Or a rabble-rouser? These are areas we need to consider very carefully.

[Nothing Without Hope]

28. All good points. I wonder if the people at Media Matters have...

...looked into this question of how to define a "journalist." It's boind to be based on legal precedents. So, is it considered uniform across the country, or are there state-to-state variations? That would depend in part on which cases were setting the precedents. There are people out there who know this history cold, and we need to find them and get their considered opinion. As you point out, it's IMPORTANT and becoming more so all the time.

I also believe that the Wolf Blitzer/Kurtz spin on "Gannongate," that the evil "liberal bloggers" have unfairly invaded his privacy using the internet, is a clear step toward what I have been fearing: an all-out attack on the freedom of the internet. Since internet-based activism and access to truth are becoming an issue of concern to the blivet** administration and the corporate media, I can't see them holding back from trying to suppress our free internet. We're a loose end and we've proven troublesome in a way that is likely to grow. If they can rouse people up to the point where they fear "liberal bloggers" enough, they will be able to ram through laws to destroy our ability to use the internet in any way that threatens their power.

[Roland99]

29. Wolf Blitzer was defending the fuckwad?!?!?

[Nothing Without Hope]

31. The threads I saw last night on this said that Kurtz on Blitzer's show

was taking the tack that "Gannon's" political leanings were no secret and that the "liberal bloggers" had invaded his privacy "on the internet." The idea is that because he is gay, we evil liberals hounded him from his job. Absolutely amazing. Nothing about his faked credentials, his involvement in pimping military male prostitution, not a breath of his involvement in the Plame affair. The fact that the Secret Service allowed "Gannon" to be near the President and he was repeatedly allowed to ask his softball questions while respected journalists like Helen Thomas were relegated to the back of the room and ignored was not raised. The fact that he plagiarized writing and was a propaganda plant was not mentioned. The fact that, with his faked ID and credentials and his sordid side-activities he represented a breach of security that is very suspicious -- someone high in the White House echelon must have waived security for him -- was not touched upon.

On Blitzer's show, the only point made was that those nasty liberal bloggers invaded the poor man's privacy and drove him from his job because of his political views. Kurtz was saying most of it, but Blitzer went along with it. Kurtz now has an article in the WaPo about "Gannon" with the same long list of omissions.

My fear is that this isn't only an attempted defense of whoever would be implicated by a real investigation into Gannongate, it is a salvo in what will develop as an attack against our internet freedom. Rile the public against those evil liberal bloggers, make them scared, and then laws that will suppress internet-based activism and access to non-propagandized news can be rammed through a compliant Rethug Congress.

[H2O Man]

32. David Ferrie II

David Ferrie's sex life distracted some people who were examining his role in the politics of the early 1960s. While there was some over-lap between his bizarre personal life and his role in Cuban/intel/mob politics, people focused on "what a creep!"

This fellow is another David Ferrie. While his personal life indeed has some overlap with his political role, it is important that we do not react to what a creep he is, and lose sight of what role he has actually been playing.

[Nothing Without Hope]

35. I agree completely. I suggest you post this point as a thread in GD-P

Because his creepy sideline is taking up far too much of the focus. Yes, if he was involved in pimping for military personnel prostitution, that should be prosecuted. But as you point out it is SEPARATE from his doings as a fake journalist with no valid security clearance and a function as a propaganda plant.

His homosexual military pimping sideline also has the relevance in its proof of his hypocrisy -- anti-gay articles and the usual fulsome "morality" line was prominent in the scrubbed Talon articles as it is in the blivet**'s own verbal stylings. I also feel that it raises the possibility of blackmail within the White House, but that is pure speculation at this point.

It think it would be very useful to lay out the major points about the "Gannon" affair in order of their true importance (as it appears at present). Veering off on the wrong tangent would be a major mistake.

I don't recall David Ferrie, but the parallels seem striking. I am curious - was there ever any blackmail involved with government figures and Mr. Ferrie?

If you do decide to post a thread on balance in pursuing Gannongate, please PM me with its location -- I'll be leaving for most of the day shortly and would hate to miss it.

[H2O Man]

36. David Ferrie is covered in

numerous books on the JFK assassination. He was a CIA pilot who flew numerous missions in and out of Cuba. He coordinated efforts with Guy Banister. Perhaps the easiest way to get a clear picture of who David was is to watch the film JFK. Stone depicts him in a highly accurate manner.

[Roland99]

37. Sad thing is this just may get brushed aside if the media keeps this up

with this approach.

Sickening the lengths the right will go to in order to coverup wrongdoings, deception, etc.

Saddens me that I've been a Republican most of my life. This is NOT the party that I've known.

[Nothing Without Hope]

38. That's why we need to keep the pressure on to get the truth out

We can't let up. Keep emailing reporters, emailing congress members, sending letters.

Of course these people are not real Republicans. They have hijacked the party for their own ends. That's another thing we cannot let up on --- pushing to make the remaining Republicans with integrity and/or concern for the future of the country to realize that party loyalty is NOT the way to go. They need to reassess their priorities.

Not one Repub senator, including the much-praised John McCain, voted against the man who supported violation of Geneva Convention and the use of torture on prisoners and the prolonged imprisonment of people without any charges being brought or access to legal advice: Alberto Gonzales. There is no excuse for that. We need to hold them accountable.

This horrible administration must move us to join together to defeat it. Everyone, no matter what their past affiliations, must oppose them, for democracy in this country is hanging by a thread.

[H2O Man]

39. I guess that what strikes

me as very sad indeed, is that the vast majority of Americans -- inclding 99% of the DU membership -- has no idea how to organize a media blitz. You do not need to own a television station, edit a newspaper, or even have a top reporter in your pocket. Sure, those things help. (smile) But one would have to be familiar with the history of the Nixon administration manipulation of the media. And, as I've mentioned on DU, with no interest in response, that isn't to be found in the tapes or in All The President's Men. It's in the memos that were passed between Nixon and a small group of top advisors. Their most potent weapon: LTTE. They had a system for sending them at specific targets. Of getting ONE POINT across this week, and ANOTHER POINT next week. Waves of LTTE. We have the ability to change the nation's conscious perception, just as the Nixon administration did for years. But we lack the understanding of the power of the press. We view ourselves as helpless victims, rather than recognizing that we could have a major impact.

[Nothing Without Hope]

41. This is such an important point

WE ABSOLUTELY MUST GET THE TRUTH OUT TO PEOPLE WHO DON'T USE THE INTERENT FOR THEIR NEWS.

There are multiple ways of doing this and we all need to brainstorm some more, but you mention one of the most effective: LTTEs.

I think a DU GROUP SHOULD BE FORMED with the mission of organizing and brainstorming both traditional and new ways of reaching the public as well as the makers of opinion such as the newspapers and the networks. When we talk to each other in a preselected forum such as DU, we are exchanging valuable information and helping each other organize, but we are NOT usually reaching the public who don't realize what is really going on.

For the traditional methods, links to pages giving info on where to send LTTEs would be helpful. Also, info on what communication mode is most effective -- for example, are paper letters better or worse than emails? LTTEs may be a venerable approach, but there's a lot of expertise involved in making the most of them.

Skinner recently gave the link to a DU "National Media Page" - we should check this out:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=109x17759

There must be addtional routes to take besides LTTEs as well. For one thing, I believe there are some specific books -- targetted to the general publlic of concerned citizens - that need to be written. These would explain and promote the value of internet-based information exchange and activism in a way that would make it harder for the pundits to demonize or marginalize it.

So what do you think of working toward forming a DU group for brainstorming practical ways of turning public opinion?

[H2O Man]

43. I'm in favor of it.

I think on my blog, I will do a series of articles on the history of the Nixon administration's using LTTE to manipulate the media. It will come as little surprise that young Patrick J Buchanan led this effort.

With the early Plame threads, we attempted to organize this. But some people expected instant gratification. Of course, we'd all favor that .... but it rarely happens.

The idea is in week #1 (for example) to have 100 people send a 3-3-4 paragraph letter to local papers. You start with smaller "hometown" papers. Each letter makes a single point: "I am concerned about___."
Paragraph one introduces the topic in 3 sntences; paragraph two makes a single point about the concern; paragraph four uses 4 sentyences to cement the subject in the reader's mind. You only raise the question; you do not try to convince he reader to do more than consider a topic.

Week two, another group responds to letter #1. They add one idea. Rarely do you add more than one per week. These letters will tend to get responses from others in the community. The editor sees interest. The topic gets focus in the paper.

It is not hard to do. It reaches a specific audience.

In regard to books, in my experience, those who are disciplined to read entire books tend to already grasp much of the dynamics involved in the related issues. For better or for worse, we need to start simple. There are already 100 great books that expose the administration. LTTE can introduce non-book readers to those ideas.

[Nothing Without Hope]

44. Good. So I'd like to do the following

1. If the description you wrote of how to pursue an effective LTTE campaign is available online anywhere, may I please have the link? This needs to be front and center.

2. Can you suggest other donating members who would be likely members for such a brainstorming group? There might be some that are regulars in the Media Forum. I also have some ideas of some people who might be interested. We would also need a mission statement to form a group.

3. The book I mention is only one of what would need to be many approaches, and it would not be about exposing the administration. It would be a powerful, interesting introduction to what is REALLY going on with internet-based activism, where this fits in evolving sociopolitical history, where it is going, and what its great benefits are. Too many people don't realize what is happening in this medium, and we need to get the word out to more of them. I agree -- of course -- that this is not the top priority, but articles and then later a book on internet-based information access and activism would do some good, I believe. Along with this would be a campaign to interest people enough to begin talking about it -- I dream of having Bill Moyers doing this, for example.

4. Would you please give me the URL of your blog? I looked through the thread and did not see it. That way I can watch for these articles as well as look through what is already there.

I do think a DU Group devoted to optimizing the turning of public opinion on issues of major concern to progressives is a good idea. You've already told me more than I ever knew about LTTE, and I'll bet there's lots more info out there that we could put to good use with the willing citizens of the DU community.

[H2O Man]

45. I like your ideas.

My blog can be found at the lower right hand corner of my DU posts usually; but it is : http://h2oman.blogspot.com

In regard to Nixon & the press: I own or have borrowed from the library a significant number of books on or by Nixon. Perhaps the single best for information on his press strategy is "From:the President," Bruce Oudes' collection of secret files from the administration. We too often thin of the tapes and "enemies' lists." But Nixon & Co. wrote huge amounts of memos that they assumed would never be made public. After Watergate, the laws changed on presidential "property."

That book is several hundred pages, of course, and the parts on the media are located throughout. While I always advocate reading books, not everyone shares my interest .... or has enough time. So I will likely put together a small collection on my blog in the coming weeks.

There are probably a dozen people from the old Plame Threads who would be interested in an organized effort. I believe that we need fifty. A group of 100 who were serious would be fantastic.

We have the resources. I question if there are 100 people with the discipline on DU. In order to do it, people need to be willing to actually send a letter in the mail, not simply e-mail one. That alone will reduce our numbers and/or effectiveness by at least 90%.

It might be worthwhile to consider an out-reach to politically active college/university groups. I suspect there would be a better chance of getting a dedicated group that could function in a decentralized manner.

[Nothing Without Hope]

46. So, the first step would be to form a DU group

Here are Skinner's rules for doing this:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=206x10
Basically, we only need 10 people (Donating Members) and a mission statement to start a group in a chosen forum -- which I would suggest should be the Media Forum.

That's the starting point, and I think we can do that quickly. But it would be wise, I think, to first give some thought to the goals. I think I can interest several other DU people in such a group and in fact talked it up on tonight's KOEB thread. Gathering the addtional people that would be needed for a serious campaign would come later.

I really like your idea of outreach to universities. That should be put on the list of brainstorming ideas that we will gather up. Other potential places abound, like UU churches and other community organizations, some of which are organized over wider areas.

Your info (and any links with more) on how to run successful LTTE campaigns falls into the category of optimizing traditional approaches that are already known to be effective.

And there is the issue of "target lists" - newspapers, community leaders of different kinds, churches, government officials and so forth. That will be another agenda item - figuring these out so that each media campaign can be targetted to the best choice of people.

Thanks for your blog URL. I have such an old, cranky computer and dial-up connection that Ihave turned off sig lines and avatars/images to speed thread loading, so I missed your blog address in the sig line.

I am greatly encouraged by our discussion today and think something good and effective can be developed out of this. Thank goodness you are knowledgable about these matters - I always have lots of ideas and am good at bridging people of different backgrounds and disparate subjects, but I have no background in media studies or organized political activism.

Have a good night. I'm looking forward to continuing this discussion. We may want to move it to a thread in the Media Forum, since that is presumably where the final group will be formed. Do you agree that that's a good place for the Group?

My best to you.

[Quakerfriend]

33. Oh, I like the way you are thinking!

Will Pitt consolidated the Gannon threads. Have you got it?

[GreenPoet64]

40. Very good observation! n/t

[robertpaulsen]

42. Even if he was a "journalist", he has NO RIGHT to protect his source.

Here is what John Dean recently pointed out:

Reporters and their sources (and the public) must remember that when journalists agree to keep a source confidential, they have entered into a contract. Indeed, reporters have been successfully sued for damages when they have breached their agreement. However, in most states, every contract has an implied warranty of good faith and fair dealing — meaning that neither a reporter nor a source can take unfair advantage of the other. This is important because insiders leak for an array of reasons, not always honorable, and may be using the reporter's confidentiality to protect themselves if, say, they are releasing information obtained improperly. If the source tried to enforce confidentiality, or collect damages from the reporter, the attempt would fail because of implied warranty.

Finally, if the confidential information relates to criminal activity, the U.S. Supreme Court said in 1972 (in Branzburg vs. Hayes) that should a grand jury investigating the crime need the information, the journalist must turn it over — despite the freedom of the press guaranteed under the 1st Amendment. (emphasis added)

No reporter can enter into an agreement that violates that law. Rather, an agreement of confidentiality is subject to it. The so-called news person's privilege, just like the attorney-client privilege or a president's executive privilege, is a qualified privilege. When a judge holds a reporter in contempt for violating the law, that judge is merely upholding the law of the land.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/sunday/commentary/la-op-sources6feb06,0,6080347.story?coll=la-sunday-commentary

Fitzgerald must know about this. And I hope he's handing Gannon's ass back to him in a handbag.