So remind me again, why is Judith Miller going to the slammer,

[Goldmund]

but Novak is not?

[democracyindanger]

1. I think he spilled the beans.

After all, he's a sniveling coward.

[Hissyspit]

2. He sang his weasly heart out?

One guess, anyway.

[warrens]

3. Novak=target. Miller=witness

They want to prosecute Novak, but they need Miller as a witness. When you refuse to testify under oath, and you are not the defendant, you are in contempt of court. Period. There are exceptions, but since she did not call someone and promise anonymity, she has no case. I am a reporter, and if someone calls me and blurbs some criminal thing, like I just held up a bank, ain't that cool, they have no right to expect me to protect them. They are protecting felons. End of story.

[tsuki]

9. But Judith Miller has never acknowledged that she was told anything.

So, how does the government know she was told? That is the question that I consider is the most relevant.

Did Novakula say she had been told? Was he there when she was told? Just what was the evidence provided to the SECRET grand jury? Lies, suppositions, rumors, hearsay? We do not know. Grand juries are secret. And if a grand juror asks a question, they are ridiculed and marginalized. The prosecution controls the grand jury absolutely. And, the grand jury is a vehicle to force indictments if independent investigation by an authorized entity cannot produce evidence for an indictment.

This is why the grand juries must be called under question. If she never admitted being told, what is the evidence that she was told. Was it hearsay, or was it evidence? Is it an investigation, or a political cover-up?

[ogradda]

4. All men are created equal

is considered even more quaint than the Geneva Conventions?:shrug:

[Me.]

5. Read This Thread

and Kos. It's an excellent summation.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1889342

[Goldmund]

6. Thanks very much

to all who pitched in... I get it now, I think.

[Warpy]

7. Apparently PBS reported a month ago that Nofacts sang like a birdie

so he may be off the hook. What they're probably looking for is corroboration from other journalists who admitted the story was shopped to them but won't reveal the source.

After all, if it's as high up as we all think it is, they're going to want more than one source to spill the beans.

I don't honestly think Gannon/Guckert did the shopping. They'd never have believed him. I think this time the White House had to do its own dirty work. If they want to nail these bastards, they're going to need all the witnesses they can get.

[Bravo411]

8. Because ....

It's not about finding and prosecuting the person who leaked the name of a CIA agent, It's about intimidating journalist who would write articles using government sources that whish to remain anonymous.

Novak was a willing accomplice in this.

He either rolled over and violated journalistic ethics and integrity by disclosing his source, which would be a breach of a confidentiality agreement and leaves him open to a serious lawsuit. Or he had no such agreement in place and the source knew Novak was going to give him up and that they really weren't going to go after him outing the agent and instead were going to go after the reporters who did have agreements in place to both show government officials that reporters can't be trusted and to show reporters that they'll go to jail for trying to protect their source.

In my opinion, this is the mother of all legal-spin-jobs that they've ever done to the free press.

Novak's a Neo-Con tool.

(Woo-Hoo, my one-hundredth post.)

[Goldmund]

10. Welcome to DU!

And congrats on the 100th post -- a good post at that! :hi:

[tsuki]

11. Novak has been accused of being part of Operation Mockingbird, a

CIA attempt to control the media. As a CIA operative, he would have had to have agreed not to expose any CIA operation that was vital to US interests, including the names of any CIA undercover agents. If he did, he would be classified as a TRAITOR.