Why are most DUers happy that Judith Miller could go to jail?

[napi21]

They are talking about the SCOTUS decision on cspan now, and asking for opinions on how people feel about that decision.

I think journalists should be allowed to keep their sources confidential. I think it's the only way we could ever get the really good dirt on what's going on in Gov't. I don't understand why so many DUers were looking forward to Judith going to jail.

[seemslikeadream]

1. TREASON

CRIME OF

http://www.cursor.org.nyud.net:8090/images/iheartchalabi.jpg

[napi21]

5. What treason. She didn't write anything!

I would almost buy your charge if you were referring to Novak, because HE DID write an article, but Judith didn't.

[Malikshah]

12. knowing a crime has been commited and doing nothing

wow--isn't that criminal in many cases?

[napi21]

21. I don't know. My problem is if anyone should be charged with

a crime here, it should be the journalist who actually wrote the article that outed Valerie. If you think about it, nobody even today would know her name if Novak hadn't published it!

We will never know all the stuff reporters actually hear and never print or report in the media. I'm sure there's lots of criminal stuff that just stays hidden for one reason or another.

I'm no fan of Judith Miller, but I think she's taking the hit for Novak and that's wrong.

[spooky3]

33. Both Miller and Novak should be held accountable.

There is a BIG difference between refusing to reveal a source who is reporting evidence of a crime and could be endangered if revealed, and refusing to name a person who is himself or herself engaging in wrongdoing. The public good is not served when a journalist or anyone else without exceptional confidentiality privileges (e.g., one's attorney) thwarts an investigation into a serious crime by refusing to provide evidence to authorities. The public good IS served when a Deep Throat, who is sharing evidence of wrongdoing with reporters who may be able to stop the wrongdoing, is protected.

There are rare cases when the lines may not be so clear, but Miller's case obviously is not one of them. She knew the leaker was wrong, and that she should have told the authorities when she was initially approached by this wrongdoer. Why else do you think she chose not to use the information in her column?

There may be lots of stuff we'll never hear about but that doesn't make this right. And, giving Miller a pass would INCREASE this problem.

Novak may have cooperated with authorities behind the scenes and may have plea bargained. Or they may be building their case against him. That doesn't mean he's getting a pass and she isn't.

[Maddy McCall]

32. Yep. That's EXACTLY the point.

[Hepburn]

109. No.

A witness to a crime is under NO obligation to report a crime. If you saw any crime committed, excepting circumstances under which you are a mandated reporter and/or have a duty of protection, you as a private citizen are under no duty to report the crime.

However, if as a witness, you have information regarding a crime and you refuse to testify after a valid court order is made compelling you to testify as to your knowledge of the same, then you have committed a contempt. And that is punishable with jail time in all jurisdictions of which I am aware. It is called a quasi-criminal action against the person who refuses to testify because as a punishment for the refusal, jail time is possible. That is what Miller and Cooper are facing and what went up to the SCOTUS ~ that they were compelled to testify and they claimed a privilege to not do so.

[Occulus]

115. deleted

banality

[Malikshah]

120. if as recipient of material-- and the receipt of said material is

in itself a crime...guess what-- you are an accessory.

Miller and Cooper et al. know damn well that revealing a covert operative is treasonous.

let them rot in jail.

[Hepburn]

121. True...

...but they STILL have no obligation to report any crimes, including their own crimes in receiving the classified info. No one, unless a mandated reporter, has any obligation to report a crime or a suspicion of a crime. HOWEVER, if called to TESTIFY as a percipient witness, then they have two choices ~ take the 5th if they were involved (unless given immunity) or testify.

There is a HUGE difference between REPORTING a crime and REFUSING to testify when called to do so and there is NO legal justification for the refusal.

[Malikshah]

129. what about obstructing justice?

a crime's been done-- you're asked about it-- you have the information yet you refuse to help....

that's not a crime?

may they rot.

[iverglas]

134. that's actually obstructing *police*

(in the performance of their duties). Obstructing *justice* is things like bribing jurors or judges.

But actually --

what about obstructing justice?
a crime's been done-- you're asked about it-- you have the information yet you refuse to help....
that's not a crime?

Nope, not under the rules of the common law, adversarial system.

No one is under any obligation to answer questions put to them by the police (or any other investigative / enforcement agency). And don't we tend to like it that way?

Obstructing police would be something like lying when questioned as a witness -- not just passive refusal to answer. (Or, of course, jumping on the cop's back as s/he's trying to arrest the bank robber ... ;) )

Just a clarification, since I gather that the issue in this particular case was refusal to comply with a court's requirement to speak, not refusal to answer a cop's question.

[Hepburn]

145. You can refuse to cooperate with the police or an...

...investigation. You simply cannot obstruct ~ which would be the destruction of evidence, creation of evidence, putting pressure on witnesses, giving false statements, etc. Being a witness to a crime and not reporting the crime is NOT obstruction of justice. However, if you are subpoenaed as a witness viz the crime to testify before a GJ and/or in court and you refuse to testify (without privilege or right to do so) and you are thereafter ordered by the court to testify, and you still refuse ~ that is a contempt of court. That is not obstruction of justice.

[flyarm]

159. but if you are a participant of the crime??

judith was a participant of the crime..so unless she turns the other person in..she is an accessory!

[Hepburn]

28. She defied a lawful order of a court

That is the down and dirty and the simpe reason she is going to jail ~ she is in contempt of court. She refused to answer questions from US Atty Pat Fitzgerald in the Grand Jury proceedings. He obtained a court order that she answer the questions. She refused to obey the court order and she and Cooper, who is in the same set of circumstances, appealed the rulings all the way to the SCOTUS ~ and the order from the Federal Judge still stands: They were found to be in contempt of a lawful court order and subject to sanctions for the offending conduct.

She may not be able to purge herself of the contempt by testifying as ordered in that the punishment for a contempt consists of two varieties ~ 1. To compel certain conduct; and 2. To punish for certain conduct. (Susan McDougal was of the first variety.) But, IMO, it would appear that from the sentence which could be imposed, that Miller will be punished for not testifying.

From what I read, the only two witnesses which US Atty Fitzgerald has remaining to conclude the GJ investigation are Miller and Cooper. That is why he went "balls to the walls" to get their testimony. Rumor has it that Novak sung and that the testimony of Miller and Cooper are necessary for corroboration of who in the WH outed Plame.

[bpj1962]

156. Criminal Intent

It does not matter who outed Valerie Plame. The act of outing an undercover operative is a felony. I am all for journalists being able to protect their sources particularly when it comes to exposing corruption and criminal wrongdoing. This was not the case with Valerie Plame. If Judith Miller knows the source then she must tell the grand jury who it is. Everyone is allowing the media to once again set the agenda without truly looking at how the law protects sources who are whistle blowers.

[LightningFlash]

2. God, she outed the name of a government CIA operative....

A fighting woman who would die for her country, that is married to JOE WILSON!!!!! The expert on god damned WMD. Its treason, period. :mad:

Treason for Novak too. :mad: :mad: Give them the cold cell.

[napi21]

13. But SHE didn't! That's my point! Novak did!

Why is everybody, including the judge in this case, going after someone who knows who outed Valerie, but not going after the only "journalist" who actually DID publish her name?

[LightningFlash]

20. Because she has her own source.

And is a shill for Rove. Novak wouldn't tell the truth so he might have to be brought on perjury charges.

[napi21]

23. But you never hear anything about him being charged.

All I ever hear about is Miller & the other journalist whose name I can never remember, but never the journalist who actually wrote the article!

I would have no problem if it were ALL of the journalists who got the information, but I don't understqand why it is only two!

[H2O Man]

24. Writing the article

wasn't illegal. If you choose to focus on that, it's a conscious decision on your part to ignore the actual issues involved in the case. The truth about why Miller & Cooper are being charged has been discussed on DU in great detail. If you want to ignore it, and keep talking about Novak's article, that's a choice.

[flyarm]

160. did it ever occur that it is novak and the person who broke the law

that they need others involved to implicate or confirm??

[Maddy McCall]

31. Because the criminal action was the source revealing Plame's name...

to Miller. Miller had direct contact with the person who illegally gave Plame's name to Miller.

The good thing is that the prosecutor isn't letting up. I'm hoping that Miller goes to jail, which will renew popular interest in the case.

[BobRossi]

3. There are no more journalists.

Only stenographers.
What Miller did was just a favour for Rove.

[hiphopnation]

157. spot on

:thumbsup:

[Justice]

4. There is no such thing as an absolute privilege -

The attorney/client privilege is not absolute, there are circumstances where an attorney must speak about something their client has said. The same for doctor/patient.

In the same way, the journalist/source priviliege is not absolute. In most cases, journalists should be allowed to keep their sources confidential. Here, the source was relaying information regarding a CIA operative. Outing that operative was potentially criminal activity. Why would we want to approve of/protect that disclosure?

[Just Me]

She sold us out.

That's all.

[KlatooBNikto]

6. judith Miller is an arrogant NYT shill who thinks that she can send

soldiers to die for an agenda she cooked up with her 'embedded' friend Chalabi.She is a savage woman who needs to be tried for treason or better yet sent for trial at a Nuremberg tribunal.

[oasis]

7. Miller needs to sit in a cell and review her research of WMD in Iraq.

[Malikshah]

8. Because she's a shill for the govt. Not a reporter

and she's party to a crime.

[hexola]

9. Didnt she meet Bin Laden?

?

[napi21]

16. Who cares? That's not what she's being accused of doing.

Her "crime" is not releasing information she has.

[Q]

10. If Miller was a 'liberal'...she would have been in jail...

...yesterday.

[catmandu57]

11. Because she is sleaze

and sleaze needs to be removed from civilized society, and locking this sleaze up may lead to bigger sleaze novcula and beyond.

[Maddy McCall]

14. In this situation, she's a witness to a criminal action.

Even former jailed journalists believe she should reveal her source, because of the criminal nature of the outing of Plame.

[mmonk]

15. Because she is supporting

an act of treason under the guise of protecting sources (those who engage in the treason, not whistleblowers). No law in the US supports that.

[ToeBot]

17. I'd feel allot better about it if Novak was joining them.

I'm still unclear on why he gets a pass. Wasn't he the traitor that actually published the information?

[napi21]

27. That's why I asked the question. I have no problem with

forcing ALL the journalists who got a call to fess up, but that doesn't seem to be what's happening. For some reason, they seem to be only going after two, and I don't understand that.

[Me.]

43. One

It is highly possible that Miller and Cooper were called is to impeach certain witnesses, like Novak and slap him and anyone else who lied with an obstruction of justice charge 2) Journalists do not have an absolute right to remain silent. The law states that if called before a grand jury they must testify, it is not a matter of choice. 3) Shielding criminals is not a matter of free speech or protecting a whistle blower, it is a conspiracy 4) the whole whistle blower spin is the creation of the WH and as usual distorts the truth of the matter and is a smokescreen put up to protect those who committed treason.

[H2O Man]

29. Publishing the article wasn't illegal.

The crime is when the White House officials told any journalists about Plame's identity. It doesn't make any difference - NONE - if the journalist then reports the story or not.

Thus, if the White House told 6 journalists, that is 6 counts .... or 6 separate crimes. Again, IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE IF ANY OF THE SIX JOURNALISTS WRITES A STORY ABOUT PLAME OR NOT.

The Grand Jury is investigating the leak of Plame's identity. They called all six journalists to testify. Only two have refused -- Miller and Cooper. Refusing to testify in this case is a violation of federal law. There is a consequence. Clearly, if four journalists follow the law, and two violate it, those two are going to be charged. This is not complicated.

[spooky3]

128. According to this apparent expert, the law's not as black-and-white as you

claim. And, unless you have been privy to all of the behind the scenes info, I don't know if any of us has all the facts as to what's been said and done.

This is a link to a transcript of an internet conversation with the Former Chief of the Public Corruption/Government Fraud Section of the DC U.S. Attorney's Office, who teaches White Collar Crime at American University, Washington College of Law, and George Washington U.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A17218-2005Mar8?language=printer

Bethesda, Md.: This entire case baffles me. Two reporters who didn't even report on Valerie Plame are getting punished, while Robert Novak seems to get a total pass. What is going on here? Is there someone behind the scenes pulling strings? I think it's criminal that Novak outed Plame and he should be brought to justice--as should the White House leakers. But I can't see what good it will do to go after the other two journalists.

Randall Eliason: A lot of people share that confusion. First, remember that this is just the investigation stage. No one has been charged with a crime yet. If anyone is going to be charged, it will most likely be the White House staffer who leaked the name to the reporters. That leak itself is a potential crime if certain conditions are met. It's true that Novak then published the name, but whether the law would apply to that type of action by a reporter seems to be less clear.

snip

At the end of the investigation we don't know whether anyone will ultimately be charged, including Novak, but the prosecutor can't complete the investigation and answer those questions without testimony from these reporters and others who know who was doing the leaking. So the fact that they are in trouble now really says nothing about what will ultimately happen with anyone who actually leaked the name, including Novak.

[H2O Man]

135. The law applies to

people with specific security clearances that allow them access to the knowledge of the identity of people like Plame. Read the specific law, and see if you think that it applies to anyone else.

[spooky3]

139. I don't claim to be an attorney, but I know that others who claim

to be don't agree with you, and that's important to know. That doesn't mean you're wrong. However, if you're an attorney, I'm sure that you know that (a) you need to have all the facts, not just those reported in the media about who did and said what; (b) there may be more than one relevant statute governing Novak's action, not just the one you cite; (c) there may be tort law that is relevant, e.g., if Plame is harmed by a deliberate and knowingly wrongful action on Novak's part--may not be a crime but may still be wrongdoing; (d) there may be a body of cases relevant to the statute you're familiar with, with broader interpretation than the strict language implies to you. For example, the body of law interpreting the constitutional protections on separation of church and state and searches and seizures prohibits actions by states and other gov. units even though the constitution may seem to the layperson to speak only about other units.

on edit--I had already read the statute you're concerned about, but as a non-attorney I would not want to say I know it is black and white. More importantly, my interpretation--whatever it is-- doesn't really address the points above.

[H2O Man]

144. You don't have to go far

to find people who disagree with me. That's a good thing. There should be discussion, even heated debate. But, when the dust clears, I hope you remember this. And we'll see who is right on this little piece on Novak.

[merh]

146. What party appointed this fellow to his past post?

Or better yet, what party does he support?

Just wondering. That does make a difference.

[H2O Man]

152. As far as I know,

Randall is a fine fellow. But the confusion he speaks of is only in the minds of people who are not familiar with what is occuring on this case. I spoke to a friend last night who laughed when I mentioned some of what has been claimed on here; he said that anyone who claims they are privy to inside information that Novak was "almost charged" with a crime is so full of baloney that they must be promoting an Oscar Meyer deal that could feed all of DU for a week.

[merh]

153. LOL - oscar meyer for a week!

I, too, have trouble believing anyone can know the inside workings of the GJ. If they claim to know what is actually happening, then they are merely speculating, as the proceedings are secretive.

[H2O Man]

154. As a rule

those who say, don't know
those who know, don't say .....

but, to be clear: Novak was never considered for prosecution.

[merh]

155. I've got my popcorn.

:popcorn: and I am just anxious to see what happens next. :popcorn:

Maybe the predictions were just a year off! :eyes:

[Hepburn]

34. There is no reason for Novak to go to jail since it appears he...

...he went to the GJ and cut a deal and sung his little heart out. If he cooperated and gave US Atty Fitzgerald what Fitzgerald wanted ~ i.e., named the source of the leak in the WH ~ there would be no reason to bring contempt charges against Novack. And...if he sung like it appears he has, he cut a deal for immunity for his testimony. IMO, Fitzgerald gave up the prosecution of Novak on the violation of the law on outing a covert operative to get a bigger fish ~ someone in the WH that was the source of the info. That is just the way US Attys work. They like the biggest fish involved in the crime. IMO, Novak is small potatoes compared to, say, someone like Rove.

What Fitzgerald wanted out of Miller and Cooper is corroboration of what Novak said. A few reasons for this: If there is a criminal trial, it is much harderto make a defense against 3 witnesses saying the same thing than against 1 testifying against the defendant. Further, testimony in the GJ is given under oath. If at the time of trial Novak, Miller or Cooper wished to "change" what they had said in the GJ, Fitzgerald has them under oat in the GJ and for several reasons, it makes it VERY hard for a witness to change his/her testimony under those circumstances.

[H2O Man]

37. He would have no reason

to "cut a deal for immunity." He did not commit a crime, and was not being investigated for any wrong-doing.

Fitzgerald could not possibly get corroboration of what Novak testified to from either Miller of Cooper. There is absolutely no reason to assume that Miller or Cooper had any knowledge of Novak's conversation with the White House officials. They are not suspected of participating in the call to Novak.

Fitzgerald is seeking corroboration on the testimony of one or two mid-level White House officials, from Miller and Cooper.

[crispini]

89. How do we know what Novak has testified to?

If Novak has testified to the identity of the leaker, Miller and/or Cooper could corroborate that that same person leaked to them.

Then Fitzgerald could get X on perjury, because X has obviously already lied to the grand jury about NOT being the leaker.

[H2O Man]

91. No they can't.

That in no way corroborates anything with Novak. This is simple. They can only corroborate what the person who spoke to them said. That is what the special prosecutor is looking for. It has nothing to do with Novak's testimony.

[crispini]

95. I don't get this.

Novak says X leaked to him. --> One person's testimony.

Miller and Cooper both say X leaked to them (hypothetically). --> Three people's testimony. Greatly strengthens the case against X.

:shrug:

[H2O Man]

98. In that sense yes.

But that doesn't corroborate Novak's testimony. Miller and Cooper were not on the phone with Novak, and hence could not possibly corroborate his testimony.

[crispini]

99. Ok, thanks!

Now I've got it.

[Hepburn]

105. It corroborates the SOURCE

That is the issue ~ INDEPENDENT corroboration of the same source from three parties. It is not whether the other reporters were on the phone with Novak and/or with each other ~ it is that they got the same information from the same SOURCE. And, in fact, did so independently of each other. That is what is important. Three witnesses to who was leaking ~ not that Novak correctly reported anything stated in a conversation between Novak and the source. That is what IMO Fitzgerald is going after.

[H2O Man]

106. Hannah has admitted

doing some of the leaking. Wilson notes that some have pointed to Hannah and Wurmser as being the two who called some journalists. Chris Matthews has gone on record as saying Rove called him with the information. Hence, it is safe to assume that there were different leakers.

[EnfantTerrible]

117. Tweety is on record?

Is there a link to the story?

I argue with friends about this case and would love to be able to direct them to this bit of info.

[H2O Man]

124. The first two paragraphs

of Joseph Wilson's book.

[EnfantTerrible]

126. Thank you

I haven't read it, but I will now.

[H2O Man]

130. It is a book

that all democrats should read. I am sure you will enjoy it. It makes some of the issues involved much clearer. (Wilson also notes the valuable work of Will Pitt!)

[EnfantTerrible]

140. I'm looking forward to it!

Thank you for the recommendation.

[Hepburn]

122. Corroborates the source....

...in the WHITE HOUSE.

[ProfessorGAC]

18. Arrogance & False Pretense Are Not Admirable Traits

There is no such privilege and there never has been, particularly when the subject matter is a potential crime.

Her holding to fraudulent first ammendment protecions is rooted in her own selfish motivation to maintain her high level reporting position, and not in the interest of the public at large. If she were protecting a whistleblower, the issue would be completely different.

In that case, she would be serving the public interest by exposing wrongdoing by people in positions of power and public trust. In this case, to protect her own precious resources, she is WITHHOLDING information from the public as to whom a potential felon may be.

There is nothing noble or intrinsically good about that.
The Professor

[Ganja Ninja]

19. She's protecting the White House felon. Let her rot.

There's plenty of more worthy causes to expend your energy on.

[H2O Man]

22. It isn't about DUers.

It's all about Judith. She is making the choice to disobey the law. There are penalties for that. DUers respect the law.

Reporters have the right to protect their sources involving "whistle blowers." Everyone agrees on that. This case doesn't involve a whistle-blower. It involves the government attempting to crush the family of a whistle-blower. And that's the difference between shit and sugar. DUers prefer sugar.

[napi21]

25. I might buy that, except why Judith and not Novak who actually

wrote the story that caused all this mess?

[H2O Man]

26. Then you choose

to ignore the truth. Writing the article is not a crime. That has been discussed at least a couple hundred times on DU. To keep asking a question that has been answered a hundred times seems pointless, if getting the truth is the goal.

[Hugin]

30. Judith Miller is in trouble for lying about the WMDs.

She should be put away for that.

[stanwyck]

70. I've seen her several times on Washington Journal

and she shamelessly regurgitated the whole Rummy spiel. She was really a groupie. She constantly fed the invasion beast by lending NYT legitimacy to the whole misbegotten campaign for war.
I don't think reporters should be forced to reveal their sources.
It's just difficult to feel sympathy for Miller.
She didn't do her job as a journalist.
She just repeated the administation's lies.

[ProfessorGAC]

35. I Believe Because It Is Susptected That. . .

. . .Novak has revealed the source. Fitz is looking for corroboration or extension. If Novak sang, he's not protecting a potential criminal and he's got nothing for which to be punished, legally speaking.

It's not a crime to publish the information. It's a crime to leak it. If he sang, there's no crime on his part.

The speculation, for some time, has been that he dropped a dime. Miller is leaning on some weak first ammendment argument that is apropos of nothing.
The Professor

[Hepburn]

36. Agree in part and disagree in part with your post.

I agree that the only legally logical conclusion as to why Novak is walking around is that he sung. But I think he sung because he cut a deal with the the government. IMO, he could be held on a conspiracy charge with the outing of Plame. The WH source had he info, but what was necesary to the completion of the crime was the publication of the name ~ and Novak did that. I would venture to say someone gave him a very good scare about what he did. Once the investigation got out of the control of Ashcroft and went to a special US Atty, Fitzgerald, the WH could not protect Novak. I do not think that whoever in the WH got Novak involved looked ahead and considered this possibility. They figured, IMO, that Novak was their stooge and they could protect him. So I disagree that Novak did nothing wrong by publishing the story. That was the act which completed the crime of outing Plame.

[H2O Man]

38. He did not "cut a deal."

There was never any consideration of a "conspiracy" charge against Novak. There was never any need to "protect" Novak. He did nothing illegal, and was never subject to "a good scare." Although Novak is an slim, it is important to move beyond dislike of him in order to understand this case.

[ProfessorGAC]

44. We Concur Waterman

The Professor

[H2O Man]

48. Yes.

It looks like the two of us may be called to teach an "Introduction to Plame" course on DU today. I've got to go buy my older daughter a bike .... darned kids grow so fast! .... but when I get back, I might put together a basic introduction, if you think it would be of value.

Anyone else interested? By the end of the day, participants will be able to identify who the weasals are, who the criminals are, and will understand exactly what is happening with the grand jury.

[ProfessorGAC]

49. I'll Look For The Thread

I'm traveling on biz this week, and will be on the plane tomorrow. But, should be on-line this afternoon and evening.

I'll play!
The Professor

[Hepburn]

101. Good....

....why don't you educate me. I have been counsel or sat 2nd chair in approx 15 fed GJ hearings. Educate all you wish. I await your input. Guess I did it wrong for about 25 years of practice....well, at least according to you two!

[Hepburn]

100. Nothing to do with dislike...

....I am a lawyer and was married to a former US Atty. Just sharing what I happen to know and have heard. Sorry if you do not agree.

[H2O Man]

103. And I stayed

at a Holiday Inn. Tell us what law Novak would have been charged with violating?

[Hepburn]

110. Sure:

The Espionage Act of 1917 and the Intelligence Identities and Protection Act of 1982

[H2O Man]

113. Really?

And please provide information on how Mr. Novak would have been charged, including a few of the articles that indicate that this was even a one-in-a-million possibility that Fitzgerald was considering.

[Hepburn]

119. How he would have been charged?

That is simple ~ read the text of the statutes. His conduct was within the res geste of the crimes if not within the elements of the crime itself. He is deemed to know the law and the leaking of the name of a covert operative is a crime. He is participated in the same ~ by leaking the name, which we all know he did ~ then he falls under the elements of the crime and/or a conspiracy to violate that particular statute. A conspiracy is charged as a separate offense. Novak did NOT have to be the party defendant originally in possession of the info. All he had to do was knowingly participate in the leak. Why is this so difficult for you to understand? (BTW: That was NOT a snide question.) Novak was the instumentality by which the crime was committed by the WH source and if Novak willing engaged in such conduct, he IMO is chargeable. If Novak acted with knowledge of the wrongfullness of his conduct, the mens rea (guilty mind) and the actus reus (the sufficient act) are both there concurrently and he would be chargeable on the offense and most likely chargeable on a conspiracy to commit as well. It is deemed, BTW, that everyone knows the law as I previously stated. So any attempt by Novak to put forth a defense that he did not "know the law" is most likely an invalid and BS defense.

All I can tell you is that having done criminal defense work for a very long time, both state and federal courts, and having a law partner who originally came out of Chicago, I know how Fitzgerald works. He was the USAtty for the northern district of Illinois. It is beyond the scope of a post on a message board to give you the history of Patrick Fitzgerald. But to say he is a digger and wants any and all corroboration which he can get, begs the issue. And Novak was his first source. The MO of most AUSAs and USAttys is to get the first witness and cut a deal to get the bigger fish. IMO, this is exactly what Fitzgerald did. Novak did not refuse to testify. That is obvious from Fitzgerald's conduct in going after Miller and Cooper. So the logical legal conclusion is that Novak sung. And why would Novak sing? Because by the terms of the elements of the statute and by conspiracy theories ~ Novak involved himself in the commission of a crime. The leak itself was the crime and Novak so participated.

Miller and Cooper are corroborating witnesses IMO as to the source o the info (the leak) in the WH. They have NOTHING to do with being witnesses against Novak. But....any AUSA or USAtty NEEDS more than one witness to a crime of this magnitude to take it to trial. IMO, there is NO way Patrick Fitzgerald was going to bring in a true bill from the GJ EVEN IF HE COULD with only one witness ~ Novak ~ to a leak by a Bush staffer/WH insider. Hence his "bulldog" stance with Miller and Cooper.

[spooky3]

143. thank you for educating me, if not others!

[ProfessorGAC]

40. You Didn't Read What I Said Correctly

I never said Novak did NOTHING wrong. But, Fitzgerald has already said that a reporter publishing information obtained from a gov't source, as long as true, is not a crime! It doesn't matter whether you or i agree, that's the law. Novak should not have published the name, he should have called the FBI. But, per the special prosecutor, Novak has not committed a chargeable offense.

I don't buy your conspiracy idea. That would be almost impossible to prosecute until after the fact. If we had the leaker indicted and convicted and the leaker said Novak was in on it early on, and that could be proven, ok. But, now that Novak has dropped dime, even that would be nearly impossible to successfully prosecute.

The only offense these folks can be hit with is contempt and obstruction by failing to reveal the name of a source who likely committed a crime while in a position of public trust. If Novak revealed his source, then there's no obstruction. He gets away with it. But, despite my distaste for that guy, i don't want to see anybody punished if no law has actually been broken.

Miller is protecting inside sources for her own interest, despite the fact that a felony likely occurred. It's not for her to put her personal interests above those of the country, when part of her duty is to inform the public. Her harboring of a "fugitive" is criminally culpable.

That's the part, i think you agree with.
The Professor

[napi21]

46. Thanks for the great explaination!

Yu answered my original question. As I saw all this BS after the SCOTUS decision not to hear the case, it appeared to me that many DUers were playing politics with this issue. They want Miller in jail because they say she's a shill for the WH. Although that may be true, it's not a reason to go to jail!

If the scenario you paint is true, it really isn't about politics but actually about breaking the law. That's what I want to see happen. Enforce the law, and if Miller gets caught up in it, TS!

[ProfessorGAC]

47. My Opinion Exactly

Harboring a felon is not noble, especially when one's own self-interest is what motivates it.

Thanks for the kind words.
The Professor

[warrens]

71. Novak is a target of the investigation, Miller is a witness

You're mixing apples and oranges. As a target, Novak legitimately used his Fifth Amendment rights to refuse to cooperate. As witnesses, Cooper and Miller have no such right.

They are covering up a crime. There is no legal right to protect sources anyway, but they stretched the convention that courts normally allow completely out of shape. They are in contempt of court.

[H2O Man]

75. There is no evidence

that Novak was in any way a target of the investigation.

[MsTryska]

39. here's the thing i don't get about all this:

well first i should preface by saying - all that time we wanted them to talk about Valerie Plame - it seems it's finally made it to the forefront.


Now - here's the deal. Miller and Cooper got calls outing Plame. So did Novak. Novak played the WH game, and ran the story. Miller and Cooper didn't run the story.

But more importantly - they aren't saying who they got the info from. Why are the Feds trying to force them to, and why isn't the WH stepping in on their behalf? Does the WH want the info made public? Or are Cooper and Miller being punished for not running what the WH wanted them to, despite the fact that it was illegal?

And if they are being punished by the WH - why is the WH letting the feds force miller and cooper to play their hand?

this is all so puzzling.

As for me - personally - now that this story is getting soem play - I wish Miller and Cooper would relent and just com out and say - So and So in the WH committed treason and outed Valerie Plame to me. So put that in your pipe and smoke it.

[H2O Man]

41. The White House

does not want them to tell which White House officials leaked the information to them. The White House "cover up" involves having two mid-level officials fall on their swords -- taking the blame for the leak. However, mid-level officials could not have known Plame's identity. Only a very few high level officials could have known. (Think about why democrats are asking the administration pointed questions about Bolton's desire to know WMD inspectors, then connect the dots .... because John Hannah, who is falling on his sword, worked for Bolton!)

[seemslikeadream]

42. Bolton

:thumbsup:

[H2O Man]

45. Exactly!

Miller & Cooper aren't being called to examine anything that weasal Novak has said. Think about the two men in the administration who knew about Plame's role -- including the case she was working on at the time her cover was blown. One is Bolton. The other is Bolton's boss.

[seemslikeadream]

51. John Bolton, Downing Street, Mohamed ElBaradei, and Valerie Plame

Sun Jun 19th, 2005 at 17:46:17 PDT
One of the nagging questions of the Valerie Plame case has always been who in the White House would have even known who Valerie Plame, covert CIA operative, actually was. The identity of covert agents is strictly compartmentalized information; even in high-level briefings on the actions or intelligence gathered by those agents, the agents themselves are identified by alias or code, not by name. The reasons for this practice are obvious.

And, in the case of the White House, there was hardly a pressing need to know the identity of one Ms. Valerie Plame. It is middlingly possible that members of the Bush Administration knew Mrs. Valerie Wilson as wife of Ambassador Joseph Wilson. It is less possible that more than a tight handful of persons -- if that -- would have known Valerie Plame, covert CIA operative. The highest crime in the Wilson/Plame case likely does not revolve principally around who, precisely, shopped the information about Plame's covert status to Novak and other D.C. journalists: instead, it rests with who told that political operative -- the one with a full rolodex and the skill to select presumed-friendly leak points -- that Plame was a CIA operative in the first place, and worthy of attack. Among the White House political staff, there was precisely zero need to know this information -- and if classified intelligence procedures were being followed, no opportunities to find out.

It is undisputed among all parties that Plame's covert work involved principally the gathering of intelligence related to weapons of mass destruction, which put her at an important nexus of operations in the runup to the Iraq War. At another nexus point across town, during the same period, was John Bolton.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/6/19/204617/845

Frist & McCain Raise Ante on Bolton Cloture Vote (TWN)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x1547952#1548295


New Bolton scandal re: NSA intercept - it's STILL not over yet....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3796591
Was Bolton behind death of State Department official?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=3525714

Bolton Said to Orchestrate Unlawful Firing (Downing Street Memo Alert!!)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x1523137

WoW! Bolton Stopped UN WMD Inspectors Going to Iraq!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=3785495

Harry Reid Speaks Boldly on Bolton this Morning:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=3866299


Is it at all possible that maybe, just possibly,... John Bolten
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

Did Bolton do Dick Cheney's biding to suppress info by outing Plame
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=3655510

[H2O Man]

64. Very well done! n/t

[seemslikeadream]

68. Galloway hounded by AIPACcell within U.S. Congress Bolton tied to same cel

Have you seen this? What do ya think?


Bolton had on his staff a "special adviser" named Matthew Freedman who pulled down a $110,000 per annum salary. Freedman is also a lobbyist who represents "private clients." He refused to tell the Senate Foreign Relations Committee who those clients were. However, it has been discovered that Freedman, a long time GOP operative like Bolton, is tied to the same oil industry network that once used Vice President Cheney and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice as agents of influence.

While working for the GOP-connected public relations firm of Black, Manafort, Stone & Kelly (BMS&K) and the PBN Company, Freedman counted Chevron, Bechtel, Shell, and the governments of Nigeria and Kazakhstan as clients. Freedman also represented Philippine dictator Ferdinand Marcos and Philippine President Salvador Laurel. According to The Washington Times, Laurel sought the assistance of the George H. W. Bush administration to oust President Corazon Aquino in a military coup.

Other espionage charges have swirled around Bolton. The State Department's Bureau of Near East Affairs reported that Bolton met with Mossad officials in Israel without obtaining country clearance from the bureau. During a trip to the United States, former Mossad official Uzi Arad was questioned by FBI agents about his connections to Larry Franklin. FBI officials were also interested in an Israeli Embassy official named Naor Gilon, the chief of political affairs and widely believed a major Mossad asset at the Washington diplomatic post. The FBI possesses videotaped surveillance tape of Gilon having a luncheon meeting with two AIPAC officials and Franklin at a Washington hotel.

Bolton is also under suspicion for his ties to Taiwan. Before joining the Bush administration, Bolton was on the payroll of the government of Taiwan, advocating UN membership for the breakaway island nation. Like Bolton's secret trips to Israel, Britain, and other nations, Donald Keyser, the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for East Asian and Pacific Affairs and a colleague of Bolton, made secret trips to Taiwan. He was arrested by the FBI in September 2004 after he was witnessed passing classified documents to Taiwanese agents in Washington.

There is ample evidence of a major foreign intelligence penetration of the United States State and Defense Departments, as well as U.S. intelligence agencies, involving Franklin, AIPAC officials, Mossad agents, and leading individuals in the neoconservative network operating from inside the White House, the Pentagon, the State Department, the U.S. Congress, and think tanks such as the American Enterprise Institute, Washington Institute for Near East Policy, the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, the Heritage Foundation, and the Hudson Institute. Bolton is a central figure in this cabal.

The following memo from NSA Director Gen. Michael V. Hayden refers to suicides affecting employee and mission challenges. Like the State Department, CIA, and Pentagon, NSA is losing experienced intelligence professionals to "suicides." Without trustworthy law federal law enforcement and independent broadcasters, these deaths will continue to go uninvestigated and unreported.

http://www.onlinejournal.com.nyud.net:8090/Special_Reports/051305Madsen/051305Madsen/NSA-1-500.gif

http://www.onlinejournal.com.nyud.net:8090/Special_Reports/051305Madsen/051305Madsen/NSA-2-500.gif

http://www.uruknet.info/?p=m11735&l=i&size=1&hd=0

[H2O Man]

108. Some things never change .....

Freedman is to Bolton what Tom Huston was to Bob Haldeman, so to speak. These people have betrayed America.

[MsTryska]

52. So then.....isn't forcing Miller and Cooper to speak

a good thing?

for Democracy, I mean?

Shouldn't we be pleased the Courts are pushing this one?

[H2O Man]

63. I am.

And I do not think that anyone should be upset, unless they approve of the exposing of Plame to punish Wilson for whistle-blowing.

[swag]

50. There's an incredible lack of clarity on Judith Miller and what she

did and did not do.

see this thread, for example:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=3969673&mesg_id=3969673

[H2O Man]

65. There is a difference

of opinions. That would not indicate an "incredible lack of clarity" in understanding what poor Judith did, or did not do.

[swag]

72. Some folks (not you) seem to think that Judith Miller outed Valerie Plame.

I would call that a lack of clarity.

[H2O Man]

74. They think she may have participated.

And that is a valid concern. Until she is before the grand jury and honestly answers questions, there is reason to suspect that she has cooperated with the administration to a high degree. If she helped spread their lies about WMDs, it is not unreasonable to question if she participated in spreading other information to protect those lies.

[Douglas Carpenter]

53. This judicial precedent is more apt to be used against progressives in the

Progressive journalist have many many times used inside sources sometimes with classified information.

Establishing a precedent that journalist sources cannot be kept secret is a very, very dangerous precedent..However much I might want to see Karl Rove and Dick Cheyney dragged out of the White House in handcuffs..

_______________________________________



ABOUT IWTNEWS
Independent World Television is building the world’s first global independent news network. Online and on TV, IWTnews will deliver independent news and real debate from professional and citizen journalists -– without funding from governments, corporations or commercial advertising. Using the web to organize and raise funds across borders, IWTnews is building an international movement for democracy.

http://www.iwtnews.com/

[H2O Man]

66. Can you list

those "many, many times" that this has been used against progressive reporters?

[realFedUp]

54. this thread is flamebait IMO

Where is the poll saying most DUers are happy
that Judy goes to jail?

Judith had every opportunity to get her source(s)
to waive their anonymity for her as did the other
journalists in this case. She chose not to.

I think in this case, where irreparable damage
was done to the lives and missions of CIA agents working
undercover in foreign countries is a case where
the source needs to be held accountable and the
"journalists" in this case should pass on the
names of those.

What I want is the source of the outing be held
accountable to federal laws. Why Judith is protecting
her White House sources, when they won't come
forward to help her, is beyond me. Especially when
she wrote so many untruths about the pre-Iraq invasion.
Her sense of moral truths tends to be fluid.

[napi21]

57. If I understand what flamebait is, you're wrong about this thread.

I started it becaue I was reading things on DU and CNN was reviewing the SCOTUS decision not to hear the journalists case, and that Miller and Cooper might go to jail. It reminded me of the many threads I've read where DUers were happy this bit*h was going to jail. I decided to ask why so many wanted her to go to jail.

As I understand flamebait, it's posting something deliberately that you know is going to get a lot of controversy. That was sure not my intention.

I had the feeling that the folks who want her in jail are doing so because they detest this Admin, and want to punish anyone who they think has any link. I hate this Admin too, but I don't want other people to pay the price for all their failures.

One poster actually did a great explaination (The Professor) and I agree with him that Miller should be held accountable for aiding in the coverup of a crime.

[realFedUp]

59. and if you had read my post, I stated the same thing...

A journalist shouldn't be able to hide a source
that has committed a crime.

[Proud2BAmurkin]

55. Because it's JUSTICE

.

[chopper]

56. snuh

"I think journalists should be allowed to keep their sources confidential."

i think journalistic confidentiality only should apply to situations involving actual journalism. this isn't one of those cases, as she never wrote or published anything about it.

i mean, this isn't a case of a journalist hiding a source of an assertion that they published, this is someone hiding the source of a random phone call which led to no published article. another way, its someone hiding a source of an assertion published in an article by their competition.

should someone be able to keep any source of anything completely confidential just because that person is a 'journalist'?

besides, outing a CIA operative is some serious bidness. technically, its aboot national security.

[lonestarnot]

58. For protecting a bullshit bushitler pusher!

[Stephanie]

60. A whistleblower outs the criminals. This was a CRIMINAL committing a CRIME

by outting a covert agent. Huge difference. She wasn't protecting a whistleblower, she was a witness to a crime.

[H2O Man]

67. Pure & simple. n/t

[WilliamPitt]

61. 100% agreed

The day journalists' ability and right to protect sources is broken for good will be the day the last vestiges of effective journalism are destroyed forever.

Miller and Novak are crappy exemplars of this ideal, but it isn't about them. It's about the precedent set if they are broken. It's about the 10,000 other journalists who will never again be able to get sources who can trust they will not be exposed and themselves destroyed.

I don't give a crap about Miller and Novak. But if this wall is breached, we are all in a lot of trouble. Not even getting Bush on the Plame thing will be worth the damage done and the precedent set.

[H2O Man]

76. If you could give

a single piece of supporting evidence that indicates this case changes the law from what it has been for decades, it would be appreciated.

[tavalon]

149. I dunno Will

I think there is a world of difference between protecting a source and being an accessory to a crime.

What if a journalist was invited to watch a murder. Would it be alright for them to protect their source?

I can't see it. And I don't see how this even puts a chip in the wall.

As a healthcare provider, I am obligated by my license to protect my patient's private information but that ends if I receive foreknowledge from that patient that he/she is going to commit a crime that will harm another. Then, my obligation to report this to law enforcement becomes the requirement. I just don't see this as being any different.

Edited to add a lost period........

[jmaier]

62. It's all emotion.

She knows something that could hurt Bushco and won't fess up. We want to hurt Buscho. She won't help. Ergo, she should be punished. Legal or justice issues are secondary.

[Douglas Carpenter]

69. What if an "American Downing Street Memo" is leaked??

Such a document will almost certainly be classified--should the journalist who report it and refuse to acknowledge their sources be jailed??

This question--like most legal questions and court decisions is about precedent....


________________________________________




http://www.iwtnews.com/

ABOUT IWTNEWS
Independent World Television is building the world’s first global independent news network. Online and on TV, IWTnews will deliver independent news and real debate from professional and citizen journalists -– without funding from governments, corporations or commercial advertising. Using the web to organize and raise funds across borders, IWTnews is building an international movement for democracy.

http://www.iwtnews.com/

[H2O Man]

77. Easy to answer ....

This case isn't about protecting a whistle-blower. Whistler-blowers reveal information about government corruption. This is the exact opposite. It is about corrupt government officials attempting to destroy the wife of a man who exposed their lies.

Also, this case involved nothing new as far as precedent. Nothing at all. It is based entirely on existing law. If you feel there is any precedent, please name it.

[Douglas Carpenter]

80. the precedent is whether or not reporters can be compelled

the precedent is whether or not reporters can be compelled to name their sources...if that is the case..this precedent is more likely to be held against progressive journalist than rightwing journalist in the future.

[TorchTheWitch]

82. it's NOT a precedent!

the precedent is whether or not reporters can be compelled to name their sources...if that is the case..this precedent is more likely to be held against progressive journalist than rightwing journalist in the future.

This ISN'T a precedent. For decades journalists have NOT been legally permitted to protect a criminal source, and for good reason... why should criminals be legally allowed to be protected by journalists? WHISTLEBLOWERS, however, are protected, and should be.

If whoever committed the CRIME of leaking Valerie Plame to the journalists had understood that they could not expect protection from said journalists under the law, they wouldn't have committed the CRIME in the first place.

[H2O Man]

86. Nope.

It's not a precedent.

[bemildred]

73. Secrets are bad. Lies are bad. Period.

Reporters should be responsible for what they say and do just like anyone.

[The Magistrate]

78. Ms. Miller's Problem, My Friend, Is This

Mr. Fitzgerald is doubtless trying to prove a perjury case. He must have some evidence, or testimony from someone (Novak springs to mind), that a person in the political apparat called several reporters with the information about Ms. Plame, and a sworn statement from that person denying having done any such thing. The more testimony he can gather from persons who say, yes, I did get such a telephone call, the sounder the case for prosecution, and the greater the chance of getting a roll-over upwards to whoever directed the telephone calls be made. It is this that Ms. Miller is obstructing with her silence. It is not a question of shielding a source who has given information of value to the public interest that otherwise might remain concealed; it is a question of sheltering a criminal act of political manipulation against the public interest, and even against the national security. She has no more of a leg to stand on then does a fence asked, well, who brought you the truck-load of refrigerators...?

[bemildred]

81. That is a cogent argument, and I agree with it.

But I consider that as a matter of policy, all government business should be conducted in the light of day in the first place. It was around the time we swallowed the idea of "Government Secrets" that things really started to go to Hell in this country. But it is true that is somewhat astray from the point of this thread. :-)

[The Magistrate]

83. Certainly All Should Be Open, Sir

But it really never has been. Secrecy can be found in Gen. Washington's administration....

[H2O Man]

104. People would do well

to read Arthur Schlesinger's "The Imperial Presidency" which is a great study of this type of secrecy.

[bemildred]

151. "The war against secrecy" goes on Sir.

As long as we can make war on abstract nouns, I don't see why
I should not have my own. But, seriously, the question was why
am I happy to see her serve time, and it's because I don't like
the secrets and lies, so I addressed the question. I did not suggest
that perfect openness was achievable, just that it was the proper
goal.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

147. Very well said! Excellent!

[DinahMoeHum]

79. Judith Miller was the NYT reporter most responsible for spouting

the bullshit about WMDs in Iraq in the months prior to the 2003 invasion. She was apparently getting most of her information from Iraqi exiles like Chalabi, who had obvious ambitions and stakes in a US intervention.

THAT is why she doesn't garner much sympathy here at DU. Most of us consider Judith Miller a media whore and not a journalist.

Valerie Plame doesn't even enter the equation here.


:evilfrown:

[kaitykaity]

84. Judy played stenographer for the Bushies re: WMD.

She took down every scary freaking word and put it
in the paper.

Special case, that one.

:grr:

[robertpaulsen]

85. ATTN EVERYONE: SCOTUS SET THE PRECEDENT IN 1972!!!

I've posted this multiple times on several threads. I'm going to keep posting this until DUers get the message.

This is from John Dean:

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.

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.

more...

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

That is why most DUers are happy that Judith Miller could go to jail. Because she fucking SHOULD.

[crispini]

87. Re: Novak -- HE OBVIOUSLY TALKED, PEOPLE.

It's completely obvious. A lot of people on this thread is whining that Novak is not going to jail, and wondering why. Because NOVAK OBVIOUSLY TOLD THE PROSECUTOR WHAT HE WANTED TO KNOW, i.e. WHO THE LEAKER IS.

Novak cut a deal and he told the prosecutor the name of the leaker. Now the prosecutor is trying to substantiate Novak's information by leaning on Miller and the other journo. If the prosecutor can verify the name, he can get the leaker on the basis of LYING to the grand jury. But he's gotta substantiate the evidence.

That's my take on it, anyway.

[H2O Man]

88. He talked.

But he didn't cut a deal. There was absolutely no reason for him to.

[crispini]

90. Isn't just publishing Plame's name a crime?

Or am I confused?

[H2O Man]

92. You are confused.

Leaking her name to Novak was a crime. Leaking her name to Miller was also a crime. And leaking it to the other four, including Cooper, was a crime. That is six crimes, or six "counts."

The reason they need Miller & Cooper to testify is that John Hannah is attempting to take "full" responsibility, while denying criminal intent. Fitzgerald is trying to corroborate, or expose lies, in the testimony of White House officials. It is not about Novak.

Should Novak have printed her name? Clearly not. Especially after he called CI and they asked him not to. But his article was not illegal.

[crispini]

93. K, thanks!

:hi:

[H2O Man]

94. I'm still hoping

to hear if Fitzgerald takes any steps today. I do not anticipate him allowing the journalists to stretch this out longer.

[spooky3]

132. please see my post #128--not all attorneys agree with H20.

[H2O Man]

136. Better yet

read the specific law. See if it mentions anyone other than those with specific clearances that allow them access to the identity of people in undercover intelligence positions.

[pgh_dem]

127. Hi H20 Man - have you got a link to info on John Hannah?

Also, what leads you to believe he is one of the leakers, and further, what leads you to believe it is not possible that he is solely responsible?

Sorry for lotta questions, just first I've seen so declaratively about someone I haven't heard of...

ps i agree with all other statements you made, except what Fitz is trying to do (though I'm being won over to that opinion, up til last week I thought he was draggin ass hoping the case would go away)

[H2O Man]

131. Wilson's book ....

I think page 445, although my memory may be off a bit. Also, I think that one of the old "Plame Threads" group members is going to put up some of the old threads .... some of which have more on Hannah.

[Hepburn]

111. In a manner of speaking, yes...

....because is it part of the "res geste" of the crime committed by the WH source of the name.

[Hepburn]

107. I agree with John Dean's analysis.....

...of the possible criminal conduct of Novak. Yes, he could be charged and, yes, the elements are there to charge him. Sorry, but there would appear to be a conspiracy and he would be involved. There was a LEAK of Plame's name....and WHERE did that leak appear? Novak. A conspiracy is chargeable as a SEPARATE crime. And, therefore, Novak could be charged for this conduct. To publish the name in and of itself is criminal conduct and chargeable as the same.

I have done enough federal criminal defense work to happen to know that and even if I had not done that, as a lawyer, I agree with John Dean's analysis of the possible criminal culpability of Novak.

Suffice it to say, what Novak did in and of itself could be charged as criminal conduct. If you do not agree with me ~ I could not care less. But I would suggest you speak to someone who is admitted to federal practice and who has done criminal defense work in the federal courts and see if they agree with me or not. I would venture that they would agree.

[H2O Man]

133. Regarding John Dean ....

in his book, "Worse Than Watergate," he speaks about Novak, but says nothing about any possibility of old Robert being potentially charged with any crime. Dean writes insightfully about those who could be charged with a conspiracy, but identifies them as being within the White House.

I have seen & read a number of things from him since -- his book review in the NYT of Wilson's book was great -- but obviously it is possible he has said Novak was likely to face legal charges, and that I didn't see it or hear about it.

Please provide the source of your information showing that Dean believed Novak was likely to be charged with a crime for writing the article? Thanks in advance!

[Disturbed]

97. Protecting a criminal who has commtted a crime is not...

protecting a source. It is obstruction of justice. Yeah, Ms. Miller is presstitute but that is not what she is being charged with. She and Cooper are obstructing justice. Right now she is playing victim and garnering support for her bogus position. I suspect that after a few weeks in jail she will reveal what she knows.

[Hepburn]

114. What the problem is with Miller and Cooper is...

...that independent of anything which has to do with the leak of Plame's name, they committed a contempt. They refused to obey a lawful order of the court compelling them to testify. Thus, the contempt charges and the finding of contempt. Their defense to the same was that they were privileged to not testify. The court denied the claim of privilege and compelled them to testify ~ and they still refused. This is -0- to do with the leak of Plame's name, but it is solely about the refusal to testify ~ i.e., a disobedience of a valid court order. That is what Cooper and Miller are being punished for.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

148. It's a good take, IMHO.

[Walt Starr]

96. Because she's a witness to the commission of a crime and refuses

to testify before a grand jury.

That, in and of itself, is also a crime.

[Hepburn]

116. Sort of....

....merely being a witness who is not a mandated reporter or who owes no duty of protection, no one is obligated to report a crime. However, the problem is that when subpoenaed in an investigation of a crime and before the GJ, the witness to the conduct refused to testify, that is the issue. And the specific issue is that it is a disobedience of a valid court order to do something. That is a contempt. That is what both Miller and Cooper are being punished for: They were ordered to testify and still refused to do so.

[tavalon]

150. Wow, I didn't know that

I thought if someone was a witness to a crime and didn't report it, they became an accessory.

[wishlist]

102. She has prevented prosecutor from proving the leaker has lied to gr jury

The investigation involves not just identity of the leaker, but probably the leaker's allegations in their defense. The leaker has probably claimed that they thought it was common knowledge because some reporters such as Miller already knew Plame's CIA identity. She and Cooper have refused to answer questions about what was discussed with the leaker that would clear this matter up for the prosecutor. I believe that her refusal to testify is standing in the way of the prosecutor being able to wrap up a charge of perjury against the leaker.

[Occulus]

112. I'm shocked people here are swallowing the spin

This goes way beyond the rights of journalists to protect their sources. Personally, when an entire operation being run by a deep-cover agent such as Ms. Plame's was gets outed in such a sly and sneaky manner, strictly for political purposes, and when the actions she was taking were so vitally important to gathering vital intelligence prior to the waging of a war (however unjust, and especially when that intelligence may have averted war altogether), no journalist involved in uncovering such an operation should go unpunished.

This situation cannot be compared to that which exposed the Pentagon Papers, or some such. It's one thing to uncover wrongdoing; it's something entirely different to uncover rightdoing.

[Parrothead Terp]

118. WE ARE GONNA BE SCREWED

the scotus and this administration will gladly allow Judith Miller to go to jail for this. they know at some time, maybe after they leave that the media will start to question all the illegal activities that went on in this white house. now, no one will want to know for the fear of going to jail. The next Bob Woodward will be in prison for keeping "deep throat" a secret.

[jmatthan]

123. Judith Miller is NOT a journalist

She was a pimp for Ahmed Chalabhi and hence should not be able to claim any exemption under the journalist clause.

Is Jeff Gannon a journalist? No way.

Just because one works for a newspaper and has a registration with the whoring Press Club, does not make one a "journalist".

A journalist is one which does the job of a journalist - not the job of a pimp.

Jacob Matthan
http://jmpolitics.blogspot.com
Oulu, Finland

[AlCzervik]

125. Her behaviour in the run up to the war was unspeakable

thats my problem with her truth be told.

[confludemocrat]

137. Not happy that she's going to jail for this, but certainly deserves jail

for being a handmaiden to lies, death and destruction.

[H2O Man]

138. The chickens are

coming home to roost. I'm an old farm boy, and chickens coming home to roost never made me sad; matter of fact, they always make me kind of glad.

Just a Little paraphrasing ....

[Name removed]

141. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[spooky3]

142. WaPo: Time turned over Cooper's info plus comment from Novak

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/30/AR2005063000205.html

Time Inc. announced today it will comply with a court order to hand over the notes of correspondent Matthew Cooper to a prosecutor investigating the leak of an undercover CIA operative's identity, and so avoid jail time for the magazine reporter.

snip

Plame's name first appeared in Novak's column on July 14, 2003. He wrote that two anonymous government sources had told him that Plame had recommended her husband for a CIA mission to assess whether Iraq was attempting to purchase uranium for use in a nuclear weapons program. Novak has refused to comment on whether he cooperated with Fitzgerald. Yesterday, in an interview on CNN's "Inside Politics," Novak said he is still barred from talking about the investigation but said he will write about it when it ends. He said he thinks the facts will surprise people.

"I deplore the thought of reporters -- I've been a reporter all my life -- going to jail for any period of time for not revealing sources." he said. "They are not going to jail because of me . . . and those people who say that don't know anything about the case."

[flyarm]

158. because it was her propaganda with chalabi

that helped cause the deaths of over 1,700 of our troops and well over 100,000 innocent iraqi deaths!

good enough reason??
i hope she rots in prison!