Is Novak off the hook?

[plcdude]

was listening to NPR (I know but I live in Oklahoma and that is as good as radio gets here) and some "experts" are claiming that Novak is not culpable. So any reporter can create any story and claim high ranking whitehouse officials as their source and not be in any way at legal risk? What do you all think?

[buff2]

1. He's a repuke

Repukes can do anything they want and get by with it. Nothing fair in THIS country anymore. Phucking hypocritical assholes.:grr:

[LearnedHand]

2. I wondered about this, myself!

HE'S the one who actually printed the name. HE should also be culpable (IMHO). :mad:

[Caution]

3. he apparently claimed today

that he was told by the CIA not to identify the operative by name. He ignored this and did it anyway. This means that he had advance knowledge that identifying her would be a crime, as such he is culpable.

[Rose Siding]

6. He's so clueless

I keep hearing him say, by way of an explanation, that it's somehow significant that he didn't know she's covert and it was in para 6 of his article.

SO WHAT!! The types that are interested in finding out who our agents are probably read farther into an article than bush does! And what Novak knew is irrelevant to the damage he did. Which DOESN'T exonerate him, imo. The CIA said don't- they didn't have to burn her to Novak to get him to lay off- they said DON'T.

[GOPFighter]

4. NPR always tries to get "both sides of the issue"

If they interview someone who claims the world is round, NPR manages to dig up someone who insists it's flat.

[patrice]

5. I saw this in corporate meeting rooms - before I was laid off.

"We" are unsure as to which course to take . . . ? For example, Publish or don't publish in Robert Novak's situation. When in doubt, go ahead with whatever you WANT to do and then claim "ignorance", or pass the buck, if you get "caught". It called plausible deniability.

If all of us remind everyone that this was quite likely the scenario for Novak's decision to do what he did, many people will recognize it.

[SEAburb]

7. It's not about Novak, it's about the Bush Adm / nt

.............

[plcdude]

10. well I agree

but Novak is important too for a couple of reasons:
1. His history with Rove

2. Freedom of the Press vs endangering the life of another

[screembloodymurder]

8. Not in my mind.

What goes around, comes around.

[annagull]

9. He may be off the hook legally, but I think he has become

a pariah. He's smashed his credibility (whatever he had) by changing his story like he did today, "I should not have used the word "operative". He wrote that column 2 months ago, now he issues a correction? Also, it seemed gratuitous to leak her name, it was not important to the story. He's gone into Geraldo land now.

[leftofthedial]

11. He's an aristocrat

the lords of the realm never pay consequences for their actions, except among themselves.

[karlschneider]

12. From another Okie...I will say again I do not believe Novak broke any

laws, but he was terribly stupid. But that being said, I have to wonder if we would ever have even KNOWN about this crap if he hadn't written that piece.
:eyes:

[Brucey]

13. He is acting like he is off the hook.

He must have received some favorable legal opinions. However, it is illegal to name a CIA operative. Also, if he refuses to say who gave him the information, he could be jailed for that. Reporters in the past have been.