Anything new on Traitorgate?

[diplomats]

A couple days ago, someone posted a teaser from Drudge where he talked about a story on the scandal investigation in Time magazine, but I can't find it on Time's Web site. Also, isn't the deadline for turning over documents past?

[tom_paine]

1. Yes, both are down the Memory Hole, I would guess

We have newer, fresher atrocities, lies, frauds, and thefts to deal with now.

Orwell was absolutely right, he was just off by 17 years.

[dbt]

2. It went Down The Filter, dinnit?

and it's, like, so thirty seconds ago! Besides, Terri and Kobe are so much more, like, upbeat.Y'know?

:argh:
dbt

[progressiverealist]

3. nah, but I doubt it's over

remember this one is different.

Rove pissed off the C-I-friggin'-A!!!!!

[msanger]

4. moveon action today

I was in DC for a moveon.org action - we handed out avidatites (spelling?) at the executive office building and two metro stops, letting people sign to show they were not the leaker.

CNN had a camera crew, and TIME mag, and the Washington Times were there.

A news conference in front of the White House was scheduled for 10, and was supposed to have national press coverage. The idea was to keep teh story alive.

[diplomats]

5. Thanks for the info

I don't think the story is dying. I was just curious if there were any developments.

[eek]

7. the story was front page in UK's Guardian to-day!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,1067924,00.html

Wonder why it was there , so late in the game.

Oh and did you mean "affidavits" - as in sworn statement?

[G_j]

6. worth a try

I posted this a couple of weeks ago.

***Send amessage through moveon.org
"Attorney General Ashcroft must appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the White House's role in revealing an undercover CIA agent's identity. This act was a breach of national security and a felony and should be investigated by an independent party."
http://www.moveon.org/intimigate/?id=1744-3117687-olckdclqsk8mQupjEhr5pQ
---------------------------
***Don't Let Bush And Ashcroft
Off the Hook
KEEP THE PRESSURE ON!
Thousands continue to sign the petition demanding the appointment of an independent investigator to look into the illegal leaking by Bush Administration officials of a CIA agent's identity, apparently intended to intimidate the agent's husband.
Sign the petition
http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/
--------------------
***Send an E-mail to Congress demanding an independent investigation:
http://capwiz.com/voice4change/issues/alert/?alertid=3595131&type=ML
--------------------
***If you want Congress to demand a special prosecutor on the Bush Administration's illegal leaks to the news media just click here:
http://action.truemajority.com/index.asp?action=10073&ms=leak2
--------------------
***Demand an Independent Investigation into the Illegal White House Leak
Do you trust John Ashcroft's Justice Department to conduct a thorough and independent investigation of the Bush White House? Sign our petition below calling for a special counsel and we'll deliver your comments to President Bush, Attorney General Ashcroft, and members of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees.
http://www.democrats.org/justice/index.html?s=demnews
--------------
And from the DNC,

Take Action: Call for an Independent Investigation Into the White House Leak
The White House still has yet to force the persons who endangered national security by leaking the name of an undercover CIA agent to come forward.
President Bush could demand answers from his staff. But he continues to plead ignorance, and says he has "no idea" whether we'll ever find out who's guilty. Bush insists it's up to the Ashcroft Justice Department to investigate, even though his spokesman has already cleared Karl Rove and other top operatives of the crime.

We don't trust John Ashcroft to investigate President Bush -- Ashcroft owes his job to Bush and Karl Rove. It's time for Congress to express its support for an independent investigation by a special counsel.

Act Now: Call and Email Members of Congress

[mrgorth]

8. It's over but...

Here's a good story:
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20031103&s=alterman

[LoneStarLiberal]

9. Traitor What?

What was that?

That was before the Cubs and Red Sox were eliminated right?

Before Britney's newest video was released, right?

That was before Manning led the Colts comeback on MNF, right?

That's like so ancient!

[kiahzero]

10. It's pretty sad when the Onion has the best coverage:

http://www.theonion.com/3941/news1.html

[Stephanie]

11. Is Traitorgate dead yet? Not quite.

Traitoragate is NOT going away, I promise. Several mentions in the NY Times today.

From the National section:

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/22/politics/22LEAK.html

Ashcroft Briefed Regularly on Inquiry Into C.I.A. Leak
By ERIC LICHTBLAU
Published: October 22, 2003

WASHINGTON, Oct. 21 — Attorney General John Ashcroft's top aides have regularly briefed him on key details in the investigation into the disclosure of a C.I.A. officer's identity, including the identities of those interviewed by the F.B.I., a senior Justice Department official told members of Congress on Tuesday.

Mr. Ashcroft's regular, detailed briefings suggest that he has taken a more hands-on role in the politically charged investigation than the department had acknowledged. Senate Democrats said the arrangement threatened to compromise the independence of the investigation, a contention that Justice Department officials rejected.

<snip>

But Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York, said he was troubled to learn from Mr. Wray at Tuesday's hearing that the attorney general is receiving regular reports on the status of the inquiry and has been told whom the F.B.I. is interviewing. Mr. Schumer said the attorney general's close personal and political ties to the White House pose a potential conflict if Mr. Ashcroft knows the White House officials investigators plan to interview.

"When the line prosecutors know that the attorney general knows what they are doing, it could hamper their independence," Mr. Schumer said in an interview. "It means someone is watching over them, and that's not what we want in a case like this. It has a chilling effect, and it makes the case for Ashcroft recusing himself stronger." <more>

************************************************************************

From the Op-Ed page:

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/22/opinion/22FRYE.html

Let Someone Else Do the Talking
By ALTON FRYE
Published: October 22, 2003

WASHINGTON — In the latest debate over leaks of classified information, wisdom begins with a distinction: leaks elicited by a reporter while investigating a story often serve the public interest — and merit the journalist's protecting the identity of that source. Leaks initiated by self-serving antagonists in the political process — and calculated to exploit journalists as convenient mouthpieces — rarely serve the public interest and deserve less protection.

Most journalists are properly wary of the second type of leak, and often decline to publish them. That was true, it appears, for some members of the news media who received calls regarding Ambassador Joseph Wilson's wife, an undercover C.I.A. officer. Other journalists, as we now know, decided to act on the leak and disclose the identity of Ms. Plame. The Justice Department is investigating the case, and said last week that it hadn't ruled out subpoenaing reporters in order to find the source of the leak.

Yet journalists are dissuaded from naming sources of all kinds by both ethical considerations and pragmatic concerns over future access. This creates a situation in which a devious leaker is shielded by the journalist's ethical restraint — and derives de facto constitutional shelter under the reporter's First Amendment privilege.

Is there a cure for this problem? Yes: call it counterleaking. To protect against such manipulative behavior — and to discipline those who practice it — reporters could themselves assume the status of confidential sources and share those names with other journalists. <more>

Alton Frye is the presidential senior fellow and counselor at the Council on Foreign Relations.

************************************************************************

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/22/opinion/22BOOT.html

Full Disclosure on Leaks
By ROBERT BOOTH
Published: October 22, 2003

WASHINGTON — Secrets are created every day in the federal government: when National Security Agency personnel create codes, when C.I.A. case officers talk to their spies, when F.B.I. agents speak to their sources, when the Joint Chiefs of Staff discuss troop movements. When these secrets are revealed to the press, it is known as a leak. Not all leaks are created equal, however. Just as the motives for leaking differ, so do the consequences of a leak.

<snip>

The most serious kind of leak is the unauthorized disclosure of national security information. Robert Novak's revelation that the wife of former Ambassador Joseph Wilson was a C.I.A. "operative" falls into this category. Mr. Novak's source, by revealing the wife's name without approval from the C.I.A., has potentially compromised national security.

There are two main reasons unauthorized disclosures occur. One is to undermine the administration; the other is to silence a critic. All unauthorized disclosures are committed by people who ultimately wish to influence outcomes, events and opinions. In addition to endangering national security interests, such disclosures also subject their sources to prosecution.

We do not yet know how much damage was caused by Robert Novak's column about Mr. Wilson. But we do know that as long as there is a federal government, leaks will continue — and that people who substitute their personal judgment for their sworn oaths are leading America down a very slippery slope.

Robert Booth, who was a special agent in the State Department for 29 years, is writing a book about leaks and unauthorized disclosures.

[mlawson]

12. Good for Schumer! Are any other Dems

in Congress doing anything to keep the pressure on???