Robert Novak belongs behind bars for not telling on WH leaker!

[Hubert Flottz]

Any moderate reporter would be behind bars until they talk, but due to Reich Wing bias in the press and the courts of this country, Novak in on TV every day! Novak should be forced to come clean under oath, or to go directly to jail like other reporters in the past have!

Look at the Record .........................

http://www.rcfp.org/jail.html

[Cocoa]

1. I can't believe he's still working

his explanations on why he published her name make absolutely no sense.

[The Zanti Regent]

8. You forget the power of the MAGIC (R)™

Republicans can get away with murder!

Ask Pickles...

[librechik]

47. I'm dismayed that CNN took no action against thius monster

He should be on hiatus until it's cleared up whether he's Satan himself or just a minion. Whenever I see him I want to shove the TV up Isaacson's ass. I bet I'm not alone either.

Any programming decision that goes AGAINST ratings (like when MSNBC fired Donahue) is automatically revealed as solely political.

[Clete]

2. Saying that he should be arrested for protecting a source

sounds right wing to me. I don't care for Novak, but freedom of the press means they have the right to protect their sources. After all, does anyone really know who "deep throat" is yet?

[blondeatlast]

4. I'm conflicted about this. Woodstein exposed corruption at the

highest level of US government. Novak's action COULD (perhaps) undermine national security.

There seems to be a fundamental difference between "Deep Throat" and Novak; I just can't put my finger on it.

Journalists should definitely be allowed to protect their sources, though.

[Clete]

5. If he is forced to reveal his source then the next time

there is corruption to be uncovered in the highest level of US government, that canary won't going to sing. A better way is to let internal investigations and external investigations uncover the leak.

[elperromagico]

16. Internal Investigations?

Excuse me if I don't trust George "We May Never Find The Leaker" Bush or his Republican cronies in Congress to get to the bottom of this.

[Clete]

17. I agree with you, but giving them the facade of PC is okay.

I really want Congress to get in there and demand answers.

[atre]

22. The fundamental difference is clear

Woodward committed no crime. Woodward's source committed no crime.

In this case, Novak and his source both conspired to disclose the identity of a covert CIA agent, a federal crime. Both are guilty (Novak through the "conspiracy" criminal charge, or- if not that- through an "accomplice" charge).

Woodward was protected someone who helped expose a crime of impeachable magnitude. Novak is protecting someone who committed a crime of even greater magnitude.

[newyawker99]

27. Hi atre!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[atre]

40. Thanks

Actually, I've been lurking for a while.

[Muddleoftheroad]

44. No fundamental difference

It's all covered under freedom of the press. Without a free press, we are not free.

[IggleDoer]

7. But the White House could take away his WH press credentials

It's curious that he still enjoys favored reporter status by the WH. And Helen Thomas has been sent to the back row!

[Clete]

9. I don't think his WH press credentials would be taken away

as long as he doesn't leak the source. Remember he's one of them.
Poor Helen, though, she truthfully called Bush the worst President ever. No wonder she got banished. I must say Ari didn't do this, so maybe he's not such a bad guy after all. He also apparently had his belly full of lying for the Prince of Darkness and quit while he was ahead.

[Hubert Flottz]

11. Bush Got Even With Poor Helen just like he got even with ...........

Mr Wilson! Bush takes pride in evening up the score! BTW, I thought dAnn was Deep Throat!

Look what the Repubs did to Susan McDougal for not telling on her own husband! Repub Drones like Novak are above the law the Clintons were not! I believe Novak is sweating as I type, but it's not near enough a price to pay for what damage he did to that family and his country!

Democrats are forced to live by the letter of the law, but a Republican yes man can do ANYTHING and skate away untouched!

[Hieronymus]

Junior is

so sophomoric in his "get even" fixation. The fool has vowed to veto other legislation to "get even" with the Senate for voting against him on travel to Cuba.
Who could have ever imagined we'd have a nit wit like this in our White House?:dunce: :shrug:

[Clete]

13. I agree he is scum.

I also agree that what happened to Susan McDougall was criminal. Yes, Novak needs to suffer, but we can't break what is left of our free press for revenge. If they force him to reveal his sources then we will no longer get the truth ever. I do think that they can nail Novak for endangering an agent though without the damaging effects of his revealing the source. I am not a lawyer, but I am sure a clever one could find the way.

[Friar]

14. Novak had no problem revealing a source before.

The treacherous bastard turned in a source a few years ago (sorry, no link) but now he's all 1st ammedment? Fuck him! *sputter* *gasp* Ok. I'm in control again. Whew. That was close.

[Clete]

15. Still for the pressure to come from our side would erode

what freedom of the press is left. Novak will be eaten by his own. He screwed up. The RW doesn't care if what he did was wrong. What they do care about is that it makes them vulnerable to anwering difficult questions and being investigated and in this he probably has become persona non grata. They are waiting for the right time to drop the axe on him.

I think the CIA will find out who outted Plame. They aren't going let this go.

[Jawja]

30. Well I did fire off my

email to MSNBC expressing my disappointment that Novak is being treated as a credible "journalist" with his appearance on "Meet the Press" this morning.

Although he is right to protect his sources and although he has not done anything illegal, he has betrayed the work of courageous Americans working undercover to protect us. Technically, he has committed treason against the American people and has potentially harmed our National Security. He has cooperated with Bush administration officials in an act of vindictive revenge.

Expressing disappointment or even outrage over seeing this goon still featured by news organizations as an objective pundit is not a stand against "freedom of the press," but a stand for a treasonous act against the security of the United States having consequences.

After all, isn't this supposed to be a "time of war?"

[Hubert Flottz]

31. Keep firing the Emails!

Novak is as bad as Rush! The Con-Servatives are always painting us to be the hate filled namecallers, but you can see the hate and disrespect in Novac's face when he is confronted with the truth about Bush, anytime he is on the air!

I'd like to see them all boiling in their own bloody oil!

[atre]

21. The Press Clause DOES NOT mean journalists have a privilege to protect sou

rces... I'm sorry, but this appears to be the most widely-accepted falsehood I've seen on this site.

The Press Clause in the First Amendment does not mean that Journalists are granted any speech rights that the people themselves do not own. Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665 (1972), clearly holds that in a situation such as this, journalists do not own a privilege to protect their sources during a criminal trial. In that case, there was no involvement in the crime by the journalists. In this case, you do have such involvement by Novak.

In fact, the Press Clause has ONLY been recognized as a shield against laws that target the media. See Minneapolis Star & Tribune Co. v. Minnesota Comm'r of Revenue, 460 U.S. 575 (1983). Essentially, the Press Clause has only been held to treat the press as a protected class under an Equal Protection-like analysis.

If this proceeds to a criminal trial and a court orders Novak to reveal his source(s), he'll do it. He has no choice in the matter.

[Muddleoftheroad]

50. No way

He'll stand fast and be backed by every media in the U.S.

[shance]

41. Deep Throat was trying to relay the truth. Novak exposed us all

to a National Security risk, and seemingly could have cared less.

You want to give him a free ride and any that follow on behalf of all US citizens and our ultimate risk by their threatening an agent that TOLD THE TRUTH?

Is that what you are defending?

Free speech also has to do with realizing the outcome of making a CIA source public, which inevitably in this case effects America as a whole. Obviously someone in our Administation could have cared less.

They cared more about suppressing the truth, and cranking up this war, than doing what was right.

Novak knew what he was doing, and perhaps didnt care about the consequences that all US citizens would incur.

[ProfessorGAC]

48. Huh?

This source has committed TREASON. He's not protecting a source, he's protecting a criminal. That's not a first ammendment issue. Oh, he can make it one, but if he had a shred of integrity, he would have already outed this criminal in the White House.

To do any less is complicity in treason.
The Professor

[Catshrink]

3. I see him on panels and just want to puke

He's a digusting human being. Slime bag, creep.

I want to see him frog-marched out of CNN studios.

[The Backlash Cometh]

6. There needs to be either a civil or criminal case in play before

they can override a journalist's privilege. Once the case begins, Novak can be held in contempt for withholding the evidence.

[atre]

23. There's no such thing as a journalist's privilege

Cite me a case that is still good law holding such a privilege exists.

[IggleDoer]

26. Journalists have gone to jail for not revealing sources.

It is unethical for a journalist to reveal sources, not illegal. Novack should be pursued on this (what am I saying ... look at the Justice Dept!) and sent to jail until he complies. He revealed sensitive information - he is a traiter. He should NOT get favored status in the WH.

[The Backlash Cometh]

29. The only way to force him to testify is to put him on the stand.

For that, you need a criminal or civil proceeding.

[atre]

36. How do YOU define privilege?

As I understand your claim, you are asserting that there is a journalist's privilege with an exception for judicial proceedings?

Not to nitpick, but that is completely inaccurate. Privileges only apply in judicial proceedings. See Federal Rule of Evidence 501. Praytell, where else could the privilege be asserted?

[The Backlash Cometh]

43. Er...judicial proceedings ARE either civil or criminal in nature.

To my knowledge there are no other codified laws in the United States.

Unless, of course, you live in Louisiana or Massachussetts. (partly joking.)

So, pray tell, what other judicial proceedings are you talking about? What does the Federal Rule of Evidence apply to if not civil or criminal court cases?

[The Backlash Cometh]

28. Actually, there is:

The Florida evidence code is patterned after the Federal evidence code, so the statute should be in the 5015 range and should read something like this:

"a professional journalist has a qualified privilege not to be a witness concerning, and not to disclose the information, including the identity of any source, that the professional journalist has obtained while actively gathering news. This privilege applies only to information or eyewitness observations within the scope of employment and does not apply to physical evidence, eyewitness observations, or visual or audio recordings of crimes."

What's important is the statute that explains how to overcome the privilege.

"...establishes a procedure for overcoming the claimed privilege under which the challenger must make a..."

It's actually quite interesting, and after you read it, you'll reach the same conclusion I did. That you have to have a civil or criminal proceeding in order to first call Novak to the stand and make him testify. He can't hide behind the privilege once he's on the stand.

[atre]

38. I have a copy of the FRE in front of me...

and while the Florida Evidence Code is interesting, it is not controlling in a federal court (the court in which Novak and his co-conspirator would be charged). The Federal Rules do not contain such language.

Actually, it appears that the privilege is even broader than you seem to note- a qualified privilege is only defeated upon a preliminary showing by the prosecution that the interests in disclosure outweigh the interests in maintaining confidence (if this qualified privilege is like all others I've studied thus far in law school). Just calling the journalist to the stand does not guarantee the privilege will be defeated.

However, even in Florida, I'd love to be a D.A. calling a journalist in a similar situation. Qualified privileges would almost always be defeated when the journalist actually was complicit in the crime charged.

[The Backlash Cometh]

45. Can you post the wording to the Federal Evidence Code?

In other words, is there anything with the caption the same or similar to: "Journalist Privilege"? and if so, are there ways discussed to defeat it?

If so, what exactly are you arguing about since you just contradicted the original assertion that there is no special privilege for journalist?

[The Backlash Cometh]

49. The plot thickens:

Researching the Federal Rules of Evidence I found a rather interesting piece of information. The U.S. Congress didn't codify the privileges. Instead, they opted to rely on common law.

So, the case that would apply regarding journalistic privileges would probably be the same one that the Florida Court used to come up with the state privilege I posted earlier. The case is a U.S. Supreme Court case and WOULD apply to Novak. Branzberg v. Hayes 408 U.S. 665 (1972). Florida used Justice Powell's balancing of rights set in his concurring opinion to come up with a qualified privilege which was codified in Florida in 1998.

Since it is a qualified privilege, it means the judge has the final say on whether Novak will be required to testify.

[rasputin1952]

10. I consider Novak to be subhuman...

and truly am disgusted by him and his RW shilling.

However, I love the Constitution more than I despise Novak.

There are several ways the 'source' could be found, legally.

1. Novak could be subpoened before Congress, placed under oath, and face jail time, if he did not comply. (likely)

2. One of the oters that had contact wioth the 'source', could quietly tell the investigators. (unlikely)

3. Novak could voluntarily reveal the 'source' to investigators. (so unlikely as to be not worth considering)


Novak feels like he did the right thing, even though the others involved never even considered naming Plame. Novak is a little slug, that has no morality or ethics; few things would make me happier than to see him taken down a peg or two. :grr:

[Hubert Flottz]

12. Thirty months in Zee Cooler would be about right IMHO!

Have you noticed how Novak gets less respect on the shows he is on with each passing day? I love it when he spits and turns all red in the face! Just a matter of time before the old corporate pig has the big one and I hope it's on TV when he buys the farm!

[rasputin1952]

32. I agree....

It definately seems like the 'respect ratio' has gone done considerably. Many of those he is on TV with are Journalists, in the real sense of the word, and they hold a certain, shall we say, 'disgust with him. None of these that share the airwaves with him, would have considered naming Plame, and yet, there he is, naked as ever, with NO ONE asking him the truly tough questions.

I think, that in the world of Journalism, he is merely a doormat now. It is only a matter of time before he gets tossed into the dustbin of history.

As an aside: I truly think that the disclosure of an undercover agent, is akin to, if not, an act of treason. And the slug should pay for this, with a trial to discern just what he did. If it were you or I that did this, we'd never see daylight again.

:kick:

[Hubert Flottz]

33. I could not agree more!

Justice is for sale to the highest bidder, in our fair country!

[MaidinVermont]

18. What about deepthroat from Nixon Watergate?

Jail there too?

[Hubert Flottz]

19. Poor people in this country do 10 years for stealing food!

Rich people just go on to the next ripoff unafraid of even getting a slap on the wrist! Look at the lives Kenny Boy ruined and he won't do a day for his crimes! The people who lost their retirement should stone the bastard to death on CNN! Mr Evers Too!

[atre]

24. What crime did Deep Throat commit? NONE. There's the difference. NM

NM

[Hubert Flottz]

25. Welcome to Du atre!

The only legal background I really have is that I'm a Libra! My family couldn't afford to send me to college, so the only other choice for me to study law would have been in the jailhouse!(didn't want a degree that bad) IMHO though, Bob Novak should get about 8 years in Leavenworth to work on his law degree, along with the entire Bush Crime Syndicate!

[atre]

42. I'll go with that...

I wish I was a federal prosecutor. If they weren't all beholden to the current administration, they could certainly go after Novak with some charge. Faced with even a remote possibility of prison, he would turn over Rove- no question about it.

Consider yourself fortunate that you aren't in law school. I've been miserable ever since I started.

[TreasonousBastard]

20. So, since when....

have reporters been shielded from revealing sources in criminal investigations?

We've got what, 50 state or so state shield laws that all disagree on this, and last I heard, the Supremes defer to the state laws.

What's the current Federal shield situation. Anybody know for sure?

[opihimoimoi]

34. Novick should be stripped and whipped but good.

Despicible that he would get away from this criminal act of puting one of our agents in deep danger, and the agent is a Lady no less, even worse.

That smug pug is rotten to the core.

Come, we go find some whips with the 9 tails.

[Hubert Flottz]

35. I'm thinking that NoBack is the 'Beast' the preachers speak of!

He's Vile enough and he's damned sure Ugly enough!

Noback would be able to hear the chatter at the WH even with his nose where the sun never shines! Unless KKKarl had him by the ears!

Come, we go find truth and justice in the funnypapers!

[eablair3]

37. it is pretty amazing -- when they say "National Security" is so important

When the right wing talk is that "national security" is so important it is amzing that Novak is still out there. Somebody in the government (Rove?) commits a felony and leaks the identity of a CIA agent to a reporter. The reporter prints the CIA agent's name, and then tries to hide the identity of the felonious traitor while the counrty is supposedly engaged in a "war on terrorism" with intelligence being at the heart of it, ... again supposedly.

And, they do nothing.

Who did more harm to the U.S., ... John Walker Lindh, OR the senior White House official that outed the identity of a senior CIA agent to a reporter who then published it nationally.?

And, all Bush can say is that ... "we'll probably never know who leaked it"

[Stephanie]

39. Did anyone see that hearing on C-Span??

Is there a thread on it? It was former CIA guys testifying to Daschle and others. It was on Friday night. Pretty compelling!

[xultar]

46. Behind bars is too good for him...

I am super surprised that CNN would continue to allow him to grace their air-waves. It is sick.