NY Times Gets Two More Subpoenas in Valerie Plame Case

Editor and Publisher ^ | 8/17/04 | Joe Strupp

[gopwinsin04]

The New York Times has recieved two more subpoenas from prosecutors investigating who leaked the identity of former CIA officer Valerie Plame to the press, Editor and Publisher has learned.

'We now have a total of three subpoenas,' Times spokeswoman Catherine Mathis said today.

'We will have to comply or file a motion to quash by August 20. The Times will move to quash.'

The subpoenas are the latest in a string of actions taken in recent weeks against journalists by Special Prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald, who is leading the investigation into the Plame identity leak.

The Plame investigation stems from a July 14, 2003 column by Robert Novak the revealed Plame, married to a former diplomat, as a CIA officer.

[OneTimeLurker]

He will be called an forced to testify once these other suopenas are all upheld through the higher courts (the district court already OKd them). Then he will be put right in jail if he doesn't testify. He obviously won't hold out long from there.

[liberallarry]

Perhaps I missed the thread where Larry dismissed Sandy Bergler's antics as merely "stupid."

Read it again. I didn't "dismiss" his antics as "merely" stupid. I said I was amazed that anyone could be so stupid.

If you're going to attempt a districting smear - like kindergarten kids - at least try and get your facts straight.

[r9etb]

Perhaps I was too subtle, but I was actually defending you.....

[SunkenCiv]

Mission to Niger
Robert Novak
July 14, 2003
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/robertnovak/printrn20030714.shtml

The CIA leak
Robert Novak
October 1, 2003
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/robertnovak/rn20031001.shtml

Novak Recuses Self from CIA Leak Probe
Posted by Scott Ott
December 31, 2003
http://www.scrappleface.com/MT/archives/001463.html

Judge Upholds Media Subpoenas in CIA Leak Case (PLAME/WILSON)
Reuters ^ | August 9, 2004 | James Vicini
Posted on 08/09/2004 12:30:56 PM PDT by cyncooper
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1188136/posts

Court Holds Reporter in Contempt in Leak Case (WILSON/PLAME)
Washington Post ^ | August 9, 2004 | Carol D. Leonnig
Posted on 08/09/2004 12:37:45 PM PDT by cyncooper
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1188142/posts

[liberallarry]

Read my posts. You'll see that I support torture in any case where I think it's justified - such as preventing a terrorist attack on a major population center.

I'm not thrilled with Abu Ghraib because I think it's an example of sadism, torture for the pleasure of the torturers...

...and I find your "dismissal" of it as "mere" fraternity pranks utterly disgusting. Or do you know for certain that torture there was administered on orders from high administration officials for the purpose of getting important information?

Nevertheless, if you got your way, you might not like what Novak reveals--namely that the perps were most likely one or both Wilsons

Gee, why don't we dispense with the whole expensive system of justice and just come to you...since you claim to know it all...or do you just claim to be a know-it-all?

[liberallarry]

Then I apologize for misreading you. I wasn't offended in any case, just annoyed.

Considered by itself, the Plame case isn't that important. A relatively minor breach of security with few harsh consequences.

But it's not an isolated event. It's political. We all know politics is a dirty business where winning by any legal means is the norm. The problem here is that someone may have stepped over the line and is now trying desperately to hide it. That's a no-no. Getting caught cheating is a sure sign of incompetence and usually causes grief far beyond the importance of the event.

In this case, I believe the Administration could have done far better defending its case without bringing in Plame. It's clear that Wilson could not back up his initial charges. There was too much evidence that Iraq had made contact with Niger and had the opportunity to arrange to purchase yellowcake in the future by various means.

Bringing in Plame made the Administration look mindlessly vindictive, short-sighted, and unprincipled. If someone high in the Administration is now shown to be responsible it will probably cost Bush the election.

[r9etb]

In this case, I believe the Administration could have done far better defending its case without bringing in Plame.

You're assuming that the source of the leak was the Bush Administration. The breadth of the subpoena net could cast doubt on that assumption. At any rate, it seems clear that the "leak" (or leaks) were passed out pretty widely, and I'm guessing over a long period of time.

I'd be really interested to know how many of the subpoena'd journalists knew Wilson/Plame on a social level. I'm guessing it was more than one of them... and that helps to explain why it was supposedly "common knowledge" that Ms. Plame was allegedly an undercover agent.

As it happens, I believe that Ms. Plame's role in the selection of Joe Wilson for his trip is actually quite relevant. My wife has been known to volunteer me for things at church and such, but that's not the same as a wife recommending her (manifestly unqualified) husband to go on an extremely sensitive intel-gathering mission. There's something very smelly about that, and it merits investigation.

[liberallarry]

You're assuming that the source of the leak was the Bush Administration.

I am assuming that...because that's what Novak said. But he could be lying and the assumption could be wrong. Who know's for sure?

manifestly unqualified

This is just plain wrong. He was manifestly qualified, and, even so, those who sent him were not satisfied just hearing from him. They also got reports from our Ambassador from Niger and from a four-star General with extensive experience in Africa. The reports of the latter two have never been released but Wilson has said that the Ambassador agreed with him.

[r9etb]

This is just plain wrong. He was manifestly qualified

You'll have to provide me with specific references showing that he was capable of performing an intelligence field investigation.

I have not seen such qualifications presented, nor do his actions indicate that he was in any sense qualified. Indeed, by his own admission, Wilson's "investigation" consisted of sitting in a room, inviting people in to drink sweet tea, and basically asking if there was any truth to the claims.

[liberallarry]

You'll have to provide me with specific references showing that he was capable of performing an intelligence field investigation

Don't be ridiculous. They had agents to do that kind of work.

Wilson, the Amabassador, and the General were selected because they had extensive, high-level contacts in business and government. Specifically, Wilson has such experience and contacts with both Iraqis and Nigeriens.

[r9etb]

Don't be ridiculous. They had agents to do that kind of work.

Precisely. So why did Joe Wilson go to Nigeria?

Wilson, the Amabassador, and the General were selected because they had extensive, high-level contacts in business and government. Specifically, Wilson has such experience and contacts with both Iraqis and Nigeriens.

And all he did with his "experience and contacts" was to drink sweet tea, ask a few questions of folks who had a vested interest in lying to Joe Wilson. That's by his own admission. And then he wrote a widely circulated report that said "there's no yellowcake," thereby contradicting the reports of those agents who (through real intel work) had concluded otherwise. The sheer arrogant incompetence of Joe Wilson's "investigation" and "report" is stunning.

And dear Ms. Plame recommended her husband for just that job.

[Steve_Seattle]

"Bringing in Plame made the Administration look mindlessly vindictive, short-sighted, and unprincipled."

You seem to accept the assumption that identifying Plame as a CIA employee would somehow discredit or embarrass Wilson. That is the basis of the whole "outing" charge, and it has never made sense to me. If Plame suggested Wilson for the Niger trip, so what? Why is that embarrassing or shocking? How would that discredit Wilson? The whole thing is a "non sequitor." The story makes MORE sense as an attempt to "get" Bush; and that, in fact, is what Wilson has publicly said he wanted to do.

[liberallarry]

So why did Joe Wilson go to Nigeria?

He went to Niger because talking to high-level people is important and often yields more and better information than talking to traitors, spies, pimps, and assorted low-life.

ask a few questions of folks who had a vested interest in lying to Joe Wilson. That's by his own admission.

I don't think so. Where did he say that?

The sheer arrogant incompetence of Joe Wilson's "investigation" and "report" is stunning.

That's your characterization. And if the Ambassador and the General agree with him...are they, ipso factor, also stunning in their incompetence? And, in this day, why would you decide that "real" intelligence work yields better results by definition? Do you really think the truth is written in secret ink on gifts inside of wheaties boxes?

And dear Ms. Plame recommended her husband for just that job

The strongest evidence indicates that she provided his resume when asked (and probably said he was a good and competent fellow with the requisite experience). No doubt your wife would do considerably less? :)

[Eva]

I love it, the Democrats piled on Novak, claiming that he should give up his protected sources, now that the shoe is on the other foot, they are crying foul. What's good for the goose, is good for the gander, but the Democrats never seem to get that.

[r9etb]

And if the Ambassador and the General agree with him

According to you, Mr. Wilson says they agreed with him, which is not the same as them actually saying that. Given that Mr. Wilson's credibility is the issue at hand, it is not really convincing to invoke Mr. Wilson's own claims as "proof" of his credibility.

From this thread, we see Mark Steyn's take on it:

Even his original New York Times piece must rank as one of the paper’s weakest efforts to damage Bush: in Niger, Ambassador Wilson says he spent ‘eight days drinking sweet mint tea and meeting with dozens of people: current government officials, former government officials, people associated with the country’s uranium business’. He concedes he never filed a written report and most of the rest of the column reads like a travelogue (‘Through the haze, I could see camel caravans crossing the Niger river’). As a claim to expertise, it’s laughable.

[Steve_Seattle]

I should have mentioned that one other motive for "outing" Plame that I've heard is that it was an attempt by the Bush administration to put her at risk of physical harm or even to get her killed. I think anyone who believes that has been watching too many made-for-TV movies. It's as bad or worse than the "Hillary killed Vincent Foster" theories.

[Steve_Seattle]

"I love it, the Democrats piled on Novak, claiming that he should give up his protected sources, now that the shoe is on the other foot, they are crying foul."

Did they? I know a lot of conservatives wanted him to, including me. And how has Novak avoided a subpoena?

[rolling_stone]

Seeing how it's employees of the New York Times involved, they may be in trouble, as reporter shield laws only apply to bonafide reporters, not liberal puppets with a pen and typewriter..

[MizSterious]

I don't claim to "know it all" (point out where I said so, please); however, the question remains--what if Novak reveals that it was one or both Wilsons, or a 'Rat hack, that did the leaking? The likelihood of this is far greater than it being someone from the Bush camp--otherwise the reporters would have given up their source faster than you can pull a pair of panties off the head of a leaker.

[Steve_Seattle]

It has never made sense to me that the Bush administration thought it could somehow punish or discredit Wilson by revealing that his wife is a CIA employee. It doesn't make sense, which is my main reason for not believing it.

I think someone in the Bush administration offhandedly mentioned that Plame was CIA when Novak asked how Wilson got the Niger assignment. That is Novak's story, and it makes sense. Then after Novak's story came out, Wilson or someone else (in the CIA? in the media?) saw an opening to turn the leak into an anti-Bush scandal.

Remember, several weeks passed between the Novak article and the outbreak of the scandal. I think during those weeks, Wilson and others in the media and/or CIA conspired to turn the thing into a big "Bush attempted to smear Wilson" story, and they came up with the illogical notion that the release of Plame's identity would somehow embarrass or discredit Wilson. The press latched onto that flimsy motive with glee, never questioning whether it made any real sense. Plame recommended Wilson for the Niger trip? So what?

But we do know that Wilson publicly bragged that he wanted to bring down the Bush administration, so HE has a clear motive for wanting the leaking of Plame's name to appear as a scandal, as retribution for his NYT story.