Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

A Leak Probe Gone Awry (Wilson, Plame)
New York Times ^ | September 27, 2004 | Editorial

Posted on 09/27/2004 6:16:05 AM PDT by OESY

When the Justice Department opened an investigation a year ago into the question of how Robert Novak obtained the name of a covert Central Intelligence Agency operative for publication in his syndicated column, we expressed two basic concerns. The first was the need for an independent inquiry led by someone without Attorney General John Ashcroft's ultra-close ties to the White House. That was addressed belatedly with the naming of a special prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, to pursue the accusations that unnamed Bush administration officials illegally leaked the woman's undercover role in an effort to stifle criticism of Iraq policy by her husband, former ambassador Joseph Wilson IV.

Unfortunately, our second, overriding fear has become a reality. The focus of the leak inquiry has lately shifted from the Bush White House, where it properly belongs, to an attempt to compel journalists to testify and reveal their sources. In an ominous development for freedom of the press and government accountability that hits particularly close to home, a federal judge in Washington has ordered a reporter for The New York Times, Judith Miller, to testify before a grand jury investigating the disclosure of the covert operative's identity and to describe any conversations she had with "a specified executive branch official."

The subpoena was upheld even though neither Ms. Miller nor this newspaper had any involvement in the matter at hand - the public naming of an undercover agent. Making matters worse, the newly released decision by Judge Thomas Hogan takes the absolutist position that there is no protection whatsoever for journalists who are called to appear before grand juries.

This chilling rejection of both First Amendment principles and evolving common law notions of a privilege protecting a reporter's confidential sources cries out for rejection on appeal, as does the undue secrecy surrounding the special prosecutor's filings in the case.

Mr. Novak has refused to say whether he received a subpoena. But other journalists have acknowledged getting subpoenas and some have testified about their contacts with I. Lewis Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff. They say they did so based on his consent, but consent granted by government employees under a threat of dismissal hardly seems voluntary. Once again, none of these journalists were involved in the central issue: the initial public identification of Mr. Wilson's wife.

If an official at the White House intentionally triggered publication of the name of a C.I.A. operative to undermine Mr. Wilson's credibility and silence criticism of Iraq policy, it was a serious abuse of power. The legacy of the investigation should not be a perverse legal precedent that makes it easy for prosecutors to undo a reporter's pledge of confidentiality, thereby discouraging people with knowledge of real abuses to blow the whistle to the press.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: ashcroft; bush; cia; cialeak; firstamendment; fitzgerald; freedomofthepress; iraq; josephwilson; judithmiller; justice; libby; newsmedia; newyorktimes; novak; plame; wilson; yeloowcake
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-130 next last
To: Hermann the Cherusker
as does the undue secrecy surrounding the special prosecutor's filings in the case.

So tantalizing. Why, the New York Times seems a bit nervous here.

~smirk~

101 posted on 09/27/2004 10:42:13 AM PDT by cyncooper (Have I mentioned lately that I despise the media?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: cyncooper
"Be public now"? You wish.

I don't wish. I know.

He has stated his source was not from the Bush WH

I don't have the article in front of me but I'm sure your statement is true in only the most technical sense...if it's true at all.

102 posted on 09/27/2004 10:44:51 AM PDT by liberallarry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: liberallarry
"Clearly what he meant was that he didn't know the ultimate whys' and wherefores' of his mission. He didn't know who in the CIA and above had decided to authorize this mission and why. He only knew what his briefers told him."

So you speak for Joe Wilson???? I heard what he said and there was nothing about CIA being anywhere near those who sent him.


Interesting isn't it he never sent a report to the CIA

"Not true."


Really so you have seen the report he gave to the CIA, is it classified or out for public consumption???

Wilson knew allllll about supposed forged/fake documents that have now been accused of being done by an Italian at the behest of the French government

"This is important.

I don't think Wilson has ever revealed the specifics of his instructions. Tenet said that the CIA had reasons other than the forged documents to investigate Niger-Iraq yellowcake sales...but didn't go beyond that.

The La Repubblica time-line has the CIA receiving copies or summaries of the forgeries in Dec-2001/Jan 20002 - just before Wilson was sent to Niger. The IEAE said the documents were forgeries in March 2003. The Information became public in April. Wilson spoke about them after that."


That is the BIG problem with Joe Wilson's story timeline and credibility he has never told the WHOLE story. Obviously there are some out there who knows exactly what he is talking about.
103 posted on 09/27/2004 11:00:57 AM PDT by Just mythoughts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: liberallarry
I don't wish. I know.

Why don't you walk us through your reasoning that if Novak has talked it would be public. I'm sure we'd all find it fascinating.

I don't have the article in front of me but I'm sure your statement is true in only the most technical sense...if it's true at all.

Of course it's true. I am not in the habit of posting falsehoods.

104 posted on 09/27/2004 11:14:05 AM PDT by cyncooper (Have I mentioned lately that I despise the media?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: cyncooper
He has stated his source was not from the Bush WH

"Wilson never worked for the CIA, but his wife, Valerie Plame, is an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction. Two senior administration officials told me Wilson's wife suggested sending him to Niger to investigate the Italian report"

from Mission to Niger

If you want to believe your crap, fine. But don't try to get me to believe it.

105 posted on 09/27/2004 11:15:19 AM PDT by liberallarry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: Just mythoughts
So you speak for Joe Wilson???? I heard what he said and there was nothing about CIA being anywhere near those who sent him.

I speak for common sense. Are you now trying to argue that the CIA didn't send him? Pathetic.

Really so you have seen the report he gave to the CIA, is it classified or out for public consumption???

The CIA sent him. He reported back to them. The CIA doesn't reveal such reports as a matter of policy.

That is the BIG problem with Joe Wilson's story timeline and credibility he has never told the WHOLE story. Obviously there are some out there who knows exactly what he is talking about

See a shrink.

106 posted on 09/27/2004 11:20:12 AM PDT by liberallarry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: liberallarry
Larry, administration officials and WH officials are not one and the same and Novak later said it was not the WH. If someone works at one of the agencies like, say, the CIA, they can be attributed as "administration officials" anonymously.
107 posted on 09/27/2004 11:24:25 AM PDT by cyncooper (Have I mentioned lately that I despise the media?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: cyncooper
Why don't you walk us through your reasoning that if Novak has talked it would be public. I'm sure we'd all find it fascinating

Well, let's see.

Novak testified secretly so that no one in the Press knew about it.
He didn't tell his sources either so that they would have no chance to protect themselves against the coming storm.
Fitzgerald's office had no leakers because they were all intensely loyal to George Bush and didn't want to do anything to jeopardize his election (while, of course, continuing to maintain their impartiality).
And everyone knew that the whole thing was of minor importance and no one in the press would pick it up even if they did reveal it.

Perfectly rational. Right?

108 posted on 09/27/2004 11:27:52 AM PDT by liberallarry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: cyncooper
Larry, administration officials and WH officials are not one and the same and Novak later said it was not the WH. If someone works at one of the agencies like, say, the CIA, they can be attributed as "administration officials" anonymously

You have no shame.

Maybe the senior Administration officials were at the EPA? No doubt Novak would find it completely logical to approach them?

109 posted on 09/27/2004 11:31:50 AM PDT by liberallarry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: cyncooper
Larry, administration officials and WH officials are not one and the same and Novak later said it was not the WH. If someone works at one of the agencies like, say, the CIA, they can be attributed as "administration officials" anonymously

You have no shame.

Maybe the senior Administration officials were at the EPA? No doubt Novak would find it completely logical to approach them?

110 posted on 09/27/2004 11:32:10 AM PDT by liberallarry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: liberallarry
If someone works at one of the agencies like, say, the CIA

So someone at the CIA outed Plame? Oh that'll be really good if that turns out to be true.

111 posted on 09/27/2004 11:34:00 AM PDT by liberallarry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: liberallarry
Novak testified secretly so that no one in the Press knew about it.

Exactly. You mock the notion that Fitzgerald's grand jury has been leakproof, but it has. That's what's driving the NY Times nuts. The only reason we know about the other reporters is because of court rulings.

Several articles have referenced that the grand jury is tighter than a drum and there have been zero leaks. Russert made a statement as to what he testified to, but that is a statement issued to the public, not to be confused with a leak. Why you tie this grand jury to the election goes to your closed mind on this subject.

So, yes, I posit that Novak has indeed testified secretly. Your bias prohibits you from accepting that his sources would also keep mum and your thinking a storm would ensue also goes to your bias that they committed a crime or some such.

I have no idea what you think is of minor importance. I think, as I've told you before, this story is huge. We just disagree in what way.

112 posted on 09/27/2004 11:35:54 AM PDT by cyncooper (Have I mentioned lately that I despise the media?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: liberallarry

BTW, I don't appreciate your language. Your labeling my fact-filled posts as "crap" speaks volumes to your disdain for the truth, IMO.


113 posted on 09/27/2004 11:38:02 AM PDT by cyncooper (Have I mentioned lately that I despise the media?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: liberallarry
I speak for common sense. Are you now trying to argue that the CIA didn't send him?

Well, the CIA didn't send him. The sub-group his wife works in sent him on their own volition. He did not write up a report.

He tried to claim his oral report was briefed to the VP and that turned out to be flat out false.

Why you would advise someone to see a shrink when they observe Wilson has told half-truths and been deceitful is very telling. You may wish to do some soul searching and/or seek professional help.

114 posted on 09/27/2004 11:40:42 AM PDT by cyncooper (Have I mentioned lately that I despise the media?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: liberallarry
You have no shame.

That would be you. I am telling it the way it is.

You can wish and hope and click your heels together three times and even wish upon a star but the Bush WH has not done anything to the Wilsons no matter how you cling to the idea.

115 posted on 09/27/2004 11:42:38 AM PDT by cyncooper (Have I mentioned lately that I despise the media?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: liberallarry

You know that in the past proof has been provided to you that it was those friendly to the Wilsons telling reporters that the wife recommended the husband.

It was by way of explaining the otherwise inexplicable, not giving her name in order to harm the daring duo.


116 posted on 09/27/2004 11:43:58 AM PDT by cyncooper (Have I mentioned lately that I despise the media?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: cyncooper

It's possible the grand jury has been leakproof...but highly unlikely, as I said. And we do agree that the story is huge.


117 posted on 09/27/2004 11:46:34 AM PDT by liberallarry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: cyncooper
BTW, I don't appreciate your language

As soon as you referred to my thinking as "thinking" you forfeited all right to civil discourse.

118 posted on 09/27/2004 11:48:30 AM PDT by liberallarry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: liberallarry

BTW, in addition to the CIA, other possible administration sources could reside at State or DOD.

Just a friendly FYI.

Let the record show that you are the one who cited the EPA in order to mock the idea that administration officials would eminate from other than the WH.


119 posted on 09/27/2004 11:49:55 AM PDT by cyncooper (Have I mentioned lately that I despise the media?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: cyncooper
The sub-group his wife works in sent him on their own volition.

That is the CIA.

He tried to claim his oral report was briefed to the VP and that turned out to be flat out false.

He delivered his oral report to those who sent him. He then claimed that it was sent on to the VP. He was wrong...maybe.

Why you would advise someone to see a shrink when they observe Wilson has told half-truths and been deceitful is very telling

That's a distortion of our exchange.

120 posted on 09/27/2004 11:52:12 AM PDT by liberallarry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-130 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson