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

Skip to comments.

So What's the Story on Bob Novak? - (why isn't he facing the same fate as Judith Miller?)
JEWISH WORLD REVIEW.COM ^ | JULY 5, 2005 | JONATHAN TURLEY

Posted on 07/05/2005 5:35:28 PM PDT by CHARLITE

Columnist Robert Novak has made a career for himself as a human flamethrower for conservative causes. Yet, even Novak appears surprised at the mounting cost of his disclosure in 2003 of the identity of CIA operative Valerie Plame.

It was classic Novak: a hatchet job directed not at Plame, but at her husband, former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV. The firestorm that erupted has consumed millions of dollars in investigation and litigation costs and has wreaked havoc with the career not just of Plame (who had to leave the CIA) but of two reporters who were hauled into court and threatened with prison.

Novak refused to answer even the most basic question, such as whether "in general … you cooperated with investigators in the case." Novak insisted his lawyer had told him not to answer "until this case is finished." His reliance on his lawyer's advice is a rather feeble and perplexing defense.

Yes, lawyers often prefer that their clients remain quiet under the theory that what you don't say can't be used against you. But Novak is not some button-man for the Gotti family. He is a self-described journalist who started a firestorm with a politically engineered attack piece on a civil servant for which another reporter is in danger of going to jail. Novak himself would never accept the "my lawyer did it" defense from a public figure.

Now facing incarceration, Miller personifies the need for a federal shield law protecting journalists from such coercion — similar to those laws passed in 49 states and the District of Columbia. As for Novak, he promises another blockbuster: Once he is no longer at risk, he will "reveal all in a column." At least it should make interesting reading for Miller in her cellblock.

(Excerpt) Read more at jewishworldreview.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Foreign Affairs; Government; News/Current Events; Philosophy; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: agent; cia; cialeak; columnist; disclosure; federal; jonathanturley; josephwilson; judithmiller; novak; prosecutor; robertnovak; valerieplame

1 posted on 07/05/2005 5:35:29 PM PDT by CHARLITE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: CHARLITE

everything that happens in a grand jury is secret... who's to say that novak hasn't testified ?


2 posted on 07/05/2005 5:41:23 PM PDT by republican2005
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CHARLITE
two reporters who were hauled into court and threatened with prison.

Okay, here I go again. Were Cooper and Miller grabbed by the scruffs of their necks and dragged before the Grand Jury. No, they were sent subpoena and walked in under their own power. No undignified "hauling." No panties on their heads (although...never mind). They weren't "threatened". The consequence of their actions was explained to them. It is the law. What drama queens.

3 posted on 07/05/2005 5:41:45 PM PDT by Bahbah (Something wicked this way comes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CHARLITE

look at this clip:

"What Novak has done or failed to do as a journalist remains shielded in mystery because Novak refuses to talk. Traditionally, journalists have publicly explained their status and their position in such controversies — as have various other reporters in the Plame affair. Knowing where Novak stands in this case would be important because the other journalists involved — especially Judith Miller of the New York Times — need to know his position so they can form a unified front against government threats."

I am shocked at Turley - essentially saying here that Novak must reveal his testimony to Miller/Cooper, so they can figure out what their testimony should be. If they want to avoid perjury, they can tell the truth.


4 posted on 07/05/2005 5:43:41 PM PDT by oceanview
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CHARLITE

OH man and I use to really like JONATHAN TURLEY??? Got to wonder who he is giving advice to.


5 posted on 07/05/2005 5:44:10 PM PDT by Just mythoughts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CHARLITE

Novak obviously HAS testified to the grand jury, and my guess is that Fitzgerald wants Cooper/Miller to testify because they can corroborate (or refute, as it may be) whatever Novak had to say. But I think he sang like a little bird.


6 posted on 07/05/2005 5:45:40 PM PDT by arbusto99
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CHARLITE
Now facing incarceration, Miller personifies the need for a federal shield law protecting journalists from such coercion — similar to those laws passed in 49 states and the District of Columbia.

A law school professor who sanctimoniously proclaims that we need a "federal shield law" like this has absolutely ZERO credibility. Mr. Turley is barely qualified to clean toilets in courthouses, let alone teach law.

7 posted on 07/05/2005 5:48:31 PM PDT by Alberta's Child (I ain't got a dime, but what I got is mine. I ain't rich, but Lord I'm free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CHARLITE
His reliance on his lawyer's advice is a rather feeble and perplexing defense.

LOL. No it isn't. Novak is too smart to hire a lawyer who knows what he is doing, pay him alot of money and then just ignore the advice he just paid for.It is neither feeble nor perplexing in the least.

8 posted on 07/05/2005 5:49:14 PM PDT by Bahbah (Something wicked this way comes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: oceanview
Now facing incarceration, Miller personifies the need for a federal shield law protecting journalists from such coercion — similar to those laws passed in 49 states and the District of Columbia.

Does Turley really believe that "shield laws" should afford protection to reporters whose source has committed a felony?

To my knowledge, the other "shield laws" don't.

9 posted on 07/05/2005 5:51:31 PM PDT by okie01 (The Mainstream Media: IGNORANCE ON PARADE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: okie01

the elites want to be above the law in all circumstances.


10 posted on 07/05/2005 5:56:45 PM PDT by oceanview
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: CHARLITE

LMAO!!!

The left-wing scum are really wringing their hands now that they realize that a Democrat smear campaign is on the verge of being fully exposed. Judith Miller and Mr. Mandy Grunwald NEED to know what Novack told the grand jury and they NEED to know what Rove told the grand jury - - so they know how to LIE.

It is all very reminicent of Clinton vowing to help get to the truth "sooner rather than later" only to have Starr keep Lewinski twisting quietly in the wind. Clinton had to know what Lewinski's story was so he would know how to LIE, but Starr kept Lewinski waiting and waiting.... and for Clinton, "sooner" turned into "way later" because without hearing Lewinski's story, he didn't know how he was supposed to LIE.


11 posted on 07/05/2005 5:57:11 PM PDT by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CHARLITE
Flamethrower? Attack Piece? Yes, but Turley and this article are the ones who meet those descriptions.

Instead of railing at Novak, why not rail at the treatment of Miller? And then, to cite a case from 1848 is breathtaking. Sure, Mr. Turley, we know how much respect you have for stare decisis.

12 posted on 07/05/2005 6:00:45 PM PDT by jammer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CHARLITE
He is a self-described journalist who started a firestorm with a politically engineered attack piece on a civil servant for which another reporter is in danger of going to jail.


13 posted on 07/05/2005 6:02:09 PM PDT by Tribune7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CHARLITE

Leave the cia?

Check the sources Johnny...shes baaaaaaaaaaack

Get me a bear claw and a ice tea pronto baby


14 posted on 07/05/2005 6:04:18 PM PDT by skaterboy (Me love you long time)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lancey Howard
The left-wing scum are really wringing their hands now that they realize that a Democrat smear campaign is on the verge of being fully exposed.

'Xactly. I believe these source are made up, like a lot of unnamed sources used to attack the Party the Press loaths. NOW they will be forced to testify that there never was a source, and they lied. Or, they must lie again and purjer themselves, and falsely accuse a Rove or Libby Scooter.

They thought months ago they could be bomb throwers agains the WH, protected by the 'shield' law, cause the damage and be heros to the Libs.

15 posted on 07/05/2005 6:08:25 PM PDT by Swanks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Lancey Howard

in his next article, Turley will explain why Novak et al should have had a joint defense agreement - recall how they loved to use that tactic during the Starr investigation.


16 posted on 07/05/2005 6:10:19 PM PDT by oceanview
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Lancey Howard

My money is on Joe Biden as the one who outted Valeri. Wouldn't it be great to expose a prominent dem. The mere fact that these "principled" journalist and their organizations have not come out earlier to expose a Republican is prima facia evidence that it is a dem.


17 posted on 07/05/2005 6:11:19 PM PDT by Texas Songwriter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: CHARLITE

bump for later


18 posted on 07/05/2005 6:12:31 PM PDT by jocon307 (Can we close the border NOW?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
"Mr. Turley is barely qualified to clean toilets in courthouses, let alone teach law."

Frankly, I never have been very impressed with Jonathan Turley; think he's overrated. I think he rose to fame as a novelist, not for any spectacular legal work........but I could be wrong.

I posted this one because I wanted to learn what FReepers think about Novak's outing of Plame in the first place, and what you believe his legal situation is now, compared to Cooper & Miller. If Novalk has testified, then he is presumably "in the clear."

Thanks for your comments, Alberta's Child!

Char :)

19 posted on 07/05/2005 6:19:05 PM PDT by CHARLITE (I propose a co-Clinton team as permanent reps to Pyonyang, w/out possibility of repatriation....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: CHARLITE

I'm guessing because he talked.

But then, if that is the case, you've got to wonder why they are wasting their time with the other reporters. They did not publish the story.

I guess it would still be a felony, though, if the leaker leaked it to the other reporters, even though they did not publish.

And I suspect that they are also trying to see if Novak's story was credible. If the leaker told the other reporters that she was an undercover agent, then Novak's claim that he merely added that himself seems less credible.


20 posted on 07/05/2005 6:48:09 PM PDT by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CHARLITE
and has wreaked havoc with the career not just of Plame (who had to leave the CIA)

Turley's statement is more than a bit misleading, even if it may be considered to be technically correct. Plame evidently hasn't "left" the CIA. According to this New York Times article, Plame took a leave of absence but has now returned to work at the CIA:

On June 1, after a year's unpaid leave, Ms. Wilson, now known to the country by her maiden name, Valerie Plame, returned to a new job at the Central Intelligence Agency, determined to get her career back on track, her husband said. Neither the agency nor Mr. Wilson would describe her position, except to make what might seem an obvious point: she will no longer be working under cover, as she did successfully for almost 20 years.

21 posted on 07/05/2005 6:48:53 PM PDT by Zeppo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: oceanview
Knowing where Novak stands in this case would be important because the other journalists involved — especially Judith Miller of the New York Times — need to know his position so they can form a unified front against government threats

I think what Turley is saying is that it is senseless for the two reporters to go to jail if Novak has already fessed up.

It does seem senseless to me for them to keep holding out if Novak has already revealed the source. But they just don't know for sure.

I would like to know what Novak said if I was them.

22 posted on 07/05/2005 6:59:16 PM PDT by linkinpunk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: linkinpunk

they don't have to go to jail - go in there and tell the truth. but they can't seem to do that. why? are they really holding out to protect Rove? what are the chances of that? sure, they can claim they are holding out on "principle" - but this very article from Turley tips us that this isn't true. their only "principle" in this matter seems to be staying out of the perjury trap - which is why Turley is telling Novak to talk.


23 posted on 07/05/2005 7:02:46 PM PDT by oceanview
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: oceanview

I don't know as much about the specifics of this case as others, and perhaps you.

But I don't discount reporters being willing to go to jail over principle.

I'm sure they hold confidentiality just as dearly as a pastor or priest.

Can you imagine a pastor getting subpoenaed over a counseling session or a priest over a confession?

(But my cynical side says your theory is probably right.)


24 posted on 07/05/2005 7:13:40 PM PDT by linkinpunk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: linkinpunk

others with more legal knowledge then I have can comment on that - I do not believe the right of a pastor to not testify is absolute in all cases.


25 posted on 07/05/2005 7:15:02 PM PDT by oceanview
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Texas Songwriter

My money is still on Joe Wilson, but I think that some State Department Marxists and other Democrats may have also had a hand. Everything points to the Democrats. I believe somebody set a trap, and the rats (including their accomplices in the press) took the bait.


26 posted on 07/05/2005 7:38:43 PM PDT by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Texas Songwriter
My money is on Joe Biden as the one who outted Valeri.

I think Novak confirmed that his source was a "senior administration official."

27 posted on 07/05/2005 8:41:50 PM PDT by Holden Magroin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Swanks

Novak said his source was a Bush administration official.


28 posted on 07/05/2005 8:44:41 PM PDT by Holden Magroin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: CHARLITE
a politically engineered attack piece on a civil servant

This guy obviously didn't read the piece.

29 posted on 07/05/2005 9:58:48 PM PDT by The Old Hoosier (Right makes might.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lancey Howard
" I believe somebody set a trap, and the rats (including their accomplices in the press) took the bait."

Right. Why would such an important figure as Karl Rove risk "political capital" on such "small fry?" Valerie hadn't been undercover for awhile, as I understand. It's not as though she was "Deep Throat!"

Someone on this thread took exception to my recollection (from Rush Limbaugh), that Novak quipped soon after the thing exploded, that he was surprised "because everyone inside the Beltway know that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA." I don't know if Novak said that, but I heard Rush quote him as having said it."

On the other hand, if Novak said such a thing, it is hard to believe that he was sincere about it, because his revelation about Wilson's wife didn't add to the story he wrote and were clearly intended to be a "bomb" which he added gratuitously.

Char :)

30 posted on 07/05/2005 10:08:57 PM PDT by CHARLITE (I propose a co-Clinton team as permanent reps to Pyonyang, w/out possibility of repatriation....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: oceanview

Novak's testimony has nothing to do with what the prosecutor wants to talk to Cooper and Miller about. The prosecutor wants to know the substance of other conversations that the reporters had with the leaker on other subjects (per Fox news) . I heard, months ago that there was a collateral investigation which grew out of the Plame investigation, regarding a leak from the CIA to reporters, warning a terrorist supporting group of an imminent raid on their premises just hours before it happened. My guess is that the prosecutor is going after the CIA agent and it is this source that the reporters are protecting.


31 posted on 07/05/2005 10:19:55 PM PDT by Eva
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Eva

Novak's testimony (whatever it may be), and perhaps other evidence you mention, is the checkmate to Miller & Cooper simply walking in there with the same story - and lying.

If the truth indeed points to this collateral investigation - so be it, perhaps it will. Let them talk so we can find out.


32 posted on 07/06/2005 8:24:52 AM PDT by oceanview
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: CHARLITE

Poor Jonathan is pretty bitchy in this thing...sounds like he might have sand in his vagina.


33 posted on 07/06/2005 8:26:30 AM PDT by Petronski (BRABANTIO: Thou art a villain! ---- IAGO: You are--a senator.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: oceanview

According to Fox, the prosecutor stated that the information that he was seeking was on a subject other than Plame and that was the reason that the notes were not sufficient. He wants to know what else they talked to the source about.


34 posted on 07/06/2005 8:31:17 AM PDT by Eva
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: oceanview

Read this:

Judith Miller, TWA 800 and the Death of Press Freedom ^
Posted by johnny7 to Eva
On News/Activism ^ 07/06/2005 8:01:20 AM PDT · 21 of 24 ^

Found this.

The Justice Department has charged that a veteran New York Times foreign correspondent warned an alleged terror-funding Islamic charity that the FBI was about to raid its office — potentially endangering the lives of federal agents. The stunning accusation was disclosed yesterday in legal papers related to a lawsuit the Times filed in Manhattan federal court.

The suit seeks to block subpoenas from the Justice Department for phone records of two of its Middle Eastern reporters — Philip Shenon and Judith Miller — as part of a probe to track down the leak. The Times last night flatly denied the allegation.

U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald of Chicago charged in court papers that Shenon blew the cover on the Dec. 14, 2001, raid of the Global Relief Foundation — the first charges of their kind under broad new investigatory powers given to the feds under the Patriot Act. "It has been conclusively established that Global Relief Foundation learned of the search from reporter Philip Shenon of The New York Times," Fitzgerald said in an Aug. 7, 2002, letter to the Times' legal department. He said he understood journalists' concerns about protecting the identities of their sources, but national security and preventing leaks that thwart probes into "terrorist fund-raising" trump such confidentiality. "I would posit that the circumstances here — the decision by the reporter to provide a tip to the subject of a terrorist fund-raising inquiry which seriously compromised the integrity of the investigation and potentially endangered the safety of federal law-enforcement personnel — warrant such cooperation in full," Fitzgerald said.

Times lawyer George Freeman told The Post that Fitzgerald "wrongly" suggested that Shenon alerted the Islamic charity to the raid. "We deny he tipped anyone off," Freeman said. He added that Global Relief would have anticipated the raid in any case because the feds had already hit the office of another suspected terror-funding Islamic charity, the Holy Land Foundation, and the government had frozen the assets of several other charities.
Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies


35 posted on 07/06/2005 8:32:23 AM PDT by Eva
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Eva

I do not believe that the subpeonas she is likely to refuse to comply with today, that she litigated to the SCOTUS and lost, has anything to do with this story. while it does mean that the same precedent can be used to get her to talk about this (is there a grand jury on this one?), I don't believe this is the issue they are in court about today. Its about Plame today.


36 posted on 07/06/2005 8:39:13 AM PDT by oceanview
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: oceanview

Well, they have said that it does not relate to the Plame case, that they interested in other conversations on other subjects. My guess is that they want to know what else this leaker revealed and that the CIA leaker is now the target of the investigation. It was said in other earlier articles that the Special Council had moved on to a tangental investigation that was opened up by the Plame issue.


37 posted on 07/06/2005 8:47:49 AM PDT by Eva
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Bahbah
Good point: Drama Queens:

Okay, here I go again. Were Cooper and Miller grabbed by the scruffs of their necks and dragged before the Grand Jury. No, they were sent subpoena and walked in under their own power. No undignified "hauling." No panties on their heads (although...never mind). They weren't "threatened". The consequence of their actions was explained to them. It is the law. What drama queens.

38 posted on 07/06/2005 9:25:40 AM PDT by GOPJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

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