Skip to comments.So What's the Story on Bob Novak? - (why isn't he facing the same fate as Judith Miller?)
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 ...
everything that happens in a grand jury is secret... who's to say that novak hasn't testified ?
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.
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.
OH man and I use to really like JONATHAN TURLEY??? Got to wonder who he is giving advice to.
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.
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.
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.
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.
the elites want to be above the law in all circumstances.
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.
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.
Leave the cia?
Check the sources Johnny...shes baaaaaaaaaaack
Get me a bear claw and a ice tea pronto baby
'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.
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.
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.
bump for later
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!
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.