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


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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 ]

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