There's your sign.
O'Donnell gets his marching orders straight from the DNC,the source is a Careerist with Leftist Sympathies. Maybe a Clintonoid.
Like Rush said yesterday, if Rove had been implicated don't you think the dims would hav e screamed to high heaven for his dismissal and imprisonment before the election so as to harm President Bush?
No one is more tired of the arrogance of "the fourth estate" and the full-of-themselves reporters that make up its cutting edge. I would like to see these two go to the slammer, if only as surrogates for the whole scurvy lot of their profession.
But where does Prosecutor Fitzgerald's dictum leave Catholic priests and the sanctity of the confessional?
(steely)
If reporters that commit Libel would be sent to jail we would not have many of the a--holes left.
Where does the idea that a reporter (not journalist, Edward R. Murrow was the last one) source is sacred? If the reporter was told of a crime by witness to a murder or rape or other heinous crime is that source to be protected, too?.........
"The court should advise Miller that if she persists in defying the court's order that she will be committing a crime," Mr. Fitzgerald wrote. "Miller and The New York Times appear to have confused Miller's ability to commit contempt with a legal right to do so."
He added: "Much of what appears to motivate Miller to commit contempt is the misguided reinforcement from others (specifically including her publisher) that placing herself above the law can be condoned." The publisher of The Times, Arthur Sulzberger Jr., has repeatedly said the newspaper supports Ms. Miller.
Mr. Fitzgerald quoted at length from news accounts about Time's decision to demonstrate that journalists and others are not of one mind about the obligation of news organizations and reporters to obey final court orders concerning their confidential sources. He also quoted from opinion columns, essays and a Los Angeles Times editorial suggesting that reporters should not take absolutist positions.
-- News story, New York Times, July 6, 2005
These people are obviously fooling with the wrong guy. Now that the Rove lie is behind us they ought to put their tails up their butts and give the guy what he wants or put on the orange jump suits.
First Novak cooperated with the prosecutor and has had no contempt charges filed against him.. That means NOVAK told the prosecutor who leaked the information, gave the prosecutor his notes and told him what was leaked. The prosecutor has to all there is to know about the leaker.
It is also likely that the prosecutor deposed the leaker before it was revealed that NOVAK had cooperated. It is very very likely that the leaker denied under oath that he or she was the leaker.
That means the Special Prosecutor can charge the leaker with perjury and revealing classified information.
The testimony of The New York Times reporter and the Time magazine reporter may be helpful to get a conviction. Novak will testify one thing the leaker can testify another. But if the Times and Time magazine reporters can be forced to tell the truth.. it will be 3 against 1. Add to that, Novak's, and the Times' and Time Magazine reporter's notes and the Prosecutor has an air tight case.
The prosecutor needs the reporters notes so the two reporters can't commit perjury about what they were told by the leaker and get away with it.
The first thing they teach in law school is never tell a judge, "You can't do that to me!!!" The judge will find a way. The media has challenged the authority of the courts.. That is a very dumb move.
It is obvious that the Times called for a special prosecutor expecting to get one that would help it destroy the President. What they got was a Special Prosecutor appointed by President Bush who is out to teach leakers and the media the cost of leaking and receiving and lying about leaked classified information.
I bet the reporters decide to go to jail. Having the Rove thing out there makes them look like martyrs, when in reality, they probably lied to investigators ala Martha Stewart.