Thursday, June 30, 2005
Biggest Case Since Pentagon Papers `
Bob Novak is a Useless Turd
So the Supreme Court has refused to hear their case, and Time magazine appears ready to hand over their reporters' email, correspondence and notes to a government Special Prosecutor in the Valerie Plame case. That case, you'll recall, is where (multiple) White House staff deliberately revealed to reporters the identity of Plame, an undercover CIA agent, in order to wreak vengence on her husband, who publicly and authoritatively refuted Bush's claims that Iraq pursued Nigerian "yellow cake" uranium (i.e., for WMD).
The revelation of Plame's identity constitutes a criminal violation of Federal law, and prompted the halfass response from the White House that they would "get to the bottom of it". Typical cynical tripe. It was clearly deliberate and strategized at high levels for multiple staff to go making the same revelation to various national reporters at the same moment. Their recalcitrance after the fact was equally coordinated: Bush "got to the bottom" of nothing. So ultimately, after the cursory Justice Department "investigation", a Special Counsel was appointed, in a pro forma concession the violated law might still exist, and that maybe somebody should care.
The bizarre dimension here is that the reporters for Time and the New York Times were not the first ones to reveal Plame's identity. Bob Novak was. Yet he is sitting chill while other cats take the heat, and possible prison time. Wonder why? In part, no doubt, because he is a chief apologist and propagandist for the Bush Administration, which is why he went with the story in the first place, while others deferred (some until after he put the story out, and some for good). To be clear, the trade-off was American national security & foreign intelligence interests and the actual livelihood of a CIA official for political defamation of a reputable (and in this case wholly correct) critic. I know just the man for the job: Bob Novak.
Compare the CNN inteview with Novak, apparently representing his attorney, with the story in the Washington Post.
Novak: "There needs to be a federal shield law preventing that as there are shield laws in 49 out of 50 states."
Post: "Thirty-one states and the District of Columbia have shield laws protecting reporters from having to identify their confidential sources."
I'm going to guess the Post has the more accurate number. They certainly have more content:
So the Supreme Court has refused to hear their case, and Time magazine appears ready to hand over their reporters' email, correspondence and notes to a government Special Prosecutor in the Valerie Plame case. That case, you'll recall, is where (multiple) White House staff deliberately revealed to reporters the identity of Plame, an undercover CIA agent, in order to wreak vengence on her husband, who publicly and authoritatively refuted Bush's claims that Iraq pursued Nigerian "yellow cake" uranium (i.e., for WMD).
The revelation of Plame's identity constitutes a criminal violation of Federal law, and prompted the halfass response from the White House that they would "get to the bottom of it". Typical cynical tripe. It was clearly deliberate and strategized at high levels for multiple staff to go making the same revelation to various national reporters at the same moment. Their recalcitrance after the fact was equally coordinated: Bush "got to the bottom" of nothing. So ultimately, after the cursory Justice Department "investigation", a Special Counsel was appointed, in a pro forma concession the violated law might still exist, and that maybe somebody should care.
The bizarre dimension here is that the reporters for Time and the New York Times were not the first ones to reveal Plame's identity. Bob Novak was. Yet he is sitting chill while other cats take the heat, and possible prison time. Wonder why? In part, no doubt, because he is a chief apologist and propagandist for the Bush Administration, which is why he went with the story in the first place, while others deferred (some until after he put the story out, and some for good). To be clear, the trade-off was American national security & foreign intelligence interests and the actual livelihood of a CIA official for political defamation of a reputable (and in this case wholly correct) critic. I know just the man for the job: Bob Novak.
Compare the CNN inteview with Novak, apparently representing his attorney, with the story in the Washington Post.
Novak: "There needs to be a federal shield law preventing that as there are shield laws in 49 out of 50 states."
Post: "Thirty-one states and the District of Columbia have shield laws protecting reporters from having to identify their confidential sources."
I'm going to guess the Post has the more accurate number. They certainly have more content:
Anybody know the 1978 case in question?
The grand jury investigating the leak expires in October, and the journalists, if jailed, would be freed at that time. The case represents one of the most serious legal clashes between the media and the government since the Pentagon Papers case more than 30 years ago... [New York] Times publisher Arthur Sulzberger, Jr. said: "We are deeply disappointed by Time Inc.'s decision to deliver the subpoenaed records." He noted that one of its reporters served 40 days in jail in 1978 in a similar dispute.
Comments:
Post a Comment
