Might Karl Rove go to jail?

[eyrei]

Eyrei, you really need to get hold of yourself. If there was anything to these rumors, they would've come out before the 2004 election.

There is nothing frantic in my scrutiny of this situation. I am, however, unwilling to just let it drop until I know what exactly is going on here. I honestly hope that my suspicions are not correct, because there is little I personally could do about it, and not too many other people seem to be paying attention.

 

[wilbill]

No one should go to jail, especially for something like that.

According to the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982 (pushed by then Vice President and former CIA Director, George H.W. Bush and signed by President Reagan), it's a crime for anyone who has access to classified information to disclose information identifying a covert agent. The punishment for such an offense is a fine of up to $50,000 and/or up to ten years in prison. Journalists are protected from prosecution, unless they engage in a "pattern of activities" to name agents in order to impair US intelligence activities.

So it would seem that if Novak's two sources are proven to have leaked this information, they might well go to jail.

Everyone knew that she was a CIA agent anyway before Novak published the story. It's also questionable whether she was truly "undercover" or not (especially since everyone in the know seemed to know she was an agent anyway).

The right wing blogs have been saying that "everyone knew" she was CIA, but that don't make it true. If "everyone knew" why did Robert Novak need a leak from the White House? Had he forgotten? Even if it wasn't the best kept CIA secret, I'm not sure that the fact that her occupation wasn't a closely held secret would make "outing" her in the press less of a crime.

And it's been reported that the prosecutor is NOT prosecuting.
anyone for leaking any name and instead that the investigation has morphed into a perjury investigation

It's been speculated, not reported as fact. Facts will be known when the indictments, if any, are made public.

(similiar to how White Water morphed into a perjury/obstruction of justice investigation or how Martha Stewart was convicted NOT of insider trading but of lying to investigators -- which is one of many reasons it was really stupid for her to be sent to jail)

Do you think anyone should ever go to jail? Do you think it's okay to lie to the police or the FBI when they're conducting an investigation? Did you defend James and Susan McDougall and Jim Guy Tucker when they were prosecuted as a result of White Water testimony? Or is it only okay for Republicans to lie to investigators?

Novak committed no crime by publishing the story.

True enough.

reporters should never have to reveal their sources ... this is basically a kind of Inquisition because the government is inflicting pain/discomfort/imprisonment on someone to try to get her to violate her conscience or to coerce her into acting in a certain way ... it's similiar to torture in that respect.

Several states have a "reporter shield law" which would allow reporters to refuse to name their sources, at least under some circumstances. The Federal government has no such law. There is no constitutional right allowing reporters to hold back names of sources to an investigation.

Novak hasn't made any comment about whether he has testified or not. Some speculate that he has cooperated and testified. Others speculate that he took the 5th Amendment and refused to testify. Novak has said that his lawyer instructed him not to make any comments ... which leads me to think that he took the 5th Amendment (probably mostly to protect his sources ... if he takes the 5th he doesn't have to reveal his sources while avoiding jail for refusing to testify at the same time ... unfortunately Judith can't take the 5th)

The 5th amendment protects against self incrimination. Since we've already established that the reporters aren't covered by the "outing" law, he can't plead the 5th because he's not being asked to incriminate himself. What, exactly, makes you think that Novak is covered by the 5th Amendment, but not Judith Miller or Matthew Cooper?

 

[wit>trope]

According to the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982 (pushed by then Vice President and former CIA Director, George H.W. Bush and signed by President Reagan), it's a crime for anyone who has access to classified information to disclose information identifying a covert agent. The punishment for such an offense is a fine of up to $50,000 and/or up to ten years in prison. Journalists are protected from prosecution, unless they engage in a "pattern of activities" to name agents in order to impair US intelligence activities.

1. Just because something is the law doesn't make it right. Think about this and you'll see why (hint: Germany, Iran, Soviet Union, the list is rather long and includes many present-day countries)

2. It's not clear she was even a "covert agent." The law is untested. Some people persist in thinking that she was some James-Bond style operative, but SHE WAS JUST AN ANALYST, WORKING AT A DESK JOB (See the end of my post for the facts)

3. The investigation has turned into a perjury investigation (I believe that's what TIME magazine reported and they should know something about it) and this law is "untested."

The right wing blogs have been saying that "everyone knew" she was CIA, but that don't make it true. If "everyone knew" why did Robert Novak need a leak from the White House?

He didn't get a leak of that kind from the White House or anyone else and his original story was not even about the leak or her being CIA. That wasn't the main thrust of the story. And when people say "everyone knew" they don't mean literally every single person on the face of the planet and they also do not necessarily mean knowing something for certain and on solid grounds. See the end of my post for the facts about how this was not much of a secret in Washington circles.

It's been speculated, not reported as fact.

It has been speculated as fact by TIME magazine, I believe.

Facts will be known when the indictments, if any, are made public.

Some facts may never be known.

Do you think anyone should ever go to jail?

People who commit grievous crimes should go to jail.

Do you think it's okay to lie to the police or the FBI when they're conducting an investigation?

I don't think it's OK unless it's not really lying but just misleading, BUT I don't think anyone should go to jail for that. EVERYONE lies. Probably, more lies have been told in human history then there are atoms in the corporeal universe. Some people lie to their parents. Some people lie to their girlfriends. Some people lie to their grandmothers. Some people lie to the police. Some people lie to their lawyers. The only time someone should go to jail for lying is if they LIE UNDER OATH (and even then if the lie is a tiny one that doesn't affect things in a great way, then they shouldn't go to jail or maybe only go to jail for a few days or something ... like for example if a woman lies about her weight while on the stand or something and her weight isn't at all critical to the case )

Did you defend James and Susan McDougall and Jim Guy Tucker when they were prosecuted as a result of White Water testimony?

Um no, but I didn't attack them either and I don't think I even know who Jim Guy Tucker is ... I can't defend someone I don't even know. With regard to Susan McDougall (she's the lady who spent months in jail for not testifying right?), I feel badly for her and think that she may have had pressure applied to her to not testify. It happens in cases involving the Mafia and it might very well happen in cases involving you know who.

Or is it only okay for Republicans to lie to investigators?

I didn't even know that Martha Stewart was a Republican? Is she? I defended Winona Ryder (an actress who got a harsh sentence of probation for some frivolous shoplifting) also and I don't think she is a Republican (though she might be).

True enough.Several states have a "reporter shield law" which would allow reporters to refuse to name their sources, at least under some circumstances. The Federal government has no such law. There is no constitutional right allowing reporters to hold back names of sources to an investigation.

Just because a right isn't recognized by the law, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Reporters have a MORAL RIGHT to hold back names of sources whether the law recognizes this or not. The law doesn't determine what's right or wrong. Hopefully, the law conforms to what's right and wrong, but it doesn't always do that perfectly.

The 5th amendment protects against self incrimination. Since we've already established that the reporters aren't covered by the "outing" law, he can't plead the 5th because he's not being asked to incriminate himself.

I don't think they are covered, but maybe some other people think they are.

Now here's what ROBERT NOVAK wrote that should clear everything up:

I had thought I never again would write about retired diplomat Joseph Wilson's CIA-employee wife, but feel constrained to do so now that repercussions of my July 14 column have reached the front pages of major newspapers and led off network news broadcasts. My role and the role of the Bush White House have been distorted and need explanation.

The leak now under Justice Department investigation is described by former Ambassador Wilson and critics of President Bush's Iraq policy as a reprehensible effort to silence them. To protect my own integrity and credibility, I would like to stress three points. First, I did not receive a planned leak. Second, the CIA never warned me that the disclosure of Wilson's wife working at the agency would endanger her or anybody else. Third, it was not much of a secret.

The current Justice investigation stems from a routine, mandated probe of all CIA leaks, but follows weeks of agitation. Wilson, after telling me in July that he would say nothing about his wife, has made investigation of the leak his life's work -- aided by the relentless Sen. Charles Schumer of New York. These efforts cannot be separated from the massive political assault on President Bush.

This story began July 6 when Wilson went public and identified himself as the retired diplomat who had reported negatively to the CIA in 2002 on alleged Iraq efforts to buy uranium yellowcake from Niger. I was curious why a high-ranking official in President Bill Clinton's National Security Council (NSC) was given this assignment. Wilson had become a vocal opponent of President Bush's policies in Iraq after contributing to Al Gore in the last election cycle and John Kerry in this one.

During a long conversation with a senior administration official, I asked why Wilson was assigned the mission to Niger. He said Wilson had been sent by the CIA's counterproliferation section at the suggestion of one of its employees, his wife. It was an offhand revelation from this official, who is no partisan gunslinger. When I called another official for confirmation, he said: "Oh, you know about it." The published report that somebody in the White House failed to plant this story with six reporters and finally found me as a willing pawn is simply untrue.

At the CIA, the official designated to talk to me denied that Wilson's wife had inspired his selection but said she was delegated to request his help. He asked me not to use her name, saying she probably never again will be given a foreign assignment but that exposure of her name might cause "difficulties" if she travels abroad. He never suggested to me that Wilson's wife or anybody else would be endangered. If he had, I would not have used her name. I used it in the sixth paragraph of my column because it looked like the missing explanation of an otherwise incredible choice by the CIA for its mission.

How big a secret was it? It was well known around Washington that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA. Republican activist Clifford May wrote Monday, in National Review Online, that he had been told of her identity by a non-government source before my column appeared and that it was common knowledge. Her name, Valerie Plame, was no secret either, appearing in Wilson's "Who's Who in America" entry.

A big question is her duties at Langley. I regret that I referred to her in my column as an "operative," a word I have lavished on hack politicians for more than 40 years. While the CIA refuses to publicly define her status, the official contact says she is "covered" -- working under the guise of another agency. However, an unofficial source at the Agency says she has been an analyst, not in covert operations.

The Justice Department investigation was not requested by CIA Director George Tenet. Any leak of classified information is routinely passed by the Agency to Justice, averaging one a week. This investigative request was made in July shortly after the column was published. Reported only last weekend, the request ignited anti-Bush furor.

"analyst" means someone who has a desk job analyzing data with computers and stuff like that.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/robertnovak/rn20031001.shtml

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Cierdan, Ive only seen you show this blind faith and fervor in religious threads. Maybe you should start asking yourself if its right for you to invest the same infallibility in a mere political party that you do in your holy book.

 

[zulu9812]

1. Just because something is the law doesn't make it right. Think about this and you'll see why (hint: Germany, Iran, Soviet Union, the list is rather long and includes many present-day countries)

That is correct. Might I infer from this that you have no more confidence in the legal system and governance of the USA than you do in the Soviet Union?

However, your comparison is flawed. When a law 'isn't right', invariably it is because it is morally incorrect. For example, it could be the law that you had shoot arabs on sight in the USA. That law would be morally incorrect, but it is not in the same category as a law which seeks to protect the indentity (and ultimately safety) of government agents.

Fundamentally, though, one would expect a high-level government/party-in-government official to obey the law. When they don't, it is corruption.

2. It's not clear she was even a "covert agent." The law is untested. Some people persist in thinking that she was some James-Bond style operative, but SHE WAS JUST AN ANALYST, WORKING AT A DESK JOB (See the end of my post for the facts)

That's not relevant to the argument. The law says nothing about only protecting the identity of '007-types'. And, as a poster has already pointed out, the naming of this woman hampered an overseas operation.

3. The investigation has turned into a perjury investigation (I believe that's what TIME magazine reported and they should know something about it) and this law is "untested."

Just because a law is untested does not mean that it should not be upheld. Ultimately, are you saying that Karl Rove SHOULD have revealed that woman's idenitity our of petty revenge against Joseph Wilson for revealing that the Niger/Iraq uranium documents were forged?

See the end of my post for the facts about how this was not much of a secret in Washington circles.

It might not have been much of a secret in Washington circles but, again, that is completely irrelevant. It certainly was a secret to the general public and it certainly was a secret to terrorists and foreign agents.

"analyst" means someone who has a desk job analyzing data with computers and stuff like that.

Nonetheless, revealing that information a) put an end to that woman's career, b) hampered the CIA by losing a good officer and c) set a dangerous precedent for government officials conducting vendettas against individuals by revealing secrets. If Karl Rove doesn't go to jail for this, it will also set a dangerous precedent for one law for the rulers and another law for the ruled.

 

[YNCS]

Double post.

 

[YNCS]

It doesn't matter what Plame's job was at the CIA nor how many Washington insiders knew of her occupation. It appears that a "senior White House official" revealed her name, apparently to punish her husband for not following the party line. If this is true, then said "official" should be prosecuted.

 

[eyrei]

So Novak is really an apologist for the Bush administration...that explains some things...I guess we have to wait for the 'special prosecutor', who hopefully has a strong sense of ethics, before we can find out what is going on...

It is amazing that people will take the words of someone who has obviously received some sort of deal from the prosecution at face value. Did Bush appoint this 'special prosecutor'? I hope not...

 

[wilbill]

1. Just because something is the law doesn't make it right. Think about this and you'll see why (hint: Germany, Iran, Soviet Union, the list is rather long and includes many present-day countries)

So you're saying that a law designed to keep US intelligence agents from being identified publicly equates to laws in Germany, Iran, and the USSR? Get real.

2. It's not clear she was even a "covert agent." The law is untested. Some people persist in thinking that she was some James-Bond style operative, but SHE WAS JUST AN ANALYST, WORKING AT A DESK JOB (See the end of my post for the facts)

Your standard logic-defying tactic. Jump from a vague (It's not clear she was a covert agent) assumption to an unproven statement (she was just an analyst) which has become a fact in your mind. As far as your choice to use Robet Novak's columns as "the facts", cierdan, I think he's the last person involved in this mess to trust for the facts. His columns have given contradictory versions of what he knew, when he knew it, and what his sources told him on several occasions as he tries to excuse himself from any blame. From Wikipedia's review of "Novak's Response".

Novak's initial column identified Plame as "an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction." He has since stated that he believed Plame was merely an analyst at the CIA, not a covert operative—the difference being that analysts are not undercover, so identifying them is not a crime.

Novak has also claimed that Plame's CIA employment was an open secret in Washington, indicating that effective "affirmative measures" to conceal her relationship to the CIA were not being taken. Several ex-CIA operatives who knew Plame have disputed this and indicated that she was at one time a NOC (nonofficial cover) covert operative.

In other interviews Novak confirmed that his sources warned him not to mention Plame.

As far as her secret/not-secret status, she has described herself as an energy analyst for the private company Brewster Jennings & Associates, which was subsequently acknowledged by the CIA as a front.

3. The investigation has turned into a perjury investigation (I believe that's what TIME magazine reported and they should know something about it) and this law is "untested."

Time quotes (Oh, No, not again!) "sources" as saying this. Again, we'll know when the indictments, if any, are made public.

He didn't get a leak of that kind from the White House or anyone else and his original story was not even about the leak or her being CIA. That wasn't the main thrust of the story.

In the original column, he says,

"Wilson never worked for the CIA, but his wife, Valerie Plame, is an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction. Two senior administration officials told me Wilson's wife suggested sending him to Niger to investigate the Italian report. The CIA says its counter-proliferation officials selected Wilson and asked his wife to contact him."

So you're right, her CIA status wasn't the "main thrust" and he said "senior administration" officials, not White House officials. So what? That doesn't change the fact that he "outed" her and it doesn't mean the "senior administration officials" weren't from the White House. Here's a hint for you: don't read the absence of something to automatically mean the presence of something else.

See the end of my post for the facts about how this was not much of a secret in Washington circles.

Again, if you think Novak's self serving, contradictory statements are facts, you'll never be able to grasp what's going on here.

Just because a right isn't recognized by the law, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Reporters have a MORAL RIGHT to hold back names of sources whether the law recognizes this or not.

I know you like to define morality for all the rest of us, but please tell me where this MORAL RIGHT comes from? I doubt most reporters would consider it more than an ethical obligation. Don't elevate this issue to a moral plane when it clearly doesn't deserve it.

Now here's what ROBERT NOVAK wrote that should clear everything up:

You bet it does.

 

[FriendlyFire]

Second, the CIA never warned me that the disclosure of Wilson's wife working at the agency would endanger her or anybody else

He asked me not to use her name

NOVAK contridicts himeself in the same artical. What an absolute ******.
The CIA told you not to use her name
And the CIA is to blame for not telling you it would endanger lives.

 

[wilbill]

So Novak is really an apologist for the Bush administration..

Well, he's a sometimes apologist. In this episode, his original article (the one which exposed Plame as a CIA employee) the gist of it was how terrible that someone like Joseph Wilson, who had the nerve to work for the Clinton Administration could have been given such a sensitive job as investigating the Niger/Iraq Uranium story. Novak considered it akin to letting the fox guard the chickencoop. Never mind that every other person or agency who'd investigated it found it to be equally false.

Curiously, 11 years or so earlier, during Gulf War 1, Novak had written of Joseph Wilson, then Deputy Chief of Mission at the U.S. Embassy in Iraq,

"The chief American diplomat, Joe Wilson, shepherds his flock of some 800 known Americans like a village priest. At 4:30 Sunday morning, he was helping 55 wives and children of U.S. diplomats from Kuwait load themselves and their few remaining possessions on transport for the long haul on the desert to Jordan. He shows the stuff of heroism."

From hero to spy for the democrats - could Novak be a flip-flopper?

 

[wit>trope]

That is correct. Might I infer from this that you have no more confidence in the legal system and governance of the USA than you do in the Soviet Union?

No, but I do realize that the legal system and governance of the USA is less than perfect. Soviet Union was just a lot more less than perfect.

However, your comparison is flawed. When a law 'isn't right', invariably it is because it is morally incorrect. For example, it could be the law that you had shoot arabs on sight in the USA. That law would be morally incorrect, but it is not in the same category as a law which seeks to protect the indentity (and ultimately safety) of government agents.

A law could have good intentions but still be wrong. For example if you make a law that gives the death penalty or a 40 year prison term for littering, then the law is wrong because the penalty is too harsh even though it was well-intentioned.

Fundamentally, though, one would expect a high-level government/party-in-government official to obey the law. When they don't, it is corruption.

It looks like it was more of a slip of the tongue. Novak calls it an "off-hand revelation." The official may not have even realized it was illegal until the whole bruhaha happened.

That's not relevant to the argument. The law says nothing about only protecting the identity of '007-types'. And, as a poster has already pointed out, the naming of this woman hampered an overseas operation.

The law says it must be a covert agent. Is someone who works as an "analyst" really a covert agent? Is someone who no longer works covertly overseas but did so in the past really still a covert agent?

Just because a law is untested does not mean that it should not be upheld. Ultimately, are you saying that Karl Rove SHOULD have revealed that woman's idenitity our of petty revenge against Joseph Wilson for revealing that the Niger/Iraq uranium documents were forged?

I don't think he did such a thing. If he did do that it would be wrong, but that doesn't mean he should go to jail. Jail should be a last resort just like war should generally be a last resort.

It might not have been much of a secret in Washington circles but, again, that is completely irrelevant. It certainly was a secret to the general public and it certainly was a secret to terrorists and foreign agents.

Good point.

Nonetheless, revealing that information a) put an end to that woman's career

She wasn't working as a covert agent overseas at that time anyway. She can still work for the CIA in other capacities. Lots of people work for the CIA who lead regular lives.

b) hampered the CIA by losing a good officer

The CIA told Novak that she probably wouldn't be sent on an overseas assignment in the future anyway. CIA said it may cause "difficulties" for her if she chose to travel overseas (like as a tourist I guess), however.

c) set a dangerous precedent for government officials conducting vendettas against individuals by revealing secrets.

Except that's not what happened. It was according to Robert Novak himself, an "offhand revelation." Now you might be cynical and say that the official deliberately made it LOOK like an offhand revelation to fool Novak, but I think Novak is smarter than anyone in the Bush White House

If Karl Rove doesn't go to jail for this, it will also set a dangerous precedent for one law for the rulers and another law for the ruled.

You make it sound like you've already convicted him. Different laws apply to the rulers than the ruled anyway. For example, a President can't be indicted and convicted in a regular court for a crime he commits. He has to be impeached and convicted by the Congress as this is the only punishment laid out in the Constitution for Presidents. Some say that a President can be indicted, but I think most legal scholars say that he can't. There should be different laws for rulers versus ruled since they are different people who have different functions in society. Different things should be treated differently.

 

[wit>trope]

So you're saying that a law designed to keep US intelligence agents from being identified publicly equates to laws in Germany, Iran, and the USSR? Get real.

No I'm saying that just because something is the law, doesn't make it right.

As far as your choice to use Robet Novak's columns as "the facts", cierdan, I think he's the last person involved in this mess to trust for the facts.

He seems like an honest person to me.

His columns have given contradictory versions of what he knew, when he knew it, and what his sources told him on several occasions as he tries to excuse himself from any blame.

No, they only seem contradictory to those who are actively trying to seek out contradictions instead of just understanding them in a natural way with the understanding that we don't always write in precise and perfect way. If someone says one day that he is 6 foot and the other day that he is "6 foot 2" that doesn't mean he's condradicted himself. If you want to make a mountain out of molehill, then you could argue that he had. If someone says that someone is pretty one day and another day says that the same person is "Not pretty, but beautiful" then you could try to argue that he contradicted himself when a reasonable person would see that he had not. Novak says he called the person an "operative" out of a habit of calling in his career covering politics, political hacks "operatives" -- so to him everyone like that was an "operative." He didn't mean "operative" in the technical CIA sense but just in the sense that is used in the politics-heavy circles he lives and breathes in. So he clarified by saying that he did not mean to say she was an operative in the technical CIA sense.

Time quotes (Oh, No, not again!) "sources" as saying this.

TIME is involved in this case. They (or their parent company) caved in and betrayed their sources and their reporter also caved in (probably because he has a young child). So they should know something about it.

I know you like to define morality for all the rest of us,

Um no, if you want to argue it is not a moral right, then you are free to do so. That's what freedom of speech is all about. It's supposed to help arrive at the truth by means of discourse.

but please tell me where this MORAL RIGHT comes from? I doubt most reporters would consider it more than an ethical obligation.

Um, "moral" and "ethical" are basically synonyms. If something is an ethical obligation it is also a moral obligation and if something is a moral obligation it is also an ethical obligation. Something can't be truly ethical and immoral at the same time or truly moral and unethical at the same time. There's no such thing as an immoral ethical act or a moral unethical act -- that'd be an oxymoron.

Don't elevate this issue to a moral plane when it clearly doesn't deserve it.

The moral plane is what this is all about. It is because of morality that a reporter from the NYT has chosen to go to jail in the face of the tyrannical prosecution/courts. She feels that revealing her source would be immoral -- i.e. not right.

 

[wit>trope]

From hero to spy for the democrats - could Novak be a flip-flopper?

Um no:

1. It may have been WILSON who flip-flopped and so Novak changed his opinion of Wilson after Wilson flip-flopped.

2. Showing heroism in one act doesn't make you a good choice to do every single job in the entire world (I mean for example I don't think Mother Teresa would have made a good theoretical physics professor) -- it also doesn't even make you a saint ... plenty of people sometimes do something heroic one time in their lives without being an exceptionally good person the rest of their lives as a whole.

 

[wit>trope]

So Novak is really an apologist for the Bush administration

No he's not. The wiki article says:

"Therein Novak excoriates the Bush Administration's appointment of Frances Fragos Townsend"

Novak is very refreshing because of his independent thinking. He is very unlike for example the people that CNN hires to be liberals on Crossfire who are actually publically known Democratic political operatives (they include people like James Carville who is a Democratic strategist and has advised people like Bill Clinton as a campaign manager) and so won't criticize Democrats ever whereas Novak criticizes Republicans just as much as he criticizes Democrats.

As Novak, says every CIA leak gets a mandated routine investigation by the Justice Department. But some Democrats for reasons of political gain chose to make a big deal out of this particular one. If that hadn't happened, this would have been yesterday's news or maybe not even made the news except on page 12 of the paper.

 

[CurtSibling]

It is very foolish to offer politicians your complete belief...

They are there to milk it, not to appease meaningless citizens...

.

 

[eyrei]

No he's not. The wiki article says:

"Therein Novak excoriates the Bush Administration's appointment of Frances Fragos Townsend"

Novak is very refreshing because of his independent thinking. He is very unlike for example the people that CNN hires to be liberals on Crossfire who are actually publically known Democratic political operatives (they include people like James Carville who is a Democratic strategist and has advised people like Bill Clinton as a campaign manager) and so won't criticize Democrats ever whereas Novak criticizes Republicans just as much as he criticizes Democrats.

As Novak, says every CIA leak gets a mandated routine investigation by the Justice Department. But some Democrats for reasons of political gain chose to make a big deal out of this particular one. If that hadn't happened, this would have been yesterday's news or maybe not even made the news except on page 12 of the paper.

Well, he certainly seems to be doing a lot of apologizing. And the main reason I am concerned about this case has to do with one reporter being jailed while one who is on very good terms with the White House remains free, and attempts to explain away the entire case. Something sketchy is going on, though I don't claim to know exactly what.

The fact that Rove's lawyer has gotten involved means that there is a decent chance that he actually did do something wrong, and if he did, it wasn't an accident. He is way too smart for that. I freely admit I would love to see Rove go to prison, but I would be satisfied with a full explanation of these happenings without double-talk.

If the prosecution has two reporters who have revealed their source for this leak (one unwillingly), and noone 'burns' for it, that is just going to raise more questions, and lead many more people to be convinced that it was Rove and he is just being protected.

 

[wit>trope]

Well, he certainly seems to be doing a lot of apologizing.

"excoriates" is the exact opposite of apologizing. This is from the same article Will Bill linked to.

And the main reason I am concerned about this case has to do with one reporter being jailed while one who is on very good terms with the White House remains free, and attempts to explain away the entire case. Something sketchy is going on, though I don't claim to know exactly what.

His explanation that I posted was a long time ago. Since then he has basically kept totally silent saying that that's what his lawyer advised him to do.

I don't get why you think something sketchy is going on. The reporter was jailed for refusing to testify. Novak apparently either didn't refuse to testify or was able to avoid testifying some other way (such as invoking the 5th) Comparing him and Miller is comparing apples and oranges. Another reporter invovled from TIME chose to testify and avoided jail -- just like Novak avoided jail.

The fact that Rove's lawyer has gotten involved means that there is a decent chance that he actually did do something wrong, and if he did, it wasn't an accident.

Um no. The President has lawyer for this too. Amber Frey (who was a witness in the Scott Peterson murder trial) had a lawyer also. Neither the President nor Amber Frey did anything wrong in their respective cases. So, you can't use the fact that Rove has a lawyer to say that he did anything wrong. And realize that Wilson at first said that Rove leaked it but then later apologized and said that he did not know if Rove leaked it.

I freely admit I would love to see Rove go to prison

That sounds sadistic!, an extreme version of schadenfreude! Why do you hate him so much?

If the prosecution has two reporters who have revealed their source for this leak (one unwillingly), and noone 'burns' for it, that is just going to raise more questions, and lead many more people to be convinced that it was Rove and he is just being protected.

There is no evidence that it was Rove. Zero. Nada. At least none that is public. Given your stated glee at him going to jail, I think nothing more needs to be said at why some people want to assume that it was him.

BTW, I'm not sure which "two reporters" you are thinking of (do you mean Novak and the TIME reporter?), but there are WELL over two reporters who have cooperated with the prosecution. For example, host of Meet the Press, Tim Russert has cooperate with the prosecution ... and there are others too ... probably about a half-dozen or so (that we know about).

 

[eyrei]

"excoriates" is the exact opposite of apologizing. This is from the same article Will Bill linked to.

I was referring to the statement you posted earlier by Novak.

His explanation that I posted was a long time ago. Since then he has basically kept totally silent saying that that's what his lawyer advised him to do.

Which could mean many things.

I don't get why you think something sketchy is going on. The reporter was jailed for refusing to testify. Novak apparently either didn't refuse to testify or was able to avoid testifying some other way (such as invoking the 5th) Comparing him and Miller is comparing apples and oranges. Another reporter invovled from TIME chose to testify and avoided jail -- just like Novak avoided jail.

He couldn't plead the fifth because he wasn't being charged with anything, nor could he be. Novak didn't break any laws. And the fact that he revealed his source so easily means that either he has absolutely no integrity, or his source immediately released him from any obligation to keep the secret. The latter is most likely to be true. So, why did he then feel the need to offer excuses?

And the TIME reporter didn't cooperate, but the company that owns the magazine handed over the documents anyway.

Um no. The President has lawyer for this too. Amber Frey (who was a witness in the Scott Peterson murder trial) had a lawyer also. Neither the President nor Amber Frey did anything wrong in their respective cases. So, you can't use the fact that Rove has a lawyer to say that he did anything wrong. And realize that Wilson at first said that Rove leaked it but then later apologized and said that he did not know if Rove leaked it.

I didn't say it was proof, but if he did absolutely nothing wrong, it is unlikely he would invoke suspicion by letting his attorney take over. Remember, this is a guy who regularly puts words in the mouth of the leader of the free world.

That sounds sadistic!, an extreme version of schadenfreude! Why do you hate him so much?

Because he does his job too well. And when your job is misleading people, that is a scary thing. I think Rove's crimes go far deeper than leaking names.

There is no evidence that it was Rove. Zero. Nada. At least none that is public. Given your stated glee at him going to jail, I think nothing more needs to be said at why some people want to assume that it was him.

I'm not assuming it was him. Like I said before, Rove going to jail would just be a 'bonus'. I just want to know why we have people leaking the names of CIA employees.

BTW, I'm not sure which "two reporters" you are thinking of (do you mean Novak and the TIME reporter?), but there are WELL over two reporters who have cooperated with the prosecution. For example, host of Meet the Press, Tim Russert has cooperate with the prosecution ... and there are others too ... probably about a half-dozen or so (that we know about).

And they probably didn't have any information or sources to protect.

 

[wit>trope]

I And the TIME reporter didn't cooperate, but the company that owns the magazine handed over the documents anyway.

No they both ended up cooperating. I saw it on TV. Trust me on this and if you don't just google it and you'll see.

At first both TIME and the reporter did not cooperate. Then after the SCOTUS refusal to hear the case and the prospect of hefty fines, TIME and the company that controls TIME chose to cooperate citing some "we are not above the law" crap. Also, the TIME reporter chose to cooperate on the very same day that the NYT reporter chose to go jail. The TIME reporter said that he was fully prepared to go to jail and had said goodbye to his young child but then he got an eleventh hour call from his source who verbally confirmed that he was waiving his right to confidentiality and assured the reporter that he was doing so voluntary (the source had already done this in writing but the TIME reporter felt that he was coerced into doing this by the government). The NYT reporter stuck to her guns and went to jail.

It seems that the TIME reporter fudged his ethics because of his family ... or it may be that the eleventh hour call really did reassure him. I don't see how the source could have made it clear it was voluntary though ... the source could have been coerced by the government to call the reporter just as the source was coerced to make a written waiver.

I didn't say it was proof, but if he did absolutely nothing wrong, it is unlikely he would invoke suspicion by letting his attorney take over.

Then explain why the President had a laywer present for his interviews? Why would the President want to "invoke supsicion" by having a lawyer present for his interviews if "he did absolutely nothing wrong"? ... same deal with Amber Frey and other people like that.