Court upholds contempt (Plame)

[Roadtoad]

This scares the hell out of me. Part of the reason we have the First Amendment is to protect ourselves from the unprincipled actions of those who would claim to be our masters. (They aren't, nor should they ever be.) Part of this requires that we have accurate, unbiased, and open information sources as to what the hell is going on in our government.

That the Feds are now trying to shut down sources ought to be a sign that we damned well need to know what's going on, and we need to know this quick. There's something going on here, and that smell is not roadkill.

For this sort of thing, we can thank not only outgoing AG Ashcroft, but many of his predecessors. Much of this started with Watergate, when John Mitchell tried to shut down Woodward and Bernstein, (and got short circuited by his wife, Martha), and has continued. Keep in mind that a lot of judges since then have been appointed by not only conservative presidents, but by liberal ones, (Carter and Clinton) as well. You have to have judges in office who actually have some sort of respect for the Constitution, (which many don't on both sides of the fence), and because we kept putting people in office who had so little regard for Constitutional Law, we're now going to pay the penalty for it.

Frankly, this occurance was only a matter of time. It's going to have the (desired) chilling effect on investigative reporting that will make it even more possible for the Feds to infringe on our civil liberties.

 

[Rob Lister]

This scares the hell out of me. Part of the reason we have the First Amendment is to protect ourselves from the unprincipled actions of those who would claim to be our masters. (They aren't, nor should they ever be.) Part of this requires that we have accurate, unbiased, and open information sources as to what the hell is going on in our government.

Interesting aspect. Do you think that Arnold guy from the revolutionary war would agree?

While I don't think anything about this particular case meets the smell test of a real-live conspiracy/cover-up, I also don't think the media, or anyone else for that matter, should be able to cover up the doer of a crime. Pleading the 5th is fine but once immunity is granted, it is no longer relavant.

 

[aerocontrols]

materia3:

You seem to think (and Wilson flat-out says) that Gannon was leaked this INR memo.

Gannon's interview with Wilson was published Oct 28.

This Wall Street Journal article discusses the memo in question in a lot more detail than Gannon did with Wilson.

What makes you think that Gannon had any role in this memo release - rather than the more obvious - he read about it in the Wall Street Journal 2 weeks before he managed to get an interview with Wilson?

MattJ

 

[materia3]

materia3:

You seem to think (and Wilson flat-out says) that Gannon was leaked this INR memo.

Gannon's interview with Wilson was published Oct 28.

This Wall Street Journal article discusses the memo in question in a lot more detail than Gannon did with Wilson.

What makes you think that Gannon had any role in this memo release - rather than the more obvious - he read about it in the Wall Street Journal 2 weeks before he managed to get an interview with Wilson?

MattJ

I don't think anything about this at all. What I do read from his telephone interview is that he (Wilson) was not aware of the existence of the memo, may even doubt its existence and seems to be implying that Gannon or whatever his real name is was bluffing him.

There is nothing that makes ME think Gannon (or whatever his name is) had an original or direct role in releasing news of the existence of the memo but that he was poking Wilson to see if he could get information on it. On the other hand the cable news channels, particularly Chris Matthews last night, seem to imply otherwise. This, of course, leads up to the accusation that the White House engaged Gannon (or whatever his name is) to play some dirty press tricks. He allegedly got an interview with Karl Rove, high on the list of suspects who released the information on Plame to Novak.

It's just funny how these circles get wound tighter and tighter and the usual suspects' names keep popping up.

I am glad the WSJ knows more about it than anyone else. I will have to read what they say. Thanks for the link. Insofar as Gannon's published interview with WIlson, I am afraid I will have to take WIlson's impromptu remarks to Pitt as the final authority as to what he actually said. If you think I am going to take the words of a gay porn site operator/homosexual male prostitute with questionnable White House press credentials over that of Joe WIlson, then you are mistaken.

 

[materia3]

Interesting aspect. Do you think that Arnold guy from the revolutionary war would agree?

While I don't think anything about this particular case meets the smell test of a real-live conspiracy/cover-up, I also don't think the media, or anyone else for that matter, should be able to cover up the doer of a crime. Pleading the 5th is fine but once immunity is granted, it is no longer relavant.

A lot of the fourth estate is coming down firmly on your side Rob. Here's a few snippets from an editorial in the Seattle-Times.

Tabloids, on-line and in print have been defending their libel and slander using shield laws. They could just about say anything they wanted to and attribute it to an unnamed source ...whether that source existed or not. In this case Bob Novak clearly said they did and identified them as high up administration officials. If so, these officials comitted a criminal act which Novak compounded by publishing their information for the enemy to read.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2002183236_collin18.html


Miller's and Cooper's defenders argue that reporters should be granted the same privileges extended to other professions in which confidentiality is imperative. But there's a difference: Though it often seems otherwise, a journalist's sources aren't his or her clients.

Unlike lawyers, psychiatrists or priests, reporters don't really have clients — specific individuals whom they're contractually and ethically bound to serve. Nor is the client really the public. The public was never consulted, for instance, on whether it believes its "right to know" political gossip about the Bush administration merited the outing of a CIA agent.

………

Miller never wrote about the Plame controversy, and some have held that up as a reason why compelling her testimony is more absurd. In fact, the opposite is true.
If telling her the name of a CIA agent was a crime, then she's even closer to the situation of an ordinary citizen who witnessed a crime. We can all be compelled under many circumstances to testify to our direct knowledge of lawbreaking.

This is not to say I don't strongly sympathize with Miller and Cooper, who obviously are not criminals, and whose purpose is not to protect criminals. I hope a judge will recognize the principle Miller and Cooper are upholding and exercise some judicial discretion. But the concept of "civil disobedience" originally included the idea that dissenters were willing to accept the prescribed legal punishment for what they considered their moral stands.

Miller's and Cooper's predicament isn't easy. But there is some justice in knowing they're in the same boat as ordinary citizens, who also are often placed in difficult and unpleasant situations as the result of witnessing a crime.

Collin Levey writes Fridays for editorial pages of The Times. E-mail her at clevey@seattletimes.com

 

[aerocontrols]

I don't think anything about this at all. What I do read from his telephone interview is that he (Wilson) was not aware of the existence of the memo, may even doubt its existence and seems to be implying that Gannon or whatever his real name is was bluffing him.

It seems to me that Gannon was talking about the memo mentioned in the Wall Street Journal. The questions as posed to Wilson by Gannon at the time are almost verbatim from the WSJ article.

I am glad the WSJ knows more about it than anyone else. I will have to read what they say. Thanks for the link. Insofar as Gannon's published interview with WIlson, I am afraid I will have to take WIlson's impromptu remarks to Pitt as the final authority as to what he actually said. If you think I am going to take the words of a gay porn site operator/homosexual male prostitute with questionnable White House press credentials over that of Joe WIlson, then you are mistaken.

This is a pretty bizarre reply. From where does it come?

1) I don't say that the WSJ knows more about this issue than anyone else. The WSJ merely had an article out prior to the Wilson interview in question, providing a 'source' where Gannon could have heard about the memo.

2) On what topics are Wilson's remarks are in conflict with Gannon's? The only conflict I see is where Wilson says:

"The idea that someone with such a limited track record in journalism would be entrusted with a classified document, or information related to a classified document, is really unheard of unless the information was planted with him. If you talk to any experienced journalist, they will tell you it takes time to develop sources and trust before sensitive information is shared."

We know (but Wilson apparently does not) that Gannon, or you, or I, could have heard about this memo via the Wall Street Journal and learned enough to ask the very same questions that Gannon asked Wilson. The information didn't have to be 'planted' with him - he could get it by reading the newspaper. I'm not asking you to take Gannon's word over Wilson's - I'm asking you to consider that Wilson has left out a very likely possibility.

MattJ

 

[CBL4]

I do not get this at all. We have freedom of speech. Does not that imply freedom to not speak? How can saying nothing ever be considered a crime?

I have no obliglation to help in any investigation. It is illegal to actively impede an investigation but passivity can never be a crime.

CBL

 

[materia3]

I do not get this at all. We have freedom of speech. Does not that imply freedom to not speak? How can saying nothing ever be considered a crime?

I have no obliglation to help in any investigation. It is illegal to actively impede an investigation but passivity can never be a crime.

CBL

In the U.S. at least, not in a court and when ordered to "speak" by a judge. If don't speak, you could claim that you can't recall
what the answer is to whatever it is you are asked to talk about. Suddenly unexpected memory loss usually doesn't hold water (unless you have a big bump on the noggin to go along with it) like if Bob Novak said he can't remember who told him Plame was a CIA agent. This is called contempt of court and is punishable. If you speak, lie and are found out, its another crime: perjury. Also punishable. If you refuse to speak there are other charges you can face such as hindering prosecution and obstruction of justice.

You cannot cover up a crime by refusing to testify. The people can compel you do so with a subpoena.

In Novak's case he's already spoken and millions have heard and read what he is said. Now a special prosecutor wants the rest of the story like where he got his info from ...

two high administration officials in his own words.

Sure you can feign passivity. It's illegal but wouldbe hard to prove. You might see a crime and when asked, say sorry, you were looking the other way and then get away without being a witness. But in the case of Cooper, Miller and Novak passivity is off the table. It's too late for them.

 

[crimresearch]

I do not get this at all. We have freedom of speech. Does not that imply freedom to not speak? How can saying nothing ever be considered a crime?

I have no obliglation to help in any investigation. It is illegal to actively impede an investigation but passivity can never be a crime.

CBL

Actually, it is pretty well established that there are crimes both of commission, and omission.

Misprision of a felony for example:

18 USC Sec. 4. ...
"Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined not more than $500 or imprisoned not more than three years, or both."

ETA:

Besides, didn't you see the last episode of Seinfeld?

 

[CBL4]

crimresearch and materia3,

I probably did not phrase things correctly. I understand that our injustice system has claimed these are crimes but I do not understand the rationale behind the claim.

If I have the right to free speech, how can I be denied the right to silence? Perhaps there could be a "clear and present danger" exception but, otherwise, it is absurd.

CBL

 

[crimresearch]

My bad, and I apologize for not grasping your intent...

The law cannot be a mind reader..some folks seem to think that means that there are loopholes through which they can evade punishment by claiming to have not known something, or claiming that it might have occured some improbable way without providing anything to support their supposition, or claiming that they were not an active participant, etc.

Fairly or not, the legal system has come up with devices to plug those loopholes, and one of those devices is that people can be charged for passive crimes of omission.

 

[materia3]

crimresearch and materia3,

I probably did not phrase things correctly. I understand that our injustice system has claimed these are crimes but I do not understand the rationale behind the claim.

If I have the right to free speech, how can I be denied the right to silence? Perhaps there could be a "clear and present danger" exception but, otherwise, it is absurd.

CBL

the rationale is simple ... to prove someone did something bad, illegal, comitted a crime and if compelling enough, convict and sentence them for their actions. If nobody ever was required to testify imagine how many bad people would be getting away wih crimes? Much more than we have now.

The injustice system as you call it, and this belies your opinion of that system, yes, is calling the cover-up of a crime a crime.

Speech may be "free" but silence is not. It occurs at a price. Whether we want to pay that price or not is another matter.
For myself, I don't.

Murderers, rapists, thieving corporate execs, and people who place other people in danger by revealing they are CIA agents rise to the level of a clear and present danger which is what this thread is about.

 

[Roadtoad]

I'm late in my response due to my connection acting up.

Maybe I'm missing something, such as the thrust of the reporters' investigations. Frankly, though, if they're trying to figure out who the hell it was who narked out Plame, then yes, I want to know who it was. Point taken, Kevin: And yes, it was treasonous to reveal the identity of an active CIA officer, regardless of the motivation.

But as a rule, I damn well want the press to have some protection from being mauled by the courts. You have to protect a source, or you may not get the information necessary.

Rule #1: Never, ever, trust the bastards.

(Something Shanek and I can agree on.)

 

[materia3]

materia3:

You seem to think (and Wilson flat-out says) that Gannon was leaked this INR memo.

Gannon's interview with Wilson was published Oct 28.

This Wall Street Journal article discusses the memo in question in a lot more detail than Gannon did with Wilson.

What makes you think that Gannon had any role in this memo release - rather than the more obvious - he read about it in the Wall Street Journal 2 weeks before he managed to get an interview with Wilson?

MattJ

Well I knew if I waited long enough, the answers to your questions would come through other sources......this just in
from the bloggers:

2/18/2005
Gannon’s own statements suggest he fed exclusive stories damaging Bush opponents to networks; Bragged of feeding Rather story
Filed under: General— site admin @ 12:49 pm Email This


Gannon bragged about feeding damaging stories to media

Rep. Slaughter: Every day brings a new revelation

By John Byrne |

According to his own accounts, the disgraced White House reporter writing under the pseudonym Jeff Gannon bragged about feeding an exclusive story discrediting President Bush’s opponents to a major news outlet, RAW STORY has learned.

In addition, a producer at an affiliate of the major networks told AmericaBLOG’s John Aravosis that they had also received notice of the story, and another story as well–the exact time for the beginning of the U.S.-led “shock and awe” campaign in Iraq–four hours before President Bush announced it to the nation.

Gannon also claimed to have had access to a highly confidential CIA memorandum naming CIA agent Valerie Plame, a CIA agent who was outed by syndicated conservative columnist Robert Novak.

On none of the stories–Plame, Mapes and the start of the Iraq war– did Gannon actually break the story. This allows for the possibility that Gannon pretended he had information he did not have.

The producer’s account, however, suggests Gannon was used to plant stories in the mainstream press, stories that the White House could not have placed themselves without taking damage politically.

“Gannon’s stuff was always golden,” the producer told Aravosis. “How does this small news outfit get this info?”

Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY), who has been leading the charge with Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.) for an inquiry into the Gannon affair, expressed amazement at the new revelations.

“Every day brings a new revelation,” Slaughter told RAW STORY Friday. “If this pans out to be true we can add it to the mounting stack of evidence that Mr. Gannon had a special relationship with the White House despite his dubious credentials.”

Gannon bragged about passing a scoop on who obtained the troubled Bush National Guard memos to Fox News’ Sean Hannity on the conservative forum Free Republic.

“Mary Mapes is DEFINITELY [sic] behind the story,” Gannon wrote in Free Republic on Sept. 10, 2004. “This is who I told Sean Hannity got the documents. She also obtained the Abu Ghraib photos.”

“I got the scoop and passed it to Hannity,” Gannon added. “Look for my detailed story on Monday at Talon News. There is much more to this story. Mary Mapes is just the beginning.”

That story–that CBS producer Mary Mapes was the source of the troubled Bush Guard documents–shredded the credibility of anchor Dan Rather and killed any chance the facts that Bush had failed to adequately perform his duties as a member of the Texas Air National Guard would be taken seriously.

A producer at a rival network told Aravosis she received a call from Gannon informing her that Mapes had obtained the documents. That network then broke the tie between Mapes and the questionable ‘60 Minutes’ report.

No direct link has formally tied Gannon financially or personally to any members of the White House staff, but Rep. Slaughter believes the body of evidence illustrates Gannon was given special access.

“I am more concerned with each passing day that the relationship between Gannon and the White House was anything but typical,” Slaughter said. “As long as this Administration continues to stonewall I will seek the truth.”

Salon’s Joe Conason also noted Friday that Gannon worked directly with paid bloggers who sought to sink former Sen. Tom Daschle’s (D-SD) campaign.

“Working with two local South Dakota bloggers, both of whom later turned out to be secretly paid operatives of the Thune campaign, he targeted Daschle and discredited mainstream journalists,” Conanson writes. “Among Gannon’s direct hits was an embarrassing story that revealed that the three-term senator and his lobbyist wife, Linda, had applied for a ‘homestead exemption’ on their costly Washington, D.C., residence, claiming it as their primary residence.”

Gannon also pushed a story about how Republicans felt a Democratic member of the 9/11 had “personal baggage"–that she had written a memorandum while working for the Clinton Justice Department advocating a wall between the law enforcement and intelligence communities.

On April 29, 2004, Gannon asked White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan asking if the president shared an opinion that:

“the work of the 9/11 Commission won’t be complete until and unless Jamie Gorelick testifies before the commission on her role in building the wall between intelligence and law enforcement.”

Just hours later, Gannon bragged on Free Republic about putting the mainstream press on the trail.

“You should have been watching on C-SPAN,” he said. “I asked the question about it. As soon as Scott McClellan said that the President was unhappy that the memos were released, my colleagues jumped all over it. Bob Kur just mentioned it in his newscast.”

“It will be hard to ignore the memos now!” he added. “(But they’ll try.)”

AND THEN GANNON IS QUOTED IN THE WASHINGTON POST TODAY 19TH FEB:

Gannon says he was questioned by the FBI in the Valerie Plame leak investigation after referring to a classified CIA document when he interviewed the outed CIA operative's husband, former ambassador Joe Wilson.

But he said yesterday: "I didn't have the document. I never saw the document. It was written about in the Wall Street Journal a week before. I had no special access to classified information."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A36733-2005Feb18.html

So I guess it all comes down to who you believe......Gannon, a former homosexual prostitute who is now metamorphosing into a born again Christian, or the ongoing revelations and evidence of the matter.

check this out (also from the Wash Post):

Despite the battering he has taken, Gannon hasn't abandoned plans to work in journalism and hopes to generate sympathy by speaking out.

"People criticize me for being a Christian and having some of these questionable things in my past," he said. "I believe in a God of forgiveness."

 

[materia3]

dupe-deleted

 

[materia3]

I'm late in my response due to my connection acting up.

Maybe I'm missing something, such as the thrust of the reporters' investigations. Frankly, though, if they're trying to figure out who the hell it was who narked out Plame, then yes, I want to know who it was. Point taken, Kevin: And yes, it was treasonous to reveal the identity of an active CIA officer, regardless of the motivation.

But as a rule, I damn well want the press to have some protection from being mauled by the courts. You have to protect a source, or you may not get the information necessary.

Rule #1: Never, ever, trust the bastards.

(Something Shanek and I can agree on.)

Novak, Cooper and Miller are not trying to find out anything, they already know. Novak, to his discredit, actually published the treasonous information. Miller and Cooper investigated but would not commit treason to their credit.

The reporters know who broke the law (high Bush administration officials is all Novak called them) but they won't tell citing a bond of confidentiality they have with their sources.

The court says no, you cannot use the shield to cover up a crime, especially one that rises to the level of treason.

Does anyone in their right mind think that the President doesn't know who the guilty parties are? Bush ought to take a lesson from Richard Nixon and out his naughty staffers lest he suffer the consequences because we know the dems are not letting go of this one. Nixon did not go down because of a stupid burglarly, he went down for trying to cover it up. Covering up is worse than admitting guilt.

 

[hgc]

...

Does anyone in their right mind think that the President doesn't know who the guilty parties are? Bush ought to take a lesson from Richard Nixon and out his naughty staffers lest he suffer the consequences because we know the dems are not letting go of this one. Nixon did not go down because of a stupid burglarly, he went down for trying to cover it up. Covering up is worse than admitting guilt.

If there is anything the last 4 years has shown, it's that this Republican Congress will protect this Republican President from any kind of legal or political oversight. When you think of the continuous investigations and prosecutions that plagued Clinton for nothing that approached the level of criminality and venality of the Plame affair, the lying aparatus that hoodwinked country into a war of aggression, the utter disinterest in the Al Queda threat before 9/11, the coverup of the real projected cost of the prescription drug benefit prior to the vote, and so on, you have to understand that Bush will leave office completely unscathed.

 

[Rob Lister]

Novak, Cooper and Miller are not trying to find out anything, they already know. Novak, to his discredit, actually published the treasonous information. Miller and Cooper investigated but would not commit treason to their credit.

The reporters know who broke the law (high Bush administration officials is all Novak called them) but they won't tell citing a bond of confidentiality they have with their sources.

The court says no, you cannot use the shield to cover up a crime, especially one that rises to the level of treason.

Does anyone in their right mind think that the President doesn't know who the guilty parties are? Bush ought to take a lesson from Richard Nixon and out his naughty staffers lest he suffer the consequences because we know the dems are not letting go of this one. Nixon did not go down because of a stupid burglarly, he went down for trying to cover it up. Covering up is worse than admitting guilt.

I don't want to put too fine a point on this but did Novak ever use the words "high Bush administration officials" or did he refer to them only as "senior administration officials". I assume, like you, that the obvious implication is someone within the Bush administration specifically but even obvious implications can be (intentionally) misleading. The word "senior" also muddies the water. Rove is certainly 'senior', as is Cheney, as is the Press Secretary, all cabinet officers, speech writers, ... , you get the idea. It is therefore quite possible that Bush does not know who leaked the information. It is also possible that Bush, himself, leaked the information. Until somebody reveals the source, we just don't know what 'senior' really means, nor what 'administration' means for that matter.

 

[materia3]

1. semantics. There is only one administration being talked about and it's Bush's.

2. High, senior, top-level, etc all synonyms.....not low, junior, freshman, sophomore or low-level.

Novak has already tried and failed to wriggle out of this (see his October 1 column above) so I doubt he will come back a third time and try to use semantic distinctions or start a debate over what "senior" means or what he meant when he used this adjective. It's too late for that anyway but your point is taken.

Insofar as Bush emerging from this unscathed, that remains to be seen. If its Rove. And if Gannon was really involved, this will not play too well in with his Christian right constituents. I agree its not the 60s anymore.

 

[crimresearch]

Last I checked, wasn't Wilson a 'senior official'?

And he certainly wasn't shy about bragging on his wife's career.