Russert subpoenaed in CIA leak probe

[dArKeR]

NBC, fighting move, says journalist did not receive information
MSNBC and NBC News
Updated: 8:45 p.m. ET May 21, 2004

WASHINGTON - NBC News said Friday night that it would oppose a subpoena issued to Washington bureau chief Tim Russert by the federal grand jury investigating the leak of the identity of an undercover CIA operative last year.

Russert, the moderator of NBC’s “Meet the Press,” is the first journalist known to have been subpoenaed in the investigation, which the Justice Department opened after syndicated columnist Robert Novak reported in July that Valerie Plame, the wife of a former ambassador who criticized President Bush’s justification for going to war in Iraq, worked for the agency.

Novak has refused to reveal who identified Plame, saying only that the information came from two senior administration officials.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5033875/

Try them all for Racketeering and Murder! Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Abrams, Perle, Ginrich, Lott, Delay, Frist, Hastert...

[rumguy]

1. I wonder if Big Russ will come to the rescue

[Melodybe]

2. Send Russert, Novak, O'Reilly, Hannity, Rush and the rest of Bushco

straight to jail!

Fuck those treasonous assholes

[countmyvote4real]

4. That's a naked pyramid that I DON'T want to see.

I just want to know that it happened. They deserve it.

[rumguy]

5. ahhhh....lol

[sofa king]

8. That's a naked pyramid that's physically impossible.

I know that thanks to hillbilly heroin, Rush has dropped a few pounds, but the rest of 'em? They'd put a hole in the concrete, the fat bastards would.

[cosmicone]

6. Actually ....

send them all to Abu Ghraib, strip them naked, put a hood on their heads, show them snarling dogs, attach wires to their genitals and I'm sure they'll talk!!

If that doesn't work, rape their children in front of them, sodomize them with phosphor lights and even make a butt pyramid! We already know it works!!!!

hehehe

[Citizen Daryl]

16. Methinks Rush might like it too much ...

... they way he was fawning and cooing over the "homosexuality" and "frat boy inititiation" of it all.

[cybildisobedience]

23. yeah, just a little friendly media hazing...

just like in college, right, boys?

[Dookus]

7. I hate having to defend Novak

but he broke no law whatsoever.

The government is responsible for keeping its own secrets - journalists do not share that responsibility.

Would you like the government to arrest people for publishing the Abu Ghraib photos? It cuts both ways.

Somebody in the government (presumably) broke the law when they leaked to Novak. Novak violated no law by printing the information.

I hope I never see the day when journalists are jailed for publishing the truth.

[Dirty Hippie]

9. He may not have broken the law

but don't you think revealing information that endangers the lives of others is unethical?

The Abu Ghraib photos do not fall into this category. I see a difference here.

[Dookus]

10. Yes I do think it's unethical

But that has nothing to do with the point: that he did not break the law.

As for the Abu Ghraib photos, this government could argue that releasing them disrupts a pending investigation (obstruction of justice) or it could classify them all. Would you put that past them?

The larger point, though, is that I'm disturbed by how many people, for a year now, have demanded that Novak be jailed without thinking through the consequences.

If Novak can be jailed for telling the truth, so can Sy Hersh.

[bahrbearian]

18. He's just being patriotic. His American Duty ,Standing by the *

[pacifictiger]

37. Exposing the identity of a cia operative

is an immense 'against the law' national security issue.
The prison abuse scandal is major dirty laundry and relates to policy screwup. Big difference in press responsibility level.

[Dookus]

39. simply

show the me law he violated.

Everybody is so quick to say "throw him in jail" but nobody has cited ONE law he broke.

edit: further, show me an unbiased way to determine the various levels of "press responsibility". Show me who gets to decide.

[UpInArms]

44. I think that the distinction of

"who" outed the CIA agent should be made here -

Novak did not "out" the agent - he outed that he was informed and named the agent -

the person or persons who gave such information to a "journalist" (and I use that term loosely with Novak) are the criminal(s).

[Dookus]

47. exactly correct

whether Novak was right to report what he knew or not is a matter of ethics, not a matter of law.

The law very clearly states WHO can be held responsible in a case like this, and it's only people on the "inside" who know the agent's identity. If Scooter Libby, for example, knew the agent's identity due to his own job level/security clearance, than the law only applies to Scooter Libby, NOT to anybody else he told.

[Dirty Hippie]

11. A question...

If I outed a CIA agent, as an average citizen instead of a journalist, could I be prosecuted?

If it is a crime why would a journalist be immune?

Just asking...

[Dookus]

12. No you wouldn't

the law applies only to people with inside knowledge, that is people working for the government or with security clearance that allows them to know such information. It is against the law for them to release that information.

Another class is somebody, even a reporter, who engages in a pattern of activity designed to reveal the names of covert operatives. Nobody alleges that Novak was engaged in such a pattern.

You can read the act here:

http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Covert_Agent_Identity_Protection_Act

[Dirty Hippie]

13. Good Answer..

Thanks.

[theHandpuppet]

31. Okay, I just have to ask...

Where do I get my "Louise 2004" bumper stricker? I WANT ONE! :)

[bullimiami]

14. Bull

Novak is guilty as sin. He was doing the dirtywork for Rove and he knew it. Not the first time.
Subpoena him. Toss him in jail for contempt and give his cellmates some glowsticks to play with.
That might "soften him up" a little.

[Dookus]

29. guilty as sin of what crime?

Tell me what statute he broke.

[TeeYiYi]

32. I think he may fall into this category . . .

"Another class is somebody, even a reporter, who engages in a pattern of activity designed to reveal the names of covert operatives. Nobody alleges that Novak was engaged in such a pattern."

I think it has been alleged that Novak and his 'informer' were co-conspirators in the leaking of top secret information. If he was knowingly doing Karl Rove's dirty work then I think intent comes into play in this case.

TYY

[Tuttle]

15. You need to watch Novakula in action...

he is constantly attacking those other members of the media with a "Loose Lips" pronged-trident.

Maybe he didn't break any laws, but he will probably need to borrow Heston's "I didn't know; early onset of Alzheimer's" defense.

Tut-tut

[nodictators]

24. Novak wasn't acting as a "journalist" when he outed Plame

Plame was a private citizen, regardless of whether or not she was a CIA undercover operative.

Journalists are NOT authorized to be Peeping Toms and go around publishing private details of ordinary citizens. There was no public need to know anything about Plame.

So, there was absolutely no journalistic reason for Novak to out Plame.

He did it as a favor to some WH insiders. He grossly misused his position as a columnist for personal gain.

I'd like to see the SOB rot in prison.

[dArKeR]

27. I thought I read Novak just walked up to people on the street and told

them about Plame. It wasn't even during 'work related' activities. Actually, I'm sure I saw that on a mainstream TV report.

[Dookus]

30. That's news to me.

First, tell me how he wasn't acting as a journalist when he's been a journalist for decades, and published this info in one of his regular columns that has been running for ages.

Second, what law is broken if a journalist publishes details of ordinary citizens? There is none. Journalists are not required to prove a "public need" before they print something.

Who is the arbiter of what you call "journalistic reason"? The government? You?


The result is, he broke no law. I described the law in question above and posted a link to it.

[Bandit]

26. He may have technically not broken any laws but he outed a CIA agent

That is Treason in my books. I despise the man. I am not sure that he didn't break any laws either. The CIA told him not to release the information. It was Secret Information and no matter how he received it I believe it is illegal to distribute it.

[Dookus]

35. This issue

is that the government is responsible for keeping its own secrets. A journalists JOB is to uncover and distribute information.

Somebody in the government appears to have broken the law, not Novak.

Do you REALLY want to give the government the ability to arrest and prosecute journalists for publishing the truth? What if they decided that the stories of Abu Ghraib are "secret" and tried to prosecute Seymour Hersch?

The Pentagon Papers were secret, too. Luckily, the New York Times published them.

Just because we don't like Novak doesn't mean we should be willing to give the government the right to arrest journalists for doing their jobs. Do you really think this power would be limited to prosecuting only right-wing journalists?

A free press is vital to our country. You can't punish journalists for making the truth public.

[indypaul]

34. When does being

an accessory in the commission of a felony come into
play here? Seems Mr. Novak very, very vulnerable when
he aided in the commission of the crime.

[Dookus]

36. Not at all

the felony, if it occurred, happened when somebody in the government disclosed Plame's status to Novak.

Once that occurred, there was no law preventing Novak from publishing the information, unless Novak himself has security clearance which he violated.

[Warren Stuart]

41. There is no law preventing someone from disseminating

information that was obtainted from a treasonous action?

If there is no law, there should be. The Pentagon Papers was not treason, it was embarassing but didn't directly threaten national security. What was the main reason for invading Iraq? WMD. What was Valerie Plame working on? WMD.

Novak was engaged in a pattern of deception, he claimed that he meant analyst when he said operative. He stated that he always used this word in this way and told people to check his usage. This was done and it showed that when he used the word "analyst" he meant analyst. Same with the word "operative". He has been consistent and he lied about it, and the press hasn't called him on it.

I don't think that our Founding Fathers intended for Freedom of Press to devolve into Freedom of Government Sponsored Propaganda. Novak crossed a line. He intentionally outed an undercover CIA Agent using information gleaned from an act of treason.

This may not be illegal, but that don't make it right.

[Dookus]

43. First..

"Treason" is a very specific crime, outlined in the constitution. Novak did not in any meet the requirements set out for "treason".

Second, he did not engage in a pattern of trying to out agents. He disseminated true information regarding ONE agent.

Third, I'm not saying it's right. I'm saying it's not illegal.

Try to focus on the bigger issue: If Novak can be put in jail for publishing the truth, so can Seymour Hersch. Do you really want the government to be able to jail journalists for telling the truth?

[TahitiNut]

46. I agree. Would we jail him if he were to report Osama bin Laden as an

... active CIA agent? What about al-Zaqauri? :eyes: There are quite a few people who I'd be very interested in if they were proven to be CIA agents. Freedom of the Press has to be assured even in detestible cases ... just like speech.

[Lou_C]

3. Russert is getting paid to shut his mouth and look the other way

:shrug:

[keithyboy]

17. Has there been an administration this corroupt and a media so in bed

with it in the last 100 years?

We need a military and judicial coup in this country. We have destroyed 'democracy' and given it bad name around the world. Pretty soon around the world people will be treating democratic capitalists like we used to treat communists.

[Norquist Nemesis]

19. Possibly.

But the electronic word is a little faster than the Pony Express. Also, I think it would have been more or less internal to the US and domestic issues than a putting a big stomp on the other side of the world. :shrug:

[Media_Lies_Daily]

20. The administrations of Reagan and Nixon were pretty bad...

...Iran-Contra was just a small piece of what was actually going on during that time. What was never covered were the operations in Central America involving massive drug shipments and the eradication of entire groups of Central American Indians "suspected" of having leftist tendencies. Read "Lost History" by Robert Parry.

Likewise, Watergate was just a small focal point of a large collection of skeletons in the collective American closet going back to the beginning of Eisenhower's presidency. Those skeletons included foreign and domestic assassinations, drug/gun running associated with intelligence activities, and a host of other activities not commonly known.

But, have I ever seen anything like the NeoCon Junta? No...only in my worst nightmares.

[Cooley Hurd]

21. Will Mr Potato Head sing?

[GreatCaesarsGhost]

22. didn't tweety get a subpoena, too?

"Russert, the moderator of NBC’s “Meet the Press,” is the first journalist known to have been subpoenaed in the investigation"

[loudsue]

25. Hold it! If a Grand Jury subpoenas someone, they HAVE to talk....

So WHY can't they subpoena Novak. Nobody has a right to NOT answer questions posed by The Grand Jury. That is one place in the world where you give up all rights. That's what I've always heard, and that's how it's been in the past. That's what they did to Clinton. You can't even plead the 5th. You talk, or you go to jail.

Why does Novak get a free pass?

:kick::kick::kick:

[AngryAmish]

28. Russert will do anything to protect Bush

Bought and paid for. All the whores on tv suck up to this administration endlessly.

Russert will couch it in some "ethics" about "protecting sources." BS. More like protecting Bush.

[salin]

33. How common is it to challenge/oppose a subpoena?

How many folks without the access to the $$$$$ for legal departments have this option? How many folks could easily do this to avoid the trumped up actions of Ken Starr?

[2cents]

38. We'll know he's upset about it...

...if, tomorrow, all he can say is "Ti-Ti-Timay".

[maddezmom]

40. not just Russert, Time reporter, WaPo and Newday

Bierstedt said the prosecutors asked Time a week ago to cooperate but the magazine declined to do so. She said Fitzgerald wants to question Cooper about a story that appeared in Time on July 21, 2003, and another that ran on Time's Web site on July 17.

~snip~

The request to interview reporters may suggest that the probe is nearing a conclusion, because Justice Department guidelines require that prosecutors exhaust all other avenues before calling reporters before a grand jury. Attorneys for several grand jury witnesses and news organizations said it is not clear whether Fitzgerald is moving toward seeking indictments in the case or whether he is preparing to complete it without bringing criminal charges.

Last week, Fitzgerald asked to interview reporters at The Washington Post and Newsday. A Newsday lawyer said last night that the paper had declined the request but has not received a subpoena.

Eric Lieberman, a Post lawyer, declined yesterday to comment on the response to the request for voluntary interviews with reporters Walter Pincus and Glenn Kessler. He also would not comment on whether the reporters have been subpoenaed.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A46823-2004May21.html

[patriotvoice]

42. See also this article:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2001935969_ndig22.html

[snippy]

45. The Bush administration may get away with these crimes after all.

If Fitzgerald can not get indictments without testimony from journalists, then nothing is likely to come from this investigation before the election. If there is litigation over forcing journalists to testify, it could go on for a long time, especially if there are appeals.

Perhaps the democrats should try again to put pressure on the White House to release the reporters from any confidentiality obligations. After Richard Clarke testified to the 9/11 Commission the White House did that concerning Clarke's identity as the unnamed source for a background briefing on fighting terrorism prior to 9/11.

[Moderator]

48. Duplicate

Duplicate, I am locking this thread, please feel free to re-post your link in this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=576089&mesg_id=576089

Please continue discussion there as well.

[Moderator]

49. Thread has been unlocked

mistake fixed