A Leak's Wider Ripples - David Ignatius (Plame)

[TacticalPeek]

A Leak's Wider Ripples

By David Ignatius

Friday, May 13, 2005; Page A23

It's hard to fathom the continuing legal squeeze on Time magazine's Matthew Cooper and the New York Times's Judith Miller to reveal their sources in a White House leak investigation. Unless, that is, the real concern of special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald isn't just the leak but possible perjury by a senior Bush administration official.

If Fitzgerald's investigation has now expanded to include perjury, as some close followers of the case suspect, that sharpens the dilemma for the journalists involved. It's one thing to protect the identity of a confidential source, even if that person may have violated the law by disclosing the identity of a covert intelligence agent. But it is arguably quite a different matter if the reporter has reason to believe a source lied to a grand jury. Does a reporter's confidentiality agreement extend to protecting a cover-up?

Though the perjury issue hasn't surfaced in most discussions of the case, it's buried between the lines of the hundreds of pages of memos, briefs and other legal documents. Unless perjury is one of Fitzgerald's concerns, his tireless pursuit of Cooper and Miller is difficult to understand. As was said of Melville's "Moby-Dick," this is more than a story about a fish.

snip

For journalists, the case raises agonizing issues: Where is the dividing line between journalistic ethics, which demand that reporters protect their sources, and ordinary ethics, which say people should cooperate with law enforcement if they know about possible criminal activity? Do journalists have a special status that exempts them, in certain cases, from the normal responsibilities of citizenship? But this case should worry most of all any White House insider who may have talked with reporters about Valerie Plame and then lied about it under oath.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/12/AR2005051201556.html


(my bold)

[autorank]

1. Great find. The "great squeeze" begins...next, DeLay will be charged.

As Howard would say YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

[burrowowl]

2. Plame!

A smoking gun and it bit the dust. When are Bu$hCo going to pay. I guess like RAYGUN, they will be lauded,

[seventythree]

3. good post

[punpirate]

4. This somehow fails to address...

... the true part Novak has played in this little morality play, except to say that Novak "cooperated" with the investigation. No mention of his testimony before a grand jury, under oath. No suggestion that Novak may have aided and abetted the perjury of others by committing perjury himself (which would require the testimony of other journalists to resolve that issue).

It's nasty to threaten journalists with jail because they're protecting sources. It's nastier still to be unable to bring indictments of the real wrongdoers because there's no evidence without that provided by journalists.

Novak, of all parties in the press, ought to be in hot seat on this one. As much as I dislike Judith Miller for her outright distortion of the evidence leading up to and beyond the war, she is not the principal in this--Novak is. If Novak provided perjured testimony to protect a source for political purposes, he should be the one taking the heat, not journalists who did not break the story.

That said, if Judith Miller and Cooper are refusing to testify to protect Novak because they fear him and the administration, they all should have a few weeks of prison food to give them some perspective on freedom of the press.

[madrchsod]

5. grand jury testimony is "secret"

fitz is not going to say a word about what went on in the grand jury room. miller,cooper, and novak are fronts for the whitehouse and that is why it has been difficult to break them....

[punpirate]

6. I'm aware of that...

... but this story is about what's happening in the aftermath of Novak's testimony before that grand jury--other reports are that his spokespeople verify his testimony before that grand jury. Novak's the key to this, not others.

Cheers.

[kaygore]

7. Why aren't they squeezing Novak?

He's the one who outed Plame. Why isn't he in jail (or before a firing squad?)

[warrens]

8. One thought

Novak is clearly a target, not a witness. They don't WANT him to tell them who ratted. Because when they get the guy who ratted out Plame, they can charge them both with conspiracy, a more serious charge.

But there's no sense in squeezing Novak. As a target, he has the right to plead the fifth, which he did. As witnesses who did nothing illegal, Miller and Cooper have no such right.

[kaygore]

9. Thank you--such clarity!

This has really been bugging me for some time. It makes sense now. I want Novak fried for what he did to Plame and what he does everyday, including taking a breath that could be going to someone far more deserving!