Blue Mass has always gotten it, but for an editorial to appear in the Washington Post that shows an understanding about the case and why the journalists are required to testify is rare.
Novak-Plame-gate commentary update
“There have been competing op-eds in the last few days on the ongoing investigation into the outing of ex-CIA operative Valerie Plame by douchebag of liberty Bob Novak. In today's WaPo, former federal prosecutor Randall Eliason argues that in an investigation like this one, where the leak itself is the alleged crime, it's hard to see how the prosecutor could possibly do his job without talking to the people who know who the leaker is (the actual leaker will of course take the Fifth and refuse to testify). Key quote: "This isn't even a close call. When there is critical, available, non-privileged evidence of a potential federal crime, the prosecutor's duty is to pursue that evidence." Yup - the rule of law would seem to call for nothing less. Eliason also has a good retort for those who claim that the reporters under subpoena to testify were "just doing their jobs":
These reporters are being questioned not about anything they wrote or didn't write but about who was doing the leaking. The leak is the potential crime, and any reporters who received the leak have critical evidence, whether or not they wrote about it. Finally, critics complain that reporters are being threatened with jail for simply "doing their jobs." This has a nice rhetorical ring to it, but it isn't true. Nobody's job description includes disobeying lawful court orders. The reporters have been found in contempt not for any news-gathering or reporting but for refusing to testify without a recognized legal excuse.
Again, yup. On the other side of the divide, ex-congressional staffer Pat Holt pretty much toed the MSM party line last week in the Christian Science Monitor. But Holt's argument has some significant missteps:” cont,,,
http://bluemassgroup.typepad.com/blue_mass_group/2005/03/novakplamegate_.html