PressThink: Time for Robert Novak to Feel Some Chill

Time for Robert Novak to Feel Some Chill

"As the judge said Judy Miller can escape her jail cell by finally choosing to talk, so could Novak restore his column and TV appearances by finally talking about his part in the story. Novak is said to have lots of friends in the press. Friends would let him know the time is here."

New post, Aug. 5: Why Robert Novak Stormed Off the Set. “The legitimacy of Novak’s exemption from questioning had collapsed earlier in the week. Ed Henry was ready with that news. Novak was not ready to receive it.”

UPDATE, Aug 4: Robert Novak was suspended today after he walked off the set of CNN’s “Inside Politics” just before he was about to be questioned about the leak of a CIA agent’s name. (Here’s the AP Story. Also see Fishbowl DC. And try Kausfiles for speculation. The video is here.)

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. “I will not answer any question about my wife,” Wilson told me. — Robert Novak, “Mission to Niger,” July 14, 2003.

I, for one, have had it with Robert Novak. And if all the journalists who are talking today about “chilling effects” and individual conscience mean what they say, they will, as a matter of conscience and pride, start giving Novak himself the big chill.

That means if you’re a Washington columnist maybe you don’t go on CNN with him— until he explains. If you’re a newspaper editor you consider suspending his column until he explains. If you’re Jonathan Klein, president of CNN/US, you take him off the air until he decides to go on the air and explain. If you’re John Barron, editor of the Chicago Sun-Times, you suspend your columnist (with pay, I should think); and if Barron won’t do it then publisher John Cruickshank should.

If Novak says he can’t talk until the case is over, then he shouldn’t be allowed to publish or opine on the air until the case is over. He should know the rage some of his colleagues feel. Claiming to be “baffled” by Novak’s behavior may have been plausible for a while. With reporter Judith Miller now sitting in jail, and possibly facing criminal charges later, “baffled” is sounding lame.

After the decision yesterday someone asked Bill Keller, top editor of the New York Times, if this was really a whistle-blowing case. Keller answered: “you go to court with the case you’ve got.” I understood what he meant, but that answer was incomplete.

For in certain ways the case that sent Judy Miller to jail is about a classic whistler blower: diplomat Joseph C. Wilson. Those “two senior administration officials” in Novak’s column had a message for him: stick your neck out and we’ll stick it to your wife. (They did: her career as an operative is over.) Might that have some chilling effect?

We’re not entirely in the dark about how the conversation might have gone. Yesterday Walter Pincus of the Washington Post posted this recollection:

On July 12, 2003, an administration official, who was talking to me confidentially about a matter involving alleged Iraqi nuclear activities, veered off the precise matter we were discussing and told me that the White House had not paid attention to former Ambassador Joseph Wilson’s CIA-sponsored February 2002 trip to Niger because it was set up as a boondoggle by his wife, an analyst with the agency working on weapons of mass destruction. I didn’t write about that information at that time because I did not believe it true that she had arranged his Niger trip. (The Post article he did write months later.)

Pincus didn’t take the “information,” Novak did. Why? Did it occur to Novak that this could be retribution against a critic of the White House? Pincus thought the leaker was “practicing damage control by trying to get me to stop writing about Wilson.” What did Novak think? The New York Times in an editorial today:

It seemed very possible that someone at the White House had told Mr. Novak about Ms. Plame to undermine Mr. Wilson’s credibility and send a chilling signal to other officials who might be inclined to speak out against the administration’s Iraq policy. At the time, this page said that if those were indeed the circumstances, the leak had been “an egregious abuse of power.” We urged the Justice Department to investigate.

Tell me: how can journalists say with a straight face that they are concerned for future whistle blowers if one of their own, Robert Novak, together with sources made possible an act of retribution against an actual whistle blower?

We do not know enough to say of Novak, “he should be the one in jail.” But we do know enough to keep him off the air and the op ed pages until he makes a fuller statement. (Times editorial: “Like almost everyone, we are baffled by his public posture.”) It may be that he betrayed the principles for which his colleague Judy Miller is in jail. The editor who decides to drop Novak’s column until such time as he explains himself would be listening to the voice of professional conscience, in my view.

As the judge said Judy Miller can escape her jail cell by finally choosing to talk, so could Novak restore his column and TV appearances by finally talking about his part in the story. Novak is said to have lots of friends in the press. Friends would let him know the time is here.

After Matter: Notes, reactions & links

Chris Lehmann in the New York Observer:

Sentiment against Mr. Novak is now so heated that N.Y.U. journalism chairman and Pressthink blogger Jay Rosen recently called for the rather poetic punishment of a profession-wide public shaming of the alleged administration toady: declining TV appearances with him, pulling the plug on his syndicated column, and generally treating him like the Lee J. Cobb character in 12 Angry Men, loudly and ineffectually seeking to foist his boorish scheme of right and wrong on an indifferent world as his jury mates one by one turn their backs on him.
Just what this case needs: more public sanctimony!… Consider the irony, for a moment: legitimate outrage over a journalist’s imprisonment for disobeying a grand jury results in a demand for a different journalist to disobey a grand jury so that he can provide an explanation almost certain to be self-serving and unsatisfying anyway

He got my title wrong. I am no longer chair. And there is no legal prohibition against Novak telling us he made a deal and testified, then revealing what he said.

“Spoke to Rove on double super secret background for about two mins before he went on vacation …” Michael Isikoff gets a leak from Time, Inc. (July 10) It’s Matthew Cooper’s e-mail about his conversation with Rove. That it was leaked from Time to Newsweek (surely a first in the history of those two rivals) says almost as much as the contents of the e-mail itself.

Miller is in prison to protect a right that Novak appears to have finagled. Writing at tompaine.com, The Nation’s David Corn takes you on a fascinating fact-filled (but ultimately conjecture-strewn) tour of what happened with Novak, Fitzgerald and his sources. “He leaves the door wide open for speculation,” Corn writes. “So let’s accept the invitation.” Also see his response to the Isikoff story.

Tom Maguire has a response and more links: Just Say ‘No’ To Novak? Highly informative. Also informative is this Salon article by David Paul Kuhn on the Karl Rove connection. He notes that Rove was fired from the elder Bush’s ‘92 reelection campaign for leaking information to Novak.

Atrios has more on Novak (and Miller) and says the shunning should have happened two years ago. “But why would they start now?”

Doc Searls says about the outing of Palme: “That this was a political act, and not merely a journalistic one, is beyond dispute.” I agree. (True of Wilson’s actions too.) He also points to this potent Daniel Drezner post from two years ago, very relevant today.

I highly recommend Matt Welch’s Shield Journalism, Not Journalists at the Reason magazine site. That is my view, as well. The press should not be granting itself rights the public does not have, but expanding its idea of who has “press” rights— card or no card. I am for solutions that protect newsgathering and expand the press.

Explain please. No, I can’t. Bob Novak with host Ed Henry, CNN’s Inside Politics, June 29:

HENRY: Bob, first, what’s your reaction to the Supreme Court saying they would not hear this case?
BOB NOVAK, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, I deplore the thought of reporters — I’ve been a reporter all my life — going to jail for any period of time for not revealing sources, and there needs to be a federal shield law preventing that as there are shield laws in 49 out of 50 states. But, Ed, I — my lawyer said I cannot answer any specific questions about this case until it is resolved, which I hope is very soon.

HENRY: In general, though, you believe in the principle of keeping the identity secret, of confidential sources. Have you ever revealed the identity of one of your confidential sources?

NOVAK: Well, people know — who have read my column know there have been special case where I have. But the question of being coerced to by the government and being put in prison is, I think, something that should be protected by act of Congress.

HENRY: In general, have you cooperated with investigators in this case?

NOVAK: I can’t answer any questions about this case at all.

Rest here. It gets pretty heated. See also the New York Times article where Novak’s colleagues speak. This Media Matters post on Novak—stonewalling the press—has many key links.

Novak in an October 1, 2003 column returned to the events:

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.

Novak’s colleague at the Chicago Sun-Times, Carol Marin, on July 1: “Why in the world is New York Times reporter Judith Miller headed to jail next week while my Sun-Times colleague Robert Novak is not?”

Arizona Republic editorial:

Then there is this curious obsession among many commentators with columnist Robert Novak.
Novak, who first revealed Plame as an agent of the CIA, has avoided Fitzgerald’s prosecution, while Cooper and Miller have been hounded by him. Why? Interesting question. If he has cut some invidious deal with the prosecutor, he will deserve condemnation. But the First Amendment advocates complaining about Novak don’t know why he has been spared harassment. They simply seem upset that a columnist friendly to the Bush administration has escaped the threat of jail. Not much of a principle at work there.

Well, William Safire isn’t too thrilled either. On June 29 Safire wrote: “Mr. Novak should finally write the column he owes readers and colleagues perhaps explaining how his two sources - who may have truthfully revealed themselves to investigators - managed to get the prosecutor off his back.”

White House Briefing columnist Dan Froomkin at the Washington Post site:

Fitzgerald has been incredibly secretive about the case, where it’s going, and why he’s subpoenaing all these reporters. But being secretive is his job. He’s a prosecutor. And federal law is clear that authorities are not allowed to divulge grand jury testimony.
But the witnesses are under no such constraints. It’s been reported that Fitzgerald has asked witnesses not to talk about the case in public — but that has no legal authority.

Froomkin asks: “Why is everyone keeping Fitzgerald’s secrets for him? Enough!” He has more about who should start talking.

Earlier PressThink: The Downing Street Memo and the Court of Appeal in News Judgment. (June 19, 2005) “News judgment used to be king. If the press ruled against you, you just weren’t news. But if you weren’t news how would anyone know enough about you to contest the ruling? Today, the World Wide Web is the sovereign force, and journalists live and work according to its rules.”

Key exchange on the PBS Newshour: (July 6, 2005)

STEVE CHAPMAN (Chicago Tribune): I think there should be a federal shield law that would limit subpoenas to journalists to cases where the information being sought is critical to the investigation and there’s no other way to get it, and if we had a law like that, it would protect 98 percent of the confidential sources that journalists use, and it would not protect Judith Miller, I’m afraid.
TERENCE SMITH (Newshour): Do you agree it would not protect Judith Miller in this case?

BILL KELLER: I think that’s correct. That’s why I said we’re talking about two separate things. One is the whole realm of what the law ought to provide in the way of protections or does provide, and the other is what happens when you run out of legal protection but you still feel like you have a moral obligation to stick by your promise?

Two days later, this editorial in the Boston Globe, and this columnby Paul Tash in the St. Petersburg Times ignore what Keller said: a Federal shield law would not have protected Miller, who is engaged in an act of civil disobedience. (Globe says: “Judith Miller carried an important journalistic tool with her to jail. Congress should protect Miller, and the national interest” by passing the national shield law. Wrong-o, Globe.)

Daily Howler gets suspicious: “When the press corps’ interests and preferences are at stake, they will issue a blizzard of spin. If you want to know why average people see this gang as a perfumed elite, read through the ludicrous, one-sided work they’re churning about this complex matter.”

Finally, Whiskey Bar’s Billmon (former journalist, now lefty blogger) wanted to “see if I could come up with something more substantial than moral disgust to justify putting Judy Miller behind bars.” But he couldn’t.

Posted by Jay Rosen at July 7, 2005 1:23 PM Print

Bob Novak with host Ed Henry, CNN's Inside Politics, June 29.

Watch how Novak invents an accusation so as to seem victimized, and then tells a colleague (Henry) that the colleague knows nothing ahout the case.

HENRY: Bob, first, what's your reaction to the Supreme Court saying they would not hear this case?
BOB NOVAK, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, I deplore the thought of reporters -- I've been a reporter all my life -- going to jail for any period of time for not revealing sources, and there needs to be a federal shield law preventing that as there are shield laws in 49 out of 50 states. But, Ed, I -- my lawyer said I cannot answer any specific questions about this case until it is resolved, which I hope is very soon.

HENRY: In general, though, you believe in the principle of keeping the identity secret,of confidential sources. Have you ever revealed the identity of one of your confidential sources?

NOVAK: Well, people know -- who have read my column know there have been special case where I have. But the question of being coerced to by the government and being put in prison is, I think, something that should be protected by act of Congress.

HENRY: In general, have you cooperated with investigators in this case?

NOVAK: I can't answer any questions about this case at all.

HENRY: Okay. Now, just in general about the principle at stake here -- William Safire, fellow conservative, wrote an op ed in the New York Times saying that at the very least, he believes that you owe your readers, and in this case, your viewers, some explanation. He said, "Mr. Novak should finally write the column he owes readers and colleagues perhaps explaining how his two sources, who may have truthfully revealed themselves to investigators, managed to get the prosecutor off his back."

I think that's the question. Why sit that there are two reporters out there who may go to jail, Bob, but it doesn't appear that you are going to go to jail?

NOVAK: Well, that's what I can't reveal until this case is finished. I hope it is finished soon. And when it does, I agree with Mr. Safire, I will reveal all in a column and on the air.

HENRY: Do you understand why in general there's frustration among fellow journalist after 41 years of distinguished work, where you've always pushed and been a fierce advocate of the public's right to know, you're not letting the public know about such a critical case, and two people may go to jail.

NOVAK: Well, they are not going to jail because of me. Whether I answer your questions or not, it has nothing to do with that. That's very ridiculous to think that I am the cause of their going to jail. I don't think they should be going to jail.

HENRY: Yes. But I didn't say you were the cause. But there are some people--

NOVAK: Yes, you do did.

HENRY: No, but some people feel if you would come forward with the information that you have, that maybe they would not go to jail.

NOVAK: But you don't know -- Ed, you don't know anything about the case. And those people who say that don't know anything about the case. And unfortunately, as somebody who likes to write, I'd like to say a lot about the case, but because of my attorney's advice I can't. But I will. And there might be some surprising things.

HENRY: We'll all be waiting to hear that story finally told, Bob.

Posted by: Jay Rosen at July 7, 2005 4:03 PM | Permalink

Doctors can lose their license, lawyers can lose their license, engineers can lose their license.

Journalism is not a profession.

When it is, then we can talk about confidentiality and whistle blower protection.

Journalists heal thyselves.

Posted by: jerry at July 7, 2005 2:09 PM | Permalink

Of course it's a profession! I've been a professional since 1965. Journalists do lose their jobs -- and should when their work is inaccurate and sub-standard. But what's involved with Robert Novak -- and Judith Miller and Matthew Cooper -- is well beyond that.

Posted by: David Ehrenstein at July 7, 2005 2:20 PM | Permalink

David, I am not talking about losing your job, that's between your employer and you. I am talking about losing your license, and civil or criminal implications of that. I am talking about peer review, not employer review.

Some of you take your occupation seriously. Too many it seems do not. Becoming a profession would help and it would make it clear just which bloggers and which TV heads and writers are journalists, and which are entertainers.

Posted by: jerry at July 7, 2005 2:24 PM | Permalink

Just how often do journalists lose their job when their work is inaccurate and sub-standard? Judy Miller, anyone?

And please, no Jason Blair, Steven Glass references, they were just too obvious.

Posted by: Peter O at July 7, 2005 2:26 PM | Permalink

What I'm trying to figure out is why were these reporters censured by the prosecution when Novak is the one who wrote the story? Hasn't he been called as a witness?

Posted by: chuck rightmire at July 7, 2005 2:43 PM | Permalink

Hallelujah!
We might also add that Judith Miller stands for dealing in political propaganda and corruption with impunity.

Praise for Judith Miller's heroism is praise for the press as loyal bagmen and women to the Bush-Rove mafia. Challenging loyalty to this band of thugs is hardly a threat to democracy. Bush and Rove are themselves the threat to democracy.

Can loyalty to thugs and tyrants and hagiographies of their co-conspirators really be a point of pride and moral principle? Is the Washington press really that far gone?

The First amendment is designed to spread the truth and expose corruption. Judith Miller has become a martyr to the cause of spreading propaganda and shielding corruption. Shielding and enabling corruption is neither a moral imperative nor a constitutional duty.

The same applies to Robert Novak with whip cream and a cherry on top.

Posted by: Mark Anderson at July 7, 2005 2:44 PM | Permalink

Jay --
I stopped considered Novak "one of us" long ago, about the time that he stopped being a journalist and became a performer.
We need to start making a distinction between journalists and carnival barkers.
As for Jon Klein, he has shot two horses in a row out from under Novak -- first "Crossfire," then "Capital Gang."
"But," as I wrote on CJR Daily a couple of weeks ago, "like a zombie in a George Romero movie, Novak is proving to be exceedingly hard to get rid of."
So maybe your suggestion will get that ball rolling.
As to why any self-respecting editor keeps running that rancid column, I'd love to hear the rationale.
We could trot them out one at a time, starting with John Barron, and watch them squirm as they try to answer that question.

Posted by: Steve Lovelady at July 7, 2005 3:11 PM | Permalink

I have a thought about the Judith Miller aspect of the Plame thing. It comes back to the responsibility of the Journalist, in my opinion.

I just finished reading _All the President's Men_ and one specific scene seems to relate to the present situation. After Bob and Carl are burned on the issue of testimony about Haldeman's control over the secret CReeP fund, they threaten to burn their source, becouse it looks like he knowingly lied to them. They feel that they should - because they were mislead. But their editor convinces them not to.

Is it not the RESPONSIBILITY of the journalist to expose a source if it is clear that the source is USING them as a conduit of bad (or illegal) information? I think so. If the motives of the source were clearly nefarious, in retrospect, it should be not just the right, but the responsibility of the reporter to identify the source. Of course if the reporter and the source are partners in a nefarious activity it should be the responsibility of the reporter's employer to terminate them.

Using background and unnmed sources should not be just a reporters right, it should also come with responsibility.

Posted by: Andrew at July 7, 2005 3:25 PM | Permalink

Amen, Andrew. A promise of confidentiality has been construed in some courts to be a binding, if oral, contract. And for a contract to exist, both parties have to agree on its terms and conditions. If you're reporting and you don't include yourself an out for bad information, particularly when it's provided maliciously, then you're committing journalistic malpractice.

This is a weird case on a lot of levels. Obviously, we don't know the half of what's going on here, or what the special prosecutor thinks went on. And questions of confidentiality aside, there are other issues here, as Pat Clawson, a friend of Miller's pointed out earlier today on the IREPLUS listserv:

"The special prosecutor has filed briefs with the courts containing secret evidence to convince the judges of the need to have Judy testify before a grand jury. The Court of Appeals order directing her to testify contains several pages that are completely redacted. Neither Judy or her attorneys have seen the complete Court of Appeals decision, so it is impossible to know exactly what their reasons are for ordering her to testify. They have not seen or had an opportunity to contest the secret evidence.

"Basically, Judy is going to jail for a story she never wrote because of secret evidence and a secret court decision that she is not allowed to see and is not allowed to defend against.

"This should be repugnant to every American."

If Clawson's facts are correct -- I don't know, and I am not a lawyer -- than anyone who aspires to commit some unsettling journalism has bigger problems than he/she knows.

Posted by: Lex at July 7, 2005 3:37 PM | Permalink

Jay,
I'd be interested in your views, and those of others, on the Lugar-Pence shield law, introduced back in February.
The legislation would go a long way toward protecting journalists. The blanket ban on a court forcing the revealing of confidential sources seems air tight. Other kinds of testimony could be compelled under the rules, but I don't think anybody advocates total immunity for journalists.

The covered persons categories are tight--you have to have at least a contractual relationship to a publication. A freelancer will be covered as long as he/she can make a reasonable case that they are working on assignment for a publication. The word "contractor" is used, which has broad legal application (copyright law, etc) and seems to cover anyone working on assignment. It would cover 95 percent of working writers.

So I think it is good law. Sponsorship by two Republicans seems to give it more than a snowball's chance.

Text">http://www.fas.org/sgp/congress/2005/s340.html">Text is here.

Posted by: John Dinges at July 7, 2005 4:13 PM | Permalink

Oh, yes, I'd think it's time for Novak to start worrying.

I've been wondering about the strange silence of Mr. Novak. He wrote the story. He named the name. And yet the grand jury subpoenas Miller and Cooper. A very curious thing.

Is it because Novak has already spoken to the grand jury? Or because he's a target as well as the leaker? Whoever that may be (and Karl Rove looks better all the time.)

As for shunning, has anyone really taken Robert Novak seriously as a journalists in years?

Posted by: Dave Mclemore at July 7, 2005 5:56 PM | Permalink

"Is it not the RESPONSIBILITY of the journalist to expose a source if it is clear that the source is USING them as a conduit of bad (or illegal) information? I think so. If the motives of the source were clearly nefarious, in retrospect, it should be not just the right, but the responsibility of the reporter to identify the source."
-- Andrew.

Andrew, some reporters give any source seeking confidentiality fair warning of just that.
"If you burn me, or give me bad information which I print, then all bets are off, and I will discredit you for all the world to see."

Unfortunately, too many don't -- including, apparently, Judith Miller and Robert Novak.
So we still have the Ahmad Chalabi's and the Karl Rove's of this world, happily motoring along, fatter and sassier than ever, because reporters they cut a deal with feel constrained from reporting that they were badly used.
(Btw -- am I the only one who remembers that George Bush's father fired Rove from his 1992 re-election campaign after ROVE leaked some tidbit or another to NOVAK?)

Posted by: Steve Lovelady at July 7, 2005 8:03 PM | Permalink

Interesting - folks who follow the link to Pincus' story may wonder whether Novak had a similar experience:

EXCERPT
On July 12, 2003, an administration official, who was talking to me confidentially about a matter involving alleged Iraqi nuclear activities, veered off the precise matter we were discussing and told me that the White House had not paid attention to former Ambassador Joseph Wilson’s CIA-sponsored February 2002 trip to Niger because it was set up as a boondoggle by his wife, an analyst with the agency working on weapons of mass destruction.

...

I wrote my October story because I did not think the person who spoke to me was committing a criminal act, but only practicing damage control by trying to get me to stop writing about Wilson. Because of that article, The Washington Post and I received subpoenas last summer from Patrick J. Fitzgerald, the special prosecutor looking into the Plame leak. Fitzgerald wanted to find out the identity of my source.

I refused. My position was that until my source came forward publicly or to the prosecutor, I would not discuss the matter. It turned out that my source, whom I still cannot identify publicly, had in fact disclosed to the prosecutor that he was my source, and he talked to the prosecutor about our conversation. (In writing this story, I am using the masculine pronoun simply for convenience). My attorney discussed the matter with his attorney, and we confirmed that he had no problem with my testifying about our conversation.

END

How about that? The source came forward, identified himself to Fitzgerald, and let Pincus chat to Fitzgerald as well.

Now, suppose that same person was also Novak's source, and behaved the same way. Wouldn't it follow that Novak has also cooperated, and the source has been identified?

Put another way, maybe someone can tell us why that is not possible.

Posted by: Tom Maguire at July 7, 2005 8:17 PM | Permalink

Jay --
Froomkin is on to something. So far, a very timid press has given both prosecutor Fitzgerald and Judge Hogan a free pass. I just emailed the following to Romenesko's letters column:

It's time for Mr. Fitzgerald to put up or shut up. He said beforehand that his investigation was all but wrapped up. Now, he has Cooper's source; he has Novak's source; and he has Judy Miller in jail.
Swell.
So tell us, Mr. Fitzgerald -- is there even a crime here ? (That's what Bill Keller wants to know.) And IF there is, who exactly IS the White House felon ?
Or is all this a wild goose chase by a bull in a china shop ? (And, to we the taxpayers, a very expensive bull at that.)
Inquiring minds want to know.
If the rest of the Washington press not yet subpoenaed or jailed doesn't pursue these questions, then they are indeed the bumbling fools that Fitzgerald and Hogan presume they are.
I'll be delighted if Fitzgerald finally stands and delivers.
But, based on performance to date, I'm not holding my breath.

Posted by: Steve Lovelady at July 7, 2005 9:56 PM | Permalink

AS a former journalist, I care a lot about inside baseball. More than the average person. But I've gotta admit, I don't get it. Is it that Miller outed a CIA agent? Or could have? Or Cooper could have?

Here in the heartland, this looks a little bit like, who cares? We've got state budgets that don't balance, people out of work, relatives on vacation in London who might be blown up.

I know that sounds as though I am some kind of parochial bumpkin, but in fact, people's lives are made up of things that matter. And so far, I don't know why having Judith Miller in jail or not matters one whit to me.

My one thought is that I don't like the idea of journalists outing CIA agents. God, it's bad enough to be a spy, or a journalist these days.

Sorry to sound so dense, but sometimes it's good to get back to what my first boss called "bar stool" journalism. It meant, can you explain the story to the regular guy in the bar concisely enough so he'll care?

Posted by: JennyD at July 7, 2005 10:09 PM | Permalink

How can you be so durn hard on Novak when few of us know what the facts are? On my church calendar the Feast of the Assumption is August 15th – it seems to be every day in your church.

There’s a good reason that Novak’s lawyer won’t let him say anything about the investigation. Given Novak’s key role in the matter, it’s likely that he testified before the grand jury only after a fight over self-incrimination and was given immunity (transactional?) for his testimony. Granting of immunity is done in camera and not made public – see rules 17 – 19 here.

Novak may have had to accept some sort of non-disclosure as part of the deal since grand jury witnesses are normally allowed to disclose their testimony publicly. Less likely but still possible, Novak’s lawyer may also be concerned that other information may appear that could make Novak a target despite the immunity.

Also assumed is that Novak is the central issue, that the disclosure of Plame’s identity and role as a covert agent may not be the central issue before the grand jury. Miller’s problem seems to involve something else, as today’s WaPo reports:

[U.S. District Judge Thomas F.] Hogan said Miller was mistaken in her belief that she was defending a free press. He stressed that the government source she "alleges she is protecting" had already waived her promise of confidentiality. He said her source may have been providing information not to shed light on government secrets but to try to discredit an administration critic.

"This is not a case of a whistle-blower" revealing secret information to Miller about "dangers at a nuclear power plant," Hogan said. "It's a case in which the information she was given and her potential use of it was a crime. . . . This is very different than a whistle-blower outing government misconduct."

What the heck does the evil Bob Novak have to do with that?

Posted by: The Kid at July 7, 2005 10:37 PM | Permalink

To the RH The Kid:
Dont you see that all the "openminded" journalists on this thread have already convicted Novak...they are so much smarter than us!
I also believe Rove helped Lenin take power in Russia, and he was responsible for the deaths of 6 million jews! Everything in history up to this point is the fault of neo-cons and Roves! Oh my!

Posted by: calboy at July 7, 2005 11:25 PM | Permalink

In the Judith Miller case it looks like the grand third estate uses the work of Alexander Solzhenitsyn as a guide, when they are not following Franz Kafka.

Good" leaks and "bad" leaks
... 'the deals some journalists strike to gain important information. It's a practice coming under increased scrutiny — in an industry suffering a credibility crisis — as such sources often use their anonymity for political ends rather than whistle-blowing ...'
'A prominent newspaper reporter is in custody for refusing to disclose secret conversations with Bush administration officials, while the curmudgeonly columnist at the center of the investigation remains free, his situation shrouded in mystery.'
Officials' and media's tangled ties [Google: A chilling day for the First Amendment ; More links by Google A reporter goes to jail in a case without heroes

Posted by: Jozef Imrich at July 7, 2005 11:28 PM | Permalink

The Kid has a good point, though it's not the one he thinks he's making.
Novak may indeed have cut a binding deal with the prosecutor, intended to protect his own ass at the expense of printing the truth.
If so, shame on him.
And Miller's source, as The Kid paraphrases Judge Hogan, may well have been a White House flunkie trying "to discredit an administration critic."
Meantime, we have Hogan saying of Miller that "It's a case in which the information she was given and her potential use of it was a crime." Let's remember -- Miller never wrote a word about any of this. Apparently she's in jail because of "her potential use" of what she was told. And Novak is not in jail because he bent to the demands of a runaway prosecutor and grand jury.
But we'll never know what exactly those demands are since so much of Fitzgerald's entreaties to the court are redacted.
Miller's lawyer and Cooper's lawyer can't even find out what Fitzgerald is alleging.
Alice in Wonderland indeed.
More like Kafka, I'd say.
The editorial cartoon by Chip Bok of the Akron Beacon-Journal comes to mind. "I'm in for telling the truth about a crime I never committed," says Martha Stewart." Sitting next to her in a jail cell is Miller, who says, "I'm in for not revealing the source of a story that I did not write."

Posted by: Steve Lovelady at July 7, 2005 11:58 PM | Permalink

Honestly, Jay's argument makes no sense to me. Novak should be shunned or in jail because he published a leak that was damaging to someone in the public eye? Huh?

In the end, Novak talked (apparently) to the prosecutor. Miller didn't. So Novak isn't in jail, and Miller is. So how is Novak responsible for Miller being in jail? Isn't Miller responsible for that? Doesn't she report her own stories and make her own decisions?

Meanwhile, if it's true that Novak talked, then didn't he do his part in exposing the leaker while Miller's actions are protecting him or her? So shouldn't Miller be the one shunned, since Jay seems to think that it is the leaker who is the real danger to our society in attacking the great, innocent and apolitical man, Wilson? (Wilson of course may also be a liar or a nepotistic incompetent, but let's not worry about details.) Shouldn't Novak then be celebrated?

As an aside, I don't see Cooper or Miller rushing to publish details about what's going on, what they know, and what their interactions with Fitz. have been. Why should Novak--can he even do so?

What I get from Jay's column is..."I'm mad Miller is in jail. You, Novak, what do you know about this? Why aren't you telling all you know? You're not in jail so I'll blame you."

I have no idea who the villains are and who the heros--though Wilson seems to be a doubletalker and Novak's behavior is strange--and all anyone can do is speculate, but I just don't get Jay's logic at all. Normally, I see this insight or framework for thinking beneath Jay's posts that's very useful. This one...what am I missing?

Posted by: Lee Kane at July 8, 2005 12:17 AM | Permalink

I think it's premature to be rendering judgment on Novak at this point, especially since I believe it's based on conflating two facts in Novak's original column about Plame as being from from the same source:

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.

There are two distinct points in this paragraph: 1) Plame works for the CIA. 2) She arranged for her husband to be sent to Niger.

Isn't it possible that the "two senior administration officials" only told Novak the second point and that he already knew (either from common knowledge as he says) or by some other means?

What lends credibility to this scenario is the fact that Novak doesn't appear to be bound for the slammer in any way. This suggests (though neither the columnist nor the prosecutor will confirm it) that Novak did appear before the grand jury and revealed at least how he came to know Fact #1. As a man who's been probably the biggest success for the longest time, he's been on the beat since the 1960s, I highly doubt that Novak would have compromised a source who told him something in confidence.

From this we may conclude that Novak either aquired knowledge of Plame's career through non-confidential means or that his source released him from said agreement. It's not likely that the second scenario occurred because a person who knowingly disclosed classified information has committed a serious crime and therefore has no motive to tell a grand jury (s)he did so.

Having eliminated the second possibility, let's turn to the first one. Three possible scenarios flow from it: 1) Plame's career was common knowledge and Novak's source did not think that revealing this would be a criminal offense. Therefore, an administration source told Novak but not under a confidentiality agreement. Subsequently, Novak told the grand jury about this. 2) Novak obtained his information from someone outside the White House or from a fellow journalist such as Matt Cooper or Judy Miller.

In the end, I think it's too soon to render judgment on Novak's actions. If, as I believe, Novak's knowledge of Plame's career and her alleged involvement with her husband's Africa trip came from separate sources, I'm not sure there's anything he could say that would have helped Cooper and Miller avoid jail, especially if Plame's identity wasn't privileged information.

As for Fitzgerald, I find it hard to condone his prosecution. According to Ann Althouse, the judge in the case seems to be a jerk, too. Incredibly, he actually said this at Miller's sentencing:

"That's the child saying: 'I'm still going to take that chocolate chip cookie and eat it. I don't care.'"

Posted by: Matthew Sheffield at July 8, 2005 12:32 AM | Permalink

Amen Jay. You too Steve Lovelady.

As I wrote yesterday in Who's the real anti-hero here: Miller? Novak? Judge Fitzgerald? I think Safire has nailed it and and you all have too.

Today I recommended Bob Ambrogi, who delivers terrific help with "The single-best resource on shield laws." Given Bob's desire to get the word out, I don't think he'll mind if excerpt the entire, brief post:

"Yesterday's jailing of New York Times reporter Judith Miller for refusing to disclose her sources heightens national attention on reporters' shield laws. For anyone wanting to learn more about reporters, subpoenas and shield laws, there is no better resource on the Web than The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. Its special section, Reporters and Federal Subpoenas, provides in-depth and frequently updated coverage of efforts to enact a federal shield law as well as of ongoing legal controversies involving reporters' subpoenas. A separate section, The Reporter's Privilege, is a detailed examination, written in 2002, of the law regarding the reporter's privilege in every state and federal circuit. It provides statutes and cases and discusses both substantive and procedural issues."

Here's my question: Where do Time magazine editors and Matthew Cooper stand in your estimation? Is Norm Pattis right to recommend a boycott of Time? He writes, "Judith Miller and The New York Times have taken a firm stand on principle; the same cannot be said of Time Magazine, my subscription to which, I am happy to report, will be cancelled today."

Posted by: Lisa Stone at July 8, 2005 12:33 AM | Permalink

I inadvertently left out my third sub-scenario:

3) Novak obtained information on both Plame's identity and her alleged role from administration officials who were actually passing on information they heard from Miller, Cooper or someone else.

All of this is to say simply that we don't have enough information to render judgment on Novak, Miller, or Cooper.

Posted by: Matthew Sheffield at July 8, 2005 12:36 AM | Permalink

Matthew: "I think it's premature to be rendering judgment on Novak at this point..." Render a judgment? To whom are you speaking, Matt? I said Novak should get the big chill until he explains. At that point, we can perhaps begin to judge.

The (anonymous) kid: "Also assumed is that Novak is the central issue..." Who said anything like that? I wrote a post about Robert Novak because I had something to say that wasn't being said elsewhere (today). There is no claim that he is the central anything. You invented it so you could disagree with it.

The (anonymous) cal boy: "Dont you see that all the 'openminded' journalists on this thread have already convicted Novak..." No, "boy," I don't see that at all. I said Novak ought to explain his part in this fiasco. I made no attempt to speculate on what he did or did not do. You should be more careful.

Lee Kane: "What I get from Jay's column is...'I'm mad Miller is in jail. You, Novak, what do you know about this? Why aren't you telling all you know? You're not in jail so I'll blame you.' What column are you reading, Lee? I didn't blame Novak for Miller being in jail. The prosecutor is the one who put Miller in jail. You're over-reaching by a mile.

Posted by: Jay Rosen at July 8, 2005 1:21 AM | Permalink

Pincus's recollection raises an interesting question. He recalls that he got his tip about Wilson's spouse from a source ""who was talking to me confidentially about a matter involving alleged Iraqi nuclear activities...''
Easy to see why this source would want to discredit Wilson. Was this individual also one of Miller's sources for her stories about Iraqi WMD? If so, she would be protecting far more than a source who gave her a single tid-bit about Wilson's wife.

Posted by: Pete Carey at July 8, 2005 1:36 AM | Permalink

'It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.'
- Voltaire, philosopher (384-322 BC)

The most fundamental of the Chinese fifth century general Sun Tzu's principles for the conduct of war is that "All warfare is based on deception". The Age of Down Under Fame shares a generic wisdom in relation to government deception.

Crudely, it notes that political spin is 'just bullshit by another name.'

'Princeton University philosopher Harry Frankfurt, in his recent book On Bullshit, points out that bullshit is a bigger enemy of truth than lies. The truth-teller, he argues, is guided by the "authority of truth", while the liar refuses to meet the demands of that authority. But the bullshitter, he argues, simply "ignores these demands altogether", making bullshitting a worse crime than actually lying...'
How the Government controls the news

Posted by: Jozef Imrich at July 8, 2005 4:51 AM | Permalink

I think the key here may lie in a comparison of Pincus and Novak's accounts.

Pincus says that Plame was identified as a CIA "analyst" -- Novak described her as an "operative."

It may well be that Novak decided to irresponsibly "sex up" his story by using the word "operative" instead of "analyst."

Novak's silence is a way of delaying the inevitable admission that his irresponsible and unethical behavior lead to the outing of a covert CIA agent....

Posted by: ami at July 8, 2005 7:14 AM | Permalink

"For in certain ways the case that sent Judith Miller to jail is about a classic whistler blower: diplomat Joseph Wilson. "

The case did not sent Judith Miller to jail, she volunteered.

Posted by: Tim at July 8, 2005 8:02 AM | Permalink

That's true, Tim.

Matt: you are misinformed. There is nothing illegal about talking about your own testimony before a grand jury-- no felony. See Froomkin. In fact, Pincus tells us what happened with the prosecutor in his deposition here. Novak never says the prosecutor or court or law prevent him from talking; he says his attorney told him he can't til the case is over.

Posted by: Jay Rosen at July 8, 2005 8:29 AM | Permalink

To say that this case sounds the death knell of the free press is a bit premature and pure bullshit. All the shrill media hysteria is either a red herring or merely reflects a misinformed media. Critics would do well to read (heaven forbid actually having to research something) Prosecutor Fitzgerald's compelling bruef urging Millers imprisonment. It is clear that under the universally admitted "bad facts" of this case, no foreseeable federal shield law or any existing state shield law would ahve insulated Judith Miller from her present fate. Go read the appellate court's opinion also. Given the overriding national interests involved, the gravity of the criminal activity alleged. the waiver of confidentiality allready in place (albeit a matter of debate as to whether a nebulous potential aspect of coercion might negate its effect, at least in the mind of the journalist), the fact that The Supreme Court has given legal finality to the issue, as well as other distinguishing factors set out in the prosecutor's brief,would have compelled the same result with or without a shield law. Even an eminent attorney, ex president of an ACLU chapter, Mr ..... Stone, (cited in the prosecutor's brief) agrres with this assessment.
As a retired attorney, I can tell you it may be trite but true, bad facts make for bad law. The New York Times and Miller have done a great disservice to the few honest conscientious media left, by grandstanding. To paraphrase someone, this is a bad 1st Amendment melodrama and Judith Miller is where she deserves to be. While not a precise analogy, if President Truman, in the Steel Cases, and even Richard Nixon with reagrd to giving up tapes that he knew would seal his doom, can bow to the will of the Supreme Court, then why shouldn't some journalistic hack who has every legal and moral reason to do so, comply.

Posted by: Nick Perez at July 8, 2005 11:41 AM | Permalink

Don't be such a wimp! If you want readers to act, supply contact info, i.e. John Cruickshank's e-mail address is, not surprisingly, jcruickshank@suntimes.com. Come on, be aggressive!

Posted by: trblmkr at July 8, 2005 12:13 PM | Permalink

Talk about "chilling". I was rereading Jay's intro and something struck me about Walter Pincus' recollection of why he didn't act on information given him about Wilson's wife. He said he didn't act on the information because he didn't believe she had arranged the trip. I guess this means he didn't think it was a boondoggle even though she did in fact recommend him for the trip, or was he speaking literally. Does it mean he didn't know she had recommended him, and even though he was a logical choice, did it without compensation, and was more than qualified, had he know of the recommendation, he would have done the story. Either way it is insightful into how the media thinks today. Hopefully, since Pincus is one of the few journalists left that I believe has high ethical standards and integrity, this was not the only consideration. Otherwise, it would be clear that he didn't give much thought to the havoc it could wreak on our national security or even about the fact that it could endanger the lives not only of Plame but all her sources and even casual contacts, especially in the Middle East. Otherwise, if in his subjective opinion,
a "boondoggle" was being perpetrated, then it would be OK to out her! Has the world gone mad or is it me.

Posted by: Nick Perez at July 8, 2005 12:35 PM | Permalink

Thanks for the pep talk. But I don't do that, trblmkr, although I don't mind if you do in the comments section. I have a different kind of blog, I guess. My focus is on getting people to think, and providing (aggressively!) lots of links to help them know more, and see the several sides at work. They act (if they ever do act) on their own initiative, not mine. But this points up why Dan Gillmore honor tag system, or something like it, makes sense.

It's not only that I don't do activism, but I am frequently trying to complicate press issues and slow down rather than speed up people's conclusions. A successful PressThink post will sometimes leave a reader more informed but less certain about what she or he thinks, which is not a bad outcome from my point of view. If you're running a war room, or operate an activist blog, that's a terrible outcome.

The web is an ecosystem. It needs variety.

Nick: go to the "After" section of this post, and you will find most of your points made.

It's true, though, that journalists do not seem well informed about the nature of Judith Miller's action. It would not have been covered under the national shield law, and it's hard to imagine a law that would not have the exceptions (disclosure of an intelligence agent) that have made for this case. That is why she believes she is engaged in an act of civil disobedience. Keller described it: when "you run out of legal protection but you still feel like you have a moral obligation to stick by your promise."

Posted by: Jay Rosen at July 8, 2005 12:42 PM | Permalink

I do not understand the criticism of Robert Novak. He did his job as a reporter and reported that Wilson got his job because his wifey recommended him. Maybe you as a "journalist" don't think nepotism in government is newsworthy, but as a news consumer, I do.

Posted by: Jeremy Brown at July 8, 2005 12:43 PM | Permalink

No, Jeremy, Novak didn't do his job as a reporter. Otherwise he would have investigated the tip.

Instead, he acted as a shill for the White House.
And managed to endanger the life of a covert CIA agent and her foreign contacts.

Posted by: Dave McLemore at July 8, 2005 12:53 PM | Permalink

My own opinion of Miller's actions, for those who want to know, is akin to the argument in David Ignatius, Bad Case for a Fight. The priesthood's reply to this--you don't get to pick your cases--is misleading and an attempt to close down discussion in my view. The fact is Miller (and only Miller) "picked" going to the wall among the options she and others had. Ignatitus:

For months it has been clear that this case was likely to make bad law: appellate rulings that would erode journalists' ability to protect their sources. That's one reason why some prominent reporters -- including ones with The Post and NBC News -- let their lawyers work out arrangements that would provide Fitzgerald with information he wanted, without compromising the confidentiality agreements the reporters had made with their sources. These negotiations were delicate, involving sources' consent that reporters testify about their conversations. But they allowed both sides to preserve the essential points of principle -- and avoid the train wreck that obviously lay ahead.
The New York Times and Miller decided not to try to finesse the issue. Instead, they opted for what the Times editorially has described as an act of "civil disobedience," in which Miller refused to comply with a grand jury subpoena even after the issue had been litigated to the U.S. Supreme Court.

A key point comes later; he argues that the press has to think about where and when the public interest is served by the reporter-source privilege. "That's what makes the Plame case so vexing: It's hard to see the larger principle in this particular set of facts." This of course was an observation I made in my post.

How can journalists say with a straight face that they are concerned for future whistle blowers if one of their own, Robert Novak, together with sources made possible an act of retribution against an actual whistle blower?

I believe (I certainly don't know it, and I could be wrong, so let's call it a hunch..) that Judy Miller, a dramatic person, was uninterested from the start in these subtle negotiations and their essential muddiness. She is the kind of person (and professional) who would see that option as the one weaklings take. It would be a kind of treason against herself to pick it.

I further believe that for avoiding what Ignatius called the train wreck it was up to someone capable of cooler judgment--Keller or Sulzberger or someone--who might see that by pushing hard on unfirm ground (which is what this case is) you do not necessarily advance the ball. You can slip, and move the ball back. Which means you don't have the high ground at all. Ultimately the explanations for Miller's act, couched in principle, are equally psychological in my view. Institutional psychology (the Times from Ellsberg to Blair to WMD), professional psychology (First Amendment PC in the press) and individual psychology (Judy Miller's self-image) are involved, and inhibit clear thinking.

I hope this explains better, Lee Kane, where I am coming from.

Posted by: Jay Rosen at July 8, 2005 1:05 PM | Permalink

PressThink writes:
"Thanks for the pep talk. But I don't do that, trblmkr, although I don't mind if you do in the comments section. I have a different kind of blog, I guess. My focus is on getting people to think, and providing (aggressively!) lots of links to help them know more, and see the several sides at work. They act (if they ever do act) on their own initiative, not mine. But this points up why Dan Gillmore honor tag system, or something like it, makes sense.

Wait a minute, if you are calling for Cruickshank to suspend Novak (albeit, with pay), how is providing a link to Cruickshank, or, more generally, the Sun Times e-mail list ( http://www.suntimes.com/geninfo/email.html) activism? By providing a link, you are not forcing readers to their keyboards.

You say you want to "...complicate press issues and slow down rather than speed up people's conclusions...", but you are clearly entreating Cruickshank and others to drop or censure Novak in various ways. That seems the opposite of complicated and slowed down to this humble reader.
Maybe you harbor future hopes of appearing in the Sun Times vaunted pages...

Posted by: trblmkr at July 8, 2005 1:56 PM | Permalink

Based on the Honor Tags descriptions, especially the amplification, the tag with which I would most nearly self-identify is "Journalism". And, in my opinion, a lot of the folks that many people regard as "journalists" wouldn't seem to qualify. Interesting.

Posted by: Trained Auditor at July 8, 2005 2:01 PM | Permalink

Jay -- My main point is that you seem to be calling for a punishment to come down on Novak. I don't understand why, based on the logic of your column. You are blaming Novak for something--it's just not clear what or why. For talking to the prosecutor? For not talking to him? For talking or not talking and then not writing about it? For publishing a leak? What is he guilty of...perhaps something but I don't understand what from your piece.

Posted by: Lee Kane at July 8, 2005 2:28 PM | Permalink

I think the "crime" that I am getting after re-reading and thinking about it is that you accuse Novak of allowing himself to be used as a tool to stab at an apparent whistleblower and that, you believe, now the time has come for him to tell all he knows or be put, metaphorically speaking, in jail, just like Miller, though for different reasons--in this scenario Novak's press peers are his prosecutor and his Fifth Amendment rights and reporter-source privilege and any deal he made with Fitz. be damned--talk Novak or "go to jail." Is that about right?

I'm not sure I can totally agree that Wilson was in fact a whistleblower. To make such a judgement requires not only "prosecuting" Novak (per above), but serving as judge and jury over the whole case too. What if Wilson is the partisan hack and Novak merely exposed him? The truth seems muddy and it's by no means clear that Wilson is whistleblower hero and that there is a leaker who sought to "destroy" him. If I had to bet, I'd bet it won't come out that pat when all is known.

Posted by: Lee Kane at July 8, 2005 2:44 PM | Permalink

Jay, thnx for sending me to the After section. There was some good stuff there. Just an afterthought on something that I have only seen alluded to elsewhere. The fact is that Judith Miller, and perhaps Novak and Cooper, was in effect a witness, or probably a witness to a crime. At the moment that a source related Valerie Plame's secret identity, that source was commtting a crime, assuming the knowledge and intent factors can be proven. That's to me the essence of what makes this case different. In order to have the factual content to prove a crime, Fitzgerald has to have all the first person details, not hearsay (she said that he said). I've stated the legal reasons in a previous post why Miller could be jailed with or without a shield law. But to me, other than the factor of covering up for a lowlife traitor, this is the most compelling reason that Miller should spill the beans and why she may be in for much rougher sledding if she remains silent. It's clear to me that she is in for an obstruction of justice criminal charge if she doesn't fold her hand. We got a hint of that when Judge Hogan, in speaking to Cooper as he was about to say he would testify, mentioned in passing something about obstruction of justice.
And sorry Lee Kane, don't know whether you are being deliberately obtuse, but Joseph Wilson's being a partisan hack or not is irrelevant. Relevant Facts: 1. Valerie Plame was a relatively high level CIA covert agent, in charge of a network to gain intelligence on nuclear proliferation by unfriendly people, much of which seems to relate to the Middle East. 2.This was an especially sensitive area since we were so concerned about WOMD capabilities, most especially nukes. 3. Vital intell was apparently being gathered. 4. She was employed by a CIA front company that took years to establish its credibility. 5. Some high level staff member(s), most likely close to the Pres of the US, for political gain and totally without regard for our national security (something about which the neocons rapsodize as their sole concern), and endangering the safety and very lives of many more people than just Plame, outed Plame. As a footnote, in those Middle East countires, even casual acquaintances of Plame could be at risk of torture or worse. Maybe, this was a two birds with one stone deal, maybe Plame was in a postion to uncover some info very uncomfortable for The Schrub and company.

Posted by: Nick Perez at July 8, 2005 3:55 PM | Permalink

Miller is in prison to protect a right that Novak appears to have finagled. David Corn takes you on a fascinating fact-filled but ultimately only speculative tour of what may have happened with Novak and his sources.

Posted by: Jay Rosen at July 8, 2005 4:06 PM | Permalink

A point to remember in our discussions of Mr. Novak. This is why what Novak knows is important.

"Some high level staff member(s), most likely close to the Pres of the US, for political gain and totally without regard for our national security (something about which the neocons rapsodize as their sole concern), and endangering the safety and very lives of many more people than just Plame, outed Plame."

This is worth repeating for all those either obtuse or merely pretending to be online.

Posted by: Dave McLemore at July 8, 2005 4:28 PM | Permalink

Politicians doing something for political gain...no way...you cant really believe that David...it would almost be like a President "accidentally" obtaining hundreds of FBI files on political opponents, but I guess he was doing some "investigating journalism" in hopes of becoming a ""whistle blower"".
General theme of Thread and Bleat after me:
Democrat/Liberal good..gentle..tolerant..openminded
Repub/Conserv/Novak bad..meanspirited..evil..Hitlerite..neocon warmongers...
No wonder people dont take the FSM(Fringe Stream Media) seriously. The posts that call for Novak's head drips with bias and epitomizes the general trend of those journalists who claim to be free of such bias.
Next time the NYT shouldnt be so eager to call for an investigation...boy you get what you wish for.
Innocent till proven guilty in case you've forgotten.

Posted by: calboy at July 8, 2005 5:26 PM | Permalink

Before hurling insults and trying to label people, calboy, why don't you look at my post two above Dave Mc's for some context. The Valerie Plame situation should not be a liberal vs. conservative issue. I would think every rightthinking American would want this issue to be resolved. The fact is that Novak said, in print that Valerie Plame was "an Agency (CIA) operative on weapons of mass destruction". Novak then said that "two senior administration officials" (firmly established as White House staff, even acknowledged by Bush) had told him that Plame had suggested sending her husband to Niger to find out if Iraq had attempted to purchase uranium there. Wilson came back and said there was no evidence of this and that's where the apparent vendetta started. If in fact high level White House staff committed a crime by outing Plame, we need to know. Many
conservatives think they have a lock on patriotism; they do not. And if the interest of national security is so high that our individual rights of privacy are being eroded in order to protect us, surely liberals and conservatives should join hands to find the rope to hang anyone who has endangerd our common safety, no matter who they are. And as for Novak, he is at best stupid and incompetent, and at worst malevolent; because he too should have been aware that exposing Plame would do great harm to our national security interests and put many people other than Plame in harm's way.

Posted by: Nick Perez at July 8, 2005 7:35 PM | Permalink

Nick-First of all, none of my comments dealt with patriotism or the lack thereof so I dont get that part. I do agree with the majority of your post-it is not a Lib/Cons issue but somehow Novaks name is conjoined with some of the terminology I mentioned above(do we read or hear "judith miller, a hard left anti war reporter with the Liberal daily, NYT...." No we do not and that is my point ie the journalists convict with their categorization and terminology; surely you can see that.
David- so that makes it "OK" by your standards? we dont know what was gleaned from those FBI files...ie where were the journalists on that story. Doesnt it worry you that a sitting President had illegal access to 100's ofFBI files on political opponents? Did any journalists even ask why such an event could have happened? How about the Sandy Berger story...have you heard anything lately about the former NSA pilfering classified documents...dont you think that is sort of strange????
Of course, if we had unbiased journalists, then maybe one of them would have pursued either story with a bit more vigor...but with the media we have today it comes down to this:
suppress news of Dems/Lib if it makes them look bad and HIGHLIGHT to the enth degree anything to make a Repub/Conserv. look bad....in fact, run a hundred stories on Trent Lott but we'll hold back until we have no choice on our US senator comparing Americans/troops/gitmo to Hitler/stalinism/polpot.
We on the right have had to fight and still fight to get heard.
And if I recall, we are dealing with one CIA agent in the current case in which we do not know the facts. But if you are interested in math, I would say hundreds of files compares slightly to one CIA outing.And yes I do agree that it is a crime and that person should be punished FULLY.

Posted by: calboy at July 8, 2005 9:58 PM | Permalink

calboy, in a word: bull.

You're 'it's the liberal media, stupid' rant is as insipid as it is wrong. But you're entitled to your opinion.

And, of course, Ms. Miller was so leftist and anti-war (she works for the NYTimes, right?) that she authored a series of Chalabi-sourced articles that virtually supported Bush's WMD argument single-handed. Too bad for her (and the president) none were found. Zip. Nada. I guess that was Clinton's fault too, huh?

But your sad whine that conservatives have to work so hard to get their message out is hilarious, given the topic of our conversation. Robert Novak. Ever hear of him.

I certainly have no interest in dredging up the nine-year-old conservative plaint about Clinton and the FBI list. Nothing came up of it at the time. But equivalency to outing a CIA agent?
That's really pathetic.

Posted by: David McLemore at July 8, 2005 10:47 PM | Permalink

Oh, you don't have to take my word on the FBI files. Take Ken Starr's.

"The Final Report in the FBI Files matter concludes that there was no substantial and credible evidence that any senior White House official, or First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton, was involved in seeking confidential Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI") background reports of former White House staff from the prior administrations of President Bush and President Reagan."

Posted by: David McLemore at July 8, 2005 11:03 PM | Permalink

Now it is official, great investigators don't need to bully fourth estate ...

Lawrence E. Walsh, independent counsel in the Iran-Contra probe of Reagan administration officials, says he never considered taking action against reporters and couldn't imagine a justification for it. I felt it was up to me and my associates to conduct our own investigation and not force a reporter to do it for us A Prosecutor Who Didn't Back Down

Posted by: Jozef Imrich at July 8, 2005 11:14 PM | Permalink

Dave:
Don't forget the last part of calboy's name.
Boy.
I think that pretty much explains what we've read earlier in this thread.
Anyone who thinks Judy Miller, the author of "There are WMD's, so we must go to war," is a "hard leftist" is a person who has lost any grip on reality.
And remember a lesson that has saved me endless hours at the keyboard -- when Martians post, do not answer.
The right-wing is very confused about all this; first, Judy is their hero because she falls hook, line and sinker for the adminstration's utterly bogus rationale for war. Then, all of a sudden, she's the villian who refuses to tell a mad dog prosecutor and a rabid judge who her source is for a story she never wrote.
It's a situation to drive an idealogue around the bend.
Thus, Calboy ... Lee Kane ... Trained Auditor ... Kilgore Trout.
Cognitive dissonance: It's a bitch.
But it's fun to watch, isn't it ?

Posted by: Steve Lovelady at July 8, 2005 11:33 PM | Permalink

Dave-I was simply making a point on how journalists/columnists who veer politically right are described with certain terminology ie "right wing columnist Bob Novak". I was being facetious when I described Judith Miller. I just dont see Left wing jouranlist/columnists described as such.
So now Ken Starr is suddenly a Left Wing resource! Wow! Finally-he isnt the devil after all and part of the VRWC! Answewr this please:How do 100's of FBI files get from point A to point B-Arent FBI files supposed to be at the FBI???? And No one looked at them?? And you believe that?? A bigger WOW goes out to you brother...interesting when its fits your viewpoint.
Nice to see Ken Starr rehabilitated by the Left wingers at Pressthink.
One point- if Novak is guilty then he is guilty..at least I can wait to ALL the evidence is in. Your Liberal Bias has already convicted him thus confirming and reaffirming to all out there your Liberal Bias..just read your posts.
And As ususal and on cue, the ever unbiased LoveLady leaves out the other rationales for going to war-just keep hyping the rationale that the Media itself hyped ie judith miller. Thats not the Administration's fault that the Media decided unto themselves to amplify one of the rationales for the war and then took off solely with that WMD rationale. They could have attempted to give equal wieght/vailidity/nonvalidity to the other rationales spelled out multiple times by mu