Rove was the source of the Plame leak... so it appears

PDid, Who's playing the puppeteer? LOL

Liked that cartoon, PD.

Hey, su...

Can you spot Karl Rove in this picture?



(He's the third fat one from the left.)

drip drip drip







vv link

and the part I've been wondering about for a while reappears in someone else's spyglass



MSM embedded where the sun doesn't shine

bringing to mind another question..........<March 3, 2005>

"Ms. Miller's case is particularly worrisome in that she did not write anything, although she talked to people in the government about the story. Even more peculiar, the Appeals Court said the special prosecutor knows the person with whom she talked. So why does he not question that person directly?

Journalists have long insisted on protecting the confidentiality of their sources. They argue, rightly, that this is essential to establish a relationship of trust; otherwise, some important sources wouldn't tell them anything and reporting would be inhibited.

Even more disturbing, the special prosecutor submitted secret evidence to the appeals court, and neither Ms. Miller, Mr. Cooper, nor their attorneys were allowed to see it. What has happened to the Sixth Amendment, which gives those accused the right to be confronted with the witnesses against them? Miller succinctly described the situation: "I risk going to jail for a story I didn't write, for reasons a court won't explain."

Court decisions have held that the First Amendment's protection of freedom of the press does not extend to the protection of sources, because criminality is frequently involved. The identification of Plame is possibly an example. Other examples are more compelling. A reporter for The Washington Post once won a Pulitzer prize for a story she made up concerning drug addiction in children. The Post returned the Pulitzer, fired the reporter, and instituted a rule that reporters had to reveal their sources to an editor. Many anonymous sources help the media bring scandals to light. This is a public service. Only last week, in a different case, a federal court ruled that the government was not entitled to reporters' telephone logs.

Freedom of the press is not a special privilege bestowed on the media. It is, rather, based on the public's need to know what the government is doing. Otherwise, people cannot make reasonable judgments about their government's policies, competence, or honesty; and democracy will not work.

There is a built-in tension in the relationship between journalists and governments. To the extent that the government has legitimate secrets (and it does, though not so many as it says), it is the government's responsibility to protect them. Leaks come from the government; journalists simply report them. To complain about this is like shooting the messenger who brings bad news.

In the Plame case, it isn't entirely implausible to wonder if the White House itself was the source of the leak that upset it so much - or if, perhaps, the leaking was done under instruction from the White House. Is the mission of the special prosecutor, perhaps unknown to the prosecutor himself, really to find a scapegoat?"

• Pat M. Holt is former chief of staff of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He wrote the book 'Secret Intelligence and Public Policy: A Dilemma of Democracy.'

BBB
The Bush administration must secretly love Cindy Sheehan. She single handedly has gotten the criminal activies of Karl Rove off the front pages of the press and cable television.

BBB

Plame Leak Case Could End in Supreme Court Standoff
Lucy Dalglish: "I think we are headed for a showdown."



By Joe Strupp

Published: August 10, 2004 12:21 PM EST

NEW YORK The recent pressure on reporters to reveal sources in the Valerie Plame investigation could end in a U.S Supreme Court standoff, according to two leading First Amendment attorneys, one of whom fears several leading Washington reporters could wind up in jail before it's over.

"I think we are headed for a showdown and it would not surprise me in the least to see half a dozen reporters sitting in a jail in D.C.," said Lucy Dalglish, executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, which monitors such cases. She believes Time magazine and other media outlets "will be willing to take this all the way to the Supreme Court because the atmosphere here has become so difficult for journalists to promise confidentiality that the stakes are too high."

Sandra Baron, executive director of the Media Law Resource Center, agreed. "Eventually it will go to the Supreme Court," she said. "I'm not sure if a lot of people want to see that because there is always the danger that the Supreme Court will take a strong stand against the press on this issue."

Dalglish's and Baron's comments followed word Monday that Time reporter Matthew Cooper had been held in contempt of court for failing to reveal sources who disclosed that Plame was an undercover CIA officer. In addition, Walter Pincus, a reporter for The Washington Post, received a subpoena Monday ordering him to testify in the investigation, which is being directed by special prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald. Other newspaper reporters are expected to receive subpoenas soon.

The Plame investigation stems from a July 14, 2003, column by syndicated columnist Robert Novak that revealed Plame, who is married to a former diplomat, was a CIA officer. Fitzgerald was appointed to track down how the information was leaked.

Novak has not said if he has received a subpoena in the investigation, but federal investigators have already interviewed Glenn Kessler, another Post reporter, and NBC commentator Tim Russert. "I think they are trying to go after the easy folks first who are not protecting confidentiality of any sort," Dalglish said. "They are trying to exclude alternate sources before they go after Novak, whom they know has confidential sources."

Baron warned that the prosecutor's ongoing efforts to demand information from reporters in the Plame case could create a dangerous atmosphere for journalists, and cause some sources to dry up. "My fear is they will continue to subpoena reporters looking for sources," she said. "Whenever you have that, it puts the entire reporting community and sourcing community on edge. It suggests open season for prosecutors who are looking for a short cut for answers in a grand jury investigation."

The Supreme Court last ruled on the issue in Branzburg vs. Hayes, the well-known 1972 case that offered a vague split decision. Five justices held that there was no privilege for journalists, but agreed that a qualified privilege should apply in some circumstances, which was the position of the four justices in dissent.

The qualified privilege, enunciated by Justice Stewart in his influential dissent, imposes a three-part test before journalists may be compelled to reveal confidential information to a grand jury. The information must be clearly relevant, cannot be obtained by alternative means "less destructive of First Amendment rights" and be of "compelling and overriding interest," according to the Center for Individual Freedom.

hi stradee

Why did you post this 2004 piece now?

Unless I'm missing something, Stradee posted it in 2005.

Doh....

large mental error...thanks tico

and who hired Judith Miller in October 2008?

why it was the arch-enemy of Sarah Palin and freepers everywhere, Fox News!

(did anyone else giggle when it was announced?)

Really quite a perfect pairing, isn't it? I'm sure the lady has had some serious liquidity problems for a while and she will bring a certain cache of authoritativeness to Fox.

Propaganda-wise, it's quite interesting. She will serve some standard Fox/talkradio/movement functions here... 1) she'll validate (explicitly) the meme of mainstream media (Times particularly) being biased and 2) portray Fox, by way of contrast, as the only cable/news outlet that allows free-flowing opinion and reportage and 3) support, retrospectively, the rationales for both the war in Iraq and anti-Muslim hatred which Fox pushed and pushes still.

Hell hath no fury like a Liberal for one of his own who is deemed to have turned.

Gad. You are having trouble with the cogency thing these days, finn.

she's already been doing this for a while, it's just the Fox News bit that's a new addition

she's already done some op-eds for the WSJ and in September 2007,

Her props as a friend of Scooter are well established.

Beth
By 'props', do you means statements of support?

"props" - respect/recognition/credentials/acknowledgement

Ya gotta give her her props.

New usage for me...so it is 'props' as in proper acknowledgements, I gather.

But I'm still not sure if you are claiming she has a friendship of some duration with Scooter Libby. Is that so and where did you see that?

oh ****...just realized you are speaking of Miller...doh. I was working on something else re Palin. Brain oldifying.

yes on the use of props (keep up with your urban dictionary, eh)

I was reflecting back on my post http://able2know.org/topic/54736-131#post-1530566 of 2005, where I was glad that someone else was giving Judith Miller the fish-eye, and there was reference to the NYT apology