AP: Supreme Court Won't Hear CIA Leak Case

[flpoljunkie]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/27/AR2005062700405_pf.html

Supreme Court Won't Hear CIA Leak Case

By GINA HOLLAND
The Associated Press
Monday, June 27, 2005; 10:09 AM


WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court rejected appeals Monday from two journalists who have refused to testify before a grand jury about the leak of an undercover CIA officer's identity.

The cases asked the court to revisit an issue that it last dealt with more than 30 years ago _ whether reporters can be jailed or fined for refusing to identify their sources.

The justices' intervention had been sought by 34 states and many news groups, all arguing that confidentiality is important in news gathering

[derby378]

1. There is a God...he loves us all so much...

Sorry. Just getting into that Bill Hicks frame of mind.

YES!!!!

[seemslikeadream]

2. YES

http://www.cursor.org.nyud.net:8090/images/iheartchalabi.jpg


Amerimacka

Miss Liberty turn inna Jazabelle
All the dreams you go sell, de whole dem turn inna hell
Her bed of roses are filled with thorns
Her righteous robes are tattered and torn
If she had only stood for love, that would have been enough
She wouldn't have to hide her shame
If she had only stood for love, that would have been enough
But now she's burnt us all with her flames
Amerimacka, oh what a beautiful life
Amerimacka, is like licking honey off a knife
Amerimacka, oh what a beautiful sight
Amerimacka, don't be blinded by the light
The land of the free built on slavery
Our consciousness in captivity
Promise land is the liar's den
Your culture of greed has got to end
Now we're laying in the mud, looking up above
Tear wather just ah drop from the sky
They try to keep us in the mud, separating us from love
But me nah go let dem conquer de I
Amerimacka, oh what a beautiful life
Amerimacka, is like licking honey off a knife
Amerimacka, oh what a beautiful sight
Amerimacka, don't be blinded by the light

THIEVERY CORPORATION

[DoYouEverWonder]

7. Hopefully Ms. Miller's new wardrobe

will include lots of stripes this season.

[mom cat]

47. May be she can get fashion advice from Martha, or at least some advice

on how to mature from the experience.

[mbperrin]

3. Judith's goin' to jail! Judith's goin' to jail! Judith's goin' to jail!

Wish I could muster up any sympathy, but maybe her good friend Chalabi can!

[VegasWolf]

80. I would like to see that fat pig Novack go to prision. nt

[Mr.Green93]

4. Woo Hoo!

Another in the face for the fundies.

[AnnInLa]

5. Not sure I understand all the ramifications, but

the NBC reporter said individual states DO have the power to make laws protecting reporters from revealing their sources to state-sponsored probes, but refusing to hear this appeal means that the FEDS don't have the same right on a Fed-sponsored probe. I think.

[Me.]

8. They Can Make Such A Law

but it won't save Miller & Cooper from either testifying or going to jail. Now the really interesting part begins. Will they "stick to their principle" or will they speak. I'm betting they start singing a different tune now, bet neither will stay the course and adapt prison stripes as their new mode of dress.

[elehhhhna]

60. The coward will blab their GUTS OUT. Then be silenced. No MSM

coverage, betcha.

[Renew Deal]

6. What should be Judith Millers prison name?

[Scurrilous]

9. Neo-con con. n/t

[Roland99]

10. If I said it I'd get banned (or the msg deleted at least)

:)

[geek tragedy]

15. Curveball. nt

[Mandate My Ass]

19. ROFL

Oh, the irony. :D

[Straight Shooter]

16. Spitball. eom

[bear425]

20. Sis. Stenographer in Stripes? n/t

edit: clarity

[AlGore-08.com]

11. Ummm... Judith Miller aside...

Isn't this a bad ruling as far as the First Amendment goes? And as far as what little investigative reporting still goes on in the country? Won't this make it less likely that we'll have another "deep throat" type whistle blower, since that whistle blower will have to trust individual reporters to keep their identity secret?

[Rose Siding]

13. Possibly

But since this case involves the admin's betrayal of a US agent in its efforts to destroy a political adversary, I'm not sure we can tell yet what the effects would be in other cases. That should be made clear in the near future.

[Darkhawk32]

I don't think so... let me elaborate...

Since the source was an actual participant in the crime being committed, I don't think that journalistic principle applies.

In the case of the DSM "deep throat", that source may or may not be a willing participant of said lies about the Iraq war, thus the identity of that source can remain anonymous.

Can anybody reinforce what I'm saying here?

Can anybody tell me I'm full of shit perhaps?

[McSpazitron]

18. I agree...

In that, if an "anonymous" source breaks the law simply by leaking the information, then the protection of sources ethic shouldn't apply - if the reporter is called upon by the courts to reveal that source in the course of an investigation.

[Darkhawk32]

22. I don't think that the actual leaking of the information is against the...

law, but if that person leaking the information is INVOLVED in a criminal activity, then the journalist has to reveal his sources.

Example:

Dick Cheney is in a White House hallway on his cell phone and yells,

"That's right, I want that Plame bitch blown RIGHT NOW."

A janitor, working an unusally late night, hears this and calls a reporter to "whistleblow". The janitor wants to be remain anonymous for fear of his life.

The reporter does not have to reveal that source because that janitor was not a party in the criminal activity.


NOW, in the Plame case:

Dick Cheney is in a White House hallways on his cell phone and yells,

"That's right, I want that Plame bitch blown RIGHT NOW."

In this scanario, it is the reporter on the other side of the phone connection.

Outing a CIA operative is illegal as we all know and the reporter is acting with or in cooperation directly with persons doing the illegal activity. The reporter MUST reveal his/her sources.

[McSpazitron]

73. I'm pretty sure that the law says....

that it is a felony to reveal the name of an undercover operative.

It's not a crime to report it if you are in the press and it is revealed to you. It is a crime to reveal the name in the first place.

It's equivilent to passing on an item to an uncleared person that requires you to have security clearance to know.

In this case, the reporters didn't initiate the publication of the operative's name (Novak did). But then, they didn't break the law. The person who revealed the name to them is the law breaker.

In that case, they are protecting a source who broke the law simply by revealing the information to them. It's not simply a case of being a whistle-blower. Whistle-blowing, is not a crime, provided secure information is not passed illegally.

[AngryAmish]

25. Deep Throat broke the law also

Should he have been outed? Put in jail? Or the reporters he talked to. This is a dangerous ruling that cuts both ways.

I think a lot of our liberties died this term.

[Darkhawk32]

30. Did Mark Felt participate in the Watergate break-in? I'm not that UP on

the history of Watergate.

[Mandate My Ass]

31. Not if the leak resulted in uncovering corruption

whereby it serves the public welfare, or so the story goes.

The Plame leak served no purpose whatsoever and actually harmed the public as well as the people it was intended to harm: Wilson and Plame.

[AngryAmish]

34. "public welfare" is a slippery term

What if Cheney says that the "public welfare" was served by outing Plame for whatever reason? Who decides how the public welfare is served?

We may like the outcome here, but the precident set is dangerous.

[Mandate My Ass]

35. If the public welfare was served...we'd hear about it 24/7

She was an undercover WMD operative. Her contacts were likely killed and we lost someone who was an asset in the War on Terror. What possible good could come of that and why would Cheney be the arbiter of what is good for us?

This case has nothing to do with protecting whistle blowers. The lack of comment by the Supremes speaks volumes if you think about it.

[Festivito]

48. What law did Feld break? nt.

[AngryAmish]

52. I think (not 100% positive)

leaked grand jury info., mislead his boss and Nixon about looking for the leaker. That could be considered obstruction of justice.

Listen, I think Felt did the right thing. But we need a free press. This ruling reduces the freedom.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

66. What makes you think we have a "free press"? Operation Mockingbird,...

...implemented in the late 1940s, ensured that our press would always be controlled:

Operation Mockingbird: CIA Media Manipulation
<http://www.prisonplanet.com/analysis_louise_01_03_03_mockingbird.html>

QUOTE:

Under the guise of 'American' objectives and lack of congressional oversight, the CIA accomplish their exploits by using every trick in the book (and they know quite a few) that they actually teach in the notorious "School of the Americas", nicknamed the "School of Dictators" and "School of Assassins" by critics. The Association for Responsible Dissent estimates that 6 million people had died by 1987 as a result of CIA covert operations, called an "American Holocaust" by former State Department official William Blum. In 1948, the CIA recreated its covert action wing called the Office of Policy Coordination with Wall Street lawyer Frank Wisner as its first director. Another early elitist who served as Director of the CIA from 1953 to 1961 was Allen Dulles, a senior partner at the Wall Street firm of Sullivan and Cromwell, which represented the Rockefeller empire and other trusts, corporations, and cartels.

Starting in the early days of the Cold War (late 40's), the CIA began a secret project called Operation Mockingbird, with the intent of buying influence behind the scenes at major media outlets and putting reporters on the CIA payroll, which has proven to be a stunning ongoing success. The CIA effort to recruit American news organizations and journalists to become spies and disseminators of propaganda, was headed up by Frank Wisner, Allen Dulles, Richard Helms, and Philip Graham (publisher of The Washington Post). Wisner had taken Graham under his wing to direct the program code-named Operation Mockingbird and both have presumably committed suicide.

Media assets will eventually include ABC, NBC, CBS, Time, Newsweek, Associated Press, United Press International (UPI), Reuters, Hearst Newspapers, Scripps-Howard, Copley News Service, etc. and 400 journalists, who have secretly carried out assignments according to documents on file at CIA headquarters, from intelligence-gathering to serving as go-betweens. The CIA had infiltrated the nation's businesses, media, and universities with tens of thousands of on-call operatives by the 1950's. CIA Director Dulles had staffed the CIA almost exclusively with Ivy League graduates, especially from Yale with figures like George Herbert Walker Bush from the "Skull and Crossbones" Society.

Many Americans still insist or persist in believing that we have a free press, while getting most of their news from state-controlled television, under the misconception that reporters are meant to serve the public. Reporters are paid employees and serve the media owners, who usually cower when challenged by advertisers or major government figures. Robert Parry reported the first breaking stories about Iran-Contra for Associated Press that were largely ignored by the press and congress, then moving to Newsweek he witnessed a retraction of a true story for political reasons. In 'Fooling America: A Talk by Robert Parry' he said, "The people who succeeded and did well were those who didn't stand up, who didn't write the big stories, who looked the other way when history was happening in front of them, and went along either consciously or just by cowardice with the deception of the American people."

[Media_Lies_Daily]

64. "Deep Throat" was a whistle-blower who revealed the inner workings ....

...of a corrupt and law-breaking executive branch.

Valerie Plame was neither corrupt nor law-breaking.

There is a MAJOR difference here...I'm surprised you wouldn't know this.

[AngryAmish]

69. Of course there is a difference morally

However, the legal principle is what is in play here. The SC has said that a reporter may not keep a confidential source secret if the gov't wants to find out. All that is protecting reporters is Justice Department rules that says the FBI may not seek cinfidential sources unless there is no other way to find out about the information.

What if Nixon ordered the FBI to pick up Woodward and Bernstein because some secret grand jury info appeared in the Post? Watergate would never have been found out.

Do you really expect the Justice Department to restrain itself now? No one can safely blow the whistle because they will be found out.

This is a dark day for American journalism and the right of the Americaqn people to know what their giv't is up to.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

70. What SCOTUS upheld was that anyone that leaks the name of....

...an intelligence operative in the field is guilty of a felony. Part of that law also states that anyone repeating/reporting that story in the media is ALSO guilty of a felony. That's about as cut and dried as it gets.

In the Watergate case, Felt was not guilty of breaking any laws. In fact, he revealed the names of those at a very high level who had broken quite a few laws. He stayed hidden all of these years for fear of retaliation, just as some of those old Nixonites suggested should happen now.

The current law on the books protecting journalists does so only if their sources are not breaking the law.

Again, there is a distinction, and it is VERY clear.

As far as a dark day for journalism, that was the day Operation Mockingbird was enacted back in the late 1940s.

[stickdog]

74. 1) The 'source' was a Bush Admin crony acting FOR the Bush Admin.

2) The 'leak' was calculated by the govt. to hurt an innocent individual not by an innocent individual to expose the govt.

3) The 'leak' wasn't even used by Judith Miller. She didn't print the information because that would have been illegal. So how is she protecting "her source"?

[Me.]

21. This Is Not A Whistle Blower Case

Criminals are not whistle blowers and Miller and Cooper and all have been trying to protect the very people who committed the crime. Further, journalists are still required, under law, to testify before a grand jury, when called. Just as the other journalists involved in this case did. And what Miller & Cooper may be testifying to is the obstruction of justice in this case rather than the actual leak, the cover-up. All along the media have been trying to turn the table on this case, equating it with that of a real whistle blower case. But Judy especially is up to her neck in administration shenanigans. Don't forget she is also being investigated for alerting a so called charity that the FBI was on the way.

[Darkhawk32]

24. See post #22. I think we're saying the same thing in essence. n/t

[Me.]

27. Indeed We Are

Good way of defining the differences between a whistle blower and a fellow co-conspirator.

[Darkhawk32]

29. Thank you. n/t

[Me.]

40. The Only Thing

I would add is that it is against the law to leak the identity of an undercover agent and that was put in place by Bush 41, who said it was a despicable act of treason.

[Geoff R. Casavant]

50. Can't say for sure . . .

. . . but I don't personally disagree with your assessment, and I've said as much on a different board. I had thought that the Supremes issued an opinion, but instead declined to take up an appeal, so they won't give any written reasoning and we have to look at the opinions of the lower courts.

I agree that there should be a different standard for someone revealing past misconduct, than for someone whose discussions with a reporter actually constitute present misconduct.

[Darkhawk32]

58. Don't forget misconduct of another... n/t

[davsand]

17. It opens the door to Fitzgerald and some indictments.

This decision to not hear the case opens the door now to the possibility that the reporters will tell what they know about a White House source for that Plame leak. It may pave the way for Fitz to finally get some traction.

To be honest, I think this particular case goes WAY beyond an aide telling the newspapers that _______ is getting it on with his secretary in his office or any other kind of personal dirt. This is about giving out the name of a CIA operative actively working under cover. It is about possibly getting people killed while they are doing their jobs, and it is about giving up intelligence sources as political retribution.

I think the average garden variety leak will still be safe, and I think the reporters can still afford to protect sources as long as they are not committing a form of treason.


Laura

[Rose Siding]

26. According to the LAT, indictments for exposing Plame are "unlikely"

but there are associated charges to be considered...

snip>
Lawyers who have closely watched Fitzgerald's investigation said they thought the Republican prosecutor appeared to be bending over backward to show he was thoroughly exploring potentially illegal leaks by a Republican White House. But an indictment for exposing Plame now seems unlikely, they said, because her identity was already known in Washington and because it would be difficult to prove an intent to harm U.S. intelligence.

Legal experts said it seemed more likely that Fitzgerald would seek perjury or obstruction of justice charges....

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-sources26jun26,0,2850709,print.story

[KittyWampus]

37. "her identity was already known in Washington"? Sorry, but that sounds

like bunk feed to the reporter through GOP operatives.

I'm just sayin....

[Media_Lies_Daily]

67. You're sayin' correctly. Her identity as the head operative of a....

...clandistine global operation tracking WMDs and WMD materials was NOT known until it was revealed by Novak, Miller, Cooper, and others, as told to them by highly-placed NeoCons in the Executive Branch.

[kohodog]

72. That has been floating around for a while.

Sort of like the DSM being "old news." There is no evidence that she "well Known" to be an agent. If she was, her front company that allowed her to track illegal wmd trades would have been shut down prior to all this. The Administration spin always tries to marginalize the heinous nature of their crimes. We didn't torture anyone, in fact they get to eat chicken and have Korans. Everybody knew that we were going to war no matter what, so the DSM are meaningless. Durbin is responsible for the bad image of the US abroad, not our actions. Divert, deflect, lie. That's what they do and the media follows complacently along.

I can't say I'm terribly optimistic, but wouldn't it be great to see Libby, Rove or maybe even Cheney taken to task for the Plame leak.

[Mandate My Ass]

39. Gawd, not the LA Times too

I hate that "her identity was known in Washington" BS. She was still undercover! Revealing her identity to the public rendered her ineffective, and worse, likely caused harm to her contacts. It proves their War on Terror is BS too.

[LightningFlash]

78. No kidding...

It's treason to go around revealing the identity of CIA agents like it was a frat party.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

63. The LAT has routinely written articles supporting NeoCon decisions...

...with this case being just one of those.

[Stephanie]

41. No, because JM was not protecting a whistleblower

She was protecting a criminal, or criminals. She is a witness to a crime.

[satireV]

61. No it is not a bad ruling.

Miller et al were helping to committ an alledged crime. The exposing of a CIA agent. Thus the 1st Amendment does not protect them. The person they got the info from is NOT a whistleblower, but rather a traitor.

The press should not be accessories to crimes.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

62. It's a crime to knowingly reveal the name of an intelligence operative....

...working in the field. Period.

They had to have known they were violating that law when they wrote their articles, but counted on the support of the NeoCons who gave them the name to protect them in court.

They should have known better.

[robertpaulsen]

68. NO! SCOTUS already ruled on this in 1972!

John Dean wrote a great article dealing with "Deep Throats". These two paragraphs are particularly illuminating:

Finally, if the confidential information relates to criminal activity, the U.S. Supreme Court said in 1972 (in Branzburg vs. Hayes) that should a grand jury investigating the crime need the information, the journalist must turn it over — despite the freedom of the press guaranteed under the 1st Amendment.

No reporter can enter into an agreement that violates that law. Rather, an agreement of confidentiality is subject to it. The so-called news person's privilege, just like the attorney-client privilege or a president's executive privilege, is a qualified privilege. When a judge holds a reporter in contempt for violating the law, that judge is merely upholding the law of the land.

more...

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/sunday/commentary/la-op-sources6feb06,0,6080347.story?coll=la-sunday-commentary

So, whoever told Novakula, Miller and Cooper about Plame's cover working for the CIA through Brewster, Jennings & Associates has no protection.

Anyone here who still doesn't know who exposed Plame's cover should read my signature.

[robertpaulsen]

84. Kick for Tuesday

:kick:

[flpoljunkie]

12. Ruling was "without any comment or recorded dissent."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/27/AR2005062700278.html

Reuters
Monday, June 27, 2005; 10:27 AM

Court rejects appeal by reporters in leak probe

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court rejected on Monday an appeal by two journalists who argued that they should not have to reveal their confidential sources to a grand jury investigating the leak by government officials of a covert CIA operative's name to the news media. Without any comment or recorded dissent, the justices let stand a U.S. appeals court's ruling that New York Times correspondent Judith Miller and Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper should be jailed and held in contempt for refusing to testify.

[Pirate Smile]

14. Supreme Court Won't Hear CIA Leak Case (Miller, Cooper appeal rejected)

Supreme Court Won't Hear CIA Leak Case

By GINA HOLLAND
The Associated Press
Monday, June 27, 2005; 10:20 AM

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court rejected appeals Monday from two journalists who have refused to testify before a grand jury about the leak of an undercover CIA officer's identity.

The cases asked the court to revisit an issue that it last dealt with more than 30 years ago _ whether reporters can be jailed or fined for refusing to identify their sources.

The justices' intervention had been sought by 34 states and many news groups, all arguing that confidentiality is important in news gathering.

"Important information will be lost to the public if journalists cannot reliably promise anonymity to sources," news organizations including The Associated Press told justices in court papers.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/27/AR2005062700405.html

[moobu2]

23. This case is different due to the national security issues

Its involves criminally exposing an undercover agent of the United States Government.
Other cases of a more mundane nature may go the other way..This isn't an ordinary case of a whistle blower.

[brentspeak]

28. I wouldn't get my hopes up re. the Plame case

Fitzgerald has been ridiculously slow in pursuing the case. At the rate he's going, we may not find out the identity of the leaker until the year 2012.

[The Night Owl]

32. I still don't know what to make of Fitzgerald...

I believe that Fitzgerald is stalling the Plame case to protect the Bush administration while it is in office, but then again, I can't help but think that Fitzgerald would have closed the Plame case a long time ago if he were trying to protect the Bush administration while it is in office.

So, what is going on with the Plame case?

:shrug:

[Moochy]

43. Fitzgerald stalling, can't just dismiss it

He's stalling it, but he can't just dismiss the case summarily. He has to jump through all the hoops, cross his t's and dot his i's.
Providing a very tiny fig leaf for the bush admin to hide its dirty bits.

Sounds like they'll find a patsy to take the rap on charges of Perjury and Obstruction of Justice, as opposed to Treason or a violation of that law that made it a felony to out a CIA Agent. (The law Bush Senior got passed to punish the ex-cia leaker who outed agents involved in central america skullduggery.)


Scooter maybe? anyone have the latest odds on who is the leaker / criminal?

[kevsand]

45. He's not stalling.

This is how he has always worked. This is how he took down George Ryan, the Republican governor. He has multiple investigations of political corruption underway in Illinois, and they all move forward slowly, and they all have multiple waves of indictments and convictions.

Yes, sometimes he charges people with perjury, but that is usually a means to another end, in that he is usually able to plea bargain the perjurors into spilling the goods on higher ups.

And yes, it's slow, but the man is thorough to a fault, and methodical beyond belief. He always gets the goods, and he always gets the convictions. I'd much rather have him on the case than any wannabe hotshot who jumps the gun and blows the trial because he went to court without all the ducks lined up.

[Moochy]

53. Stalling in the eye of the beholder

I think you are probably right, I havent' followed this case too closely, but I feel it is going too slow. (as a lay person)
But I will defer to your knoweldge about Fitzgerald's background and integrity, since I do remember reading positive statements to that effect when Fitzgerald was first named by Ashcroft.

I guess cynically assume that the Bush admin would be able to apply pressure to the investigation, slowing it down, especially given the a possible outcome could bring down Cabinet members, or their direct chiefs fo staff of the Bush administration.

I hope you are right, and justice will be served. :)

[Moochy]

56. What about post #49?

Post #49 has a quote from fitzgerald saying only remaining business is the testimony from Miller and Cooper.

What's your take on that comment from Fitzgerald?

Cheers

[kevsand]

82. I suspect that the posters who responded later in that sub-thread

are probably on the right track. Fitzgerald wants Miller and Cooper either to confirm what someone has said (so that they would be three against one, instead of a he said/she said kind of thing), or to refute what someone has said, in order to charge the liar with perjury/obstruction. In either case, it could be Novak, or someone in the west wing.

The main problem with these kind of cases is the almost total lack of physical evidence to make the case. They have phone logs, of course, but must rely on testimony as to the content or intent of those calls. I seriously doubt that there was anything in the way of notes or emails left in the White House after the so-called "internal" investigation.

My biggest fear at this point is that someone pulls a "Liddy" and does the time without giving up their bosses.

[lancdem]

75. He's been held up by all the appeals by Cooper and Miller

That's not his fault.

[bluestateguy]

33. Judith Miller deserves to rot in jail

The court has ruled. It has ordered her to cooperate. Her job is to comply with that ruling. Not question it. Not appeal it. But comply with it.

[msanthrope]

36. Go to Jail, Judy, Go Directly to Jail....

Do Not Pass Go, Do Not Collect $200.....

[LyleNews]

38. The Best Judges Money Can Buy

As I've said many times, you can do what you want, when you want against whoever you want when you own the judges who gave you the OutHouse in the first place

.

[Chan790]

42. I can assure you the WH wanted SCOTUS to rule for Miller and Cooper. N/M

[goclark]

44. That is the clue! Is the WH and is NOVAK happy /unhappy

And what about that scumball NOVAK!

I hate him so very much and want him in leg irons.

[Chan790]

51. I think the WH won't tip its hand

I think they're too smart (about this) to tip their hand. I can see no reason the WH would want a ruling that goes against Cooper though, he's the one that seems most likely to roll. Miller is a partisan and I feel would look at incarceration as an honor for this sack of weasels in the WH.

The best indicator will be Novak, if anybody can get him to answer the question. He has more to lose...as a party to the initial outing he has quite a ways to squirm to avoid a treason indictment if his source is revealed to be someone (i.e. Cheney) who he would have known would have confidential access to that info.

[redqueen]

46. Hi Chan790

Welcome to DU!

:hi:

[AlCzervik]

49. from another article

and i did not know this.

U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald of Chicago, the special counsel handling the probe, told justices that the only unfinished business is testimony from Cooper and Miller.

http://tinyurl.com/amehl

i'm guessing Novak talked and i've read in Vanity Fair both Miller and Cooper have had no support from Novak at all. Also Miller's behavior during the run up to the war was despicable but that has nothing to do with this, just thought i'd mention it.

[Chan790]

55. But what did he say?

He may have lied. Bob Novak doesn't strike me as the paragon of honesty and journalist ethics. The only person that can refute him is his source and I think we can be sure that they're not going to.

His non-support of Miller and Cooper makes me think they don't know anything that is actually that damaging to anybody at all. If they could hurt him or his source in the ongoing investigation, he'd be kissing their fannies to keep them shut up.

[Me.]

59. It Has Been Hinted At

during this year long investigation that Novak talked, didn't tell the whole story or lied to protect someone and that Miller and Cooper's testimony is important to charges of obstruction of justice. Against Novak? Perhaps that is going to be used to "convince" him to tell everything he knows and then it becomes a domino effect. That is perhaps why Miller & Cooper are so important.

[Justice]

79. Obstruction of Justice or Proof Person Knew What they were doing

I've read the same, that the charges now are about obstruction/perjury. Miller and Cooper's testimony will show someone has lied to the grand jury.

I also wonder if Miller and Cooper's testimony would show the person who leaked the info knew what they were doing - intent. That is important b/c intent is part of the statute.

[Me.]

81. Proving Intent Would Be Great

Given it's such a high bar to jump. The Kos article linked here gives an excellent summation of what's going on with this case.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1889342

[Media_Lies_Daily]

71. Novak definitely would have told the truth to keep his worn-out....

...old butt out of jail.

If nothing else, Novak does ALL of those things that are in his own best interests.

[warrens]

54. Teddy Olson is Cooper's attorney?

WTF? This is just WAY to incestuous.

[medeak]

57. best news of all... he lost .. Poor Ted

[SoCalDem]

65. Gee what a surprise...not

They like cases that are ambiguous and will affect "the little people"..

[robertpaulsen]

76. Kicking with the hope of a FROGMARCH!

:kick::bounce:

[LightningFlash]

77. Game over, Robert Novak....

Now you have to spill the beans before both liberal and conservative law enforcers beat the shit out of you. :think:

Antoine Scalia doesn't want to hear your stupid pleading hearts.

And you Karl Rove, pipe up big boy!!! Prison awaits. :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

[lostnfound]

83. Novak hasn't been prosecuted

and probably won't be