Time Magazine to Hand Over Reporter Notes

[CBGLuthier]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050630/ap_on_re_us/reporters_contempt


NEW YORK - Time Inc. said Thursday it would comply with a court order to deliver the notes of a reporter threatened with jail in the investigation of the leak of an undercover CIA officer's name.

U.S. District Judge Thomas Hogan is threatening to jail Matthew Cooper of Time and Judith Miller of The New York Times for contempt for refusing to disclose their sources.

[Dissent Is Patriotic]

1. This is majorly scary!! n/t

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Richardo]

23. There's a material difference here

The 'source' was an agent of the government committing a felony. The reporter is a material witness.

Sources who are exposing government or corporate malfeasance or criminal acts should be protected. Sources who are committing crimes or malfeasance should be identified and prosecuted.

This actually protects the free press from being used by agents of the government, IMO.

[July]

33. Your last point is very important, IMO.

This debate about the right to protect one's sources leaves out the fact that these reporters are helping the government harm its perceived enemies. That's not journalism.

[Richardo]

34. thanks, July - that just occurred to me this morning.

[librechik]

54. exactly--the intent of the law was never to protect the powerful

from accountability for their crimes.

and that's who Judy and Matt are protecting with their silence. If they were protecting a lower level bureaucrat who had leaked the name of the guy who outed Valerie Plame, then they should protect their sources forever. But potect the powerful criminal from exposure? NO WAY!! (and I am a journalist.)

[lastliberalintexas]

35. Thank you

God, I can't see why so many peopole don't get the distinction. We're not talking about a source and reporters who were exposing corruption or illegal activity of an elected official. We're talking about a source (who also happens to be a government employee?) and a reporter who basically conspired to break the law!

Even as an attorney, I would have to testify against a client and break "privilege" if the court was seeking information connected to a criminal conspiracy between my client and myself. I can not participate or have foreknowledge of the commission of a crime, even or especially as an attorney. Courts have rightly afforded the highest protection to the attorney-client privilege, and yet I would still have to testify against a client in that situation. There is no reason for a reporter to have any greater protection than that.


That said, I do hate that these two reporters are the ones being threatened. After all, they might have received the information, but they knew darn well not to use it. Novak is the one who should be in the hot seat.

[Richardo]

38. I fully agree with your last point - that's what gets me

Novak should have blisters on his ass by now.

(Thanks for the validation by the way - means a lot coming from a lawyer!) :thumbsup:

[Hepburn]

48. I am a lawyer also...

...and I totally agree with your statement. It is not the issue of a journalist ability to do his/her job, but it is the fact that a crime took place and there are journalists who are witnesses to the same and they cannot refuse to testify about the criminal conduct when an investigation of the same is taking place. They stand in no better place than you and me, as average citizens, if called to testify as a witness to a crime.

[TahitiNut]

58. I agree. It's not as though attorney-client privilege is inherently ...

... a Good Thing™. It isn't. It's deemed a necessary thing - a creature of a system. Privilege can never be regarded as a Good Thing™ in a (mythical) Just Society™.

[Demit]

59. As an attorney familiar with this case, you probably are aware that

there is some hair-splitting definition of whether a crime actually took place. If I am reconstructing this correctly, because it is certainly a fine distinction, the person who spoke to the reporters may not have been the only one who knew Plame's identity in the WH; if they were just repeating what they had been told, that might not have constituted a crime. I haven't read anything about this lately, but I remember reading the explanation about the time Fitzgerald was wrapping up the investigation...that the felony is not so cut-and-dried at all. It all depends on who the leaker is.

There is something about this pursuit of journalists that smacks of a fishing expedition. And the precedent it will set will not be good for the practice of journalism or, by extension, for the public.

Those here who think the journalists should be forced to talk because the source did a bad thing and broke the law, also don't think that journalists should be forced to talk when their source does a good thing. Whistleblowers are good. BUT: some whistleblowers break the law.

Who is to decide whether a source did a good thing or a bad thing? People who get the whistle blown on them will of course argue that the source did a bad thing--ESPECIALLY if they can point to a whistleblower breaking the law to do so. Journalists will thus be forced to name their sources all the time. This is not a good thing at all.

[lastliberalintexas]

60. Typically any unauthorized disclosure of classified

information is a crime and does not depend on the number of persons who knew or had access to the information. It's the very disclosure of classified information itself, not whether Joe Blow in the White House also somehow happened upon the information in a memo while cleaning up someone's office.

I'm not the expert on this case and so I'm not the one to say whether the crime was actually committed or not- that's for the court. But obviously the grand jury has been convened to investigate the commission of a crime and present indictment or no bills, so there is apparently enough evidence to say that a crime was committed. Just not by whom- yet.


The courts have never afforded journalists with great ability to protect their sources, and this case has done nothing to change that. Otherwise, it's just a bunch of Chicken Little the Sky is Falling tripe, when nothing is changing at all.

[TahitiNut]

64. It should also be noted that a 'whistle-blower' is someone who ...

... informs a duly-constituted law enforcement or regulatory authority. There is no legal "protection" (afaik) afforded someone who breaks the law. Furthermore, "Whistle-blower Protection" is NOT afforded those who make such disclosures to other than a duly-constituted law enforcement or regulatory authority. Someone who makes such disclosures internal to a company/organization ("boat rocker") or to the press is not protected under such statutes from termination, demotion, etc. Such people must resort to the far more difficult task of proving "wrongful (constructive) discharge" to obtain a remedy.

[nolabels]

75. Time magazine an appendage of the fascist state we are ensconced in

To that end them setting precedence in mock trail is just more horse-feathers. Something is changing though, it is the governments blatant running roughshod over the Constitution and Bill of Rights and not being called on it

(snip)
Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
(snip)
http://www.billofrights.com/

This grand jury is threatening prosecution because an omission of evidence which the government has but also says accused is in possession of. This evidence which someone else in the government has access logs which shows clear line who had access to with it. The government element in the equation obviously has not been prosecuted and probably is even being protected with some matter. This a clear indication the state has put itself above the law and unsnarling others in it's own criminality

All this could never transpire without this complicit and corrupt journalism practiced by a corporate-fascist enterprise like Time magazine, the ones that named Hitler as the person of the year

[progressoid]

68. Hold on there pardner. This isn't a whistle blower case is it?

This is a case of outing an undercover field agent. There aren't any whistleblowers to protect are there?

The law, (IIRC signed by GHWBush) was intended to protect CIA agents. You ask, "Who is to decide whether a source did a good thing or a bad thing?" Seems to me, this law, has decided it is a bad thing regardless of motive or ignorance of the law.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

69. I am personally hard-pressed to consider Miller and Cooper as....

..."whistle-blowers" by any stretch of the imagination. The person who gave them the information was committing a felony of the worst kind...endangering the lives of the agent he exposed along with those of the agents in her global network.

The fact that these two individuals KNEW that a felony was committed and did NOTHING in the way of stepping forward to report it to the proper authorities is also a felony.

"Fishing expedition"? I don't think so. I call it digging out the rats.

[mctrotter5]

39. Excellent point!

[BamaBecky]

43. Excellent point!,,,n/t

[Enraged_Ape]

72. This is like a reporter watching someone commit murder...

then writing a story about it, then insisting that he or she needs to protect the murderer by not revealing the killer's identity. As in this case, this reporter is witness to a felony.

I doubt the courts would show much leniency in this case, and who knows how many people were killed as the result of the outing of this agent's identity?

[HootieMcBoob]

44. There's a huge difference in this situation

This is not the case of a whistle-blower who is leaking classified information for the public's benefit by exposing government wrongdoing.

This is a case of two senior white house officials doing great damage to federal agents, the public and to national security by leaking classified information as a threat to future whistle-blowers who might seek to expose government wrongdoing, to punish a critic of the administration and to cover up the administration's lies that were intended to mislead the world as it made its case for an illegal war.

The first case exposes a crime the second case commits treason.

[TacticalPeek]

49. Sorry to disappoint you, but I'm no freeper.

Please recognize the possibility that one may know what is at stake, disagree with your position, and still (thank you Jesus!) not be a freeper.

The 'law' on this is exactly the same as it has been since 1972, would you not agree? Since that is the case then there is no factual or logical basis to claim as you do that constitutional rights are "being eroded in the most serious and dangerous way". Our rights in these matters are exactly the same today as they were last week, last year, last decade.

Enumerated rights such as freedom of the press, of speech, of religion are not absolute, as evidenced by sanctions against libel, slander, polygamy etc. If you desire stronger 'protection' for reporters, supporting a federal shield statute would be the more appropriate device.

The value to the people of a free press is that they come to know more about the workings of the government, not that they know less, as the government may sometimes wish, as in this case.

[DoYouEverWonder]

50. So it is okay to cover up a crime?

That is the other side of this issue.

What was the purpose for someone in the Bu$h administration to reveal a CIA covert ops identity? What relevance did this information have in their reporting? The 'source' wasn't a deep throat or a whistle blower trying to get important information out to the public. This was a malicious attack meant to destroy one persons career and to intimidate others.

This is what these two are protecting. Protecting a legitimate source for legitimate news information is not the problem here.

[TahitiNut]

51. No such 'privilege' can ethically exist ...

... where a clearly greater ethical 'good' is not directly served, imho. "Privilege" (an entitlement granted by the state) is inherently unjust - an elevation of one person's right over another's. In a theoretically just society, such privilege must be afforded very sparingly and only in those cases where the public interest is clearly served, imho.

"Freedom" is not "license" - it's the antithesis, imho. In granting some state-sanctioned immunity from the laws with which all other people must comply (i.e. "the whole truth and nothing but the truth" where no self-incrimination exists), a greater public interest must be served. What's the ethical justification here? Is the "source" acting in the public interest, personal interest, or some interest that's antithetical to the public interest? Can any public interest ever be served by the selective disclosure of some individual's sanctioned role as an intelligence agent?

This isn't Ellsberg ... not even close. Nor is it the Downing Street Memos.

Let's try hard to remember that "All the animals are equal but some (reporters?) are more equal than others" is a statement of privilege ... and privilege (i.e. entitlement) is what conservatism's all about coveting.

[displacedtexan]

2. Appalling that they tried to hide behind the 1st amendment...

... in the first place.

You can't cover up a crime by claiming journalistic privilege. Period. The people who ratted out Plame were criminals.

Whatever happened to Ignorance of the law is no excuse?

[flpoljunkie]

5. They were not protecting whistleblowers, but treasonous WH bastards!

[Richardo]

24. My point all along, flpol

:thumbsup:

[tmooses]

3. So does this get these reporters off the hook or are they

still in contempt?

[maddezmom]

6. not sure

:shrug:

[flpoljunkie]

7. Times's Cooper, probably yes. Judy Miller, New York Times, probably not.

[Hepburn]

46. It appears....

....that they may be able to purge themselves of the contempt citations and the finding of contempt IF they cooperate and turn over the documents to the USAtty Fitzgerald and testify about the same. That is all he has been after from the beginning. My understanding is that but for the testimony of Cooper and Miller, he is ready to close the GJ hearings. And, there is no doubt in my mind that the GJ will bring in a true bill on this matter. Someone is going to be indicted...and it maybe more than just one someone.

[converted_democrat]

4. So, that means we find out who the leaker is, right?

I'm not saying that any of this is right or wrong.....But this means we would find out who leaked Plame's name, right?

[tsuki]

8. No, it does not mean we find out who leaked Plame's name. This

is a grand jury.

[ClassWarrior]

13. It does, however, bring us one step closer to finding out.

NGU.

[tsuki]

57. Possibly. It depends on what the agenda of the special

prosecutor is.

[Tesla]

9. that's what I am wondering...

I have $100 on ROVE!!!

[clydefrand]

10. I hope so! And I hope it causes Bush's disapproval rating to go

even higher!

[ozymandius]

11. It is possible that there is more than one leaker.

Nowhere have I read that the source for all of these journalists was one person. It has always been assumed so. Just wait.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

20. As Daily Kos said...

"Please let it be Karl. Please let it be Karl."

[MadisonProgressive]

66. Isn't this considered TREASON?

[Igel]

37. It might eventually come out;

don't expect it to be in the WaPo tomorrow.

Time, maybe. Maybe NYT. If they feel there's no more reason to keep their leaker's name secret.

The logical flaw is that unless the guy who talked to Cooper and/or Miller *also* said that s/he talked to Novak, or close parallels can be shown between what Novak and the others were told/offered, there's no excluding the possibility of there being two different leakers.

[Hepburn]

47. We will find out who is CHARGED with doing this...

...and who may have conspired to so this. A trial in the matter will then decide if beyond a reasonable doubt the person(s) charged did so. I would opine that a trial of those indicted would be a major worry for the WH.

[jojo54]

12. I just hope that there are copies of the notes all over the place.

......just in case. :tinfoilhat:

[Brotherjohn]

14. My take: Why didn't the reporters name their sources? Think of the story!

I'd think if your source reveals themselves to be a criminal and a traitor (by the very act of revealing something to you), you'd switch your story to THAT. You're not obligated to protect them. You're obligated to follow the story, wherever that takes you.

Whether or not some administration critic's criticism was in some way compromised by their position is small-fries compared to whether or not an administration official outed a deep undercover CIA agent in charge of stopping WMD proliferation.

That is, unless your interest is more in defending the administration than in journalism.

[Brotherjohn]

17. My take II: High-minded principles aside, they are defending someone...

... whose act could very well have resulted in the death or deaths of operatives and others.

And depending upon how much Valerie Plame's work was compromised, could one day result in thousands of deaths (i.e. if a terrorist group obtains a nuke in a way that her work may have been able to prevent).

First amendment protection should extend to journailists protecting sources, yes. But when other laws come into play, a balance has to be struck ("Fire" in a crowded theater).

An analogy: Say an investigative reporter is working on a serial murder case. They get a lead which results in the actual murderer confessing to the brutal slaying of several children.

Should they then reveal their source? Should they be forced to legally? The killer could kill again (not to mention has already).

If the Plame leaker gets away, he/she/they could kill again as well. And I mean literally (if indirectly).

[TahitiNut]

27. I agree with your take(s). The hypocrisy is astonishing.

I find it interesting that the rape counselor in the Air Force (Academy) rape case is being coerced to produce confidential notes and records regarding the counselling she provided to the victim of the rape ... with the consequence that the accused rapist (now an officer in the Air Force) would go free if denied such 'discovery.' Yet the statutes in 49 states provide some variety of "shield law" that relieve a 'journalist' of the obligation to even provide the identity of people who may disclose all manner of information, with the probable exception of "trade secrets" - as we've seen in the Apple litigation regarding new product introductions.

It's really freaking amazing! A corporation can use the hammer of law to prosecute human beings for disclosing something of a transient commercial nature. Where's the "shield"?

At the same time, the courts ruled that Cheney & Co. can keep secret the very identity of those who attended their "Energy Task Force" -- a meeting (conspiracy) that most likely bears upon both the "War on Terror" and Enron felonies.

It seems to me that there's something really whacko in all this.

[Kota]

41. I wish more people were talking about that rape case. It is just

outrageous that her rapist should have access to her counselors therapy notes.

[Occulus]

45. excellent points n/t

[warrens]

40. Let's just suppose

It was Rove or Cheney. Do you think you'd want to be in a he-said, she-said fight with those guys? Would you ever be able to get in a small plane again? Would anyone in Washington ever talk to you again?

I'm guessing this was a phone call from someone REAL high up, higher than Scooter, and revealing what they said could be very bad for your career. And long-term chances for survival.

[katinmn]

15. The bright side is this keeps the Plame case visible

and maybe the WH traitor will be exposed.

All along the focus has been on the reporters and not the dastardly act of the White House.

[underpants]

16. Two names-that's all we need, two names

It was on ABC WNT last night as well as Hardball. Still in the news.

They shouldn't have to name names-if there was anything resembling a Justice Department an investigation would be under way and the White House would simply have to deliver two names. That's what Novak said "tow senior administration officials..." so they have to be senior (which REALLY narrows it down in this secretive WH).

[katinmn]

21. Yes, there should have been an investigation long ago!

[oneighty]

18. The silence concerning Bolton

and this happening is interesting.

180

[splat@14]

22. How does Novak fit into this, or is this a different "leak"?

[havocmom]

25. Same leak. Novak has testified before the Grand Jury. He is not in jail.

Makes you sorta wonder what/who he gave up, doesn't it?

[splat@14]

42. Yep, he's not in jail for a reason. I wondered if I slept thru something!

[warrens]

55. He pled the fifth

He's one of the targets in this. The other two are just witnesses. It's interesting, though, that Judy Woodruff and others received the same calls and nothing is happening with them. Either they told what they knew or for some reason Fitzgerald is being selective.

[proReality]

28. Maybe Novak blabbed ...

and the Grand Jury needs the others to confirm his testimony.

Novak's smugness all this time might have been because he was certain the others wouldn't give up their sources and he could go on with business as usual.

[realFedUp]

26. Too bad....Cooper could have lost some of that weight in jail...

If Martha can go to jail....anyone can.

[Shakespeare]

70. Wow, that's a really unnecessary cheap shot.

Matt is an old acquaintance of mine, and no matter what you think about his refusal to turn over his notes, he's a very nice, funny guy (and married well and liberally--his wife is Mandy Grunwald, former Clinton advisor).

As a former journalist myself, I have EXTREMELY mixed feelings about this case, but I'm glad he's agreed to turn over his notes (this time).

[CantGetFooledAgain]

29. And don't forget

...based on compartmentalization and "need to know", the fact that Valerie Plame was a covert operative should not have been known in the White House at all. That's why they use code names for these people.

You can't just spread information like that around and assume that nobody will leak it. It is way too sensitive for that.

How did a "senior White House official" ever came to know the real identity of a covert operative?

[proReality]

30. Cheney spent a lot of time at CIA ...

Just a thought.

[CantGetFooledAgain]

53. But he is too fine an American and a human being

...to do something sleazy, spiteful, and just plain evil. Especially something that might cost lives and endanger national security!

:sarcasm:

[ET Awful]

31. If the higher-ups at Time had any integrity, they'd publish the name

on the cover of the next issue before turning over the notes.

Turning them over could end up equating to dropping them down the memory hole.

[Straight Shooter]

32. For some reason, I think it's Stephen Hadley

Rice's undersecretary or whatever he was (is). Mental data still slow to process, I haven't had my coffee yet ;)

[tuvor]

36. When do we all get to know the contents of the notes?

Or will that be kept under wraps?

[SteppingRazor]

52. The notes will probably be handed over to a grand jury...

Which means you may never get to know their contents.

[Pirate Smile]

56. Do we know WHEN they are handing them over? I don't know if

we will find out very quickly after it happens but, damnit, I want to know.

[librechik]

73. They'll hand over the names by next Wednesday --when do we find out?

SILENCE, IMPUDENT DOG!

You puny humans do not write history--you will merely watch us bend history to our wills, and if you are smart, learn from our wisdom. You will never challenge our power so BE GONE!!!

[warrens]

61. How about Wen Ho Lee?

Contempt finding upheld against four reporters in Lee case
Washington Post
A federal appeals court says four reporters -- AP's H. Josef Hebert, NYT's James Risen, LAT's Robert Drogin, and ex-CNNer Pierre Thomas -- must answer questions about their confidential sources on stories they wrote about former nuclear scientist Wen Ho Lee. "A really bad week for reporters," says Lucy Dalglish of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. "Journalists need to know that when they promise confidentiality now, they may be making the most serious decision in their life."

That last isn't true, of course. What happened is they promised anonymity to a pack of liars. I would say, if it turns out you lied and I printed it, all bets are off. Period.

[ooglymoogly]

62. this is not a heroic reporter reporting a story and protecting sources

who came forward to protect our democracy...this is a bush stooge reporter using the protections of the media to destroy someone who publicly disagrees with the fuhrers policy...let the outing begin...these hypocritical idiots must be shown for what they are.

[brentspeak]

63. My concern is that Fitzgerald will file lesser charges

to people involved in leaking the info.

If some WH underling is charged with just a minor offense, that person might be willing to plead guilty just to take all the blame off of someone like Rove or Cheney.

Someone has to be facing a penalty of say, 20+ years in prison, for Fitzgerald's investigation to have any teeth.

[librechik]

65. Ahem! Time Mag staffers! NOW would be an appropriate time for a leak

(rubbing hands)

so we can prepare the tar and feathers

[Rose Siding]

67. NYT link: Decision..."without precedent in living memory"

snip>
In a statement, Norman Pearlstine, Time Inc.'s editor in chief, said: "The same Constitution that protects the freedom of the press requires obedience to final decisions of the courts and respect for their rulings and judgments. That Time Inc. strongly disagrees with the courts provides no immunity. The innumerable Supreme Court decisions in which even presidents have followed orders with which they strongly disagreed evidences that our nation lives by the rule of law and that none of us is above it."
...
The decision by a major news organization to disclose the identities of its confidential sources appears to be without precedent in living memory.

http://nytimes.com/2005/06/30/politics/30cnd-leak.html?hp&ex=1120190400&en=42200d95d59e0cb4&ei=5094&partner=homepage

[Media_Lies_Daily]

71. Time's Editor-in-Chief Pearlstine is either woefully ignorant, or....

...deliberately lying.

Here are the findings of the following 1972 Supreme Court case:

U.S. Supreme Court
BRANZBURG v. HAYES, 408 U.S. 665 (1972)
408 U.S. 665
BRANZBURG v. HAYES ET AL., JUDGES
CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF KENTUCKY

No. 70-85.

Argued February 23, 1972
Decided June 29, 1972*

<http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=408&invol=665>

The First Amendment does not relieve a newspaper reporter of the obligation that all citizens have to respond to a grand jury subpoena and answer questions relevant to a criminal investigation, and therefore the Amendment does not afford him a constitutional testimonial privilege for an agreement he makes to conceal facts relevant to a grand jury's investigation of a crime or to conceal the criminal conduct of his source or evidence thereof. Pp. 679-709.


That's about as straight-forward as it gets, folks. Case closed.

[Darkhawk32]

74. Imagine if the order came from Bush and Cheney themselves. /gasp n/t

[The Doctor.]

76. Kick.

This is important.

This could mean many things are about to go down.


notmypresident; perhaps if you fill in a few more details we can get this on the Homepage.

Time magazine to hand over reporter's notes
Grand jury investigating leak of undercover CIA officer's name

Thursday, June 30, 2005; Posted: 6:30 p.m. EDT (22:30 GMT)
NEW YORK (CNN) -- Time Inc. announced Thursday it will turn over subpoenaed records from journalist Matt Cooper regarding the leak of a CIA operative's name, following a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court not to hear its appeal in the case.

"I believe that there's no argument for saying 'no' once the Supreme Court has ruled on a decision," Norman Pearlstine, editor-in-chief of Time Inc., said on CNN's "American Morning."

<snip>

In July 2003, Novak, citing unidentified senior administration sources, revealed Plame's identity as a CIA operative.

Because federal law makes it a crime to deliberately reveal the identity of a CIA operative, the Justice Department launched an investigation, headed by U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald of Chicago.

A spokesman for Fitzgerald's office Thursday would not comment on the decision by Time Inc. to turn over the subpoenaed documents, and would not comment when asked if the move means Cooper and Miller could be released from testifying.

As part of his probe, Fitzgerald subpoenaed some journalists to testify about their sources. Miller and Cooper and their news organizations decided to fight the subpoenas, although Cooper did reveal one unnamed source who released him from confidentiality pledge.

Novak and/or "unnamed <coughlibbycough> source" may go to jail, but this may make it harder for reporters to get info.

[David Zephyr]

77. Could Miller & Cooper Have Learned from a Lower WH Aid Than Novak Did?

In my mind's eye, there are few -- very few -- possible explanations as to why Patrick Fitzgerald, John Ashcroft's proxy in this cover-up, spent the last six months of his phony investigation chasing Matthew Cooper and Judith Miller instead of squeezing Bob Novak.

Everyone on earth already knows that Bob Novak learned about Valerie Plame's position in the C.I.A. from either Karl Rove, George H. Bush, George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Lewis (Scooter) Libby, or Mary Matalin. That's a given. They all had motive and opportunity to attack Plame's husband, Joe Wilson.

So after John Ashcroft pissing away the most critical early months of the investigation in classic stall-and-delay tactics did his proxy, Fitzgerald, piss away still another NINE MONTHS in the courts persecuting Cooper and Miller? I think I know why.

If Cooper and Miller learned essentially the same thing that Novak had learned, but through a lower-level White House aide...then Fitzgerald would be able to pin the crime on that lower echelon White House staffer and thereby let Rove and the rest off the hook.

And because it would be a low-level staffer, President Bush could then pardon the individual upon exiting the White House and not draw much wrath from the public because the individual would be so down on the totem pole that there might even be sympathy for him or her...just an over-enthusiastic person who made a mistake.

I believe this as sure as the sun rose this morning.

Novak gets a pass. Bush and the White House gets a pass. And the public feels like justice was done.

Someone has already agreed to take the fall and Fitzgerald just needs the name of one low-level leaker to save the hides of the higher-level leakers.

Bob Novak could not provide a low-level name in the White House, but perhaps Judith Miller or Matthew Cooper will.