Did Novak Disclose His Source To The Grand Jury?

[ThomWV]

Well, if Cooper and Miller are now faced with disclosing their sources to the Grand Jury or going to jail does that mean that when Novak was before the Grand Jury that he did in fact give up his sources? I ask because no one is talking about locking him up for not talking and I believe he has already been before the Grand Jury. Someone, or two, please enlighten me.

[whistle]

1. Nope, he kept those large liver lips shut like a real American nazi!

[rodeodance]

2. as far as i know he has not ever talked about any questioning--

[lancdem]

3. I'm under the impression he did testify

The fact he hasn't talked about it means nothing.

[journalist3072]

4. Here's a dumb question...

Can they not just put him in jail until he reveals his source(s)? If a judge has ordered, or does order, him to reveal his source(s), and he doesn't, that is a violation of a court order. Put the twit in jail!

I just don't understand why this whole Valerie Plame issue isn't on more people's radar screens! My goodness, we are talking about the Bush administration purposefully leaking the name of a covert CIA operative, for purely vindictive reasons! I know I'm preaching to the choir hear, but if ever there was a high crime or misdemeanor, this is it.

[Melinda]

5. According to Slate, no one seems to have a definitive answer.......

An appeals court has ordered Judith Miller of the New York Times and Matthew Cooper of Time to describe to a grand jury how they learned the identity of outed CIA agent Valerie Plame. If they refuse, they'll face 18 months in jail. Neither one broke the story: Robert Novak first published the leaked information in 2003 (and Miller never even wrote about it). Scads of Slate readers have e-mailed to ask: Why isn't Novak headed up the river, too?

No one really knows. Novak's role (or non-role) in the grand jury investigation has baffled legal observers. Since he wrote the column outing Plame, he should have been the first witness on special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald's list. Indeed, it's possible that he was. Since grand jury investigations are secret, it's not clear whether Novak has already testified in front of the grand jury, has refused to testify, or has not been asked to testify at all. Neither he nor Fitzgerald will comment on the case.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2113610

[rodeodance]

6. thanks-that is what I thought-everybody is mum-so we do not know.

[crispini]

7. We don't know what he said.

But common sense says he sang like a canary. Otherwise, he'd be in jail too.

[H2O Man]

8. That's right.

Without going through a few notebooks, I can't find the example .... but old Bob has "betrayed" a source in the past, when he felt it convenient. But no one outside of the grand jury, Bob, and his attorney know for sure. Common sense indicates he did talk. He had no reason not to.

[Botany]

9. He sang like a canary ....

.... he acts tough but I guarantee you that when he was looking
@ jail his act got dropped like a set of 3 day old boxers. Funny
Judith Miller has more balls the he does .....

Maybe a few hours w/ Crispini and her whip will get him talking
in public .....

[ThomWV]

10. Precisely

That was my thinking as well. He'd be right in line with the other two if he had been before the Grand Jury and hadn't sang like a bird. It is simply impossible to believe he might not have been called to testify.

When thinking about high crimes and treason you have to admit that once the Judge reads the guilty verdict and smacks the gavel it can be safely said that a crime has been committed.

Impeach

[Randypiper]

11. Straight from the horse's mouth

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2005/06/29.html#a3697