Questions about Plame case

[Bluesplayer]

I have some questions about this whole mess surrounding the disclosure of Valerie Plame as an undercover spook.

A federal prosecutor is investigating who leaked her identity to Robert Novak, who wrote the story outing her, but he is not facing prison.

Judith Miller of the New York Times and Matthew Cooper of Time magazine are facing prison for not telling the prosecutor where they got their information, even though they did not first leak her name.

Is a grand jury involved? Which administration officials have been subpoenaed to testify?

Am I missing something important here? Why is right-wing shill Novak being held to a different standard than the Times and Time reporters? Is this really just as it seems: blatant, selective prosecution of administration "opponents?"

I need to more fully understand this issue. Can someone help point me in the right direction?

[Birthmark]

1. I'm not as up on this case as some around here.

But there IS a Grand Jury investigating.

A whole laundry list of Administration officials have testified.

I suspect that Novak hasn't testified because it is unusual for someone who may be charged to testify before the Grand Jury that may (hopefully will) indict him.

[blm]

2. Hardly. Miller and Cooper are Bushmoonies who are protecting the WH.

They could never be construed as administration "opponents"....lapdogs - yes, opponents - never.

[Warpy]

4. yes, and word has it that Nofacts sang

meaning they're looking for corroborating evidence from Cooper and Miller.

This is different from other source confidentiality cases because they're not exposing a crime, they're covering one up.

I hope they like prison food, because I sincerely hope they're in there for a very long time.

They could easily be charged as accessories for covering up the identity of the criminal.

[Igel]

3. My take on it is that the investigation got few places;

Novak either spoke, and said little; or didn't speak. As the person that might be facing prison if the suspicions are borne out, he has 5th amendment protections.

Miller et al. don't: they're not being investigated. They have no protection, since they're not at risk. In fact, if they have a source that is likely to be the one that told Novak, they would be impeding the investigation.

Whether or not anybody in power's been subpoenaed is pretty much a mystery to me. Nobody has to say.

Part of the problem is that the bar's high: not only does the prosecution have to be able to show that the person outed an undercover agent, but that the CIA was taking efforts to maintain her undercover status, and that the person who leaked knew those efforts were being taken. She had a desk job at the time in Virginia.

[whalerider55]

5. i guess my take...

is a little different.

i think Novak sang like a bleedin' canary AFTER he cut a deal with the prosecutor.

because the bar is so high, they won't be able to get the admin weasel for outing Palame. BUT...

they can get HIM for perjury if he lied in his testimony to the grand jury. Novak would point them in the right direction, Cooper and Miller would be corroborative. Could be a slam dunk.

remember, they got al capone on tax evasion...

and * without his turd blossom binkie... will just be suckin' air...

whalerider

[Igel]

8. This is true.

And it's one reason why I think he said little. But it's not a deeply held "thought", and mostly an empirical question. If the facts ever come out. ;-)

[pk_du]

6. Agree with most of that Igil - but surely anyone that has worked

"in the field" in a foreign country has more than their own cover to protect.....every source she ever met in every country she visited is in danger ( or possibly already compromised) as soon as the fake business she was "working for" was exposed by Nofacts.

[Igel]

9. Absolutely.

But I'm not sure that the law covers them: they weren't outed by name, just by association, and I'm sure that the CIA had some nasty covering to do.

I'm also of two minds on Plame. She was the wife of an embassy employee (ambassador, if I'm not mistaken); I'm mixed on whether I want the ambassador's wife as such being a spy. Yeah, other countries to it, but I'm used to *complaining* about the CIA doing spook work through the US embassy and embassy family members, not defending the practice.

[Bluesplayer]

10. If there is anything that we need more of

it's people willing to risk it all in foreign countries, out on their own, doing the dangerous work of gathering intelligence. When done right, it prevents war.

[lancdem]

7. I know Rove testified before the GJ, among others,

and Bush and Cheney were interviewed by the special counsel.