Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JohnM who wrote (10987)	10/6/2003 3:54:15 PM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793903

In the end, I strongly suspect that Bush will rue the day he didn't do the right thing on day one It's hard to watch grown men like you and Josh drool.

To: JohnM who wrote (10987)	10/6/2003 3:59:21 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793903

Question: It appears the Wilson knew before this came up that his wife was a spy. How is that? I would expect that to be classified information. Just because you are married to someone does not mean it is legal for you to tell them classified information you are given by the gov't. If they are not cleared at the proper level and do not have a need to know, that is a violation of federal law in itself.

To: JohnM who wrote (10987)	10/6/2003 5:25:44 PM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793903

Bush could easily handle the issues. That he is not doing so raises the levels of suspicion, enormously. John, of all the outrageous things you have said throughout your posting at SI, this one ranks with the best (or worst). Certainly the least thought out, most visceral, since you single-handedly decided a crime had been committed and went looking for a rope and a tall tree while the rest of your lynch gang got the suspect out of jail over the Sheriff's protests--before the Judge arrives. If Bush were to touch the issue at all, the Dem charges would be "Look at Bush obstruct justice!! Just like Tricky!!" or something equally inane. The fact of the matter is that the issue is in the DOJ's hands. What can Bush do in the face of a criminal investigation? Don't you think politicos have learned their lessons since Nixon? This idiot Marshall, like you, has pre-judged the case. Justice doesn't work that way, thank God, though I'm sure you wouldn't object if it did in this case.

To: JohnM who wrote (10987)	10/6/2003 5:49:15 PM
From: DMaA	Respond to of 793903

The only cover up going on is on the part of the reporters involved: There's a common thread between the kerfuffle over Arnold Schwarzenegger and the one involving Valerie Plame: In both cases, the news media are central players in the story. This is even more striking in the Plame kerfuffle, which is all about leaks to reporters, and which has prompted considerable navel-gazing from media pooh-bahs about Washington journalists' habitual reliance on anonymous sources. Nicholas Lemann, dean of the Columbia School of Journalism, tells the Washington Post's Howard Kurtz that "the 'underbelly of leaking' is not pretty": "Ninety-five percent of the time, people are basically dropping a dime on other people, dissing other people, leaking from base motives," Lemann said. "Let's not pretend all leaks consist of genuine whistle-blowers. Usually it's Campaign A telling you something sleazy about Campaign B that their candidate is afraid to say in public. But you have to honor the principle for the sake of the minority of cases that are really in the public interest." One reason the Plame story has such a hall-of-mirrors quality is that it could easily be resolved if reporters simply told investigators everything they know. The Washington Post's Mike Allen and Dana Priest reported last week that a "senior administration official" told them that "two top White House officials called at least six Washington journalists" and told them that Plame worked for the CIA. And of course Robert Novak put it into print, citing two "senior administration officials." If reporters were to cooperate fully with the investigation, it would be easy for the FBI to get to the bottom of things. Here's what they'd have to do: Question Allen and Priest and establish the identity of the "senior administration official" and, assuming they know, the "two top White House officials" behind the alleged leak (he seems to have identified them off the record). Question the SAO about the identities of both the "top White House officials" and the six journalists. Question the six journalists (and Novak, if he isn't among them) as to who their sources were and what they said. Question all named by the reporters and by the Allen/Priest source to find out what they knew about Plame and what they told the reporters. If the investigators had all this information, they would have a pretty good idea of whether a crime occurred, and if so, who did it. Of course, this is unlikely to happen, because reporters generally do not reveal confidential sources. As Eugene Volokh notes, there is little legal basis for reporters to refuse to reveal their sources; some states have "shield" laws protecting journalistic sources, but there is no such protection in federal investigations. (There are Justice Department guidelines that counsel caution in issuing subpoenas to reporters and require authorization from the attorney general himself before such subpoenas may be issued.) Glenn Reynolds argues that "the White House has a lot to gain by subpoenaing reporters who know about the Plame leaks": First, once the press clams up and starts going on about protecting sources, it becomes extremely hard for it to claim that the White House is covering things up. "Who's stonewalling now?" can be the response. Second, the press's complaints will look like special pleading (which they are). "If you leak this you're a traitor, but if we publish it, we're being great Americans," won't wash. Third, subpoenaing reporters will likely reduce the number of leaks in the future. And that's a good thing, right? We keep hearing that these leaks were disastrous for national security. If that's true, we certainly want people to think twice before leaking in this fashion again, or publishing the results of such leaks. Reynolds may be underestimating the political risk that such a move would entail. The reporters undoubtedly would refuse on principle to give up their sources, and although there's an element of special pleading there, Lemann is right that in some cases the use of anonymous sources serves the public interest. It's entirely possible that the public would sympathize with reporters' claims that subpoenaing them amounts to an assault on the First Amendment. On the other hand, there's no getting around that the Plame kerfuffle puts the press in an awkward position. How can journalists pontificate about "the public's right to know" while defending their own right to keep the secrets that are at the center of this case? This is not Watergate, in which dogged investigative reporting exposed corruption in the White House. Here, there may or may not be a scandal, and reporters are withholding information that would establish the truth of the matter. Justifiably or not, Watergate reinforced many conservatives' perceptions that the media are biased against them, and the Clinton scandals had the same effect on liberals. If the L.A. Times' revelations fail to sink Schwarzenegger, it will be an indication that the broader public sees journalists not as they see themselves--as seekers of truth who speak truth to power--but as part of a political culture that places far too much emphasis on scandal, real and imagined. Did the media learn the lessons of Watergate too well? opinionjournal.com