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: Ish who wrote (12377)	10/15/2003 7:27:24 PM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793955

Hold down the Clinton comments, will ya, people? Old news. And it just stirs the pot. Some comments from "The Note" _____________________________ As for the president, he is only two or so news cycles away from being faced with comparisons to his dad (and threatened with the possibility that in this Punk'd/Internet word, someone might actually show the video of 41 losing it on the Japanese PM, at least streamed on the Web). And if BC04 Republicans can't believe their delight at how nasty and negative things are getting between the Democrats, the Democrats can't believe how much morphing of 43 into 41 is still going on. There's the notion that the election day economy is already "baked in the cake" (both Will and Gigot have now trotted that out on Sunday mornings), and there ain't nothing a President can do. There is the resistance to open campaigning, beyond the Rose Garden (They will laugh and laugh and laugh about that at Olive's today.) John Snow IS starting to look a bit like Nick Brady around the eyes. And the globe-trotting Don Evans is turning positively Mosbacherian in the eyes of Democrats. On the other hand, we think The General said it best in the desert: " … I think it's a little — I think it's really embarrassing that a group of candidates up here are working on changing the leadership in this country and can't get their own story straight." In candidate rhetoric and campaign e-mail, the gloves are SO off on the donkey side, with Dr. Dean's particular brand of "I'm not going to attack my opponents like they are attacking me, at least not in this sentence, but get ready for a shift in the next sentence" getting the "hypocrisy" label from some rivals. Nobody is predicting (yet) that Bush will open the Good Doctor up like a soft peanut, but it sure feels like we will be at that rhetorical level by the time we get to Dick Clark's New Year's Rocking Eve. abcnews.go.com

To: Ish who wrote (12377)	10/15/2003 7:41:07 PM
From: DMaA	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793955

My point in replying to you was to suggest that that wasn't a good example of blind trust misuse since it was not blind. What would you suggest in place of a blind trust? Blind trust?

To: Ish who wrote (12377)	10/15/2003 8:51:19 PM
From: LindyBill	Respond to of 793955

If these reporters can be made to talk, so can the "Plamegate" ones. ______________________________ Journalists Ordered to Give Sources to Scientist Judge's decision is part of the nuclear expert's suit over leaks and could play into CIA furor. By Richard B. Schmitt LA Times Staff Writer October 15, 2003 WASHINGTON — A federal judge has ordered five journalists, including a reporter for the Los Angeles Times, to identify government sources for their articles about former nuclear weapons scientist Wen Ho Lee. Lee is suing the government, alleging that officials illegally divulged private information about him in the course of investigating his role in suspected espionage at Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico four years ago. If upheld on appeal, the decision by U.S. District Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson could also play into the furor surrounding allegations that the Bush administration leaked the name of a CIA operative to journalists to retaliate against her husband, a critic of the administration's Iraq policy. The CIA employee and her husband, former State Department envoy Joseph C. Wilson IV, are considering legal action against the government, alleging that the leak invaded their privacy and caused emotional and other distress. An attorney for the Wilsons, Christopher Wolf, said Jackson's ruling in the Lee case could strengthen the family's hand in any civil suit in trying to pinpoint the person who unmasked Wilson's wife. "If we ever get a reporter in the witness chair under oath, and there is no other way to get the information, I think it is likely a court would order disclosure of the source," Wolf said, adding that no decision had yet been made about filing such a suit. Lee, a Taiwanese-born naturalized U.S. citizen, was indicted by federal authorities in 1999 on 59 felony counts for allegedly mishandling nuclear-weapons secrets by copying classified data to portable computer tapes. He was never charged with espionage, and eventually the government's case crumbled. Lee pleaded guilty to a single count of mishandling classified information. His civil suit against the government seeks damages, alleging that officials violated his privacy rights by leaking information about him to reporters. His lawyers say they have been unable to identify which officials leaked the information, and asked Jackson to compel the testimony of journalists as a last resort. The court "has some doubt that a truly worthy 1st Amendment interest resides in protecting the identity of government personnel who disclose to the press information that the Privacy Act says they may not reveal," Jackson wrote in a ruling issued late last week. The journalists ordered to give depositions under Jackson's order are Bob Drogin of The Times, James Risen and Jeff Gerth of the New York Times, H. Josef Hebert of Associated Press and Pierre Thomas of CNN. "The ruling is certainly troubling, especially to the extent that it excuses Dr. Lee from having to make real efforts to find the information that he is seeking from the government and allows him to turn to the journalists to get that information, in our view prematurely," said Lee Levine, a Washington lawyer representing Drogin and The Times. "There are obviously a number of news organizations involved, and I am sure we will be coordinating on where we go from here," he said. Under federal law, journalists have no unqualified privilege to keep their sources confidential, the Supreme Court ruled in a 1972 case. A number of states, as well as the District of Columbia, have enacted their own "shield" laws that afford journalists some protection, although Jackson held that the local law did not apply in Lee's case, which was brought under a federal statute. latimes.com