Libby is so yesterday. He is just a distraction... more soon...
Tryggth |
11.03.05 - 11:59 pm | #
ReddHedd, YOU GO GIRL!!! What a wonderful spirit ta plug into as I do my 12 hours at work.
NorskeFlamethrower |
11.04.05 - 12:01 am | #
Oops, That should read Jane I guess...well thanx again JANE!
NorskeFlamethrower |
11.04.05 - 12:02 am | #
NorskeFlamethrower -- any time :)
That one pissed me off. Whores.
jane hamsher |
Homepage |
11.04.05 - 12:13 am | #
"hard enough time proving that Mr. Libby lied based largely on the testimony of three journalists."
In other words, (some people say), journalists lie. Everybody knows you can't trust a journalist! Does the WSJ really want to go there?
Alopex Lagopus |
11.04.05 - 12:16 am | #
Thank you to firedog.
You all are the best. Bar none. Keep their toes to the fire. It ain't normally this importANT.
Thanks, Tryggth. You folks make it all worth while.
jane hamsher |
Homepage |
11.04.05 - 12:23 am | #
another good post, Jane. I love it when you go for the juglar with these right wing a..hole sycophantic abject capitalist running dogs.
hahaha
I always get extra-amused when the vast right wing conspiracists themselves come out and complain about people making 'wilder "conspiracy" claims'
hahahaha
michael72 |
11.04.05 - 12:35 am | #
advance apologies for venting, but is it just me or is the us-them chasm deepening every day? the repellent culture of greed seems to be running amok. all of this for money? power? to fly private? a seat at the "a" table in aspen in ski season?
torture, murder, maim, fuck anyone who stands in the way by any means possible for what? don't these people ever get laid?
vile pack of rabid dogs. the whole lot of them.
anonymous |
11.04.05 - 12:35 am | #
I'd be very surprised if the court would unseal the documents. It's already recognized that the adminstration used the NYT as it's tool, why would it respond favorably to more of the same? The court decided the case based on Fitzgerald's correct argument that this case was not in the nature of whistleblowing, which should be protected, but rather in the nature of using the press for the purpose of committing a crime. The 8 pages appear in only one of the opinions and are really not all that relevant to the distinction that the whole court made. Therefore, the argument that the press needs to know what's in the 8 pages so that it can conform its future conduct in line with the ruling is, of course, total bullshit. What the decision essentially says is that a reporter can't be a witness to a crime and then claim privilege when called to testify. How could that be so overwhelmingly difficult to understand? I think what's really going on is that Bush is sweating to know how much Fitzgerald (and the court and grand jury) already knows. Until he knows that, he's completely paralyzed. Obviously, Libby also wants to know before he decides his defense strategy.
justwondering |
11.04.05 - 12:40 am | #
The women in this blog or so hot...and Libby is so frigid (but don't worry Scooty-Pants, you'll warm up in prison: they know how to make you want it bad).
arbogast |
11.04.05 - 12:43 am | #
Justwondering, keep on thinkin' guy, the MSM especially the WSJ has been the institutional propagandist for the corporatists for the last century and they are playin' a very important role for the administration in this whole thing
NorskeFlamethrower |
11.04.05 - 1:03 am | #
And Monk, I love your graphic.
justwondering |
11.04.05 - 1:03 am | #
Hey, arbogast, check out Pachacutec's argument about prison rape in the "Memories" thread....
Maggie |
Homepage |
11.04.05 - 1:10 am | #
I am sure Fitz will read the WSJ and have a good laugh at their desperate attempts.
Anonymous |
11.04.05 - 1:12 am | #
The way Fitz plays his cards oh so close to his vest while keeping his investigation open thereby keeping everyone involved is nothing short of BRILLIANCE..
Anonymous |
11.04.05 - 1:21 am | #
Have these people forgotten that Mr Fitzgerald is ACTING ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES in these matters and that the "any" crime discovered clause" in his mandate should make them all shiver?
None of their crimes were committed in MY NAME as an American!
Eternal Shame on all who caused the deaths of our fellow citizens in the Armed Services and the innocents caught in harm's way in this war.
Wow! Nice graphic to go with one of those long and fulfilling posts by Jane.
I think I need a cigarette after reading that one... and I don't even smoke.
Question: Anyone elses' ears go up upon hearing that Fitzgerald plans to take 2 weeks to make his case at the trial? That seems like a very long time considering that he made his case pretty clear in under an hour at his press conference on Oct 28th.
"But the fact that Mr. Fitzgerald made the trip from Chicago to handle the arraignment personally, rather than assigning it to one of his aides, underscored the importance of even minor steps in the case.
Tommy Corrigan (what a name!) has it right.
With reference to prison rape (a very serious subject that is not amusing), I did not mean to say that Libby will be raped. Quite the contrary, like his ten year old protagonist, I believe he will enthusiastically offer himself after he has learned the ropes. L'Histoire d'L.
arbogast |
11.04.05 - 1:55 am | #
Good fucking grief. I know the WSJ is pathetic, but this is beyond the pale. I hope they get slapped down, but good.
Which judge would hear their motion, the same trial judge? Is this somehow part and parcel of that case? WSJ doesn't have a ghost of a prayer, does it? Inquiring non-legal minds would love to know, if you get a chance...and thanks for keeping the good stuff coming so late at night!
[I was still hanging out downstairs a thread, not refreshing the main page, 'cause I didn't even imagine we guests would be so lucky as to get another portion of bloggy goodness as a midnight snack!]
Mrs. K8 |
11.04.05 - 1:55 am | #
Norske --
Just so's ya know: I wrote back to you, one thread below. Hope work is going well for you. :-)
Mrs. K8 |
11.04.05 - 1:59 am | #
Mrs. K8, see my last post on the tread below...thanx kid
NorskeFlamethrower |
11.04.05 - 2:03 am | #
I don't what percentage of overseers in the Confederacy were black, but it was not inconsiderable. There were also black slave owners.
The Bush administration's unifying thread is racism: racism in the Middle East, racism in New Orleans, racism in Arnold Schwartenegger's California, and racism in George Bush's Texas. Pushed out of the Northeast after Prescott's support of Nazi Germany, the Bush's took up residence in Texas, an environment far more friendly to their racist agenda.
Mr. Wells, thus, falls into a long tradition of blacks who suport and perpetrate a racist agenda on their brothers. May he rot in Hell.
arbogast |
11.04.05 - 2:05 am | #
while I usually agree with you joane, requesting the redactd information does nothing for the defense
as you know, they are entitled to revue all evodence that's to be admitted at trial
this is request is for public consumption
me to me |
11.04.05 - 2:26 am | #
Arbogast, whenever there is a crisis of our democratic mythology particularly involvin' racism, we have always relied on folks a color ta do the right thing and bail us out. Mr. Wells is another one a those ironies a history and I am glad he's got Scooters nutz in his handz 'cuz it will be wonderful ta imagine the conversation hez gunna have with the little slimeball when he tellz 'im that hez screwed and that the plea deal he (Wells) negotiated is the least amount a time in hell he could get. Wells is the best, our system must be shown ta work, I'm glad Wells iz there and he doezn't need ta apologize...jest take the money Mr. Wells.
NorskeFlamethrower |
11.04.05 - 3:17 am | #
my only criticism is that you should have put Libby in the cage, not outside :)
puzzled |
11.04.05 - 4:18 am | #
there's been lots of talk here about the turning of the tide with the Bush/Repug gang, so i was trying to compile a list of the tide turning points. Such as:
1. the California nurses stand up to Swatzenegger, after which his poll number start to plummet as he tough guy schtick is perceived as bullying,
2. Cindy Sheehan - the national media finanlly turns its attention to the antiwar movement such as it is
3. Katrina - public sees GW as not only unconcerned and inept, but petulant (putulant?) that his vacation is interrupted and his appointees are, ah, loons.
Jane, I have nothing substantive to offer except that I love you and would gladly bear you a child were it not for the daunting logistics.
ralphbon |
11.04.05 - 4:25 am | #
I say, great, craft your talking points to go after the press. Didja notice what happened to Howard Dean when he started taking on the press?
Moreover, the more they focus on the press, the more the REALLY important witnesses, particularly Ari Fleischer, escape criticism and attacks.
emptywheel |
Homepage |
11.04.05 - 4:29 am | #
Jane
I read the WSJ editorial on the train on the way to this morning, and was mentally composing an e-mail to ask if you had seen it. (Oh,well.)
Very nice response. I think the editors ought to be very careful what they wish for - I suspect very strongly they will not like what they see. Like the old advice: never ask a question to a witness on the stand you don't already know the answer to, they may find Mr. Fitzgerald's brief will convince a lot more people than the judges that the Administration is rotten to the core.
Thanks for all the great work at the blog.
Joe Scordato |
11.04.05 - 4:41 am | #
I don't see a DC jury going for the NY blowhard Wells. Fitzgerald will carry the day.
bob h |
11.04.05 - 5:01 am | #
puzzled --
Since I'm briefly awake thanks to our pupster barking at cats outside (sigh), I'm indulging my FDL addiction long enough to jump in here and say:
Terry Schiavo!
I know that was a big turning point for me personally, because until there was polling that showed the vast majority of the public was still sane on this issue, I had been afraid of just how brainwashed the country was.
Remember how the networks beat the story of this poor lady into viewers' skulls? Very, very creepy, the level of propagandizing going on. And then Junior flying back to DC in the middle of the night (for her - but not for Katrina!)! And the grandstanding by Frist and Delay!
When the polls showed that no amount of propaganda could make three-quarters of the public abandon common sense and basic decency, what a relief it was.
I think that opened lots of eyes to how craven Bushco and the GOP were.
Mrs. K8 |
11.04.05 - 5:10 am | #
Most beautyful and kickass post of the day and it's only 8 am!
These fucks think they're still operating in Rovian manipulate-the-proles-land. Their bullshit will gain them ZERO.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Sharkbabe |
11.04.05 - 5:17 am | #
"Moreover, the more they focus on the press, the more the REALLY important witnesses, particularly Ari Fleischer, escape criticism and attacks."--emptywheel
The administration uses the press--again. Libby's defense is going to focus on questioning the credibility of the press to take the heat off the White House. As for the WSJ editorial, will Libby get that redacted information during discovery? And will he share it with the Administration? Or is he going it alone now?
marysz |
11.04.05 - 5:18 am | #
Unsealing the eight pages would also help put to rest the wilder "conspiracy" claims that continue to circulate about the case. Residents of the Internet fever swamps can now point to the sealed pages and say, aha!, dark secrets are being covered up.
The WSJ can't sustain First Amendment enthusiasm even a few inches to let the rabble get some of that freedom pie. Apparently there's a danger we might yap and wonder and point and say 'aha!' Uh, and what, put an eye out?
Peanut |
11.04.05 - 5:20 am | #
Yes Mrs. K8, Terry Schiavo, which makes the deliberate dragging for months and months that forced the Rule 21 they got outfoxed on be even more in stark relief of double super craven.
Shez.inMI |
11.04.05 - 5:20 am | #
I loved the rant, Jane. But I have to wonder if we shouldn't cheer the WSJ on in this fool's errand.
There has been much speculation about the contents of those eight pages. From the reaction of the judges who reviewed Fitzgerald's brief, the information he provided regarding the damage done to our national security by the leak of Plame's identity was shocking. This was what ultimately persuaded Judge Tatel to go against his own inclination and side with the panel in ordering Miller to jail. Accordingly, it is safe to assume that whatever is contained in those pages is damning, not merely to Libby and Rove but to the bush administration as well.
If the WSJ wants to jump into the middle of this and try to get those redacted pages exposed, it might be for the best. Even if they lose the battle, the court filings regarding the motion can only emphasize the extreme gravity of the damage done by the leak. If perchance they win the day, they will soon come to rue their foolishness. The revelation that Plame's foreign sources were outed and killed, or even that a CIA agent died as a result of the leak would deal a deathblow to Libby, Rove and perhaps bush himself. It would serve the smirking bastards right if their self-righteous meddling ended up costing their beloved shrub dearly.
Xeno |
11.04.05 - 5:34 am | #
yes, MrsK8, that's definitely one for the list.
Delay should have stuck to hammering congressmen behind the scenes and playing the bagman. Once he started taking his unpleasant appearing and acting self into the larger public domain, I think he started triggering a 'yuck' reaction.
Frist, too, was better off giving occaisional CPR to some valve clogged Congressman than allowing folks to focus more closely on he in action.
puzzled |
11.04.05 - 5:47 am | #
Bush vs.Nixon--a race to the bottom.My money is on Bush.
great charts, suntzu. uncanny how the overall trends track. And how close we are to the endpoint of Nixon's line
puzzled |
11.04.05 - 5:54 am | #
hey, Me
could you or have you already posted your list of links/email addys on a fixed web page. It's the kind of thing I'd like to pass onto to others, but aksing them to find the needles in a HaloScan haystack is a bit tough.
bob h at 5:01 am: "I don't see a DC jury going for the NY blowhard Wells. Fitzgerald will carry the day."
I, too, think Fitzgerald will win it, but on the merits of the case. Also, he played rugby at Amherst--tough sport, with lots of independent action. Wells played football at Holy Cross--team sport, with lots of heavy padding and short periods of actual activity. My money's on the rugby player.
Constant Reader |
11.04.05 - 6:03 am | #
The Joournal's pathetic plea for release of redacted information would be more credible if they were making equally passionate pleas for more transparency from the White House.
suntzu |
11.04.05 - 6:07 am | #
Post by Larry Johnson at TPM:
"Secret CIA Prisons: Preemptive Strike or Surprise Attack?"
I'm not sure I understand the WSJ's point. If their intent is to get early info to Libby's attorneys (who, Time magazine points out in this week's issue, had a settlement offer rejected since Fitzgerald insisted Libby do serious jail time), don't they realize Fizt will have to turn over the redacted pages (assuming they are pertinent to the case) on discovery?
And if they aren't pertinent, then the judge's original note that they were substantive and deserving of redaction-but-inclusion might point to another crook....Rove, probably. So then the WSJ is putting itself in the obstruction of justice business...
actor212 |
Homepage |
11.04.05 - 6:31 am | #
Great graphic. On the next one, put Libby in the cage and Fitz outside with the stick poking a big bear. Maybe the bear should have rove's face.
T- |
11.04.05 - 6:31 am | #
Xeno, great comments. (Shorter Xeno for WSJ editorial board: Be careful what you wish for.)
As an interesting aside, AP reports this morning that by 4-4 vote the DC appeals court has refused to hear four journalists' appeal of a judge's order that they testify about their sources as part of Wen Ho Lee's civil lawsuit. One of the four judges who favored hearing the case was Judge Tatel, who according to AP wrote in his dissent that Lee's compensation claim pales in importance to the people's right to know about what was believed to be nuclear espionage. I don't have time to look up and read the opinions but AP quotes Tatel writing: "It's hard to imagine how his (Lee's) interest could outweigh the public's interest in protecting journalists' ability to report without reservation on sensitive issues of national security."
Which tells me there must be some hot fucking shit in those eight redacted pages in the rulings against Miller and Cooper.
Excessive Bastard |
11.04.05 - 6:34 am | #
puzzled: I would note that Katrina gets top billing on your list because that was the last straw that shoved the media off the reservation.
Don't get me wrong, we still have a Right Wing Corporate Media (TM), but during and after Katrina, the media felt comfortable, for the first time, to criticize the administration directly and harshly.
When that happened, the administration could no longer count on all the media to nod and take notes. Cracks in the propaganda machine meant less control of the message and the news cycle: a monumental turning point.
Social Security reform, Schaivo, Cindy Sheehan and the other stories you all note had their place, but until Katrina, the media wera all framing these issues unsing administration terms. After Katrina, that changed.
The media pivoted to catch up with public sentiment. The public was beginning to see a pig under all that Maybeline.
Pachacutec |
11.04.05 - 6:34 am | #
WSJ getting desperate! Good sign. The junta is hurting.
rwcole |
11.04.05 - 6:35 am | #
My money is on scenario two, that the Cia prison leak was from the Bush side of the Bush v. CIA war to damage the CIA. But, if true, it points to the ever declining room for manuver for the Bushes, since the leak, even if damaging to the CIA, kicks at least as hard as it shoots by reemphasizing the Bush-Cheney devotion to torture culture.
puzzled |
11.04.05 - 6:36 am | #
from pach: puzzled: I would note that Katrina gets top billing on your list because that was the last straw that shoved the media off the reservation.
I agree completely about the impact of katrina on the media. While lots of the media types are 'on the payroll' of the wingers, or ideological devoted hacks, there are probably some that just parrot the party line because that's the general way the system works and the way to get ahead.
Suddenly, however, the media was not in charge of framing the story. the story was in charge of the media and the reporters on the ground, like Cooper and Smith of Fox, were forced to report, quite emotionally, what their previously lying eyes were telling them. Even Smith got into yelling matches with the anchors at Fox as they were trying to spin that things weren't quite so bad. While, I'm sure they promptly sent him back for reprogramming, it could not be lost on other media types that reporting reality was suddenly a way to stand out and succeed. There was another world for them, beside the party line.
I think the subsequent reinvigoration of the press (albeit mild and inadequate) in their willingness to question and challenge things like Scottie's pablum is due in no small part to the fact that Katrina let the genie out of the bottle with respect to the ways things were normally done.
puzzled |
11.04.05 - 6:43 am | #
In my view the WSJ should be in the middle of this investigation. Three weeks after the investigation began the WSJ published an article discussing the contents of the INR memo.
This WSJ article was the first mention of the INR memo in the press. The memo was and still is a classified document. The leaking of classified material is at the heart of this investigation and the WSJ received just such a leak in October 2003. Who leaked to the WSJ?
As the WSJ author says in the article.
Classified memos, like the one describing Ms. Plame's role, have limited circulation and investigators are likely to question all those known to have received it
puzzled: "My money is on scenario two, that the Cia prison leak was from the Bush side... But...the leak, even if damaging to the CIA, kicks at least as hard as it shoots by reemphasizing the Bush-Cheney devotion to torture culture."
For that reason, I lean toward scenario one: CIA graybeards blowing the whistle. Always ask, "Who benefits from this story?" I don't see it helping an administration still trying to sell torture as the best thing since white people. CIA veterans have only to look at the WH to see what happens if you let the septic tank get too full.
percy |
11.04.05 - 6:52 am | #
continuing on the impact of Katrina on the media, I think the single most important moment was the interview between Mike Brown and the young, brunette reporter (don't recall her name...anyone?) where he claimed not to have learned about the situation at the Civic Center til Thursday even though the media had been reporting it for days. Incredulous, she lashed him repeated as he sat there, fat face pale, sweat dripping down, unable to do more than blubber.
If there was a moment when the mask fell off the Bush apparatus to reveal its stupid, incompetent, uncomprehending face, that was it for lots of folks.
puzzled |
11.04.05 - 6:54 am | #
A bit OT, but Jane mentioned Deborah Orrin in her blog. I saw her on Hardball last night. Man, was I pissed.... Her main point is that since Fitz did not charge Libby with outing a covert agent, then, by whatever passes for logical deduction in her mind, then Valerie Wilson was "not undercover". She kept repeating that, over and over, saying "it'
s right there in what Fitzgerald said in his press conference." By asserting this, I guess the wingnuts are saying that since no crime was committed (because you can't "out" someone who isn't "in") then there is no case, Bushco did nothing wrong, and liberals are trying to make something out of nothing.
Calling this a stretch is being charitable. But what pissed me off so badly was her assertiveness and snotty attitude toward everyone else who didn't think this was correct reasoning.
For the benefit of those who ride the special bus to school:
Some kids who ride the special bus to school just got 100% on their history test and the top grade in their class, I just found out.
I like your work but a different metaphor would make it even better.
bcf |
11.04.05 - 6:54 am | #
Loved the rant.
But from another angle. . .the prosecutor has to prove in court that the perjury was "material" to to the investigation. To the extent that the 8 redacted pages contains anything either bolstering the "material" element of the charge, or suggestive of a lack of "materiality" and therfore exculpatory to Libby, Fitz will have to give it up to the defense as part of discovery.
I can't see it staying secret now unless (a) it is not relevant to "materiality" at all (hard to believe); or (b) Fitz stipulates that he will not use it and;
(c) it is inculpatory of Libby rather than exculpatory so that his defense doesn't want it disclosed either.
OtisIsHungry |
11.04.05 - 6:57 am | #
percy, For that reason, I lean toward scenario one: CIA graybeards blowing the whistle. Always ask, "Who benefits from this story?" I don't see it helping an administration still trying to sell torture as the best thing since white people
you may well be right, percy, and it will be interesting if we ever find out for sure. I just enjoy the irony of the 'kickback' if it did come from the Bush gang.
puzzled |
11.04.05 - 6:57 am | #
Jane, I may have just done harm to my computer keyboard spewing my coffee all over it this morning reading this ~ It's worth it. May I say I personally love it when you get pissed off? "For the benefit of you who ride the special bus..." Invoking Dudley DoRight characters???
zeppo: But what pissed me off so badly was her assertiveness and snotty attitude toward everyone else who didn't think this was correct reasoning
yes, listening to her was like listening to fingernails scratching a blackboard. shivver
puzzled |
11.04.05 - 6:59 am | #
The 8 pages contain classified excerpts from the CIA's damage assessment. IT IS ILLEGAL TO GIVE CLASSIFIED INFORMATION TO REPORTERS!
negative ned |
11.04.05 - 7:05 am | #
Toensing was speweing some particularly creative spin last night. I was half-listeni ng to MSNBC from the kitchen while I was making dinner. It went kind of like this.....
The CIA had an obligation to take positive steps to keep Plame's identity secret, otherwise there could not be violations under IIPA. By sending her husband, a public figure, on a trip to violations of Niger, resulting in Joe's Wilson's public disclosures about the trip, the CIA failed to meet their obligations to protect her status.
I'm probably getting the details half-right in that I was half-listening. Did anyone else catch this?
Toensing's spin, contemporaneous with Orrin's, suggests that the spin meisters are beginning their work.
sonofslothrop |
11.04.05 - 7:09 am | #
Sons -- that was the same spin she tried on Dan Abrams a few weeks ago -- and Dan called her on it. It wasn't pretty, because it is a load of hogwash.
I hope hosts of these shows get themselves up to speed on the legalisms soon with this case -- false claims need to be called for what they are.
ReddHedd |
Homepage |
11.04.05 - 7:15 am | #
puzzled, further re Schiavo as a tide turning point: It was stunning Repub overreach, as they vastly overestimated the importance of their "moral values" "mandate" (courtesy of a poorly worded question in the 2004 exit polls). After they passed and Bush flew from Texas to sign the emergency legislation, their jaws must've collectively hit the floor with a deafening crash when they saw the first poll numbers showing Americans -- including plenty of conservatives -- overwhelmingly disapproved.
I'd throw in Bush's Social Security "reform" campaign as another turning point. Seems that was one of the (if not THE) first time Bush said something (SS in "crisis") and most Americans immediately didn't believe him. And thanks to his strong leadership, ummm I mean blind stubbornness, when he got into a hole he just kept digging deeper, for what, two solid months?
Seems to me that the tide also turned on Iraq at some point this year, but that seems to have been a gradual process. (The single event that clearly hurt Bush there was in early 2004 when David Kay said there were no WMD. Bush lost 10 points in his job approval rating virtually overnight, going from low 60s to low 50s.) But that doesn't necessarily hurt all Republicans since so many Dems are invested in the war too.
Katrina crystallized the incompetence and cronyism in a way that even some Bush apologists could no longer ignore.
Excessive Bastard |
11.04.05 - 7:16 am | #
puzzled: "it could not be lost on other media types that reporting reality was suddenly a way to stand out and succeed"
needed that laugh! I sound like Muttley so my cubie neighbors are curious. did you study at the Dave Barry school of literature? prbly the funniest blog online. also like the humor to leaven all the hostile comments. really, could we tone it down a little. we do not further the cause of uncovering the truth when we sound like lunatics.
TiredFed |
11.04.05 - 7:21 am | #
Reddhedd,
I hope so, but I am not hopeful. Up until last night, Tweety seemed to be coming around. I hoped he would have challenged Orrin more. Perhaps that was vandeHeuvel's (sp?) role, but she hasn't been particularly effective in talk show format.
sonofslothrop |
11.04.05 - 7:23 am | #
The WSJ is hilarious.
Tell me more about Tommy Corrigan, Jane. Any pics?
David Ehrenstein |
Homepage |
11.04.05 - 7:26 am | #
Reddhedd,
I hope so, but I am not hopeful. Up until last night, Tweety seemed to be coming around. I hoped he would have challenged Orrin more. Perhaps that was vandeHeuvel's (sp?) role, but she hasn't been particularly effective in talk show format.
sonofslothrop |
11.04.05 - 7:38 am | #
One (very likely) of many things those bozos at the WSJ probably understand, but do not acknowledge understanding, is the following: we, as a society, have historically given reporters great leeway in allowing them to keep their sources secret even though there is nothing in the law that specifically requires this. What we've chosen to do is, in essence, trust them. And while it is certainly possible that some prosecutors may, in the future, try to take advantage of the current situation by unduly pressuring reporters to give up their sources, holding the Bush administration accountable is so important right now that Cooper, Miller and others can and should be called on to testify in court as part of that process. What this then means is that we'll have to trust our prosecutors not to abuse the leeway that Fitzgerald will apparently be granted.
romdinstler jones |
11.04.05 - 7:43 am | #
Sorry, David. Retired NYPD, now opening a restaurant in NY. No pics. But more to come from him.
jane hamsher |
Homepage |
11.04.05 - 7:44 am | #
If protecting the First Ammendment,
tt would seem to me that the Press and journalists would be rushing to have their testimony heard.
These yahoos used the Press, the reporters to perpetrate their dirty deeds, then tried to use the First Ammendment and the good faith of these journalists to cover up the crime and are now lying about them and basically accusing the reporters of committing Perjury.
If I were a journalist, I would want to send a message to anyone who might be thinking of pulling a stunt like that again that they could not count on any help from me!
Kathi |
11.04.05 - 8:19 am | #
Something just occurred to me, which may or may not affect this case. Maybe Redd or another lawyer can address this, if only to set me straight.
The DOJ has been using provisions of the Patriot Act to prevent defendants in terrorism cases from gaining access to secret information that might be used in their prosecution. The government has done this even where such information is integral to the defendant's right to have all of evidence.
The case that springs most readily to mind is that of Zacarias Moussaoui, the so-called "20th hijacker". Moussaoui has requested that the government give him access to all of the files pertinent to his case, as well as to Al Qaeda prisoners who are in US custody. The DOJ has been able to prevent him from getting the info by citing national security concerns. The judge in his case agreed with the prosecution and refused to allow Moussaoui to have access to the documents.
So the question is this: Can't Fitzgerald move to deny Libby's defense access to the redacted pages, as well as other secret documents, on the grounds that national security could be damaged if the information is shared?
Xeno |
11.04.05 - 8:46 am | #
Let em have it!!! I just got done firing off some letters to the WSJ:
newseditors@wsj.com
wsj.ltrs@wsj.com
feedback@wsj.com
b.grueskin@wsj.com - Managing editor
j.heller@wsj.com - Deputy Mg editor
dave.pettit@wsj.com ""
t.cullen@wsj.com - Asst Mg editor
j.fry@wsj.com - ""
t.larsen@wsj.com - President of Dow Jones CEP (the guy suing to open Fitz's evidence
Me |
Homepage |
11.04.05 - 9:06 am | #
Xeno,
What resplendant, gorgeous irony that would be--for Scooter to be hoisted upon the petard of the Patriot Act! Please, computer, make it so!
froggermarch |
11.04.05 - 9:27 am | #
Oh, irony of ironies! Just the mention of the "8 redacted pages" makes my heart pound and my mouth water like a hungry bear (I've got to stop reading "The Apprentice").
WAIT -- The frikkin' Wall Street Journal wants to give me my 8 pages and Kobe & the Firedoglakers want to deny me???
WAIT -- Couldn't this VERY easily backfire? I mean ... isn't it very likely that those 8 pages show the common sense case that the whole WH is guilty as sin, but just not close enough to the letter of the law for Fitz to indict? Isn't it very likely that the 8 pages would decimate Bush's support, even among his base?
Maybe the question to ask here is what the odds are that the WSJ will win their motion, and if so, when?
new John Dean article
depressed (formely obsessed) |
Homepage |
11.04.05 - 10:29 am | #
hey, Me
could you or have you already posted your list of links/email addys on a fixed web page. It's the kind of thing I'd like to pass onto to others, but aksing them to find the needles in a HaloScan haystack is a bit tough. thanks puzzled
