Here is the latest on the Plame game. Courtesy of the Washington Post:
A federal grand jury has questioned one current and one former aide to President Bush, and investigators have interviewed six others in an effort to discover who revealed the name of an undercover CIA officer to a newspaper columnist, sources involved in the case said yesterday.. . . .
Several sources involved in the leak case said the questioning suggests prosecutors are preparing to seek testimony from Novak and perhaps other journalists. "There's a very good likelihood they're going to litigate against journalists," one source said.
It is a real investigation, and it is continuing. Moreover, the fact that a grand jury has been impaneled indicates that the decision to prosecute will mostly be in the hands of our fellow citizens -- not the Justice Department or the prosecutors assigned to the case. (Of course, the Grand Jury will only see and hear the evidence that the prosecutors can muster.)*
I'll admit to mixed feelings at this point. On one hand, nothing annoys me more than self-identified superpatriots -- except for, I suppose, self-identified superpatriots who expose CIA agents for political gain. On the other hand, however, the suggestion that the prosecution may start "litigat[ing] against journalists" sends shivers down my spin. Though I occasionally find Bob Novak a bit creepy (it's the eyebrows), I hardly want him subpoenaed and possibly thrown in jail for protecting a source.
Indeed, protecting confidential journalistic sources isn't just yippity-do-dah liberal crap; it's vital to the newsgathering process. Sure, it gets abused. Everything that happens in secret eventually does. (Lesson applicable to the Guantanamo detainees, I note.) Without confidential sources, however, more than a few important stories would never have seen the light of day.
So: continue the investigation. (And when do we get to the Vice President's office?) But don't subpoena Bob. The exposure of a semi-retired CIA agent (who, it turns out, is a bit of a publicity hound once freed from the shackles of secrecy) isn't worth it. If we went subpoena-happy every time confidential information got leaked (and that's the rule you'd be endorsing by subpoenaing Novak, if consisistency matters to you), Washington journalists would spend all their time in court.
The ends, I'm told, don't always justify the means.
*An alternate route would be for someone to swear out a criminal complaint. But that won't happen here, for lack of a swearee.
Sort of interesting contrast:
WaPo:
White House witnesses have been asked about cell phone calls and have been shown handwritten, diary-style notes from colleagues, as well as e-mails from reporters to administration officials. In at least a few cases, the FBI questioning was portrayed as very aggressive, with agents homing in on specific conversations with journalists. "Even witnesses that they describe as being potentially helpful are being treated as adversaries," a source close to the investigation said.
NYT:
In addition to the grand jury appearances, which are believed to include other Bush administration officials, prosecutors have conducted meetings with presidential aides that lawyers in the case described as tense and sometimes combative.
Armed with handwritten White House notes, detailed cellphone logs and copies of e-mail messages between White House aides and reporters, prosecutors have demanded explanations of conversations between aides and reporters for some of the country's largest news organizations that under ordinary circumstances would never be publicly discussed. So far, no reporter has been questioned or subpoenaed.
Posted by: rilkefan | February 10, 2004 at 01:23 AM
Moe, I don't think they'll need Bob Novak's word on this. I think they've already got enough evidence to nail the perps.
Subpoenaing Novak on a yes-or-no basis in an actual court trial is a horse of another color, however.
I don't think that press confidentiality actually goes so far as to permit covering up a crime.
And in fact, Newsweek once intentionally broke confidentiality when they found that they'd been corncobbed by super-patriot Ollie North.
Posted by: mac | February 10, 2004 at 03:13 AM
"The exposure of a semi-retired CIA agent...isn't worth it."
Yeah. And that damn two-bit Watergate burglary too!
Posted by: Harley | February 10, 2004 at 03:30 AM
Moe, I don't think they'll need Bob Novak's word on this. I think they've already got enough evidence to nail the perps.
I hope you're right (and I'm to blame, not Moe).
Yeah. And that damn two-bit Watergate burglary too!
Touche?
Posted by: von | February 10, 2004 at 07:28 AM
Von, on going after journalists, it all depends what is at stake.
Is protecting a semi-retired NOC (who is married to venal publicity hound) worth it? I don't know (we didn't go after two senators who outed NOCs) but we do know it is important to the CIA and the overall intelligence community. Given the overriding importance of intelligence in the upcoming decade better to err on the side of nataional security, wouldn't you say.
Posted by: Kevin Phillips | February 10, 2004 at 07:43 AM
Von, on going after journalists, it all depends what is at stake.
Does it, though, KP?
I'm not so sure, anymore because I think this is a slippery slope that the cirrent administration is hoping we fall down. Once the journalistic right to protect the identity of a sources is threatened or modified with language that says, "...in the case of National Security..." I think we've gone too far. But then again as a former wannabe journalist, I'm a bit paranoid.
And Von, I'm not so sure Novak's eyebrows scare me as much as McLaughlin leathery face folds creep me out.
Posted by: peppers | February 10, 2004 at 09:29 AM
Given the overriding importance of intelligence in the upcoming decade better to err on the side of nataional security, wouldn't you say.
If I thought that prosecuting Plame's outers would improve national security by a significant degree, that would alter the analysis of course. But I don't.
As for the merits of conducing a vigorous prosecution to maintain morale, please understand that I'm not calling for an end to an investigation. By all means, subpoena Cheney's chief of staff and ask him pose the question at him directly. Just don't start subpoenaing journalists.
Posted by: von | February 10, 2004 at 11:16 AM
Subpoena Novak, throw him in jail for a while if he does not comply with a court order. I view this as a reporter's personal problem, and if he wishes to view it as a bit of worthwhile civil disobedience, that is his right.
Unnamed sources have been abused beyond recognition, Woodward and Bernstein actually looked at documents and interviewed flunkies. Much of what passes for "news" in Washington these days is getting two mystery people to attack each other. Lazy schmucks.
Posted by: bob mcmanus | February 10, 2004 at 11:45 AM
I, too, am rather sick of the ubiquitous 'unnamed sources' that, for all we know, could be a janitor with a grudge. It's just way too frequent a cop-out for most of the journalism I see these days.
I don't know that subpoening Novak would cause any kind of change in this, though.
Posted by: Dave | February 10, 2004 at 12:00 PM
I agree with Bob McManus. While this is pretty much a non-issue kept alive by Democratic partisans who want to have their cake (accuse the Bush administration of deliberately leaking an undercover agent's name) and eat it too (hide behind "journalistic ethics" so that we do not know who if anybody actually did this) , I have no compunction about forcing Novak or any other journalist to reveal his sources in a criminal investigation.
There is no “right” which gives a journalist immunity from the power of the subpoena, only some privileges which can be revoked. Make Novak talk or him sit in jail until he does.
Posted by: Thorley Winston | February 10, 2004 at 12:45 PM
If I thought that prosecuting Plame's outers would improve national security by a significant degree, that would alter the analysis of course. But I don't.
If this is much to do about nothing, then why is this Harley dude so hot after this story. :)
Posted by: Kevin Phillips | February 10, 2004 at 01:19 PM
Well, Thorley, we'll see whether the grand jury agrees with you about "Democratic partisans." Based on your view of journalistic privilege, the smart thing for the Nixon White House to have done would have been to get a compliant DC judge to subpoena Woodward and Bernstein as soon as the words "Deep Throat" appeared in the newspaper and then, when they refused to reveal who he was, throw them in jail until the "third-rate burglary" disappeared from everybody's mind.
I think von hits the nail on the head.
Posted by: Meteor Blades | February 10, 2004 at 02:21 PM
If this is much to do about nothing, then why is this Harley dude so hot after this story. :)
Well, from my view, it is pretty much a big nothing. What happened here is something not much different than a visit to a prostitute: It's illegal and immoral, but people seldom get prosecuted because the harm is relatively slight and we've got bigger fish to fry.
I wouldn't suggest that we call out the SF SWAT team every time a hooker shows up in the Tenderloin, and I don't suggest cavalierly discarding the reporter's privilege in this instance -- particularly since there are better people to ask (e.g., the Vice President's Chief of Staff).
Posted by: von | February 10, 2004 at 02:47 PM
Well, from my view, it is pretty much a big nothing.
I would suggest then that we end the investigation only the media would make a very big deal about it and thus you end up with media paradigm (the media has the information to solve the case but then complains when the case isn't being solved, guess you can have your cake and eat it to).
Posted by: Kevin Phillips | February 10, 2004 at 03:23 PM
Meteor --
The thing is, we aren't talking about a third-rate burglary here, we're talking about exposing the identity of a covert operative.
If such an exposure is the high crime that D partisans claim, then surely Novak should be compelled to testify, so that the identity of the criminal can be leaked.
Thorley's assessment seems right to me -- the D's and their allies in the media are trying to have it both ways. If the leak was a high crime, then Novak has a duty to reveal the leaker's identity.
Also, it's worth noting that the D's principle of whistleblower protection tends to be rather... ahh, selective. Consider, for example, how the New York Times treats the leaked judiciary panel memos, which document unethical and possibly illegal conduct by the Democrats.
Posted by: Fredrik Nyman | February 10, 2004 at 03:46 PM
the media has the information to solve the case but then complains when the case isn't being solved, guess you can have your cake and eat it to
You've taken it a step beyond a step too far. The media's not a monolith.
Posted by: von | February 10, 2004 at 03:51 PM
Dems didn't ask for the investigation, the CIA did. Take your complaints to them. Dems aren't doing the investigation, the DOJ is. There's another place for your complaints.
Posted by: fabius | February 10, 2004 at 04:20 PM
If such an exposure is the high crime that D partisans claim ...
If such an exposure is the high crime that George Bush pere thought it was when he and his Republican pals were so keen two and a half decades to get this provision enacted into law, then you would think that perhaps he would tell his son to stop dicking around and demand that the White House leakers step forward.
But, of course, it's only a matter of national security at issue here, and why would the "war president" get two shits about that?
Posted by: Meteor Blades | February 10, 2004 at 08:14 PM
"But, of course, it's only a matter of national security at issue here"
So, we can take it that you're cool with Novak getting subpoenaed, then? - because while I'm sure that shouting about the Bushes and their alleged crimes makes you feel better and everything, it doesn't actually answer Fredrik's point.
Posted by: Moe Lane | February 11, 2004 at 02:29 AM
You've taken it a step beyond a step too far. The media's not a monolith.
Actually in this case, a member(s) of the media is a principle in the alledged crime. Simply put, if this alledged crime is critical to national security, why should he be shielded?
Posted by: Kevin Phillips | February 11, 2004 at 07:50 AM
Actually in this case, a member(s) of the media is a principle in the alledged crime.
I dunno how you're using the term "principle," but it's worth noting that Novak didn't violate any law here.
Simply put, if this alledged crime is critical to national security, why should he be shielded?
Again, you assume too much with the term "critical". I don't think the crime is "critical to national security" (as I wrote above). Also, we're not talking about shielding the wrongdoer from prosecution or halting the investigation. Rather, the government should simply not use one possible means of investigation (out of many others) in this case.
We recognize these sorts of limitations on the government's ability to investigate all the time (attorney-client privilege; priest-penitent privilege; psychologist-client privilege; etc.) We also recognize, of course, limitations on the limitations (the attorney-client privilege is waived if it's used to further a crime or fraud, for example). And I'm willing to recognize limitations on the reporter's privilege. But not in this case, and not under these facts.
Posted by: von | February 11, 2004 at 09:19 AM
I'd be happy to see Novak go down in flames for any number of things he's written. But as von correctly points outs, Novak committed no crime in this case.
I've so enjoyed this debate since the Plame Affair began last summer.
First we were told this was no big deal, a tempest in a teapot by many of the very same people who would have been buying rope at a hardware store if it had happened in a Democratic Administration. Then we were told it didn't count because obviously Plame wasn't really a secret operative, just a desk jockey. And, besides, her husband was just a venal publicity hound. Then we were told it was perfectly fine for the Administration to investigate itself (and even warn everybody that they'd better get their paperwork in order for the investigation - as in, fire up your shredders. Now we're told it's all just Democratic partisanship that a grand jury is involved.
Why, I bet if this scandal were called Whitewater, it would have been forgotten already.
Posted by: Meteor Blades | February 11, 2004 at 04:01 PM