Finally, Someone Gets It! Re: The V. Plame Case.

[Me.]

Blue Mass has always gotten it, but for an editorial to appear in the Washington Post that shows an understanding about the case and why the journalists are required to testify is rare.


Novak-Plame-gate commentary update

“There have been competing op-eds in the last few days on the ongoing investigation into the outing of ex-CIA operative Valerie Plame by douchebag of liberty Bob Novak. In today's WaPo, former federal prosecutor Randall Eliason argues that in an investigation like this one, where the leak itself is the alleged crime, it's hard to see how the prosecutor could possibly do his job without talking to the people who know who the leaker is (the actual leaker will of course take the Fifth and refuse to testify). Key quote: "This isn't even a close call. When there is critical, available, non-privileged evidence of a potential federal crime, the prosecutor's duty is to pursue that evidence." Yup - the rule of law would seem to call for nothing less. Eliason also has a good retort for those who claim that the reporters under subpoena to testify were "just doing their jobs":

These reporters are being questioned not about anything they wrote or didn't write but about who was doing the leaking. The leak is the potential crime, and any reporters who received the leak have critical evidence, whether or not they wrote about it. Finally, critics complain that reporters are being threatened with jail for simply "doing their jobs." This has a nice rhetorical ring to it, but it isn't true. Nobody's job description includes disobeying lawful court orders. The reporters have been found in contempt not for any news-gathering or reporting but for refusing to testify without a recognized legal excuse.

Again, yup. On the other side of the divide, ex-congressional staffer Pat Holt pretty much toed the MSM party line last week in the Christian Science Monitor. But Holt's argument has some significant missteps:” cont,,,


http://bluemassgroup.typepad.com/blue_mass_group/2005/03/novakplamegate_.html

[Mandate My Ass]

1. Wow somebody finally said it

"The point here is that the leak itself may have been a crime, and that the reporters are the only people who know who the alleged criminal is. This has nothing to do with shooting messengers. It has everything to do with investigating a crime. Why the MSM can't figure that out is beyond me."

The MSM has it figured out, you can bet your bottom dollar on that. All these big media outlets have their own legal departments. Their spin on this issue is simply CYA.

There is a huge and easily discernible difference between a whistleblower and someone committing a crime by leaking classified information to the press.

Thanks for posting.

[cry baby]

2. and if the leaker did not commit a crime (which is easily discernible)

the reporters would go ahead and name the name, right?

[Me.]

3. Exactly

what I like best about the editorial in the WP, is that is has finally framed the argument as to why Miller & Cooper should testify, I like when he said that their job description doesn't preclude them from doing so.