Just a thought about Gannon

[NV Whino]

Since he is not an accredited journalist, his "sources" aren't protected. If Gannon is Novak's source, who was Gannon's source? Indict the boy, I say. Grill him, I say. Tor... well no, not that one.

[Eric J in MN]

1. For better or worse (mostly worse) even journalists aren't

protected against revealing sources, federally.

A judge can order a journalst to reveal a source or go to prison.

In state court, this varies by state.

[NV Whino]

2. The point here is that Gannon isn't a journalist

There would be no precident set if he sang to save his arse as there would be if a "journalist' did.

[Eric J in MN]

3. If a person makes a promise, he may feel an obligation to

keep it (such as a promise of confidentiality), regardless of whether or not he's a journalist.

In other words, just because "Jeff Gannon" is a fake journalist doesn't mean he's going to tell the truth, or say anytthing, about who gave him the Valerie Plame memo.

Legally, a person ordered by a federal judge to reveal a source has to reveal it or face jail.

[OneMoreDemocrat]

4. What makes a journalist?

Why isn't Gannon a journalist?

[Eric J in MN]

8. An interest in finding the truth makes someone a journalist ,

if he also writes factual stories on current events.

James Guckert ("Jeff Gannon") doesn't care about the truth.

[OneMoreDemocrat]

9. Writing for a 'journal' makes someone a journalist.........

has nothing to do with truth.

What if a left-leaning blogger (or someone from DU) was allowed into the White House for press conferences who asked weighted, leading questions of a Democratic President, would there be the same kind of uproar from the left as there has been in Guckert's case?

[Eric J in MN]

12. If a future Democratic president lets liberal bloggers ask questions,

while keeping out all rightwing bloggers, then someone should object.

The objection would more likely come from the right, since they're the ones wronged in that hypothetical, but they would have a good case.

[merh]

5. 1st amendment does not protect journalists that are accomplices

to a crime or that are co-conspirators involved in the crime.

1st amendment has nothing to do with the Plame outing! It was illegal, violated the national security crimes and no one, not a journalist or a psuedo journalist, can use the 1st amendment to protect them.

If a journalist drives a bank robber to the bank, then writes the article or reports on the robbery, can he/she hide behind the 1st amendment? No! And that is exactly what the SCOTUS has held for years!

[NV Whino]

14. So far it (or something) has been protecting Novak

Novak has not revealed his source(s). Novak is not in jail. Novak (as far as I know) has not even been threatened with jail.

Gannon/Guckert is vulnerable. Nail him to the wall, I say. Forget Novak. Go after Gannon/Guckert's source(s).

Another supposition here, burt I'd be willing to be the initials of Gannon's source would be KR.

[merh]

16. Novak is just one of the targets,

investigations like this don't happen in a matter of days or weeks or months, especially when the interested parties are so well connected.

[HereSince1628]

6. Anyone can refuse to testify and then go to jail

As in the unfortunately completely forgotten Arkansas woman from the Whitewater investigation.

[Eric J in MN]

7. Susan McDougall (nt)

nt

[HereSince1628]

10. Yes, I was trying to make the point that such sacrifice

is often forgotten.

[peacetalksforall]

11. This thread demonstrates the issues and prioritizes them.

Plame Plame Plame
A law was broken. Gannon is in the middle of it.
This is the first priority and is the most important.

Way down in importance is -
. Fake name approved by the White House
. Obvious operative for the right wing.

Even further down in importance is the professionalism and blatant approval and favoritism by the White House.
. The Bushes know the Eberles.
. Lack of credentials - breaks tradition.
. Given weekly or long term approval over a two year period.

We should consider the lack of traditional credentials in journalism as an advantage and inundate the White House for equal treatment. Don't knock the traditional credentials because this is an opportunity to get in there with one of ours.

The other somewhat important issue is the personal life of Gannon and how the WH and its MSM is going to handle it.

What we need to push the MSMs to do is talk about the Plame connection and keep it up.

And, if you haven't considered it, is this the first tie-in between WMD plus CIA outing and career ending plus male prostition in our history? (If the allegations about male prostitution are true).

The Republican Party is better than fiction - that's a given.

[Eric J in MN]

13. An opportunity to get in there?

Are you saying the Bush Admin. might let in a liberal blogger, or are you going saying that if the next president is a Democrat, he might let in a liberal blogger?

[peacetalksforall]

15. Just saying that we have the right to request entry and if we were the

manipulative right we would be screaming about it if it happened under a Dem Pres. If there were enough voices and some approvals from the traditional journalists (long shot), it could be possible.

We have an opportunity to shout unequal treatment and if we were as orchestrated as them, we might be able to do it, but it would take a higher voice than our disparate voices on our PCs.

My main point is that if the MSMs only concetrate on the press conference part of it, we've been had. So, in the end, it's better to always get the conversation and demands back to the Plame issue.

[NV Whino]

17. You are absolutely right

Plame, Plame, Plame.

What we have here with Gannon is a weak link, a throwaway (as I think the repugs might consider him). He's the guy to attack. There is more than Plame there, but Plame is the attack point.

Sic 'em!