here's an interesting report that says the probe is complete. i've bolded a few parts that are germaine to the felony issue. http://www.theunionleader.com/articles_showa.html?article=53034 -- OUTING OF SPY: CIA leak probe complete By MARK SHERMAN Associated Press Writer Get Comcast Digital Cable with Starz WASHINGTON (AP) - The federal prosecutor investigating the leak of an undercover CIA officer's name says his work is complete except for one large omission: hearing from two reporters who are fighting a court order to answer questions under oath. Chicago U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald said the refusal of Matthew Cooper of Time magazine and Judith Miller of The New York Times to divulge their sources has stalled his probe. Neither Cooper nor Miller wrote the original story that revealed the identity of CIA officer Valerie Plame. Her name was first published in a 2003 column by Robert Novak, who cited two unidentified senior Bush administration officials as his sources. It is unclear whether Novak has cooperated with the investigation or whether the grand jury hearing evidence has returned any indictments. Fitzgerald is trying to determine who leaked the name and whether that was a crime. "By October 2004, the factual investigation - other than the testimony of Miller and Cooper and any further investigation that might result from such testimony - was for all practical purposes complete," Fitzgerald said in two filings asking the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia to end its consideration of the case. A three-judge appellate panel in February upheld a lower court ruling ordering Cooper and Miller to talk. They are asking the full appellate court to reverse the order. "The public's right to have this investigation concluded should be delayed no further," Fitzgerald said, opposing the request. The filings, submitted in late March, were first reported by Newsday. Floyd Abrams, who is representing both reporters, said Fitzgerald has not explained why the reporters' testimony is important to his case. "He doesn't indicate that it's crucial, just that it's unresolved," Abrams said Wednesday. "He's done with everyone else, done with Robert Novak one way or the other and done inquiring of various government officials." Novak has refused to say whether he has testified or been subpoenaed. The column appeared after Plame's husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, wrote a newspaper opinion piece criticizing the Bush administration's claim that Iraq had sought uranium in Niger. The CIA had asked Wilson to check out the uranium claim. Wilson has said he believes his wife's name was leaked as retaliation for his critical comments. Disclosure of an undercover intelligence officer's identity can be a federal crime if prosecutors can show the leak was intentional and the person who released that information knew of the officer's secret status. Cooper is a White House correspondent for Time who has reported on the Plame controversy. He agreed in August to provide limited testimony about a conversation he had with Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, after Libby released Cooper from his promise of confidentiality. Fitzgerald then issued a second, broader subpoena seeking the names of other sources. Miller gathered material for an article about Plame but never wrote a story. Prosecutors have interviewed President Bush, Cheney, then-Secretary of State Colin Powell and other current or former administration officials in the investigation. Journalists from NBC and The Washington Post also have been subpoenaed.
Yes, you provided the statue showing the requirements to make it a crime. It is understood that it might be possible to not have it be a crime. However, it would take an incredible lapse of reasoning to assume somebody just accidentally anonimously leaked Plame's name and job to Novak. The other possibility is that the person didn't know her undercover status. Considering her file would have required top security clearence and would have been marked, it would be highly unlikely that someone wouldn't know her status. It would take a truly incompetent employee not to know such a thing. A person who wouldn't know that, but still had access to high level security areas of our government's secrets is a real threat to national security and should be removed. Of course none of those scenarios is likely in the least, and there has been no evidence to substantiate those hypotheticals, while there has been other evidence pointing to a felony being committed.
more, from the WaPo, including this money shot: Legal experts and sources close to the case also speculated yesterday that Fitzgerald is not likely to seek an indictment for the crime he originally set out to investigate: whether a government official knowingly exposed a covert officer. The sources, who asked not to be named because the matter is the subject of a grand jury investigation, said Fitzgerald may instead seek to charge a government official with committing perjury by giving conflicting information to prosecutors. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A32380-2005Apr6.html
and more from the artilce: "Boy, I tell you if those two reporters go to jail and there was nothing to this entire investigation, that will be an outrage," Dalglish said. Floyd Abrams, the First Amendment attorney who represents Miller and Cooper, said he has long worried that the special prosecutor has used extreme measures to get reporters to talk and yet may not have evidence of a serious crime. Proving that the leak is a felony requires showing substantial evidence that the government official revealed the operative's name or likeness while knowing that the administration was working to keep it concealed. ... Lawyers and experts familiar with the case said it is unthinkable that Fitzgerald would not interview Novak. "This would lead me to probably conclude that Mr. Novak testified and did not provide nearly the treasure trove that Fitzgerald expected," Dalglish said.
And yet none of this shows that a felony was not committed. Even if no indictment is returned, there is a very high probability that a felony was committed, your gyrations and justifications notwithstanding.
oh, andy! who's gyrating? i'm just reporting the news. you're the one trying to justify a spin that no one else is, not even the wapo, nytimes, josh marshall, paul krugman or david corn. it's sad, really quite pathetic.
Let it go basso.... It looks pretty clear the cover was leaked. Whether there's enough evidence, or conviction to prosecute, and whether the reporters are willing to sell out their sources to provide that evidence doesn't mask that.
huh? are you saying the reporters are protecting their own asses at the expense of a catching a felon who threatened national security? and you're ok with that?
You are the only one gyrating to excuse a crime most likely committed by a powerful Bush employee. It is interesting that the same people who were so tremendously outraged by a president committing perjury are so quick to excuse a far worse crime committed by someone in an administration they support.
They're not protecting their own asses...they protecting their 'source' -- and by extention their journalistic integrity. I think the whole thing's been overplayed....there --- now both sides think i'm nuts I'm just not willing to take a decision not to prosecute as an exoneration of anything being improper. And it's painful to watch you try to make this connection .
That is exactly what I would be saying (had I made that statement). Anyone in the media will fall over themselves to protect their sources and what they see as their first Amendment rights (I personally don't think those "rights" should extend to information about a crime) and no matter how much you crow about it, that is exactly what they are doing. Personally, I think that Fitzgerald should jail any reporter who doesn't provide accurate information regarding a possible felony, so I am decidedly NOT "ok with that."
and by extension, journalistic integrity is more important than exposing the felon they worked so assiduously to concoct when there was an election on the line. seems infinitely more painful to me. either they journalists were convinced there was a felony, that threatened national security, and that should trump any presumption of protecting journalistic integrity, particularly when such protection has been waived by the source in question, or there's no there there. seems far more likely the later is the case.
Well...that's usually the argument, isn't it? OJ walked because the process to convict him was faulty...not because he didn't do the crime. Sometimes the principle is as important as an individual outcome. Would sources come forth if they thought they'd be exposed? Journalists value their 'sources' above any individual conviction. Andy, your drug friends wouldn't be so enthusiastic about being jailed because they didn't reveal the names of all the people the Fed's thought were guilty of a crime. Same principle should apply here. Even if the crime is, in your view, much more serious.
This is where I am conflicted. It is important to catch the felon. It is dangerous to have a person who will expose top level government secrets like that. It is especially so since the operative exposed was working on WMD intel. At the same time I believe the first amendment concerning freedom of the press must be upheld. I am against the idea of trampling down that freedom in order to satisfy the conditions of just this one case. It would drastically hamper news agencies from getting quality sources, and thus further hamper a well informed publich which is the grease that runs the democracy machine. I wish Bush would just sit his guys down and say, "we know one of you did it, now fess up, and let's put an end to this mess." The reporters wouldn't have betrayed a source, the first amendment is intact, and the felon pays for his/her crime. I know that won't happen. I would rather the felon wasn't let go scott free, but I do think a healthy, capable, and free press is more important than catching this one bad egg. I hope there is away to accomplish both. I will understand if the reporters end up going to jail until the sources are revealed, even if I don't agree with it.
let's be clear, novak, who wrote the original story that prompted the outcry/probe, has cooperated. so has the whitehouse. it is not clear that judy miller's source is "the" source. what is clear however, is that mr. fitzgerald completed his porbe months ago, and whatever happened did not clear the bar set by the relevant statutes. to claim otherwise is to claim to know something that even the prosectutor in the case would say is not proven.
Novak hasn't ratted out his sources(there were two). If he did they would be arrested, and we could move on to carrying out justice, and our nation would be a safer place. I'm not sure what you mean by cooperated.
Pretzel logic. So it is up to the journalistc to decide whether a crime has been really committed before they feel obligated to tell the judge and grand jury what they know??? I suspect that the judge has a slightly different opinion on the matter. BTW "protecting journalistic integrity" is a euphemism, What they want to protect is their inside sources and indirectly their jobs. If they talk, the sources dry up and they are fired for being ineffective.
yet. MJ didn't get indicted for child molestation back in '94. Does that mean MJ is innocent as the driven the snow? OJ walked. Does that mean that OJ did not kill his ex-wife? I guessing here but if there is never any indictment then as far you are concerned no crime was committed, right?
