Why Should You Care About Reporters' Reading Disabilities?

Last weekend Tim Rutten of the LA Times asked and answered the following question:
"Why should you care about reporters' rights?"

Let's excerpt his answer:

IS there really any reason for you to care that lawyers acting for Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, this week served subpoenas on the New York Times, Washington Post, Time magazine and at least four journalists?

...Libby's lawyers say that defending their client against charges he lied to a federal grand jury probing the leak of former CIA agent Valerie Plame's identity to reporters requires that they be allowed to question New York Times columnist Nicholas D. Kristof, former Times reporter Judith Miller, Time's Matthew Cooper and NBC News Washington bureau chief Tim Russert. They also want to see any notes, e-mails, memoranda, draft articles or any other documents these journalists' news organizations may have relating to their work on the Plame story.

Miller, you'll recall, never actually wrote a story about the former agent. Her lawyer, Robert S. Bennett, said it was "highly likely" that Miller would fight the subpoena, which he called "entirely too broad."

Broad hardly begins to describe it. This thing is wider than your Aunt Margaret's rear end. This is no legitimate defense request for exculpatory information; it's a fishing expedition. Don't look for its inspiration in the common law, but in Dickens' Mr. Micawber: "Something, my Dear Copperfield, will turn up."

This is not part of a legitimate defense?  I urge Mr. Rutten to read the indictment of Mr. Libby as prepared by special Counsel Fitzgerald.  If he so occupies himself, he will quickly see that all four of these reporters are mentioned in it, and that the interactions of Mr. Libby with Judy Miller, Tim Russert, and Matt Cooper form the basis of the perjury and obstruction charges.  Yet Mr. Rutten thinks that the defense should not be allowed to chat with these star witnesses for the prosecution?  Ridiculous.

Ridiculous, but not surprising - as Tim Rutten himself once wrote, "It takes a strong stomach to plunge into the sea of malice, mendacity and misrepresentation that now churns around the affair of former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV and his wife, Valerie Plame."

Comments

[MJW]

It looks like Tim Rutten has the same opinion as Fitzgerald: Libby should stop being such a pest, and simply stipulate that everything Russert, Miller, and Cooper said was the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

[clarice]

Pejmanesque said it best:
"SHORTER TIM RUTTEN

The CIA was lying when it said that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. But the CIA is clearly telling the truth when it says that Valerie Plame never recommended her husband, Joe Wilson, for a fact-finding trip to Niger.

The Senate Intelligence Committee and the Butler Report were right to say that the intelligence regarding weapons of mass destruction in Iraq was mistaken. But the Senate Intelligence Committee and the Butler Report are wrong to say that the statements about Iraq trying to purchase uranium from Niger are "well- founded" or justified in any way.

Now that Wilson has been found to be lying, "the Plame/Wilson affair is a bit of a footnote."

There. I just saved you the time you might have taken instead to read this.

UPDATE: I won't give you a "shorter Tom Maguire." Unlike Rutten, Tom Maguire is always worth reading at length."

http://tinyurl.com/zga2m

[topsecretk9]

Public Service Announcement

New donation drive starting... for a crate of Kleenex and a teeny, tiny violin for Tim Rutten.

End of Public Service Announcement

[topsecretk9]

Anyone seen restorehonesty.com lately?

[clarice]

HEH!

[Chants]

Well. Is that what constitutes a Motion to Quash Subpoena for the press? Odd that the same right to confront witnesses and to present a vigorous defense stems from the same set of rights ensuring freedom of the press.

Oh well. Constitutional rights for some, but not for others. And just like the leaks of classified information, we have just to rely on the press to tell us what rights are good, and which are bad.

[cboldt]

Be careful about converting the case from a "misleading investigators" case (which it is) into a "who's the leaker" case (which it isn't).

Libby is charged with lying to investigators, and because the investigation (but not the charge) was about leaking, it is logical that the "venue" of the misleading statements to investigators would be conversations with reporters.

The simplest reduction of the case is that Fitz says Libby knew that Plame worked at the CIA. "Worked at," not "covert" or "classified." That Libby knew that for a fact. But that Libby mislead investigators away from that fact (that Libby knew for a fact that Plame worked at the CIA).

The legitimate reason to probe the Wilson affair all over again is to put flesh to the preoccupation defense; but if Libby is preoccupied with affair de Plame/Wilson, well, I'm not sure that helps sell the case that Plame was a fleeting and minor "event" in Libby's busy schedule.

[Patton]

So if we found an e-mail from Andrea Mitchell to Tim Russert telling him of Vals employment two days before he talked to Libby - -that would not be considered
material to his defense??

[Patton]

cboldt says:
""The simplest reduction of the case is that Fitz says Libby knew that Plame worked at the CIA. "Worked at," not "covert" or "classified." That Libby knew that for a fact. But that Libby mislead investigators away from that fact (that Libby knew for a fact that Plame worked at the CIA).""""

So your saying turning over his notes, turning of the briefings in his possesion
and knowing Fitz was interviewing everyone who had talked to him about Plame, that he simply believed he could pull a fast one by getting Fitz to believe a false verbal story? Even my 5 year old knows to make the evidence match his story when he steals a cookie and blames the baby.

[boris]

Libby claims reporter's were discussing Mrs Wilson first.

Fitz claims Libby is lying because reporters didn't know about Mrs Wilson until Libby told them.

Show that logic is busted (reporters were already discussing Mrs Wilson) and the Fitz case becomes "Libby claims he forgot about Mrs Wilson".

A claim unbelievable to those who assume the administration had a conspiracy to punish Joe by outing his wife. Remove that assumption and Libby can demonstrate that without hindsight Mrs Wilson was indeed a forgettable detail.

Pretty clear cut I'd say.

[Dwilkers]

Well, I decided to go read the piece because I wanted to see how he answers the question posed by his headline.

His answer seems to be that having reporters subject to the same behavioral norms and rules the rest of us abide by is destructive, but it isn't clear to me exactly how since he doesn't offer and evidence to support that assertion. Instead we are treated to repeated - viscious really - comparisons of Libby to foreign spies.

About half way through I thought I'd Fisk the piece a bit but it is so loaded with unsupported assertion innuendo it isn't worth the effort.
___________________________

Wouldn't it be refreshing to see a reporter or columnist come out and say that reporters have a responsibility to tell the truth, or to reveal information in their posession that bears on the guilt or innocence of someone accused of a crime?

You know....basic civic responsibility stuff.

[capitano]

Reporters basic civil responsibility?

Rid the White House of the Bush Administration and its like-minded successors so the MSM can return to its rightful place near the top of the information/power food chain, of course.

[cboldt]

Patton says: "So your saying turning over his notes, turning of the briefings in his possession and knowing Fitz was interviewing everyone who had talked to him about Plame, that he simply believed he could pull a fast one by getting Fitz to believe a false verbal story?"

I don't know what's in Libby's head, but the indictment reads as I summarized - "Libby mislead investigators regarding whether or not he knew Plame worked at the CIA." That's pretty much what the indictment boils down to.

Not "who knew first, Libby or reporters?" But simply, "Did Libby know, for a fact, that Plame worked at the CIA?"

[nittypig]

I am SHOCKED that the defense attorneys want to use subpoena power to talk to the prosecution;s star witnesses. What on earth is this country coming to?

[Neo]

Mooooooooooo! What a bunch of "Sacred Cows" !

[azredneck]

And the consequences if we find that others lied?
Russert?
Cooper?
Kristof?
Joe(say it's not so!)?
Fitz????

[Sue]

Libby mislead investigators regarding whether or not he knew Plame worked at the CIA.

Someone clearly needs to re-read the indictment and the documents filed by Fitz thereafter. We know Fitz said Libby kicked sand in his eyes, but we don't know why Fitz's rose colored glasses didn't deflect the sand.

[clarice]

cboldt, the heart of the prosecution's case is that Libby lied about his conversations with Russert, Cooper and Miller--making their accounts of these conversations critical to the defense.

(Don't forget that Libby provided the SP with his notes and emails, etc respecting his earlier conversations with others about the Wilson affair.)

You have truncated the case so that the issues are lost.

Libby says , in essence, I may well have heard about this non significant bit of news before I spoke to reporters but it was conveyed in a context where other things were so much more important I forgot about it until reporters raised the issue with me and with others in the WH who told me the reporters were calling and asking about Plame's connection to the Mission.

Read that way, it is important to learn if the reporters' notes indicate they DID know this before their conversations with Libby, for if they did (And most of us here believe they did) his defense is strengthened.

[Patton]

cbolt...you are reading a different indictment.

[cboldt]

Patton said: " ... you are reading a different indictment"

I'm reading the one linked in the article. Is that the wrong one?

33. It was further part of the corrupt endeavor that at the time defendant LIBBY made
each of the above-described materially false and intentionally misleading statements
and representations to the grand jury, LIBBY was aware that they were false, in that:
...

At the time of this conversation [Russert], LIBBY was well aware that Wilson's wife
worked at the CIA ...

Count 2

4. As defendant LIBBY well knew when he made it [to agents of the FBI], this statement
was false in that when LIBBY spoke with Russert on or about July 10 or 11, 2003: ...

b. At the time of this conversation, LIBBY was well aware that Wilson's wife worked at
the CIA ...

Count 4

3. In truth and fact, as LIBBY well knew when he gave this testimony [to the grand
jury], it was false in that: ...

b. At the time of this conversation [with Russert], LIBBY was well aware that Wilson's
wife worked at the CIA ...

[clarice]

cboldt, here and elsewhere you have demonstrated a singular reading of the case. Fitz might like to have the case be limited to when Libby first heard that Plame worked at the CIA and recommended Joe for the job, but Libby did provide the material that indicated he'd heard if first elsewhere and had forgot it until the reporters raised it. If in fact it appears the reporters are not credible about their version of events, and if it turns out they did have this knowledge before talking to Libby, I am certain the jury will consider it exculpatory. Most of us here do.

[cboldt]

clarice said: "Libby did provide the material that indicated he'd heard if first elsewhere and had forgot it until the reporters raised it. If in fact it appears the reporters are not credible about their version of events, and if it turns out they did have this knowledge before talking to Libby, I am certain the jury will consider it exculpatory."

I would consider it exculpatory too. If Libby forgot that he knew Plame worked at the CIA, or was confused on the timing of said knowledge when he interacted with investigators, then he is not guilty.

What is being discussed here is a filing by Libby that aims to turn the case toward being a leak case - it's a great strategy - but we don't know what Judge Walton is going to rule on this motion.

clarice said: "here and elsewhere you have demonstrated a singular reading of the case"

Oh? Well, I've said my piece. More than happy to go mute here. Y'all can commence with saying my point is indefensible on account of I won't defend it.

[cathyf]

Be careful about converting the case from a "misleading investigators" case (which it is) into a "who's the leaker" case (which it isn't).

Your "misleading investigators" is, well, misleading. Because you are implying that the "investigators" were misled when carrying out their official government law enforcement duties. If it was already known to be impossible that any laws were broken in revealing Plame's identity, then it was improper to be interviewing Libby at all.

If the clerk at the Dunkin Donuts tells the cops that the chocolate frosted donuts have the same number of calories as the chocolate glazed donuts, this is a false statement to a police officer, but it is not perjury and it is not obstruction of justice.

cathy :-)

[Patton]

Again, it is not whether what he claims to have said to Tim Russert was true or not, it is not illegal to lie to Tim Russert.

If he told Tim Russert he didn't know about Plame or he acted like he didn't know, or acted like he was shocked...that is not a crime.

The crime would be if he knowling lied to the FBI/GJ about that conversation.

If Fitz is going to prove that what he said to Russert wasn't true, Libby can say, your RIGHT, I lied to Russert...can I go now.

[cboldt]

cathy wrote: "If it was already known to be impossible that any laws were broken in revealing Plame's identity, then it was improper to be interviewing Libby at all."

Likewise, Miller, Cooper, Russert, Novak, etc.

I'm sure there is reason (not necesarrily good reason) why the case unfolded the way it did. But Fitz was appointed, and an investigation there was.

[Sue]

More than happy to go mute here.

Why do people make these kinds of remarks?

[Patton]

In fact, Fitz has to go beyond just showing what Libby said to the FBI/GJ was false, he has to show that it was INTENTIONALLY false.

He has to show that their is no reasonable way Libby could possibly believe his own testimony and in fact intentionally lied about material facts.

If Libby presents evidence that maybe he was mistaken about Russert, he may have confused him with Bob Woodward..he was very busy with important National security matters. Woodward had the information, had interaction with Woodward at the appropriate time and isn't sure whether he brought it uo...ITS CALLED REASONABLE DOUBT.

[coolpapa]

cdoltb's "simplest reduction of the case":

begin LibbyLoop;

if Libby = Guilty then
LibbyDefense = null;
else goto LibbyLoop;

end LibbyLoop;

If you start with "Libby = Guilty", it resolves the loop.

[kim]

Sometimes, Sue, it's because it seems a more graceful exit than admission of error, in this case a unidimensional view of Libby.
================================

[Dwilkers]

Is anyone else having trouble understanding what exactly the point is that cboldt is trying to make, and how it relates to TM's blog this morning?

[kim]

He seems awfully calm about an investigation possible lacking a good rationale.
=========================

[clarice]

He has to show what Libby said was (a) intentionally false and (b) material to a legitimate inquiry.Good luck with that..

[Rick Ballard]

Nice shot at thread theft but Rutten's article is the giggle of the moment. I read it and came to the conclusion that he has made the case very well for stripping any existing privilege from reporters at any time. Just as a matter of protecting the public from a group of self proclaimed "truth" tellers who wouldn't know the truth if it had six inch fangs buried in the journo's butt.

If Rutten wants a "Propagandists Shield Act" passed he's going to have to do a much better job of justifying it and his article provides ample evidence of his inability to perform that job. A pack of liars writing about a perjury trial in which the prosecution is dependent upon the jury buying the notion that an aggregation of the bafflegab spouted by Cooper and Russert is more believeable than the bafflegab spoken by Libby is not precisely a 'slam dunk' ab initio. Citing seven people in the indictment as having knowledge of Plame's strange attachment to Ambassador Munchausen doesn't really make the case that her "status" was of great concern to anyone - particularly her bosses at the CIA who might have urged discretion in naming her.

[kim]

He's objecting to Libby mounting an effective defense.
===============================

[clarice]

Rick--Just as a matter of protecting the public from a group of self proclaimed "truth" tellers who wouldn't know the truth if it had six inch fangs buried in the journo's butt.

LOL

[kim]

Curious intellect at work, there. It is not a defense because he cannot imagine it as one. There is an interesting effect on display from our visitor, and from Rotten, that is insistence on focussing now on making plain perjury out of an ambiguity, ignoring the jist of the whole affair. It's like: 'Please just nail Libby so we can all go home. It's getting late, I'm tired, and my Mom wonders where I am'.
===============================

[cboldt]

Wasn't trying to "thread theft" or divert - just making the point that Judge Walton won't necessarily agree with Libby's motion that "all of the requested reporter's notes about Plame" are "part of a legitimate defense."

In that vein, I cautioned on the (tempting) angle of rearguing the leak case. I also cautioned that the more Libby argues that Wilson or the leak of Plame was important, the less he can argue that Plame issue was (in his mind) unimportant.

I do agree that the thrust of the article is reporters' reactions, and not the Libby case, per se.

[kim]

I especially like the meme about 'Miller, who didn't even write about the case'. Is he too dumb to realize how irrelevant that is, or does he just think his readership is? Or both? I mean, really. Aren't there 4 layers of editors out there? I can undersatnd the persistence of that meme among the Kos Dancers, but journalists?
===================================

[boris]

If reporters were already discussing Mrs Wilson then Fitz's logic for DECIDING Libby is the one who's lying is broken.

There are disagreements in the testimony between Libby and the reporters. Fitz's logic claims that Libby is the liar because the leak came from him. If it didn't then we're just back to different people remembering past events differently.

Don't want to be unkind and call Rutten and others that pretend they don't understand the point drooling morons but ...

[kim]

Well, sure the judge may not go along with the defense. That doesn't mean there isn't a better rationale to that defense than there is to Fitz's prosecution.

You don't get that Libby believed that Wilson was important, and that debunking Wilson's lie was also important.
===================================

[Gary Maxwell]

Kim how many degrees of separation are there on a good day between "Kos Dancers" and large metropolitan area journalists?

[clarice]

Well, the point of the investigation was to track down the leak and in an effort to fool the public into thinking that is what he had done, Fitz' press release repeatedly suggests that Libby leaked "classified" information that affected national security.

Libby didn't invent the "leak" angle to this case. Fitz having raised it and post-indictment having learned that someone else--probably Armitage "leaked" this information first to a reporter and apparently failed to tell that to investigators--would perhaps like to drop the subject now, but I'm afraid the issue is at the heart of the case even if it clear to most of us that that "leak" never violated US law no matter who was first..

[Rick Ballard]

Cboidt,

Judge Walton will be weighing the absence of an underlying offence very carefully. The absence of materiality (horntossing and sand pawing on the part of Fitz notwithstanding) makes the entire indictment an exercise in the construction of an ephemera.

What was Libby hiding? The fact that Plame's position and responsibility for the African Odyssey was common knowledge from the CIA to State to the WH and in various newsrooms around the country?

Btw - had you clarified your position initially nothing could be said about thread theft.

[Dwilkers]

Fitz's logic claims that Libby is the liar because the leak came from him.

And in fact we now know the leak didn't come from him.

But folks on the left don't care who really leaked Plame, and whether or not she was really covert, or whether it really harmed the country. That never was what they cared about.

They think they have Libby, and the idea of finding out the truth about what happened is threatening to them.

So now Libby defending himself in a criminal case to the best of his ability and in the most agressive way possible - the most fundamental right in our legal system - is a miscarriage of justice.

Which, to try to bring it back on topic, is exactly what the reporter writing this piece apparently feels. There seems to me to be a serious moral blindspot on display here.

[clarice]

BTW another post- Arthur Andersen case which shows the courts are wising up to over zealous prosecutors favorite tool-- crackpot obstruction(the defendant kept me from proving he was guilty ) charges. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/20/business/20cnd-star.html?_r=1&hp&ex=1142917200&en=0902e7cdb0ecdeb5&ei=5059&partner=AOL&oref=slogin

[topsecretk9]

I'm going commit thread theft...has the NYT's run a story on the scope of subpoena and notes concerning anyone other than Tenet and Fliesher?

You know, because there a few suggesting the other 6 not named of course would be somewhat damaging to Bush and Libby...

...oh, the NYT's hasn't yet?

[Gary Maxwell]

Inconvenient that Libby wants to put on a vigorous defense? That seems to be the only contervailing weight on the Prosecutor here given his lack of any supervision. He clearly decided he needed to go forward. He as "Acting Attorney General" weighed all this already and he as the head of the government law enforcement arm is "the government". He ( and therefore WE ) has decided the need to prosecute these horrendous crimes outweighs any damage that might befall the press and their sources. Another argument why the Prosecutor needs supervision? Quite possibly but to ask a guy who was barred his 5th Amendment rights to lose more of his constitutional rights sure sounds like whining to me.

[topsecretk9]

Fitz's logic claims that Libby is the liar because the leak came from him.

It's NOT a leak investigation. Even the left doesn't care anymore that "a" UGO leaked to Novak.

[Patton]

Why would Libby make up the Russert angle in the first place...he knew Fitz would go running to Russert. If he was really making up a concealable story, he could have just said that he couldn't remember which journalist it was.

Libby is no Joshua Steiner who 'lied to his diary'...he's an old lawyer. He had to know what Fitz would do next.

Is it plausable that a man of his stature and experience would intentionally tell such an easily discoverable lie??

[boris]

True, Libby is not charged with leaking, he's charges with lying.

Any proof of lying that relies on Libby being the 1st leaker or having that agenda, is diminished by showing Libby was not the original leak and did not have that agenda.

For example, if Russert didn't know about Val then Libby's version of their conversation can't possibly be true. If Russert did know then it might be true.

Another, if Libby had an agenda to leak the story about Val then he couldn't possibly have forgotten she worked at the CIA. If he didn't have an agenda then he could have forgotten.

Another, if Libby was the first leak then he couldn't possibly have heard it from reporters before discussing it. If he wasn't the fist leak, then he could have heard it from reporters before discussing it, even if he can't remember exactly who or when.