"Gannon" - Plame : Keeping Hope Alive!

The earnest folks at Some Media Matters are desperately trying to keep flickering the candle of hope that there is a connection between outed "reporter" "Jeff Gannon", and the Valerie Plame investigation.

Is their credibility at all diminished by their omission of some seemingly relevant evidence?  Do they have any credibility?

The Washington Post's Dan Froomkin, who probably looks like a righty if you stand far enough to the left, discussed the Plame connection on Monday:

Guckert, Gannon and the Facts

Joe Strupp, writing in Editor & Publisher, and blogger Tom Maguire, in his "Just One Minute" blog go a long way toward clearing up some of the misinformation out there about Jim Guckert, AKA Jeff Gannon.

Did Guckert actually ever get access to an internal CIA memo related to the Plame case? It seems unlikely...

Dan Froomkin - One more member of the right wing media conspiracy for the folks at Some Media Matters to take on.

And the Times, having led with the Plame connection on Friday, continues to struggle with amnesia, declining to mention either "Guckert" or "Gannon".

Help Dan Okrent find one more brick in the stonewall:  Public@NYTimes.com.

UPDATE:  I catch the eye of Crowd Kosmic:

Froomkin cites righty blogger Tom Maguire (NOTE: there's an overkill of Kos-hatred on his site, and I have no idea who he is, so be forewarned before you click the link...but he's got a point on this one)...

An "overkill of Kos-hatred"?  Hey, who luvs ya, baby?  Who put up a post on Jan. 30 waving you off?  Check the comments section - see when Kos diarist SusanG finally got the message.  Check the back-pedaling in the watered down Kos press release.

Well, nobody likes an "I told you so".  But for the record, I do not feel hatred for the Lost Kos Comedy Club contingent.  I actually have feelings of solidarity with fellow bloggers who are prepared to do the research and reflect on the results.

So in this case, I would say, uhh, "hatred", no - let's say, "amusement".

And yes, the old Mae West line does come to mind - Mae West's character is being particularly insolent in court, leading to this exchange:

Judge:  Young lady, are you trying to show contempt for this court?

Mae:  Your honor, I'm trying to hide it.

Maybe I am not doing a great job of that myself.

Well, I do want to encourage the Kos crowd to cling to the belief that anyone who disagree with them "hates" them.  Keep dragging the team left!

EVEN MORE:  Bitter division on right!  Jeff Goldstein is *not* trying to hide his contempt.

I predict that more bitter divisions will soon be unmasked: Is it the "Lost Kos Komedy Klub", or the "Lost Kos Klown Show"?  We struggle with the big issues here.

I CAN STOP ANYTIME:  Will these vicious outings never cease?

Comments

[capt joe]

great phraseology, Tom

[TM]

Thank you, Captain.

[wjd]

So, was Gannon just lying when he asked the following of Joseph Wilson?

"An internal government memo prepared by U.S. intelligence personnel details a meeting in early 2002 where your wife, a member of the agency for clandestine service working on Iraqi weapons issues, suggested that you could be sent to investigate the reports. Do you dispute that?"

[Gannon on Blitzer]

GANNON: And the FBI did come to interview me. They were interested in where -- how I knew or received a copy of a confidential CIA memo that said that Valerie Plame suggested that Joe Wilson be sent on this mission, something that everybody -- they have all vigorously denied but is, in effect, true.

BLITZER: So they didn't make you go testify before the grand jury?

GANNON: No.

BLITZER: Do you have to reveal how you got that memo?

GANNON: No.

[ed]

Hmmm.

I'd include a witty pithy comment here, but really what else can be said? Frankly this story is looking more and more like someone dressing a pig up in spandex and hoping nobody will notice how ugly his date is.

I didn't think much of this story several days ago, and I still don't. But I am definitely waiting for Guckert's lawyers to accumulate enough evidence to hammer the bejesus out of some lefty bloggers.

If they go to trial, I'm taking some time off at work and will be in attendance.

[Gary Johnston]

I am definitely waiting for Guckert's lawyers to accumulate enough evidence to hammer the bejesus out of some lefty bloggers.

Crybabies.

[Aaron]

People need to use Occam's Razor and not Conspiracy Theorit's Butcher Knives.

Mr. Gannon created a news agency. He made up a stage name. He's trying to get something going on the internet. (I mean the news agency.)

OF COURSE HE'S GOING TO WANT TO SOUND LIKE HE KNOWS MORE THAN HE DOES.

This is his 15 minutes.

But I really doubt the White House couldn't find a better plant if they wanted to, and should we really be trusting Gannon's words on this subject?

[Crank]

wjd needs to go back and read TM's links. Guckert was just parroting a report about that memo that had just appeared in the Wall Street Journal.

[TM]

Somebody could go through the comments thread at the Kos post and come up with an interesting post themselves.

The theme would be the pros and cons of the shared culture they have there.

On the one hand, when someone raises an objection to someone else's point, there is not a lot of posturing about "Ignore that new evidence, it is just misdirection from A Karl Rove Troll". They actually assess the objection, and toss out theories, and manage to look like an effective problem-solving group.

OTOH, I have to say that based on this incident, their ability to pick up new evidence falls a bit short. Once the Gannon-Plame connection took hold a few weeks ago, no one really tried to rebut it (by, for example, reading my earlier post).

I see huge potential - if they can get the right mix of what they call "trolling" (which is sometimes simply an opposing view) and analysis, they might be truly scary.

But right now, I would say that the Kool Aid dulls their senses.

[creepy dude]

Meanwhile PlameGate coming strong-Appeals court just rules that Cooper and Miller are in contempt if they don't spill the beans.

"Lawyers for media organizations say the law on protecting reporters from subpoenas in criminal matters is very weak, and they had expected the appeals court to rule against the reporters. The expressed concern that the decision will drive confidential sources underground -- and leave the public more in the dark about the inner workings of its government."

Could that be the Bush White House mastermind strategy behind the whole Plame leak?

[TM]

Could that be the Bush White House mastermind strategy behind the whole Plame leak?

I said a long time ago (like, July 2003) that the reason the press ducked this story initially was that the press is normally about source protection, not source prosecution.

And I said several times since that lefties screaming for a special prosecutor today might want to reflect on where this freight train is headed tomorrow.

This result is frustratingly, predictably stupid.

[Let me save you the trouble - "Wow, TM, Eerily Prescient!" Thanks. Although I am often and mostly over myself, I was SO RIGHT about this that it scares me.]

[creepy dude]

Yes but usually sources are reporting crimes not committing them.

Would you agree that the leakers are ultimately responsible for this mess?

[creepy dude]

As long as you're not answering, do you actually believe it was "lefties screaming" that got Fitzgerald appointed?

[TM]

Would you agree that the leakers are ultimately responsible for this mess?

Groan. Well, if the leakers had no particular intent with respect to Ms. Plame (and there are highly plausible scenarios in which they did not), and/or if Dems were exploiting her CIA connection to embarrass the Admin, either by luck or design (also possible, see Fineman or Drum), then no, I am not sure the leakers bear ultimate responsibility for this mess.

[creepy dude]

Well I see why you're groaning since the Lord God Almighty of "Rightie" bloggers had pronounced the whole thing "bogus" a long time ago-but reality still won't bow to the script.

I mean we have the very real possibility of people going to jail over something "bogus" ab initio. Somebody is out of control, I agree, I just don't think it's Fitzgerald. Then again I'm a lefty.

BTW I regard the fact that you don't have the clickrate of Instapundit as further proof of "Rightie" mental incompetence.

[Neo]

It would seem that Kos got it half-right, but unfortunately he also got it half-wrong. All the breast beating the last few days about the "moronic mob" seems that it should be attaching itself to the half-wrong part.

For the record: I read the Kos statement about doing some stuff for Dean and came away thinking it was volunteer, not paid.

[TM]

Thanks very much (I suppose). I think Glenn does a terrific job of getting different (mostly right) views into the mix on a million topics, but on the (mercifully few) subjects I actually obsess on, I like to think I do OK. /False Modesty

[Paul Zrimsek]

Now all we have to do is figure out where the difference in click rate between Daily Kos and Crooked Timber comes from, and we'll be close to a Grand Unified Theory of Everything.

[capt joe]

Conext cd, everything is context

Instapundit declared it bogus the moment Wilson and Plame did a huge pictorial piece in a tier one media magazine.

All this before claiming safety, and danger, in publishing her identity.

The whole timeline shows ruthless manipulation by one Wilson to get as much media hay out of this as possible.

But keep hoping, camel, eye of needle and all that.

[Gary Johnston]

Capt Joe - By the time of the Vanity Fair spread, her cover was already blown. But no, it was all a conspiracy by this former diplomat who worked for George HW Bush to manipulate the eeeeevil lefty media.

You kids are adorable!

[Cecil Turner]

"Would you agree that the leakers are ultimately responsible for this mess?"

I don't know. What if the "leaker" was only aware "Wilson's wife had attended a meeting at the CIA where the decision was made to send Wilson to Niger," but not of her undercover status? Wouldn't that be a pertinent point to mention, especially since no less a right-wing zealot than Josh Marshall thought it imperative to get to the bottom of how he was assigned?

Wilson has said repeatedly that he was sent to Niger because, as he wrote in the Times, "Vice President Dick Cheney's office had questions about a particular intelligence report" [. . .] So to start with you can say that the 'intelligence official's' statement amounts to a sort of non-denial denial. But what about the broader question? Was the whole effort triggered by an inquiry from the OVP or not?

"I mean we have the very real possibility of people going to jail over something "bogus" ab initio."

I'm sure you'd like to see it, cd, but the only imminent danger of jail time seems to be for some journalists who're refusing to reveal what they know about the situation. And since Miller at least is on record as having worked with the Wilsons on the subject, it seems just as plausible that their information will prove exculpatory for the "leakers" you'd like to see jailed.

[creepy dude]

CT-I specifically meant the possibility that Miller and Cooper could go to jail. It's a no lose situation for us Kossites-we hate Miller too.

The point being is it's getting a little late for the "nothing to see here-move along" line when you have people actually in the pokey (or lickey if Miller goes to a woman's prison).

Is Fitzgerald really going to send people to jail for nothing? (Hmmm he is a Republican though...).

As for the leakers-it's my understanding that the whole thing started when the CIA got incensed about what certain "senior administration officials" told Novak.
If they lacked the actual knowledge she was undercover to be convicted- fine-they're still obnoxious tattletales who ought to get bitchslapped (figuratively-like with Keyes).

If the thing ends up with Wilson being indicted, I can live with it. At least I'll have no record of denigrating the investigation to go back and whitewash.

[Cecil Turner]

"Is Fitzgerald really going to send people to jail for nothing? (Hmmm he is a Republican though...)."

If Miller is keeping evidence to herself in violation of the law (especially if it's exculpatory), a contempt citation is perfectly reasonable, IMHO. But then, I tend to vote Republican.

"As for the leakers-it's my understanding that the whole thing started when the CIA got incensed about what certain "senior administration officials" told Novak."

Perhaps, but if the INR memo was the source, it wasn't the initial security lapse. That occurred in the initial meeting where Valerie Plame suggested her husband be sent (or introduced him--accounts differ), and an INR attendee took notes that indicated her presence, but not of her covert status. That memo, sent via State Department channels to the Africa Trip, appears to be what leaked. If so, the whole "leaked to punish Wilson" meme (started by Wilson) makes zero sense, since the leaker wouldn't have known of Plame's covert status. It also probably wouldn't be a crime. If that's the case--and Occam's Razor suggests it is--it's hard to see how that's worse than Wilson's leaking information on his trip and various WMD issues in March, or his own op-ed in July. So it's just as reasonable to say the whole thing started there.

[creepy dude]

CT you need to go read that opinion.

The court has advanced the ball. The leaks to Novak by the SAOs are significant to the litigation; those leaks were a serious matter- irresponsible at best, quite possibly illegal (innocent until proven guilty indeed), harmful to national security and a serious breach of the public trust.

From the opinion:

"On July 14, 2003, columnist Robert Novak published a
column in the Chicago Sun-Times in which he asserted that the decision to send Wilson to Niger had been made “routinely without Director George Tenet’s knowledge,” and, most significant to the present litigation, that “two senior administration officials” told him that Wilson’s selection was at the suggestion of Wilson’s wife, Valerie Plame, whom Novak described as a CIA “operative on weapons of mass destruction.” pg. 3

"Applying this standard to the facts of this case, and
considering first only the public record, I have no doubt that the leak at issue was a serious matter." pg. 28

"One last point. In concluding that no privilege applies in this case, I have assigned no importance to the fact that neither Cooper nor Miller, perhaps recognizing the irresponsible (and quite possibly illegal) nature of the leaks at issue, revealed Plame’s employment... pg. 39

"Were the leak at issue in this case less harmful to national security or more vital to public debate, or had the special counsel failed to demonstrate the grand jury’s need for the reporters’ evidence, I might have supported the motion to quash. Because identifying appellants’ sources instead appears essential to remedying a serious breach of public trust, I join in affirming the district court’s orders compelling their testimony." pg. 41

[Cecil Turner]

"The court has advanced the ball [. . .] harmful to national security and a serious breach of the public trust."

If you say so. I'd submit it's a bit hard to conclude that without knowing who leaked it and where the information came from, which is not addressed in the decision.

I also note you only quoted from Tatel's part of the decision, who appeared to go a bit overboard on his characterizations. It's probably worth noting his name had been bandied about as potential Kerry Supreme Court Nominee, though I'd hesitate to impugn his objectivity.

He appears to make a mistake of fact in this bit, however:

As to the scope of the privilege, however, I agree with the special counsel that protection for source identities cannot be absolute. Leaks similar to the crime suspected here (exposure of a covert agent) apparently caused the deaths of several CIA operatives in the late 1970s and early 1980s, including the agency’s Athens station chief.

Not sure where he got that information, and Richard Welch's assassination is a common anti-leak theme some attempted to blame on Agee, but in fact Welch's name was available from several sources (including an unclassified State Dept register), and he'd moved into his predecessor's residence (who'd also been followed by the N17 group that eventually murdered Welch), the purpose of which apparently wasn't much of a secret. At best, the connection here is "unproven."

The most interesting part of the decision would be the part where Fitzgerald proves the information from Miller and Cooper is "both critical and unobtainable from any other source." Unfortunately, that's all redacted, and I'm having a hard time figuring out what they couldn't have gotten from Novak.

[TM]

I hope to have time to read the opinion myself, but since you guys have looked through it -

What happened to the issue suggested by Ms. Toensig in a few op-ed pieces, and brought back by Jack Shafer here - the Times should challenge the prosecutor to show just what crime he has in mind to indict and prosecute?

Was that covered, and was that what the bit about "I have no doubt that the leak at issue was a serious matter." was about?

As Shafer tells it, Abrams was much broader.

And if anyone has a link they love to that opinion, feel free. My (6 year old) PC is choking on the CADC website .pdf file.

[Cecil Turner]

"Was that covered, and was that what the bit about "I have no doubt that the leak at issue was a serious matter." was about?"

No, they stuck to journalistic privilege and didn't try it:

The appellants . . . assert four theories for reversal. Their first claim is that the First Amendment affords journalists a constitutional right to conceal their confidential sources even against the subpoenas of grand juries. Secondly, they claim that reporters enjoy an evidentiary privilege under the common law to conceal confidential sources. Adjunct to this claim, while denying that the privilege is less than absolute, they argue that if the privilege is in fact qualified, the United States has not overcome the privilege. Thirdly, appellants argue that their due process rights were violated by the Special Counsel’s ex parte and in camera submission of evidence to the court to establish that the United States had overcome any qualified privilege. Finally, they argue that the Special Counsel failed to comply with Department of Justice guidelines for the issuance of subpoenas to journalists, and that the failure to comply is an independent ground for reversal of their contempt conviction.

I suspect it wouldn't have worked anyway, since the special counsel was apparently after a specific person (whom I presume to be the suspected leaker) and seemed to be using the "covert agent" statute:

Cooper refused to comply with the subpoena, even after the Special Counsel offered to narrow its scope to cover only conversations between Cooper and a specific individual identified by the Special Counsel.

The "I have no doubt" bit was from Tatel talking about the publicly available information (various news stories), just before he go to the good stuff--information presented by Fitzgerald--which was all redacted (@!#$#@!). And I used the CADC link, which was clunky, but copying it to hard drive worked.

[creepy dude]

Novak must have plead the fifth amendment.

[Tim]

It's premature to conclude a crime has been committed because we don't know that the leakers knew Plame was "undercover," regardless of how fervently some wish for their to be a crime. Everything else, right now, is conjecture and spin.

[Cecil Turner]

"Novak must have plead the fifth amendment."

Don't see how. He can't possibly be charged with violating the section on outing covert operatives: he doesn't have access, and there was obviously no "pattern." If he's in no jeopardy, the Fifth doesn't apply.

[TM]

I have been assuming that Fitzgerald wanted to nail down everyone's story before going after Novak.

[TM]

This does not exactly make me think the prosecutor is on the verge of proving a crime ocurred. Of course, we didn't get the redacted stuff:

An alleged covert agent, Plame evidently traveled overseas on clandestine missions beginning nearly two decades ago. See, e.g., Richard Leiby & Dana Priest, The Spy Next Door; Valerie Wilson, Ideal Mom, Was Also the Ideal Cover, Wash. Post, Oct. 8, 2003, at A1. Her exposure, therefore, not only may have jeopardized any covert activities of her own, but also may have endangered friends and associates from whom she might have gathered information in the past. Acting to criminalize such exposure of secret agents, see 50 U.S.C. § 421, Congress has identified that behavior’s “intolerable” consequences:

As the judge said, it is public record, and it may establish that the leak was significant, but it hardly addresses intent.

I wonder if Shafer was right, from up above.

[Joe Mealyus]

Tim: "It's premature to conclude a crime has been committed because we don't know that the leakers knew Plame was "undercover," regardless of how fervently some wish for their to be a crime. Everything else, right now, is conjecture and spin."

Is there anything we really do know? As far as I know, there are conflicting accounts of everything - whether Plame recommended Wilson, what the leaker knew, whether Plame really was (meaningfully) undercover, what transpired when Novak called the CIA, Wilson's motives, Plame's motives, the leaker's motives, which law was broken, etc etc etc.

Is there a single fact of significance the status of which is not in question? Maybe I am not following this as closely as I thought, or am slow....

[Arliss]

Man, you people just don't get it.
The more vociferous you are in your defense of Guckannon only makes you look bad.
Why would you even want to malign yourselves with a known gay male prostitute?
Don't start saying it's all a lie, because you obviously have not seen the web pages where he is offering himself up for sale.
Take my advice on this one, you righties would be better off letting this fight go, it can only hurt you.

[cholo]

do penis enlargement pills work for you ?

do penis enlargement work for you ?