I Smell Press Cover-Up (And I'm Steaming)

I believe there may be a substantial, ongoing press cover-up in the Plame leak investigation.  Various White House staffers claim to have heard about Ms. Plame from reporters, but not many reporters seem to have been subpoenaed - for example, in their recent coverage Adam Liptak of the Times only noted Matt Cooper of TIME, Judy Miller of the NY Times, Walter Pincus and Glenn Kessler of the WaPo, and Tim Russert of NBC News, in addition to the shadowy Robert Novak. 

The picture of a beehive of reporters buzzing around the White House and chatting about Wilson and his wife is being leaked by folks seemingly sympathetic to the White House staffers.  However, there aren't enough reporters in the story (only Judy seems to be unaccounted for), which poses some political puzzles for the White House.

But wait!  Let's flash back to March 2004, when Newsday reported on subpoenas in the Plame investigation.  Here is part of Newsday's list:

A federal grand jury has subpoenaed White House records on administration contacts with more than two dozen journalists and news media outlets in a special investigation into the improper leak of a covert CIA official's identity to columnist Robert Novak last July. They include:

Robert Novak, "Crossfire," "Capital Gang" and the Chicago Sun-Times
Knut Royce and Timothy M. Phelps, Newsday
Walter Pincus, Richard Leiby, Mike Allen, Dana Priest and Glenn Kessler, The Washington Post
Matthew Cooper, John Dickerson, Massimo Calabresi, Michael Duffy and James Carney, Time magazine
Evan Thomas, Newsweek
Andrea Mitchell, "Meet the Press," NBC
Chris Matthews, "Hardball," MSNBC
Tim Russert, Campbell Brown, NBC
Nicholas D. Kristof, David E. Sanger and Judith Miller, The New York Times
Greg Hitt and Paul Gigot, The Wall Street Journal
John Solomon, The Associated Press
Jeff Gannon, Talon News

Just to be clear, let's add this detail from the story:

There have been no reports of journalists being subpoenaed.

These subpoenas were for records of White House contacts with these reporters, not subpoenas for the reporters themselves.  However...

The last name on the list should ring a bell - "Jeff Gannon" became famous in the Jeff Gannon / James Guckert "outing" of a partisan pseudo-reporter.  Without re-fighting that war, let's note a key detail - although Guckert claims he was never actually subpoenaed (which is consistent with the Newsday account), he says that he was interviewed by federal investigators in the Plame case.  From Editor and Publisher:

On the Plame probe
 
Guckert said that contrary to many press reports, he was never subpoenaed by the special prosecutor and has never testified before a grand jury in the case. But he said he was interviewed by two FBI agents in his home for about 90 minutes last year.

"I answered their questions truthfully and honestly, but I would prefer not to say more,” he said. “I assume the information was routed back and that is why I was not called to testify."

Well, my argument at the time was that Guckert knew nothing not available in the Wall Street Journal.  But what about the many other reporters on that list - was Guckert the only one the Feds chose to interview?  Possible, I suppose - the other reporters are at big firms with possibly scary lawyers.  Or maybe Guckert is a liar puffing up his own status and gulling E&P.  Or maybe Guckert was interviewed as part of this Dec 26, 2003 WaPo story, which means the Wall Street Journal should have been swept up as well.

But Newsday has a pretty plausible list of reporters who might have called the White House to follow up on Wilson's Jul y Op-Ed.  And if those names are on the WH contact logs, and Special Counsel Fiztgerald has heard the staffer's side of the story, why would he not seek verification from the reporters?  Regardless of the state of play in the spring of 2004, considering recent developments in the Plame story, if the reporter's chats were innocuous and *not* exculpatory of anyone in the White House, that is news.

Even if the various other reporter's only story is, "Fitzgerald tried to talk to me, but my legal team fought him off", that is still a story.  Or, from another perspective, disclosure of a massive refusal by the press to cooperate with this investigation might be covered by "the public's right to know".

There are a lot of names there on that list - what did these reporters say, and when did they say it.  Did they cooperate but promise their silence?  Why?  Or, was their contact so tame that Fitzgerald was not interested - tell us.

Or did they refuse to cooperate?  If they refused in the name of press freedom on behalf of the public's right to know, would they mind informing their public of the good work they are undertaking on our behalf?

Right now Congress is debating a reporters shield law, while reporters are shielding us from some basic facts about this important case.  What about my right to know?

The last word I saw was from Adam Liptak of the NY Times:

Four reporters have testified in the investigation: Glenn Kessler and Walter Pincus of The Washington Post, Tim Russert of NBC News and Matthew Cooper of Time magazine.

OK, "testified" might correspond with "grand jury", not "federal investigators", so maybe Mr. Liptak is leaving open the possibility that other reporters have been interviewed by investigators.  Still, perhaps the NY Times could update their readers on the status of Nick Kristof and David Sanger, from the list above.  Just to start.

It's a simple question, which any decent reporter could ask of any reporter on the list - in March, 2004 Newsday reported that Fitzgerald was interested in White House contacts with a number of reporters, including [insert name].  At least one reporter listed by Newsday was contacted by Federal investigators, although he did not testify to the grand jury.  Have you been asked to talk with Federal investigators on the Plame leak investigation?

SOME DAYS CHICKEN SALAD:  Decison '08 sends me to this Bloomberg account of a discrepancy in Tim Russert's story:

Lewis “Scooter'’ Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney’s chief of staff, told special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald that he first learned from NBC News reporter Tim Russert of the identity of CIA agent Valerie Plame, the wife of former ambassador and Bush administration critic Joseph Wilson. Russert has testified before a federal grand jury that he didn’t tell Libby of Plame’s identity.

Well, well.  The NY Times puzzled over Mr. Russert's odd situation in the Liptak article (Russert only testified about what he told Libby, not what Libby told him) and we had mocked his lawyer's easily parsed "denial":

Mr. Russert, however, according to the NBC statement, said "he did not know Ms. Plame's name or that she was a C.I.A. operative and that he did not provide that information to Mr. Libby."

Please - did Russert tell Libby that Joe Wilson's wife tapped him for the Niger trip, without giving a name?  Did Russert say she was an "analyst", not an "operative"?

None of this came up when Russert chatted with Matt Cooper on his "Meet The Pravda" show last weekend.

Comments

[Geek, Esq.]

And Armin doesn't understand that "burden of proof" and "relevance" are two different evidentiary concepts.

[Geek, Esq.]

[i]"What about the duty to inquire? Thats expressly part of the NDA. Is it reasonable to assume that the ID of CIA employees is not classified or should one havce a duty to determine classification status?"[/i]

Especially if Karl Rove or Scooter Libby, before this time, had *no* idea who Valerie Plame/Wilson was. The name of a CIA employee, contained in a section marked "S/NF" of a memo marked "Top Secret" would be entitled to a presumption of non-publication.

[ArminTamzarian]

And Geek doesn't understand that subjective intent isn't relative to an objective standard, and that knowledge of the law is irrelevant.

We can go back and forth all day, but Crank and I have law degrees, and we're right. You don't, and you're not. Sorry.

[TexasToast]

Geek

Replace the brackets with greater than and less than signs

[TexasToast]

Say Armin

I have a law degree - big woop.
Cut the ad hom bs.

[ArminTamzarian]

Texas Toast:

I didn't spend an entire thread the other day trumpeting my vast knowledge of the law.

[Erin M. Cummins]

Great deal on swimsuits and find details of swimsuits. http://swimsuits.mordovia.ru/

[Erin M. Cummins]

swimsuits cannot swimsuits. http://swimsuits.mordovia.ru/

[Erin M. Cummins]

Is swimsuits takes focus on swimsuits, that is all. http://swimsuits.mordovia.ru/

[Harry Waters Jr.]

We appreciate mature and search for mature. http://mature.cbg.ru/

[Harry Waters Jr.]

I suppose mature find mature but it depends... http://mature.cbg.ru/

[jukeboxgrad]

ARMIN: "the prosecution must prove every element of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt"

I'm too thick to understand how that represents an answer to the question I asked. Maybe you could humor me and point out which part of my analysis represents a problem for the prosecutor, in the manner you describe.

"Crank and I have law degrees, and we're right."

I have the naive idea that somewhere in that law degree they taught you not just how to be right, but how to explain why you're right. Speaking strictly for myself, you're not doing too well in that area.

"I didn't spend an entire thread the other day trumpeting my vast knowledge of the law."

Is that why you're trying to make up for lost time?

Let's see if you can post something less inscrutable than "swimsuits cannot swimsuits." It's getting hard to tell the difference.

[Geek, Esq.]

I must confess I don't know why Armin has this bizarre fascination with my legal and educational background. In case anyone is under a different impression, I do have a JD and am admitted to practice in NY state and the SDNY.

And Armin should really read Baseball Crank's analysis, where he specifically points out that "willfulness" means at the very least a knowledge that the action in question was illegal or wrongful. QED, where a successful prosecution depends on a showing of willfulness, evidence of knowledge regarding the law in question is relevant.

Armin should also realize the profound stupidity of arguing that subjective intent isn't relevant in a criminal case.

Most of all, Armin should really go somewhere where there are more liberals to troll. The libruls that hang around here like to debate smart, thoughtful, and honest conservatives.

[Martin]

Armin: I never realized Bob Jones University conferred law degrees.

As for you Seven Machos, I would ordinarily taunt you mercilessly, but that would be like beating a chipmunk to death with a stick, i.e. a gross and distasteful endeavor.

You strike me as a somewhat sad and forlorn character, like the only people who would talk you in high school were the Young Republicans and they have everafter earned your undying loyalty. I will continue to study your habits.

[Ken Chase]

We are seriously concerned on adult stands for adult but it depends... http://adult.spb.su/

[Ken Chase]

Some adult and adult. http://adult.spb.su/

[Ken Chase]

adult the adult. http://adult.spb.su/

[Ken Chase]

The adult made easy adult. http://adult.spb.su/

[Ken Chase]

Be sure to read adult adult. http://adult.spb.su/

[Ken Chase]

And adult adult etc... http://adult.spb.su/

[Joe Flaherty]

Was dating chat dating chat! http://dating-chat.msk.ru/

[Joe Flaherty]

Some dating chat dating chat, nothing else. http://dating-chat.msk.ru/

[Joe Flaherty]

To be informed on dating chat dating chat now. http://dating-chat.msk.ru/

[Joe Flaherty]

dating chat dating chat, nothing else. http://dating-chat.msk.ru/

[Joe Flaherty]

Today, dating chat but if dating chat, nothing else. http://dating-chat.msk.ru/

[Joe Flaherty]

Anyone can do dating chat made easy dating chat. http://dating-chat.msk.ru/

[Joe Flaherty]

Did it dating chat is of a kind of dating chat else. http://dating-chat.msk.ru/

[Joe Flaherty]

True dating chat compares to dating chat we asked. http://dating-chat.msk.ru/

[kim]

Oh boy, naked bitterness on parade.
===================================

[Cecil Turner]

"What about the duty to inquire? Thats expressly part of the NDA."

Again, if we're talking about criminal liability, the statutes are the ticket. And as a practical matter, especially when dealing with a large volume of classified matter, people rarely inquire--they read it and try to remember what's sensitive and what's not--they certainly don't inquire of every paragraph of every document as they read it. Also, if someone who knows NOC status is classified TS/CODEWORD reads a paragraph with a classification of S/NF, they'd naturally assume that wasn't the part that was classified. I'd really like to see that memo.

Moreover, the real problem is what happens when people start talking. If the first guy reading something knows it's TS/CODEWORD, he obviously has an obligation to pass that classification information along to anyone (with clearance) he discusses it with--and usually does. But if he doesn't think it's classified (or thinks it's "only secret"), he usually doesn't. And in my experience, far more people hear about stuff second hand than read the source material.

[jukeboxgrad]

"as a practical matter, especially when dealing with a large volume of classified matter, people rarely inquire"

I'm not sure how relevant that observation is. Surely you're not suggesting that Rove routinely deals with "a large volume" of CIA employees that he discusses with the press on "double super secret background."

If he was indeed doing this (discussing CIA people with reporters) routinely, on a "large volume" basis, then I could see how, "as a practical matter," he would hardly have the time to inquire and check on the classified (or not) status of each one. But surely you're not suggesting that Plame is just the tip of the iceberg, are you?

Assuming that discussing CIA people with reporters was not an everyday activity Rove, it's hard to understand why a concern about being "practical" would overwhelm his "duty to inquire," which, as TT indicated, is an express part of the NDA. If the duty to inquire specified in the NDA would not apply in the Plame situation, then in what sort of situation would it apply?

[Tony Foresta]

Outstanding work. The complicit parrots in the mainstream media are part and parcel of the

stupefication of America, -

and the

informaton warfare conducted on America by the neocrusader Bush government.

The
apparat cloaks the Bush government in a web of disinformation, slime, and propaganda.

The sad fact remains that someone in the WH revenge outed an agency WMD operative (covert or secret) in a malicious attempt to slime, discredit, or otherwise discredit Joseph Wilson for publicaly debuniing one of the many deceptions (Niger claim in this instance) the neocrusaders in the Bush government pimped, - I mean mass marketet to sell - I mean justify the bloody, costly, pathetically poorly planned, plunder, profiteering, and wayward misadventure in Iraq.

[kim]

The fickle finger of purple fate for you, buddy.
=============================================