Perhaps we should look toward the day of the California fiasco as the day the adminstration makes whatever moves it will make?

Josh Marshall mentions that Rove was fired from Bush Sr's 1992 campaign for planting a story with Novak.

So sometimes, it is possible to trace a source.

If this is all Tenet's doing, do you think he would have done this if he couldn't win? Although, I admit that I don't really know what he would consider a "win" at this point.

It's highly debatable whether the Justice Department would actually haul reporters before a grand jury in a case like this.

For a grave felony like this, I think it's emminently possible that Justice would threaten these reporters with jail time for contempt unless they reveal their sources.

Tenet could be successful in uncovering a conspiracy to commit a fellony crime and a conspiracy to cover up a fellony crime.

Anyone have any background on Tenet? this is some some seriously vengeful and nasty shit, but then again he is CIA. This is all out internal war though isn't it? Honestly I can't say I'll be that happy if Tenet "wins", its bad enough having the Supreme Court decide who runs this country, imagine what happens when its the CIA who gets to be kingmaker...

My question is this: Can a reporter reasonably refuse to disclose a 'source' for a story that they didn't write?

I echo the question posed by libertas. I'm a reporter. Karl Rove calls me and offers me the story and tells me I can use it as long as I'm a senior official. For whatever reason, I say, "Thanks, but no thanks."

I have to protect this source? Furthermore, even if I did not know it at the time, I now know I'm a witness to a crime. I'm obligated in any way - ethically, morally or legally - to keep my mouth shut?

The world has gone mad.

Tom

lastest Marshall takes a more cautious approach to the WaPo story. But it does make something a bit more evident: This has a lot to do with the White House denying the CIA's power. You can't have a president where the White House can blow an operatives cover at will. And then stonewall the issue? The White House is trying to go up against the CIA again. If anything Tenet is being reasonable and restrained. He gave them 2 months, they gave him... nothing. What a bunch of tards... thinking they can take on the CIA.

I have to protect this source? Furthermore, even if I did not know it at the time, I now know I'm a witness to a crime. I'm obligated in any way - ethically, morally or legally - to keep my mouth shut?

It's hard to understand, I guess, unless you've been a journalist, but protecting a confidential source is sacred -- it's like a doctor shielding a patient, an attorney keeping silent about a client, or a priest fondling an 6-year old...well, you know what I mean.

Everybody understands this when the source is a whistleblower at a big corporation or government agency. Some sources put everything -- their careers, their reputations, even their lives -- on the line when they talk to a reporter.

The problem is that Washington journalism has gotten so clubby and wink,wink, nudge, nudge. Everybody uses off-the-record sources, which is usually just a dodge for some sleazy bastard like Rove to do his dirty work anonymously.

But the same rule that applies to the persecuted whistleblower -- don't burn your source -- also applies to the corrupt White House big shot.

That may sound crazy, but once you start drawing distinctions, you're in a world of trouble -- how do you decide which sources "deserve" to be protected and which don't?

The better solution is not to let White House big shots manipulate you by leaking shit like this off the record. But it's a competitive business and everybody else is playing the game. If you don't, your competitors will eat your lunch.

It sucks, but it's hard to think of another way to handle it.

“The only people who can nail the perps are the reporters who heard the leaks.”

explains why wilson named andrea mitchell as one of the reporters rather nicely, doesn’t it?

Tenet would not have informed anyone at the White House that Plame was a CIA agent as background on the annoying Wilson - that is the whole idea of compartmentalization. Rice and Hadley were barely able to keep track of synopses of WMD intelligence from Langley in the months preceding Wilson's NY Times article about his Niger trip; neither knew who Valerie Plame was. At the White House only Cheney and Libby studied the WMD issue in careful enough detail to actually familiarize themselves with the names of CIA sources and analysts - that Plame was married to Wilson was a superfluous fact at one time. Any of several senior White House officials might have outed Plame to Novak but the info came via the VP's office.

Well, there ya go.

I've kind of liked Tenet ever since he came out of that Senate hearing after the Niger story broke and he said the experience (of testifying) was "uplifting" I wish I still had that article with the quote. It seemed to disappear out of the yahoo wire story.

If the identity of the leakers is leaked, and becomes common knowledge by hearsay, would this lessen the burden on the six reporters, legally or ethically, to protect their sources?

The CIA/NSA probably knows who exposed Plame. But the problem is Tenet won't openly say who the leaker is. Cause Tenet owes his position to Bush, Bush could have easily fired numnuts over 9/11 but didn't. So Tenet owes Bush his career along the FBI director. IMO Tenet is just going through the motions of caring that one his spooks got exposed.

I don't think this incident will get the needed traction in the press nor on capitol hill. The only possible way it could have if Plame was assinated. Then there would be problems. Instead she gets assigned to a high paid desk job stateside.

In short we're giving way too much credit for Tenat acting like a honerable man who will do the right thing.

I think that it's highly unlikely that a great deal of secrecy within the WH was maintained on this leak. Is it really plausible that the two (remember, it's two) SAOs would call up six reporters, obviously not in any way hiding their identities to these reporters, and think that within the far more loyal WH staff they must be extremely careful that nobody else knew? They're going to leave their fate in the hands of six reporters, and their uncertain professional obligations to maintain the secrecy of their sources, but are not going to trust anyone else amongst their staff, whom they likely hand selected for loyalty? I don't see how this makes a bit of sense.

I've got to believe that there are a very good number of people in the WH who knew what was going down. It was probably openly discussed in meetings. To maintain utter secrecy, every last person amongst these people would have to be willing to take a very great risk of time in prison by lying to investigators or a grand jury, knowing that they would be certain to be convicted if a single other person broke the silence.

I strongly suspect that once investigators go in, armed with subpoenas, and backed by the law, the case will be cracked in an instant.

Ha, Atrios was already on it.
Rule Of Law!

There are leaks, and then there are leaks. The leaks Kurtz refers to were not unlawful. It's awfully damn clear that these leaks were felonious, and the CIA ain't taking it lying down.

On the total speculation note: Might Wilson have asked Andrea Mitchell's permission to use her name in the context of the investigation? I mean, if anyone's not a dummy, it's Wilson, and he must have had a specific reason to name her, especially since she's been a sympathetic ear. Plus it'd be ironic if Wilson outed a person against her will in the wake of his wife's outing...

So I'm wondering if Mitchell's willing to spill some beans. Clearly she's able.

Great distraction from Diebold, isn't it?

None of this matters; it won't get major press traction and it won't get an impeachment, and if it won't get an impeachment, what matters is that the machines will vote for Bush in 2004.

Unless the CIA's gifts of chaos involve actually killing him, which event is somehow not possessed of the character of a net win.

Been away this weekend am now enjoying catching up on the comments.

Look, first of all I don't think Novak should be the focus. Yes, he should be in an asylum for the journalistically insane (with Safire eyeing the brochure of the facility), but from a prosecutorial standpoint you want to avoid a First Amendment issue at all costs - too Constitutionally nettlesome and easily subject to reversible error.

Besides, you don't NEED Novak anymore for this one - because the story, in and of itself, gives you enough probable cause to subpeona every single 'senior whitehouse official'. In essence, Novak has already testified, via his column. He states that a crime occurred (the leak) and gives you a nicely defined group of possible suspects. So Novak is just the tipster - now comes time for subpoenas and depositions.

I would LOVE to see every 'senior whitehouse official' testifying under oath about his or her involvement. And thanks to Rhenquist's rulings during Billy's impeachment, there is little or no executive priviledge attached here. President Clinton, and even his Secret Service bodyguards, were forced to testify about their White House activities when subpeonaed in a indirectly related Arkansas civil matter(Paula Jones). With this precedent it would seem very difficult for George, Karl, Dick, Condi, etc. to argue that they are priviledged from testifying about their White House activities relating directly to this most serious of Federal criminal matters.

We also don't know what was in the CIA investigation file forwarded to Justice as part of the investigation request. Whatever is in there may not be ultimately admissible in court (national security if nothing else), but it sure can be used in the process of fleshing out the investigation.

While the case for subpeonas seems fairly clear cut legally, if you're asking if I think the entire senior Administration will all be forced to testify (talking like Rummy here), I am doubtful. If nothing else, Ashcroft will try to stall this baby as long as he can.

But they'd all better watch out now. If the CIA is pissed off enough to make this big a stink (going nuclear is a great way to put it), the spooks won't be satisfied until someone's head (and they know who they want) is on a platter. These folks take care of their own.

from findlaw, tangental but interesting:
Bush's Unofficial Official Secrets Act:
How the Justice Department Has Pushed to Criminalize The Disclosure of Non-Security Related Government Information
By JOHN W. DEAN

Brilliant, Night Owl!

How does "White House Treason Affair" sound.
The child needs a name!

Even some Conservative Bloggers are upset:

Daniel W. Drezner: If it is nevertheless true, however -- an important "if" -- then a Pandora's box gets opened by asking this question: if the White House was willing to commit an overtly illegal act in dealing with such a piddling matter, what lines have they crossed on not-so-piddling matters? In other words, if this turns out to be true, then suddenly do all of the crazy conspiracy theories acquire a thin veneer of surface plausibility?

A longer version of a comment I posted at Atrios:

To my mind, the investigation of this case--at least in conceptual terms--has to go from the Agency out, not from Novack in.

The most important question is not "Who leaked the information to Bob Novack?" but rather "How did classified information get out?" If person A leaked to Novack but shouldn't have known this information in the first place, then this person is only secondary. It is the link between person A and person B or C, who does have legitimate access to the classified information, that is the most critical. The "leak," in security terms, is B or C, and not A.

Let me put it another way: regardless of the criminal implications, the investigation into possible holes in the containment of classified information has got to go forward. Focusing on the criminal stuff may score political points. Nevertheless, the real crux here is not the leak itself, but rather the compromising of an extremely sensitive intelligence asset. Moreover, the latter doesn't imply a standard of evidence impossible to obtain against the offendant, but merely the reasonably well-founded understanding the somebody mishandled classified intelligence and should never work in Washington again.

I don't care if Karl Rove goes to jail, but I do care that one of our operatives has been compromised. Getting these people out of the government is more important then getting them into jail.

A reporter or two is going to out there source of this hugely damaging story? Yeah, right. And Katie Couric is going to finally announce on the Today Show that George Bush is a complete idiot who is running our country down the tube. Wait for it!

The simple and common sensical fact is that Novak IS partially to blame in the Plame affair because what he reported is just a shade this side of treason. He should be fired. He should be tried for high crimes. Hiding behind the First Amendment and a jounalistic creed is BS in this particular matter. Geraldo Rivera was fired for detailing troop locations in the sand on TV. Likewise, Novak compromised national security. He must go.

Wilson probably knows who some or all of the journalists are; he's implied as much in comments about Novak's column. No link, sorry, but IIRC Wilson has talked about independent confirmation on the WH leaks. That means intelligence professionals and/or journalists -- I think both.

In any case, the CIA already knows who did what or they wouldn't have approached the DoJ. No one involved in this story can hide for long.

Do the DOJ folks work on the weekend? Let's see if they and Congress hit the ground running today.

It sounds as though this had been passed along to the DOJ a while back but hadn't moved. Motivation for the (purported Tenet) leak seems to be to light a fire under the DOJ. We now get to see if it has worked.

Sure all of these reporters who had been called could blow it wide open by outing their sources, but they don't have to.

I imagine none of the six have enough motivation to a.) compromise their sources or perhaps more importantly b.) become the story.

Enough information is now in the public domain to initiate an investigation. They can simply report the story as it unfolds and still have Brad Pitt play them in the movie.

But having said all that there is no readon why the fact that Bush is playing "Hear no Evil, See no Evil" - there's a photoshop challenge for you Billmon - shouldn't be screamed from the highest rooftops by Dean et al.

I'm thinking 41 is going to be tough to nail down for a comment this week.

I'd say that this may be an instance where not reading the papers becomes a liability - if those feeding you the news are the ones in the news.

I think CMike hit it on the head -- this had to come from the VP's office. Why would Rove or Fleischer ever have access to the info about covert operatives?

Can you imagine? Technically, Cheney can't be fired before the next inauguration, so he could stonewall this thing, just like he stonewalled the energy advisory panel.

What comes to mind? "Major league a**hole." "Big time"

if this turns out to be true, then suddenly do all of the crazy conspiracy theories acquire a thin veneer of surface plausibility?

LOL. I like that: "thin veneer of surface plausibility." Let's not go too far, eh Drezner?

To my mind, the investigation of this case--at least in conceptual terms--has to go from the Agency out, not from Novack in.

That's not the way criminal investigations usually work -- you start at the bottom, flip the low-level guys, then go after the next guys up the ladder, and hope that somebody eventually gives you Mr. Big.

In this case, though, the "low-level" guys -- i.e. the reporters -- aren't guilty of any crime themselves, and dont' have any real motivation to talk.

The reporters are probably the only direct witnesses to the crime -- unless one could find a low-level White House munchkin who happened to be in the room when a phone call was made, and happened to hear the direct, relevant part of the conversation.

I doubt there is such a munchkin, so the circle of insiders who actually know (in a legal sense) may be limited to Rove, Fleischer (assuming he's the "second man") and perhaps Bush -- if Rove was stupid enough to take it to the president for approval ahead of time.

(A parallel theory could be that it was Cheney's office that did the leaking, but the same investigatory problems would exist there, too.)

Even the person who gave the leakers the classified information about Wilson's wife might not be get-at-able. Presumably, the leakers were authorized to receive such information -- so the original source would only seem to be culpable if he/she knew the information was going to be leaked to the press. Try proving that.

So I still think the reporters are the key.

How did Senior Administration Official know that at least 6 reporters were approached? The simplest explanation is that the reporters told someone, likely someone in the CIA. At least 3 of the people approached told Wilson about it. So it's not that they're not talking.

Probably all six of the reporters' names came from Wilson.

And Wilson has no reason not to make those names public. He's already mentioned Andrea Mitchell. When will the rest follow?

And what if one or more of the reporters told Wilson who gave them the information?

If Wilson goes on TV and says, "_____ and _____ each told me Karl Rove leaked this" ... what then?

So it's not that they're not talking.

We need them to talk under oath.

I will agree, though: it's interesting that the "senior administration official" knows and is willing to confirm that precisely 6 reporters were called.

What tidbits of information are available on Dan Bartlett, who oversees the WH Press Office, the Office of Media Affairs, Communications, etc. He used to work for Karl Rove & Assoc back in the '90s.

What tidbits of information are available on Dan Bartlett

I was trying to think of his name the other day -- he's definitely a prime suspect. The Rove connection would seem to move him even higher up the list.

Here's a good list of potential culprits in the White House.

http://www.results.gov/leadership/dept_WH.html

I wonder if it were possible that Cheney and friends stonewall the Justice Department until after the 2004 election, and, forgive me for suggesting this, the war-mongers win. Then we could have a repeat of 1973/74 when Nixon was stonewalling and went on to be re-elected. But then shortly thereafter, that's when the real fun began. I kinda like that scenario, only this time we should have the opportunity to tar and feather the felons, and not just figuratively.
Just think, it could become the basis of an American Guy Fawkes day.

Hood, I hope you're wrong. That would still leave a GOP-controlled White House.

Someone should inquire as to whether Wilson and his wife have looked into filing a RICO suit against the people who did the leaking--since he clearly knows who they are--and let the civil discovery process take its course. While the Starr leakers didn't have to respond in a criminal investigation, that wouldn't necessarily be controlling in a civil one. Immunity wouldn't be an issue since leaking confidential identities of undercover agents isn't exactly in the job description of any position in the administration that I'm aware of.

remember, it was the Paula Jones civil litigation that did so much harm to the Clinton presidency. Learn from the vileness of your enemies and turn it back upon them.

Billmon my friend,

You're making this too complicated. This is not a case of an official leaking evidence that LEADS to the exposure of a possible crime (like Deepthroat leaking about the Plumbers).

The leak IS the crime. Novak's report of the leak is thus, by its very existence and on it's face, clear evidence that the crime occured. And since Novak must have gotten the fact that Plume is a spook from SOMEWHERE - that in itself (even without any more evidence from the CIA's investigation) is probable cause to subpeona witnesses and/or suspects.

The document speaks for itself. There WAS a serious Federal crime committed. Now its just a matter of finding out who didi it. And Novak's column does investigators a favor on this front as well, because he names a discreet group of suspects. There doesn't seem to me to be much need to build the case from the bottom up on this one, since Novak confirms that a 'senior white house official' commited the crime. So, subpeona all the 'senior white house officials' and see who cracks.

(With that said investigators may still subpeona White House underlings as witnesses to fill out the details of what happened before they depose the real suspects, but remember these are just witnesses. Novak's column already absolves them of culpability by naming 'senior officials'.)

Ironically, Novak should get a journalistic prize. His reporting has exposed clear-cut criminal activity by a senior official(s) in the administration. All the investigators have to do now is find out which one actually picked up the phone. The funny thing is, Novak may end up bringing down an Administartion without even realizing what he was doing. Is there a category for Accidental Pulitzer?

In theory, it shouldn't be too difficult for Justice to find out the names of the leakers. Convene a grand jury. Call Joseph Wilson. Ask him the names of the reporters who told him they were also leaked to. He'll answer -- no reason to think he'll prefer jail to getting revenge for the outing of his wife. Then call Novak, Andrea Mitchell, and the rest. Either they squeal or they go to jail. (Grand jury proceedings are supposed to be secret, so if they aren't leaked it wouldn't be clear which reporter had squealed, either.)

In normal circumstances, Ashcroft wouldn't give a rat's ass about any purported reporter's privilege. And for the reasons I explained in a post here yesterday, in normal circumstances the present Supreme Court (if the case got that far) would be unlikely to recognize such a privilege. (As you noted, however, these may not be normal circumstances . . . .)

Justice should also subpoena Novak's phone records for June-July from the phone company and start going through them and hauling any White House people in front of the grand jury.

It may be (not surprisingly) that Ashcroft is not investigating this case with the same zeal he brings to other national-security-related cases. But if Ashcroft doesn't pursue these obvious leads, the Democrats and all decent Republicans (not many, I know) will scream cover-up, and rightly so.

Cool. Atrios points out an article reporting that the FBI is seeking Justice Department approval to subpoena reporters' notes in a case involving a computer hacker. http://www.wired.com/news/privacy/0,1848,60538,00.html If the Justice Dept. grants approval to issue the subpoenas in that case, it's going to have a hell of a time claiming that it wouldn't DREAM of hauling the reporters with knowledge concerning Treasongate before a grand jury.

Frederick,

Saw that too. I don't know about going after the reporters though. There's a lot easier ways to get the info (phone records for one) without messing around with the 1st Amendment. To me that's just BEGGING for reversible error which could let rhese guys off the hook.

Still, Ashcroft's hipocrisy will be on full view if he decides to push the hacker subpeonas under the guise of National Security but won't push them in this case. Man it's gonna be fun to watch them squirm.

Tom Benjamin at September 29, 2003 01:36 AM brought up an interesting point. The un-named reporters witnessed a felony. Failure to report it opens THEM to criminal liability also. They can proscecuted for Misprision of Felony.

18 USC Sec. 4

Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

And if they spout any bullshit about protecting sources then you can hit them with Accessory after the Fact.

18 USC Sec. 3

Whoever, knowing that an offense against the United States has been committed, receives, relieves, comforts or assists the offender in order to hinder or prevent his apprehension, trial or punishment, is an accessory after the fact.

Except as otherwise expressly provided by any Act of Congress, an accessory after the fact shall be imprisoned not more than one-half the maximum term of imprisonment or fined not more than one-half the maximum fine prescribed for the punishment of the principal, or both; or if the principal is punishable by death, the accessory shall be imprisoned not more than ten years.

And, if I was feeling ambitious, there's always good old Obstruction of Justice . . .