Friday, July 15, 2005
The Wilson/Plame matter
I'm no student of the Wilson/Plame scandal, but I do know that the Democrats and the press have been desperate to make this all about Karl Rove. The Democrats want to take out the "evil genius" who has so vexed them at the ballot box, and the press is looking for a good fight to distract them from complex matters, such as the progress of the war on al Qaeda or the economy.
The war chant over Time magazine's disclosure of the Karl Rove's allegedly smoking email reached a fever pitch yesterday. For example, TigerHawk's own Congressman, the heretofore reasonable (even if irredeemably liberal) Rush Holt, introduced legislation for an investigation into the Plame affair. It is not clear why Holt feels the need for such legislation -- only weeks or even days after the liberal consensus was complaining that special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald was being too tough given that no crime had occurred -- but he nonetheless insists that it is "not about Karl Rove," but "about holding the executive branch accountable for a breach of national security." Note that Holt -- whose campaign bumper stickers read "My Congressman Is a Rocket Scientist" -- does not explain why the Congress should get itself in the middle of Patrick Fitzgerald's grand jury investigation, which seems precisely targeted toward the end to which Holt claims to aspire. That's because Holt does not, in fact, give a rat's ass about "holding the executive branch accountable," which is Fitzgerald's job. Holt's legislation is designed to blow the lid off the the secrecy of the grand jury proceeding precisely because it is likely that no crime occurred. If there is no crime, the Democrats have to get a lot of bashing in while the press is paying attention (which it is likely to do while Judith Miller languishes in jail protecting a source who is manifestly neither Karl Rove nor Scooter Libby). Otherwise, Evil Karl will live to torture them another day.
This morning, though, we learned that Rove learned about Plame's identity from a reporter. The New York Times suggests that the reporter was Robert Novak, who is neither in jail for protecting a source nor speaking about the case. The Associated Press writes that its source understands that Rove testified that he first heard about Plame from another reporter, but cannot remember who. Unless this discrepancy in third-hand accounts reveals that Rove perjured himself -- which strikes me as implausible in this context -- it seems to be clear that Rove committed no crime regardless of the construction one puts on his email to Time's Matt Cooper. So Holt is at great risk of looking somewhat less smart than a rocket scientist.
Be that as it may, this morning's disclosure raises countless questions, and nobody parses them better than Tom Maguire (if you follow PlameGate and don't read Just One Minute, you are missing the best analysis). On the heels of today's news that Rove learned about Plame from a reporter, Maguire has some interesting observations about the ethics of the journalists involved:
The flower and chivalry of our national mainstream media is covering up something here. What is it?
The war chant over Time magazine's disclosure of the Karl Rove's allegedly smoking email reached a fever pitch yesterday. For example, TigerHawk's own Congressman, the heretofore reasonable (even if irredeemably liberal) Rush Holt, introduced legislation for an investigation into the Plame affair. It is not clear why Holt feels the need for such legislation -- only weeks or even days after the liberal consensus was complaining that special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald was being too tough given that no crime had occurred -- but he nonetheless insists that it is "not about Karl Rove," but "about holding the executive branch accountable for a breach of national security." Note that Holt -- whose campaign bumper stickers read "My Congressman Is a Rocket Scientist" -- does not explain why the Congress should get itself in the middle of Patrick Fitzgerald's grand jury investigation, which seems precisely targeted toward the end to which Holt claims to aspire. That's because Holt does not, in fact, give a rat's ass about "holding the executive branch accountable," which is Fitzgerald's job. Holt's legislation is designed to blow the lid off the the secrecy of the grand jury proceeding precisely because it is likely that no crime occurred. If there is no crime, the Democrats have to get a lot of bashing in while the press is paying attention (which it is likely to do while Judith Miller languishes in jail protecting a source who is manifestly neither Karl Rove nor Scooter Libby). Otherwise, Evil Karl will live to torture them another day.
This morning, though, we learned that Rove learned about Plame's identity from a reporter. The New York Times suggests that the reporter was Robert Novak, who is neither in jail for protecting a source nor speaking about the case. The Associated Press writes that its source understands that Rove testified that he first heard about Plame from another reporter, but cannot remember who. Unless this discrepancy in third-hand accounts reveals that Rove perjured himself -- which strikes me as implausible in this context -- it seems to be clear that Rove committed no crime regardless of the construction one puts on his email to Time's Matt Cooper. So Holt is at great risk of looking somewhat less smart than a rocket scientist.
Be that as it may, this morning's disclosure raises countless questions, and nobody parses them better than Tom Maguire (if you follow PlameGate and don't read Just One Minute, you are missing the best analysis). On the heels of today's news that Rove learned about Plame from a reporter, Maguire has some interesting observations about the ethics of the journalists involved:
Let's ask a question of journalistic ethics - if a reporter, in chatting with Karl Rove, mentioned the Plame angle, is there any rationale at all for the reporter to claim some sort of source confidentiality protection? I would assume not. I will further assume that, if Karl is telling the truth, then he has named a few reporters. Mr. Fitzgerald should have called them in for a chat. There is no need for a subpoena, since they have no legal basis to refuse, and will prefer to avoid the publicity.
In which case, there are reporters out there who know they have given testimony to Fitzgerald that would help Rove and Lewis, and are keeping quiet - not to protect a source, not to preserve confidentiality, but, I guess, because Fitzgerald asked them too.
This might even have made sense while the investigation was being ignored - Fitzgerald might have explained that he is trying to establish whether there was knowledge of Ms. Plame inside the White House prior to the reporters passing the news, and that he can't conduct a sensible investigation with reporters presenting a seemingly exculpatory but incomplete story to the public.
However, in the current revved-up atmosphere, I promise you - if the media is really just keeping quiet about their role in this, well, I can't imagine how I could respect our media less, but I will think of something.
And that said, I marveled that TIME magazine kept Rove's secret all through the election; well, this would explain it....
Novak, Pincus, Russert, Kessler, Miller - none of them should be allowed to talk about anything else until they explain their role in this. And I suspect there are other reporters who were never subpoenaed, as explained above - its time to hear from them, too.
The flower and chivalry of our national mainstream media is covering up something here. What is it?
0 Comments:
