Ogged wonders why Howard Kurtz doesn't read his own newspaper--or doesn't simply walk down the hall and ask a couple of questions:
Unfogged: What am I missing? Bizarre paragraphs from Howard Kurtz on the Plame affair.
If recent history is any guide, federal investigators are unlikely to discover who the leakers are. In 1999, a federal appeals court ruled that independent counsel Kenneth W. Starr and his staff did not have to face contempt proceedings for allegedly leaking damaging information about President Bill Clinton because no grand jury secrets were disclosed. The next year, a former Starr spokesman, Charles G. Bakaly III, was acquitted of making false statements about his role in providing information to the New York Times.
In 1992, Senate investigators said they could not determine who leaked confidential information to National Public Radio and Newsday about Anita Hill's sexual harassment allegations against Clarence Thomas during his Supreme Court confirmation. In 1989, then-Attorney General Richard Thornburgh launched an unsuccessful $224,000 investigation of a leak to CBS of an inquiry into then-Rep. William H. Gray III (D-Pa.).
Howard, from the story in your own paper (my emphasis):
The official would not name the leakers for the record and would not name the journalists.
We (that is, your buddies down the hall) already know who the leakers are. So does Joseph Wilson. Soon we (that is, we) will all know.
It is remarkable. The natural way to read the Washington Post's weekend stories is that CIA Director George Tenet knows who the two White House felons are and wants the names to come out--but not directly from his lips. One would think that would influence Kurtz's assessment of the probabilities.
Posted by DeLong at September 29, 2003 08:20 AM | TrackBack
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/29/opinion/29SAFI.html
"Those now so gleefully certain we will find no weapons of mass destruction may be surprised if - someday — an Iraqi technician, no longer terrified of reprisal or eager for reward, directs us to an easily hidden sack of deadly germs."
William Saffire
- Idiocy -
Posted by: Ari on September 29, 2003 08:57 AMReportedly, "Under the Intelligence Identities and Protection Act, the unauthorized identification of a CIA operative is a criminal act punishable by up to 10 years in federal prison."
Is this applicable to Robert Novak?
Answering my own question, I looked up the Act. The Act mainly applies to those who have authorized access to classified info.
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/50/421.html
Posted by: richard on September 29, 2003 09:39 AMAssuming that Tenet knows who the leakers are, it's hard to imagine how he can out them without getting his own fingerprints on it.
Tenet: Mr. Ashcroft, please investigate whether leaking Plame's name was a crime.
Ashcroft: Ok. Do you know who leaked it?
Tenet: Um, . . .
J Mann: Tenet's answer to that is "I know who had knowledge of her identity, so one of those must be the leaker".
Posted by: Chuck Nolan on September 29, 2003 12:24 PMJ. Mann,
Not only does Tenet know who the leakers are, he knows who the journalists leaked to are. Remember, he said "at least" 6 journalists. The only explanation for "at least" 6 is he knows the identities of 6.
The conversation with Justice goes:
"General Ashcroft, please open an investigation of this crime. Here is the documentation of our internal preliminary investigation which established it was a crime."
Posted by: jam on September 29, 2003 12:43 PMJ. Mann,
Not only does Tenet know who the leakers are, he knows who the journalists leaked to are. Remember, he said "at least" 6 journalists. The only explanation for "at least" 6 is he knows the identities of 6.
The conversation with Justice goes:
"General Ashcroft, please open an investigation of this crime. Here is the documentation of our internal preliminary investigation which established it was a crime."
Posted by: jam on September 29, 2003 12:46 PMJ. Mann,
Not only does Tenet know who the leakers are, he knows who the journalists leaked to are. Remember, he said "at least" 6 journalists. The only explanation for "at least" 6 is he knows the identities of 6.
The conversation with Justice goes:
"General Ashcroft, please open an investigation of this crime. Here is the documentation of our internal preliminary investigation which established it was a crime."
Posted by: jam on September 29, 2003 12:46 PM