My first two diaries have been about Freeper talking points and in both, I ask for suggestions on how to shoot down these perplexingly-effective falsehoods.
I just discovered this resource which is fairly recent, which could be a good place to send folks who need to bone up on the facts.
I like how they report what Rove's lawyer said ("not a target") but also point out why that may be misleading.
NPR.org, July 15, 2005 ·
The investigation into who leaked the name of a CIA agent has led to the jailing of one reporter and questions about the possible involvement of one of President Bush's most trusted aides. Media Correspondent David Folkenflik offers background and answers questions about the case's impact on the Bush administration and the media.
This case is hard to follow (Disagree!). How did it start?
On July 6, 2003, former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson, wrote an op-ed column for The New York Times saying the Bush administration exaggerated the threat posed by Saddam Hussein in justifying the invasion of Iraq. Wilson wrote that he had been sent to Niger by the CIA. Vice President Dick Cheney wanted hard evidence the Iraqis bought uranium "yellowcake" from Niger for the production of weapons of mass destruction. But Wilson wrote that "it was highly doubtful that any such transaction had ever taken place."
On July 14, 2003, syndicated columnist Robert Novak wrote that Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, was a CIA operative working on weapons of mass destruction. Novak, citing "two senior administration officials," wrote that Plame suggested her husband for the mission to Niger. Novak is a well-known conservative commentator; the column was viewed by Wilson and many Democrats as political payback for Wilson's public criticism of the administration.
Why is there a federal investigation?
Democrats and some newspaper editorials charged that the leak violated a federal law that prohibits identifying undercover agents. Such early speculation focused on the vice president's chief of staff, Lewis Libby, and the president's top political adviser, Karl Rove, who is now the deputy White House chief of staff.
Rove had been a campaign consultant for John Ashcroft's Senate campaigns. As U.S. attorney general, Ashcroft ultimately named U.S. Attorney Peter Fitzgerald of Chicago to lead an investigation as a special prosecutor. Fitzgerald has been subpoenaing many Washington insiders, including journalists, who may know something about the leak.
Why are journalists in trouble over this?
Two prominent reporters, Matthew Cooper of Time magazine and Judith Miller of The New York Times, initially refused to testify before the grand jury convened by Fitzgerald.
Cooper wrote a story for Time with colleagues about the apparent strategy of the White House to discredit Wilson -- or possibly punish him -- by revealing his wife's job and involvement in his mission to Niger. Cooper agreed to testify the day he was to be sent to jail after a source, now confirmed to be Rove, released him from his confidentiality agreement. Miller stayed mum and went to jail -- although she never wrote any stories on the subject.
Are journalists allowed to keep their sources secret?
Yes and no. Thirty-one states and the District of Columbia have some sort of so-called shield laws, but no such federal statute exists. And this case involves a federal law and a federal grand jury. Justice Department guidelines say that prosecutors should pursue information from journalists only when other leads have been exhausted. But the Supreme Court held in a 1972 case involving a reporter who witnessed the production of narcotics that there is no federal privilege for reporters to protect their sources. In this case, a federal appellate court ruled against Cooper and Miller -- and the Supreme Court declined to review the decision.
What do we know about Karl Rove's role in this?
Rove has testified several times before the grand jury. His lawyer has said he has been told Rove is not a so-called "target" of Fitzgerald's investigation -- which means that Fitzgerald has indicated that he's not intending to charge Rove with any crime. But lawyers for both Cooper and Rove now confirm Cooper and Rove spoke about Plame during the week the leak occurred.
Was a federal law broken?
This is unclear. Some former prosecutors say the federal law that addresses the disclosure of covert U.S. intelligence officials is very narrowly written and may not apply easily to cases like this. It was passed in 1982 after a rogue former CIA official deliberately released the names of scores of undercover agents. To successfully bring a case, prosecutors would have to be able to determine precisely what the leaker said, what he intended to say, and whether he was revealing secret information or repeating information that was already widely known.
It should be noted that this is a very unusual case in which the very act of passing along the information may have constituted a crime. Fitzgerald argues in court papers that means the only possible witnesses to the crime would be the reporters themselves -- and that the criminal would be the leaker. That's different from the classic formulation of a reporter's protecting the identity of a whistleblower. And Fitzgerald says the case involves matters of national security, given Plame's occupation at the CIA.
What is going on in the case now?
Some media lawyers suggest the prosecutor may be exploring whether any government officials committed a lesser crime of obstruction of justice or perjury -- for instance, if an administration official denied leaking Plame's identity, but reporters testify to the contrary.
What is the broader issue at stake here for reporters?
This, too, is murky. The New York Times, which currently has one of its reporters languishing in a jail cell in Alexandria, Va., understandably looks at the matter darkly. Some other journalists and legal observers say Judith Miller is a living embodiment of the press's determination to keep faith with secret sources.
On the other hand, critics like Michael Kinsley, the editor of the Los Angeles Times' editorial pages, have said that Time and The New York Times were wrong to fight the subpoenas and subsequent contempt of court rulings -- that every citizen, and every corporation, must abide by "the normal duties of citizenship," including testifying before a grand jury. Ultimately, Time magazine turned over Cooper's notes and materials to Fitzgerald -- over the reporter's opposition.
Might this have a chilling effect on journalists' sources?
Federal prosecutors have recently sought information from reporters covering a corruption case in Rhode Island, an investigation of a San Francisco-area steroid lab with clients that included baseball players, and an Islamic not-for-profit entity in Chicago that's been accused of having links to terrorists.
After Miller was sent to jail, editors at The Plain Dealer, Cleveland's largest newspaper, cited her case in deciding to withhold publication of an investigative story that they said was based on documents which had been obtained illegally by a source.
If Miller didn't write about Plame, then how did federal investigators know that she had been leaked the information?
The special prosecutor was probably able to determine which administration officials spoke with reporters because the White House turned over related phone logs, e-mails and notes to investigators back in fall 2003. Those records aren't considered sufficient by prosecutors to serve as proof of the context or even occurrence of those conversations, however. We know this because after Time sent Cooper's notes and e-mails to Fitzgerald, the prosecutor argued in legal papers that the documents made Cooper's testimony more important than ever.
Why isn't Robert Novak also in jail?
Novak isn't talking publicly about his role. He says he wasn't subpoenaed for the inquiry. But it is widely believed he has already testified voluntarily before the grand jury or otherwise collaborated with Fitzgerald's investigation.
Is there a precedent for journalists to refuse to testify or provide information?
The New York Times has repeatedly refused to divulge information to government authorities -- going back to 1857, when a reporter was held in contempt by the U.S. House of Representatives for refusing to identify his sources in reporting on bribery in Congress. (The corrupt lawmakers resigned.) In 1978, the Times' M.A. Farber spent 40 days in jail for refusing to hand over his notes to the lawyer for a doctor charged after suspicious deaths uncovered by the reporter. Other reporters have been jailed as well.
And what's at stake for the Bush administration?
Rove is the president's top political adviser and he's clearly in the hot seat at the moment. If administration officials other than Rove are shown to have leaked Plame's identity to reporters, there will be continuing calls from Democrats for the president to follow through with his vow to fire anyone who did so. The press secretary, Scott McClellan, has already faced several days of hostile questioning from the White House press corps about Rove -- at least in part because McClellan had explicitly denied Rove had played any role in leaking Plame's identity.
So, while it skewed towards the issue of reporters and protection of sources, there are some useful factoids one can use to refute Freeper logic.
On another note: I've seen a recent diary that had a link to a "cryptome" site that supposedly provides an explanation how the original Niger/Yellowcake report was a "crude forgery". That site isn't working (bad link?), but it sure would be nice to have a link to a site that I could use to shut down, once and for all, my Freeper sparring partner's repeated assertions that Wilson's "report" (I thought he never filed one) was proven to be factually incorrect. (Nevermind that the lack of and tangible WMD evidence after we invaded completely validates Wilson.) Anyone have a favored site to suggest?