On last night's "
Countdown", George Washington University professor Jonathan Turley pretty much that Albert Gonzales was bordering on "mafia style" law enforcement.
How can anyone with any logic say that they are going to prosecute journalists for exposing a "criminal enterprise" that said prosecutor may have actually been a part of. It would be like having a Vice President that ensures government contracts to a business that he owns millions of dollars of stock in, oh wait. So now we know how Gonzales got the idea.
Turley also said that Congress was not checking the President on anything and that the Press was the only group left to defend the American democracy.
Transcript on the flip.
OLBERMANN: Put this in context. There`s never been a criminal prosecution of a journalist for publishing classified information. So are those kind of comments by Mr. Gonzales a way of ramping up pressure on journalists generally, or do you see more of a tangible threat?
TURLEY: I think they`re serious. I mean, I think people have said, Well, maybe they`re just trying to create a chilling effect for journalists. I think people have got to really step back. This administration is not one to makes threats lightly.
You know, all president have had a love-hate relationship with the media. This one, I think, has a hate-hate relationship. I mean, he just does not see the distinction between people who are acquiring classified information for things like espionage and for people who are doing their job.
We have two lobbyists who are being prosecuted here in Washington. They`re accused of receiving classified information orally, and they`re being prosecuted on the Espionage Act.
I think what the attorney general was referring to is the same act could used against reporters.
But what`s amazing, Keith, is that you have an attorney general who`s been accused of participating in a criminal enterprise. Many experts, including myself, have said that the NSA surveillance program, the one that he`s making veiled reference to, was a criminal act committed with his assistance. Now, he`s saying that he may use his office to go after reporters who reveal such things about people like him.
Mafia-style law enforcement at its best. We do bad things, but you are not allow to talk about those bad things, only other people's bad things.
Turley continues the criticism -
OLBERMANN: If he were--if that were, in fact, the scenario that were to play out, and this was to be used against reporters, we`ve seen, obviously, attempts to enjoin publication, the Pentagon Papers comes to mind with the Nixon administration with `The New York Times." But an actual prosecution of a reporter, do you think it would hold up constitutionally, or would this be something that would be thrown out fairly early in the process?
TURLEY: Well, I don`t believe that ultimately it would be upheld, for example, with the Espionage Act. But this is new territory, and this administration seems to be going quite boldly in the direction with in the so-called AIPAC case. And so they may actually try to test this theory. Certainly they have no love for the Fourth Estate.
But I do believe that it raises very significant constitutional questions. You know, part of the problem, Keith, is that we haven`t tried to define this area very carefully, because we`ve all sort of agreed, in past administrations, that reporters are doing their job, and sources will sometimes release important public policy issues, and everyone has stayed calm.
This administration has really gone on a scorched-earth campaign against any sources, anyone who speaks to the media, on any subject, including alleged criminal conduct by the administration.
OLBERMANN: Are we moving towards what they have in England, and would we, in fact, at this point, for at least for the sake of definition, be better off if we had an official secrets act?
TURLEY: Oh, God help us. We wouldn`t be better off with an official secrets act. England`s not better off. But this would effectively create that, if AIPAC goes--if the AIPAC case is where this administration is going. I`ve been called to testify in about a week at the House Intelligence Committee before members who are thinking of new penalties against reporters.
And you have to keep it in perspective. We now have a government that has virtually no oversight functioning against the White House. The Congress has gone into a virtual comatose state. The Fourth Estate, the journalists, are carrying now the entirety of that check and balance. These efforts would eliminate that, and it would create, in my view, a very dangerous instability at a very dangerous time.
And people have got to look at this quite seriously.
Let's face it, American journalism is in danger and they may not have until 2008 to survive. Keith closes with an important message to his fellow journalist.
OLBERMANN: The only perhaps silver lining in this, when the media has been provoked in this way in the past, somebody has said, All right, you`re going to raise the stakes, we`ll raise the stakes too. We`ll see if that happens.
It is time for American journalists to use a "scorched earth" policy. Expose EVERYTHING. You have something that you have been sitting on, bring it up. Make Gonzales' and Bush's heads spin so fast that there is nothing that they can do but put Tony Snow out there to "spin" as much as he can. If Bush wants to go nuclear - then you go nuclear. Let's make Bush remember the word - MAD. (apologies to the folks at MADD for the earlier mistake)