Saturday, February 26, 2005

Politics: I said here when the Wall Street Journal blasted Fitzgerald on his behavior of the Valerie Plame inquiry and taking a shot at the New York Times that in December 31st, 2003 said

"After an egregiously long delay, Attorney General John Ashcroft finally did the right thing yesterday when he recused himself from the investigation into who gave the name of a CIA operative to the columnist Robert Novak. Mr. Ashcroft turned the inquiry over to his deputy, who quickly appointed a special counsel."
This was a case of be careful what you wish for and now the Nytimes does a flip flop.
"Meanwhile, an even more basic issue has been raised in recent articles in The Washington Post and elsewhere: the real possibility that the disclosure of Ms. Plame's identity, while an abuse of power, may not have violated any law. Before any reporters are jailed, searching court review is needed to determine whether the facts indeed support a criminal prosecution under existing provisions of the law protecting the identities of covert operatives. Some judge may have looked at the issue, but we have no way of knowing, given the bizarre level of secrecy that still prevents the reporters being threatened with jail from seeing the nine-page blanked-out portion of last week's decision evaluating the evidence."

It's amazing how an opinion will change when something backfires on you. The Times led the charge on getting a special counsel and now have to fight to keep its reporters out of jail because their reporting practices to Fitzgerald's thinking are a hinderance to his inquiry.

Justoneminute: "There is nothing like the prospect of an imminent hanging to concentrate the mind; apparently, the prospect of having one of their reporters go to jail for eighteen months has concentrated the minds of the NY Times editors on the legal subtleties of the Valerie Plame leak investigation."

Forums||
Copyright Narbosa 1998-2006
Weblog Commenting and Trackback by HaloScan.com