Bob Novak invokes the fifth on CNN

[Swede]

Judy Woodruff was interviewing him.

[UnAmericanJoe]

1. For real??

Or was he being facetious?
If he has resorted to seeking that sort of protection, then this story is getting MUCH bigger.

[Patriot_Spear]

2. No Way! He knows Wilson and Plame are litigating...

Civil suits are a bitch!

[Swede]

5. For real.

He said he never thought he would say it but that on the advise of his lawyer he invoked the fifth amendment right against self incrimination.

[gratuitous]

8. Uh oh

Does that mean he finally got around to reading the law he broke and figured out just what he might be liable for?

I wonder if this will suddenly turn Novakula into a frothing defender of civil liberties? Or will he shamelessly invoke the Fifth Amendment and continue beating up on defendants who insist on availing themselves of their constitutional rights? Ponder, ponder.

[tom_paine]

15. Continue beating up defendants exercising their Constitutional Rights

Since when have you ever known a meber or crony of the Imperial Family to give a shit about shame, conscience, hypocrisy.

Just like Limba will go right back to bashing drug abusers once this blows over (and it will, I'm afraid).

Monsters, even "kinder and gentler" ones, cannot be expected to act or behave like human beings.

Gambiln', smokin' Bill Bennett will return, too. You'll see.

Monsters cannot be expected to react to or understand conscience, shame, compassion...

[BurtWorm]

18. Wow!

I wish I'd known he was going to do that two days ago. That is a really interesting development. Does anyone know if other journalists who protect sources also invoke the Fifth?

[reprobate]

48. No. The fifth amendment deals with self-incrimination.

Other journalists have used the first amendment to protect their sources, since that deals with freedon of speech and the press.

Novak's invocation of the fifth amendment leads me to believe that his lawyer told him that he is at risk of prosecution for a federal felony, and that would not include revealing his sources (IMO). I'm not a lawyer, but I think he might be worried about being held as an accomplice to the crime of revealing the identity of a national security agent. That would depend on how the law was written, does it exempt the press, or is the first amendment limited in the case of the identity of secret agents.

Sounds like things are going to get interesting for Mr. Novak. And he's made so many enemies that he should probably not depend on others in the press to go to bat for him.

[BurtWorm]

51. I'd like to believe you, but I have one doubt.

Novak, like Vanessa Legget and others who have sources to protect, is at risk of being hauled in to testify as to the identity of a source, but that doesn't mean he's at risk of being prosecuted for anything other than contempt of court, which is how journalists in these cases wind up in prison. It makes sense to say as little as possible, to give the invesigators as little as possible reason to haul you in. Just because he's pleading the fifth, it doesn't mean he's guilty of anything.

[Brian Sweat]

43. Doesn't that mean that he has done something illegal

or at least something that his lawyer feels may be illegal?

[bahrbearian]

3. Practicing Up ???

[Caution]

4. Well then, the FBI should grant him immunity

Under immunity you cannot plead the fifth and must answer. I could care less about novak.

[Qutzupalotl]

36. That's a good idea.

Anyone have a contact at the FBI?

[Bake]

37. He may have already WAIVED his 5th Amendment right

By shooting off his mouth nonstop about it on CNN since the story broke.

Bake, Esq.

[realFedUp]

6. Guess he finally got some legal advice...

Ken Starr?

[DoYouEverWonder]

7. If he kept his big braggin mouth shut in the first place

then this wouldn't be a problem?

[Patriot_Spear]

9. Was the law broken? Yes. Civil liability for Novak? You Betcha'!

The momoent he used Plames name he eneded her career as well as placing her and her family in danger.

I hope Bob can live on the the ever dwindling (thanks to the repukes) social security check.

The ghost of OJ, Bob...

[qanda]

10. CNN should accept his resignation

without hesitation!

[Pallas180]

11. Notice how CNN is putting him on every show to save him -f that-I wrote

CNN & the Washed up Post:

Subj: Novak is a disgrace
Date: 10/3/03 7:49:21 PM !!!First Boot!!!
From: Pallas180
To: [email protected]

Novak has been in the business for 46 years. He well knew that you do not reveal the name of a CIA agent, covert OR analyst. Which is why he has always said "a source" but not given a name.

He should be shunned.

He knew exactly what he was doing and has done this type of thing before.I believe he should be prosecuted for treason,. and I certainly dont want to see him on my television screen.

And I think a lot of Americans agree with me.

[gratuitous]

14. Good email, Pallas180

If and when CNN responds with their usual "we stand by our hireling" non-denial denial, you might also mention that Novakula rushed this story into print when a number of other real journalists, with an understanding of ethics and the law, received the same leak, but didn't publish.

I daresay the difference between Novak and the ones who didn't run Valerie Plame's name is partisanship, plain and simple.

[MnFats]

12. Can he be prosecuted for using the name in his column?

Can the newspapers that ran the column be prosecuted?
Perhaps dumb questions... but I just don't know...

[Dookus]

13. No...

Novak broke no law. The 1982 law against identifying covert agents only applies to people with access to the classified information, OR to people who "engage in a pattern of activities" to try to identify them.

Whoever leaked to novak broke the law. Novak himself did not.

[Patriot_Spear]

19. You better read it again...

Section (b) refers to someone receiving the information by anything other than official means...

Novak was the instrument of the crime- he is culpable.

[BurtWorm]

23. But Novak recived it by official means, didn't he? He got his info the way

journalists get info all the time. He shouldn't be prosecuted. The only way he would be was if he were subpoenaed and, like a good little journalist, he refused to hand over his source.

[eleny]

42. The other day, Novak explained...

that when he spoke to his original source - that source asked him to keep her name in confidence. He went on to assert that over the years, most of his sources ask that as a matter of course. But he doesn't always take it to mean that it's because it's dangerous for him to actually print a name. I can't remember the phrase he used for that sort of "asking him not to reveal the name". He made light of it.

My point would be that he in fact was told not to reveal it but did it anyway. So, in a way, his source was covering their own butt. And Novak can't say he wasn't asked to keep the name a secret.

So, wouldn't that make him guilty of something? Just my uneducated 2¢ question.

[Dookus]

45. the person at the CIA

should never have confirmed the information. Whether or not s/he asked Novak not to publish the name is irrelevant.

[Dookus]

24. I have read it...

b) Disclosure of information by persons who learn identity of covert agents as result of having access to classified information
Whoever, as a result of having authorized access to classified
information, learns the identify of a covert agent and intentionally
discloses any information identifying such covert agent to any
individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing
that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that
the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert
agent's intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined
not more than $25,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
_________________________________________________

I don't believe Novak had access to the classified information. Somebody who DID told him about it. THAT person committed a crime.

On edit: Also note that this specifically targets people with "AUTHORIZED" access to classified information.

[Patriot_Spear]

27. ACCESS TO CLASSIFIED INFORMATION- key words

Not 'authorized'- that qualifer is not there- which is covered in section (c). Section (b) covers ANYONE who had ACCESS (authorized or not). There's a reson that phrase is so open ended; as I believe Bob Novak will discover...

[Dookus]

40. well..

b) Disclosure of information by persons who learn identity of covert agents as result of having access to classified information
Whoever, as a result of having authorized access to classified information, learns the identify of a covert agent and intentionally discloses any information identifying such covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent's intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined not more than $25,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
____________________

It seems pretty clear to me. Authorized access is required.

[karlschneider]

49. I agree with your assesment. I'm not a lawyer but I've been involved in

a lot of legal machinations the last 40 years and that is the way I read the statute as well.

[Spazito]

33. Question?

Once Novak was told classified information did he not then become one who now had access to classified information? Given that he was given "classified information"?

[Dookus]

41. he did not have

AUTHORIZED access to it.

The law is meant to prevent government agents and contractors with access to this information from spilling it.

Now... if it can be shown that Novak is actually employed by the CIA and had authorized access to it, then he could be prosecuted. But I suspect that's not the case.

[w4rma]

28. Wilson … said … would be a violation … by the officials, not the columnist

CIA seeks probe of White House

WASHINGTON, Sept. 26 — The CIA has asked the Justice Department to investigate allegations that the White House broke federal laws by revealing the identity of one of its undercover employees in retaliation against the woman’s husband, a former ambassador who publicly criticized President Bush’s since-discredited claim that Iraq had sought weapons-grade uranium from Africa, NBC News has learned.
…
http://www.msnbc.com/news/937524.asp?0cv=CB10
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=135657

Rice 'Knew Nothing' About CIA Agent Leak

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. national security adviser Condoleezza Rice said on Sunday she knew "nothing of any" White House effort to leak the identity of an undercover CIA officer in July, a charge now under review at the Justice Department.

On the "Fox News Sunday" program, the top aide to President Bush said, "This has been referred to the Justice Department. I think that is the appropriate place for it."

Rice said the White House would cooperate should the Justice Department, headed by Attorney General John Ashcroft, decide to proceed with a criminal investigation of the matter, which centers on the alleged public disclosure of the wife of former U.S. Ambassador Joseph Wilson.

Wilson was sent by the CIA to Niger in 2002 to investigate a report that Iraq was trying to obtain uranium from Niger, but returned to say it was highly doubtful.
…
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20030928/ts_nm/iraq_intelligence_probe_dc&cid=564&ncid=1480
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=136932

A White House smear

Did senior Bush officials blow the cover of a US intelligence officer working covertly in a field of vital importance to national security—and break the law—in order to strike at a Bush administration critic and intimidate others?

It sure looks that way, if conservative journalist Bob Novak can be trusted.
…
The sources for Novak’s assertion about Wilson’s wife appear to be “two senior administration officials.” If so, a pair of top Bush officials told a reporter the name of a CIA operative who apparently has worked under what’s known as “nonofficial cover” and who has had the dicey and difficult mission of tracking parties trying to buy or sell weapons of mass destruction or WMD material. If Wilson’s wife is such a person—and the CIA is unlikely to have many employees like her—her career has been destroyed by the Bush administration. (Assuming she did not tell friends and family about her real job, these Bush officials have also damaged her personal life.) Without acknowledging whether she is a deep-cover CIA employee, Wilson says, “Naming her this way would have compromised every operation, every relationship, every network with which she had been associated in her entire career. This is the stuff of Kim Philby and Aldrich Ames.” If she is not a CIA employee and Novak is reporting accurately, then the White House has wrongly branded a woman known to friends as an energy analyst for a private firm as a CIA officer. That would not likely do her much good.

This is not only a possible breach of national security; it is a potential violation of law. Under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982, it is a crime for anyone who has access to classified information to disclose intentionally information identifying a covert agent. The punishment for such an offense is a fine of up to $50,000 and/or up to ten years in prison. Journalists are protected from prosecution, unless they engage in a “pattern of activities” to name agents in order to impair US intelligence activities. So Novak need not worry.

Novak tells me that he was indeed tipped off by government officials about Wilson’s wife and had no reluctance about naming her. “I figured if they gave it to me,” he says. “They’d give it to others....I’m a reporter. Somebody gives me information and it’s accurate. I generally use it.” And Wilson says Novak told him that his sources were administration officials.
…
http://thenation.com/capitalgames/index.mhtml?bid=3&pid=823
http://www.arbiteronline.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2003/07/23/3f1f5fa79c206
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=18072&mesg_id=18072&page=
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=108&topic_id=5913&mesg_id=5913&page=

…
Novak, in an interview, said his sources had come to him with the information. “I didn't dig it out, it was given to me,” he said. “They thought it was significant, they gave me the name and I used it.”

Wilson and others said such a disclosure would be a violation of the law by the officials, not the columnist.

Novak reported that his “two senior administration officials” told him that it was Plame who suggested sending her husband, Wilson, to Niger.
…
http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-uscia0722,0,2346857.story?coll=ny-top-headlines
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=103&topic_id=2326&mesg_id=2326&page=

A War on Wilson?
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,465270,00.html
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=18113&mesg_id=18113&page=

White House striking back?
http://www.msnbc.com/news/942095.asp?0cv=CA01

Schumer Urges FBI Probe Into Iraq Leaks
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030724/ap_on_go_ot/schumer_agent_1

Probes Expected in ID of CIA Officer
http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-uscia233384176jul23,0,5461415.story?coll=ny-nationalnews-print

The Bush Administration Adopts a Worse-than-Nixonian Tactic: The Deadly Serious Crime Of Naming CIA Operatives by John W. Dean
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20030815.html

[opihimoimoi]

17. His editor should also be on trial

Any time you are an accomplice to a crime, you should serve the time.

[gratuitous]

32. My reading of the Code says "yes"

But I'm not a lawyer, so don't take my word for it. Although if Novak's lawyer is saying he should invoke the Fifth, the lawyer and I may be in agreement. From the site:

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/50/421.html

50 U S C 15 § 421(c)

(c) Disclosure of information by persons in course of pattern of activities intended to identify and expose covert agents

Whoever, in the course of a pattern of activities intended to identify and expose covert agents and with reason to believe that such activities would impair or impede the foreign intelligence activities of the United States, discloses any information that identifies an individual as a covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such individual and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such individual's classified intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

_________________

Emphasis added. It's pretty apparent that Novak disclosed information to unauthorized persons (that is, we the general public) that identified Plame as a covert agent, and that the U.S. was taking affirmative measures to conceal that fact when he did his little column. Now, whether Novak had intent, or reasonably knew that by naming Plame he'd impair or impede foreign intelligence activities, are issues to be decided by a trier of fact. But is there a prima facie case to be made out that a crime under the statute might have been committed? Almost certainly so.

[Dookus]

44. but the part you DIDN'T highlight...

requires that the person engage in a "pattern of activities intended to identify and expose covert agents".

I don't think naming ONE agent's name that was leaked to him is a pattern.

My main point is this: SOMEBODY in the government broke the law. That's who we should be going after. A journalist should NEVER be punished for publishing the truth. The press is not responsible for defending the government's secrets.

[gratuitous]

47. Again, that would be up to the trier of fact

Does the phrase "pattern of activities" refer to naming anyone, or naming a whole bunch of people? It is an admittedly fine legal point, but lawyers make a whole lot of money, and judges spend a whole lot of their time, parsing the language of statutes. Here's my analysis:

Giving the words the usual and customary dictionary meaning, a "pattern of activities" could mean the systematic exposure of a whole bunch of covert operatives, or it could mean a deliberate process engaged in to expose just one operative. I believe it means the latter.

If the statute is to mean anything, it must be intended to prosecute a person who divulges the identity of even one covert agent. Otherwise, the statute would only apply to persons who make it a habit to expose a series of agents, and the exposure of one agent would be considered a "freebie." This is clearly not the intent of the statute, when read as a whole. The references in the latter half of subsection (c) to "an individual" and "such individual" clearly apply to just one person.

The statute is designed to shield the identities of not just all of the government's covert operatives, but each of them. As such the phrase "pattern of activities" must allude to something other than the serial exposure of a number of agents. "Pattern of activities," in this case, is meant to cover the entire range of activities a person engages in when exposing the identity of a covert operator.

Although the identity of Ms. Plame was divulged through the mechanism of the publishing of Mr. Novak's column, the "pattern of activities" that surrounded that publication is what is at issue here. Novak got his information from his source, wrote his column, submitted it for publication, and it was published. This is the "pattern of activities" contemplated by the statute, not the disclosure of the names of several covert operatives.

Naming one covert agent, as Mr. Novak did in his column, is sufficient to trigger enforcement of the statute, and Mr. Novak should be held over for a criminal referral for his violation of 50 U S C 15 § 421(c).

[Dookus]

50. well...

I don't think any prosecutor would take a single phone call to the CIA to confirm a story is a "pattern of activities".

I agree some aggressive prosecutor could try to charge him on it, but I doubt it would even get past the Grand Jury stage. But we'll just have to see what happens.

[drfemoe]

52. Journalists and Leaked US Intelligence information

This is not only a possible breach of national security; it is a potential violation of law. Under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982, it is a crime for anyone who has access to classified information to disclose intentionally information identifying a covert agent. The punishment for such an offense is a fine of up to $50,000 and/or up to ten years in prison. Journalists are protected from prosecution, unless they engage in a "pattern of activities" to name agents in order to impair US intelligence activities. So Novak need not worry.

http://www.thenation.com/capitalgames/index.mhtml?bid=3&pid=823

Parts of this link have already been posted. This is written by David Corn, who did not sit on the story like most "journalist".

The question for Novak (outside of civil litigation), will be, did he "engage in a pattern of activities to name agents"... You'd have to read his archives etc.

One of the most interesting points in this scamgate has been the reactions of other journalist. Time did reveal the same information the same week Novak did (same informants) ... The others, who evidently had qualms about impairing US intellignece, sat on it. But they are NOT rushing to defend Novak at this point, are they?

And remember, if it weren't for the CIA, mainstream never would have started reporting the story.

My personal feeling is he should be treated as any other 'enemy combatant'; but I respect the rule of law MORE; so we have
to go :hurts: with what's on the books.

[oldcoot]

16. Does that mean he is guilty?

Conservatives are usually the first to insist that if one invokes the fifth, one has something to hide.

[Patriot_Spear]

21. Great point- why invoke the fifth if you're 'above' the law...

I'll bet Novak's lawyer told him to prepare for a criminal and civil trial.

[NicoleM]

20. I saw that, too.

Novak looked like he was about to cry. It was very strange. I don't think Woodruff saw it coming.

[MidwestTransplant]

22. What an ass

his 5th ammendment privelage doesn't apply to questions being asked by newspeople. The proper answer is: I think I may have broken the law or been complicit in breaking the law and don't want to say anything further to implicate myself.

[BurtWorm]

26. He's just saying what his lawyer told him to say.

He'd be a fool to say anything different.

[hedda_foil]

25. He didn't take the 5th. He said his lawyer advised him not to comment.

He's lawyered up.

[elperromagico]

29. Mr. Novak, do you have something to hide?

"I have nothing to hide. Just ask my lawyers." 

[Cush]

30. so

he admits thats it bigger than he's letting on.....

[in_cog_ni_to]

31. I hope he gets fired

and the Wilsons file a law suit! He pled the fifth on NATIONAL TV! Hahahahaha! He's a fool. I hope Novak and Limbaugh enjoy each others company in jail. I know, I know...neither one will ever see the inside of a jail cell. I can hope though.

[cosmicdot]

34. living through history

hope someone has a clip of him saying it

:wow:

[a_random_joel]

35. Interesting disparity

I will not reveal the name of my source.
I will reveal the name of a covert CIA agent.

[Old and In the Way]

46. That's it in a nutshell.

It used to be that reporters covered sources who were exposing government abuses. Novak apparently is covering government sources who were perpetrating government abuse.

Thanks Novak for facilitating the criminals who occupy our goverment.

[incapsulated]

38. No Comment???

That's a first!

He must be very nervous indeed, lawyer or not.

:evilgrin:

[Nottingham]

39. Well Unfortunately for NOVAK his Mouth runs over!

He has been on TV just blabbing away! ....So when ya take the 5th
you maybe a bit to late....got ya on Video BOBBY!

:bounce:

[Dems Will Win]

53. Everyone in DC is talking about 60 to 70 dead already

FRom Al Martin

[Sticky]

54. The ultimate irony

Bob Novak will be shunned by not only his repub friends but his colleagues as well. I'll bet he's persona non grata in all the old haunts where he was once considered respectable.

....can he really come out of this unscathed with his reputation and "sources" still intact? Doubt it.

[Clark Can WIN]

55. What I want to know is

Why does he still have A JOB ??????????

ANYWHERE ????????????????