I know that us firedogs have little sympathy for Judy Miller. However, the Frontline Special tomorrow night raises a bunch of serious questions, among which is the freedom of the press to protect its sources. Watergate would not have turned out the way it did, for example, if Bob Woodward had been compelled to reveal who Deep Throat was, early on.

So does it come down to this: for the sake of protecting the Deep Throats of the future, is it necessary to allow the Judy Millers of the present to protect their sources?

And when protection of sources works in favor of an administration that is manipulating the press to control news coverage in support of its agenda as the White House did in 2001 – 2004, how do we sort all this out? Is additional legislation concerning freedom of the press needed to cut this Gordian Knot?

I would like to see you and the rest of the FDL team covering the Libby trial write a response to the Frontline program, looking backward to Watergate, from the vantage-point of the Libby trial, and looking forward into the future, about the role of the press in these matters, and what protections are appropriate?

I wish I had more time to read every blog the FDL team is writing about the Libby trial, and every comment on each blog. Its fascinating stuff, and I love the FDL community that you have created. Please keep up the good work!

Bob in HI

So what the hell did we learn today?

emptywheel @ 72

Sorry abotu the long update. I was distracted by the fight—it’s my favorite one in this case, Libby trying to slink out of his promise (To Walton) to testify.

Apart from watching the slinkiness, I mean.

Marcie, are you going post a wrap-up as a main post. Are all you all swimming in that beer?

;-)

Seriously, I feel like I’m not swimming in the transcripts at all, but drowning. I bet that at least one other lurker feels that way. . . . .

Well we did learn that Novak meets with his good friend Richard Hohlt EVERY DAY! Richard Hohlt who is one of the Bush-Cheney key advisors, who raised more than $250K for their Presidential Campaign and is a major lobbyist and contributor to other Right Wing Zealots!

I guess that Novak is non-partisan!

Every day!

As President; I mean VP, I am more important. So, Let my press guy sink into the abyss. Better he, than me.

(I’ll draft a pardon and get my little Billy puppet to sign it as soon as Scooter is convicted! I promise. I like Scooter.)

Sally @87

Per Froomkin today:

Michael Isikoff writes in Newsweek with an important point: If Libby’s lawyers want Cheney to testify, they’d better act quick.

Cheney “is due to leave the country for a 10-day trip to Asia on Feb. 19.

“So conveniently or not, the vice president’s loyalty to his former top aide may now run smack up against the imperatives of U.S. foreign relations. The vice president recently called Libby ‘a strong friend and supporter.’ But Cheney already has meetings scheduled with Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and Australian Prime Minister John Howard, according to a recent press release from his office that has gotten virtually no media attention.”

Prantha Trivedi @ 110

What does “WRT” mean? I see it a lot in connection with witnesses, but I cannot figure it out.

Likely a shorthand for “With Respect To”

You see IANAL a lot too in the comments – It represents I Am Not A Lawyer

I guess the reason I didn’t know IANAL is because IAAL! (I AM A Lawyer!) ;-)

Is it in the Report put together by INR?

Where-oh-where did he learn this tidbit!

And notice that Novak suffenly has admitted that Armitage didn’t, by any means, give him the information by accident! Or in an offhand manner!

Novak specifically asked WHY WILSON would have been sent on the trip and Armitage specifically answered…his [****] wife VALERIE sent him, she [****ing] works at the CIA in CPD!

My use of redactions above is imaginary. I wonder if Armitage’s colorful language included the F*** and C*** words?

How did Armitage obtain all that information?????

So how many times are we going to hear that many journalists didn’t know who Valerie Plame was until they read it in Novak’s column? And don’t all these journo’s testifying to that fact actually undercut Libby’s defense that everyone knew or that it was a well known fact among journo’s and reporters? And if reporters had conversations with LIbby and he didn’t tell them about it, it doesn’t disprove he lied under oathe to the FBI or GJ.

And for those reporters who did know and didn’t learn from Libby, that also still does not counter that LIbby lied to the FBI or to the Grand Jury.

And that would make it seem that Libby would be suspicious when Russert said all the journalists KNOW…because none of these were asking him about her.

But if they DID know then why tell them something that they ALREADY WOULD KNOW!

Doesn’t make any sense.

Libby told them because they DIDN’T KNOW…he was passing on to some reporters her association and leaving others in the dark….perhaps to build an alibi.

re 14,15,16

As angel said, just becuase he didn’t tell everyone, it doesn’t mean he didn’t tell anyone. They had a leak phone tree. each one called their three favorite stooges and leaked. then they talked to other reporters in the coming weeks and let the other reporters who had been leaked (to, on?) leak back to make it seem “like everyone already knew”. IT’s grade school rumor mongering.

Yes – doesn’t this point to a conspiracy?

Biodun @ 83

TPhillip @ 77:

Team Libby has certainly thrown Rove under the bus. Last I checked Rove was still working for BushCo. And Cheney testifying won’t help Libby.

Wonder how many reporters will dredge up the Bush quote about anyone leaking will not remain in the White House in the context of today’s testimony?

He’s gone… Richard Armitage!!!

could Fitz charge in on his rhetorical pony and save the day for truth, justice, and the American Way in his closing arguments? one prayz