July 15th, 2005


curiouser & curiouser :0


This discussion started elsewhere...but since the taciturn gent there seems to be less than charmed by yours truly, we'll finish here (& not link his journal, either, 'cause why piss someone off further when you were just tryna be friendly?).

He'd asked, Hey, if Novak wrote the offending column, why is it Miller who's in jail? (in that outing of the clandestine operative case that's finally news). I posted the persistent rumor that Novak already cooperated -- and suggested, based on that possibility plus hints in the appellate opinion, that there might be a good deal more involved in this case than just the identities protection act question. (The opinion sounds very grave about this: even the (one) appellate judge (of the three on the case) who believes reporters should be shielded, agreed with the majority that the reporters in this case would not be entitled to that shield.) Anyway, I suspect I won't say much more about this here, until we see which way the wind's blowing...but two things now need to be added.

(1) It occurred to me after posting (duh) that just because Novak "cooperated" (if he did) doesn't necessarily mean he didn't lie...so the additional testimony could be required to nail Novak (and possibly others). And more tentatively, but also more importantly:

(2) I got wind tonight that there's something not only more, but unbelievably bigger, involved here than the attack on the clandestine operative per se. I don't believe in posting wild speculation here, and that could well be all it is. Still, if (as I have heard alleged) Novak outed not only an operator, but an entire operation -- and of the sort, and for the reasons, I've heard suggested -- we could either be looking at one of the worst cover-ups ever (if Fitzgerald, the prosecutor, doesn't pursue it)...or just possibly something that will make Watergate look like jaywalking, and President Nixon like a cub scout.

There. 'Nuff said.

93 93/93 -- AJ