?

Log in

No account? Create an account
drinking in the dark

if only I had legal counsel...

I like that Jon Stewart is continuing the "Robert Novak: douchebag for liberty" talking point. If I overcome my fear of a lawsuit, I think that I might make a "Subpoena Novak" t-shirt [cafepress]. It will make a nice addition to the Urban Outliers fall line; making anti-first-amendment chic all the rage.

Maybe it would be less illegal if it used the new moniker rather than a real name.

Comments

at least one blogger has theorized that the reason novak wasn't threatened with contempt, or even mentioned along with russert, is that he's already squealed. it would prove once and for all that he has no principles.
On last night's NewsHour the theory about Novak was that he would be the last to receive a subpoena [pbs]. A former U.S. Attorney said that was the typical strategy: to exhaust all other possibilities before going to the primary source. Somehow this is supposed to be out of respect for the 1st Amendment.

I don't know why I don't see it as a bad thing to subpoena Novak. He witnessed a crime, published it, and perpetuated a culture of vindictive anonymous sourcing. I'm not sure that these are necessarily good things for the republic.
i don't see how forcing other reporters to testify, but not calling on the primary source, is somehow more respectful of the 1st amendment.

novak should be subpoenaed if only to find out whether or not he knew he was blowing an agent's cover. we already know that somebody in the administration broke the law, but it's unclear if novak was a willing or unwitting accomplice.