In Court, Media Argued "No Underlying Crime" in Libby Case [Stephen Spruiell]
Deborah Howell's ombudsman column for the Washington Post this weekend followed up on some confusion (highlighted at PostWatch last week) at the Post about whether Valerie Plame was covert or not when Richard Armitage leaked her name. The column is less striking for Howell's conclusions than for the fact that it includes this passage:
While Toensing is a partisan, she also filed a friend-of-the-court brief during the leak investigation with media lawyer Bruce W. Sanford on behalf of 36 news organizations, including The Post. She and Sanford, who also worked on the 1982 law, argued that journalists shouldn't have to testify because no crime was committed if Plame wasn't a covert operative. Editors should have mentioned the court filing in the Outlook piece.
It is rare indeed that an MSM reporter mentions this court case, reported by Andy McCarthy in 2005, in which 36 news organizations argued in court that Plame wasn't covert while dozens of their finest pundits were making the exact opposite argument in their news pages and over their airwaves. But Deborah Howell has done it. Congrats.
02/27 11:23 AMShare