10/10/2005

Federal Grand Jury Could Subpoena Talon News Correspondent - Gucky the marine escort

The money quote from Jeff Gannon: "So talking about a document, that no government agency confirms even exists, is a crime?" Yep, JimmyJeff, it is, when the doc is TOP SECRET -- law

PS: Note the Freeper at the end chastising Wilson for being a "francophile" and wearing a beret... while being completely oblivious to the outing of an undercover CIA agent. Reich wing priorities are weird!!! -- law


Federal Grand Jury Could Subpoena Talon News Correspondent (and RighTalk host)
Talon News ^ | 3/9/2004 | Jim Hauser

Posted on 03/09/2004 6:48:38 AM PST by ConservativeMajority

WASHINGTON (Talon News) -- A federal grand jury has subpoenaed White House records on administration contacts with more than two dozen journalists and news media outlets in a special investigation into the alleged improper leak of a covert CIA official's identity to columnist Robert Novak last July.

Talon News has learned that one of the journalists being targeted is Jeff Gannon, Washington Bureau Chief and White House correspondent for Talon News...

To: ConservativeMajority; Jeff Gannon
This is a witch hunt because Jeff Gannon has slapped the reporters silly with at least one of his excellent questions at a White House press briefing.
posted on 03/09/2004 6:56:04 AM PST by Peach (The Clintons have pardoned more terrorists than they ever captured or killed.)

To: Peach
The Dems should be careful what they wish for.
posted on 03/09/2004 6:56:40 AM PST by mewzilla

To: ConservativeMajority
Mr.Gannon is not being truthful when he says he does not know why he is being subpoenaed. When he interviewed Wilson last October he made reference to "an internal government memo" purporting to be the minutes of a meeting at which Plame played a key role in getting her husband the Niger assignment.

From the interview: TN: An internal government memo prepared by U.S. intelligence personnel details a meeting in early 2002 where your wife, a member of the agency for clandestine service working on Iraqi weapons issues, suggested that you could be sent to investigate the reports. Do you dispute that?

Since the Niger Uranium documents have been judged forgeries, Gannon is suggesting that he was made privy to counterfeit official/government documents which is a crime, and a separate crime at that and logically he would be hauled in front of a grand jury probing the Plame affair.
posted on 03/09/2004 7:12:26 AM PST by JohnGalt (If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied. -- R. Kipling)

To: Peach
You are kind. What is interesting about this is that I have become ensnared in this matter because I asked questions of my government.

This may a chilling effect on freedom of the press.

All this commotion, but the central question has yet to be answered: At the time that Robert Novak's column was published, was Valerie Plame a "covert operative"?

The CIA has refused to comment on this very important point.

If she was not, then no crime has been committed and all communications between the administration and reporters is just gossip.

posted on 03/09/2004 7:43:33 AM PST by Jeff Gannon (Listen to my radio show "Jeff Gannon's Washington" on www.RIGHTALK.com)

To: Jeff Gannon
Good analysis. I wish you all the best of luck in this matter! We can't afford to lose reporters like you, and I believe the leftists would like nothing more than to see you and those like you defeated in whatever manner they can see you jobless.
\posted on 03/09/2004 7:48:00 AM PST by Peach (The Clintons have pardoned more terrorists than they ever captured or killed.)

To: JohnGalt
Your professed insight into the motivation of the Grand Jury is merely guesswork.

The document in question has never been acknowleged by any government agency to even exist.

This is a one-sided investigation where people are being accused of crimes for revealing names and information that may have not been secret in the first place.
posted on 03/09/2004 7:53:13 AM PST by Jeff Gannon (Listen to my radio show "Jeff Gannon's Washington" on www.RIGHTALK.com)

To: Jeff Gannon
That is simply not true, Jeff.

You are ensnared because you made reference to a government document, which appears to have been a forgery. You need to tell the Grand Jury who made you privy to that document.
posted on 03/09/2004 7:54:19 AM PST by JohnGalt (What tale will serve me here among Mine angry and defrauded young? -- R. Kipling)

To: Jeff Gannon
What was the document you referred to in the interview with Wilson?
posted on 03/09/2004 7:54:55 AM PST by JohnGalt (What tale will serve me here among Mine angry and defrauded young? -- R. Kipling)

To: Jeff Gannon
All this commotion, but the central question has yet to be answered: At the time that Robert Novak's column was published, was Valerie Plame a "covert operative"?

This, of course, would be argued in a motion to quash the subpoena, if you and other journalists are subpoenaed. If not then, before a judge in a contempt action, if they're so foolish as to attempt to compel your testimony, despite the First Amendment, or--and this is a stretch--if anyone is criminally charged out of this.
posted on 03/09/2004 7:57:28 AM PST by Catspaw

To: ConservativeMajority; Jeff Gannon
This entire situation has me totally confused...........
15 posted on 03/09/2004 7:58:06 AM PST by Gabz (The tobacco industry doesn't pay cigarette taxes - smokers do!)

To: JohnGalt
I disagree with your characterization of the document itself, but that aside, I maintain that I am under no obligation whatsoever to reveal my sources. That is a fundamental element of maintaining a free press.
posted on 03/09/2004 8:01:36 AM PST by Jeff Gannon (Listen to my radio show "Jeff Gannon's Washington" on www.RIGHTALK.com)

To: Jeff Gannon
Sorry, Jeff, but you claimed in this report you did not why you were being subpoenaed which is untrue. You know very well why you are being subpoenaed.

You are a logical target for the Grand Jury probing either the forged Nigerian documents, 'forged' being the FBI's characterization not mine, or L'Affair Plame.

The law does believe you are obligated so you are incorrect. While I would respect your integrity in accepting the consequences in refusing to release your sources, you are still obligated by the law to reveal who made you privy to the document you referenced. I am sure as a 'conservative' you understand the difference, don't you?
posted on 03/09/2004 8:09:02 AM PST by JohnGalt (What tale will serve me here among Mine angry and defrauded young? -- R. Kipling)

To: JohnGalt
Justin Raimondo is that you? I didn't think you hung out here anymore.

Oops, now I've "outed" someone else!
posted on 03/09/2004 8:17:43 AM PST by Jeff Gannon (Listen to my radio show "Jeff Gannon's Washington" on www.RIGHTALK.com)

To: Jeff Gannon
Sorry, Jeff, the only one 'outed' was you who claimed ignorance as to why you were being subpoenaed.

I have been on this forum since 1997. Twenty-something; I sell software over the phone. Plenty of people on this forum have met me in the real world.
posted on 03/09/2004 8:23:39 AM PST by JohnGalt (What tale will serve me here among Mine angry and defrauded young? -- R. Kipling)

To: JohnGalt
You're a riot!

Be careful you don't show too much knowledge about national security matters - you too could be hauled before a secret tribunal!
posted on 03/09/2004 8:50:07 AM PST by Jeff Gannon (Listen to my radio show "Jeff Gannon's Washington" on www.RIGHTALK.com)

To: Jeff Gannon
Don't you reference the document in this December 2003 interview posted on your web site? Does the document exist or not, Jeff? You would not even have to reveal a source to answer that question, now would you?

Jeff Gannon, the White House correspondent and Washington Bureau Chief for Talon News declined to reveal whether he had seen the memo or had its contents described to him.

While he would not disclose his source, Gannon said, "I will tell you that the information did not come from inside the administration."

"For something that is supposed to be classified, it seems that this document is easily accessible," Gannon added. "Washington is leaking like a cheap umbrella. Just look at what's happening over on Capitol Hill."
posted on 03/09/2004 8:53:41 AM PST by JohnGalt (What tale will serve me here among Mine angry and defrauded young? -- R. Kipling)

To: JohnGalt
I do indeed. So talking about a document, that no government agency confirms even exists, is a crime?

posted on 03/09/2004 8:59:43 AM PST by Jeff Gannon

To: Jeff Gannon
Not necessarily, but you claimed to be ignorant as to why you might be subpoenaed in this investigation. That is simply not true.

It's clear that the method by which you obtained the information you referenced in your interview with Wilson could be material in an on going investigation. Who gave you the information? Who told you about the memo? Where did you learn about the memo? That is all relevant if in fact the memo proves to be a forgery, don't you think?
24 posted on 03/09/2004 9:08:43 AM PST by JohnGalt

To: JohnGalt
Sorry I had to interrupt our back and forth, but I had to go to the WHITE HOUSE for the press briefing.

If the memo is a forgery, then it becomes even less important.
posted on 03/09/2004 11:57:44 AM PST by Jeff Gannon

To: Jeff Gannon
There is an on going FBI investigation into the forged Nigerian Uranium documents.

You were made privy to either a document/information (you have declined to share in what form how you got the information) that suggested a meeting involving Plame and intelligence officials that never occurred.

It is against the law to forge government documents and thus it is only logical that investigators would ask where you obtained the document, or b) who told you about the memo. Investigators need to determine who forged the documents and prosecute the individuals accordingly.

If you think forged government documents are "even less important" I disagree, but what about your credibility as a journalist. Someone set you up, or b) you were duped by the forged document, and you don't care?

I find that hard to believe, and suggest that you are posturing here in cyberspace. You do care, you should care, and I suspect you are not looking forward to your G Gordon Liddy moment that awaits you.
posted on 03/09/2004 12:23:49 PM PST by JohnGalt

To: JohnGalt
You have really gone off the deep end. My question to Ambassador Wilson about the document was intended to get him to comment. It's no different than if I had asked, "There's a place in Nevada called Area 51, even though the government says it doesn't exist. What do you say to that?"

As far as my G. Gordon Liddy moment, I very much look forward to it, but not the one you probably play out with your friends on weekends. G. Gordon Liddy is a great American!
posted on 03/09/2004 12:51:57 PM PST by Jeff Gannon

To: Jeff Gannon
According to the Washington Post article on your web site, you were the only person to even acknowledge the memo's existence. You referenced the memo specifically, i.e. a document--- are you suggesting you would like to have phrased that question differently like "reports suggest your wife..."?

If it is your claim that you never saw the memo, then it must have been someone you trusted who told you about what the memo said, fair? I mean, you are the only person on record stating knowledge that this memo actually exists and you wish to be thought of as a reputable journalist don't you?

And yet you claim you don't know why you might be relevant to the case?

That is simply unconvincing. You know why you are involved and you are probably none too happy with the people or person who got you into this mess, yet I suspect you probably have a pretty good grasp that you are "expendable."

Liddy was a stand-up guy and a patriot, but he was also a felon.
posted on 03/09/2004 1:04:33 PM PST by JohnGalt

To: JohnGalt
You are so far off the mark on this, but I won't suggest you stop, since you reveal yourself to others who might be following this thread.

I will ask you to stop making judgements about my "reputation", however. It is unseemly and beyond what I consider appropriate in this forum.

Further, I have no desire to convince you of anything, especially since I sense that you have some self-righteous theory on the subject. Besides that, you are completely wrong.
posted on 03/09/2004 1:26:47 PM PST by Jeff Gannon

To: Jeff Gannon
"I don't know why I'm on the list of journalists being called before the Grand Jury,"

I have only stated you are not being truthful in this statement, and am suggesting you know exactly why you are being called before the Grand Jury.

I then laid out several reasons why it might be unconvincing for you to suggest that you have no idea why.

Is it still your position that you have no idea, even with a Washington Post article on your web site that states you were the only person to mention a memo, why you have been called before the Grand Jury?
posted on 03/09/2004 1:32:23 PM PST by JohnGalt (

To: Jeff Gannon
I see you are making waves again....

LOL!
31 posted on 03/09/2004 1:39:12 PM PST by abner

To: JohnGalt
It is still my position. And you don't know for SURE why, either. You're only guessing, but if you know otherwise for CERTAIN, you are probably in violation of some law regarding secrecy of the Grand Jury.
posted on 03/09/2004 1:39:31 PM PST by Jeff Gannon

To: Jeff Gannon
Obviously, I don't know for sure, but I can at least with some ease understand why you would be asked before a Grand Jury.

You are, according to the WP in December, the only one on record who refers to a 'memo.'

Seems pretty darn obvious when you consider this investigation began at the top and is working its way down.

Do you think they have phone records?

posted on 03/09/2004 1:44:22 PM PST by JohnGalt

To: abner
I must be doing something right!
posted on 03/09/2004 1:54:49 PM PST by Jeff Gannon

To: Jeff Gannon
Me thinks.

Did you get the CD?
35 posted on 03/09/2004 2:04:07 PM PST by abner

To: abner
Not yet. When did you send it?
posted on 03/09/2004 2:21:40 PM PST by Jeff Gannon

To: Jeff Gannon
About 3 weeks ago...

I guess I will send another.

posted on 03/09/2004 2:27:22 PM PST by abner

To: Jeff Gannon; mrustow; okie01; Carl/NewsMax; piasa

I posted a (poor) translation, at # 45, of a "Liberation" article about Joe Wilson. He's a "francophile". Money quote "When it rains, he wears a beret." (...bears, or carries)
46 posted on 03/18/2004 12:28:04 PM PST by Shermy


Federal Grand Jury Could Subpoena Talon News Correspondent (and RighTalk host)

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home