Finally, if Fitzgerald is after what Viveca Novak told Robert Luskin, then let's remember that what reporters say to their sources is not covered under "source confidentiality".
I'm not sure this is 100% true. If I confess to a crime to my priest, and the priest reminds me of this confession in a later conversation, I'm pretty sure that my priest is still bound to keep my confidences, even if asked about conversation #2.
Similarly, if V Novak's conversation with Luskin consisted only of things Luskin told Novak, in the context of an earlier confidential source interview, it would be protected. But, if they spoke of things that Rove said to Luskin, or Rove said to Novak, then the confidentiality shield has been pierced, and all protection is gone.
Posted by dj moonbat at November 28, 2005 12:03 PMIn the category of jawdroppingly dumb, the last two sentences of Tom's TNH comment:
"Does anyone know, or care, why TIME is not arguing any source confidentiality issues?
Their story is silent on that point - are they just an arm of the Fitzgerald investigation now? Will that be true of TIME on all government cases going forward?"
Get a grip. Note to Tom: practising apologetics for the most execrable Administration in U.S. history sure ain't good for your logic.
Posted by KM at November 30, 2005 07:28 AM