Telander's Note, a Column, and now SF Editor Bronstein Weighs In

Well, if the leak investigation concentrates on the reporters, and not on the prosecutor, then I'd say he doesn't have to be very dumb at all.
There are wheels within wheels on this one. When somebody confirms that the prosecutors were not the source -- and, if they were, then the desire to embarrass Bonds would be their only motive, since there were no criminal charges against him forthcoming -- then I'll feel a whole lot better.
Again, if you were a figure ancillary to a GJ proceeding, would you want your testimony -- and, more important, the testimony about you -- kept confidential? Or would you care if someone just released it for spite?

 

Wouldn't Justice first look at the prosecutors? It'd be common sense that the prosecutors were the leakers, is what you've argued. So either they first look at prosecutors or by ignoring them they become participants in a vast fed conspiracy to embarrass Bonds. And if they've looked at prosecutors and found nothing -- as we must assume since they're now shaking down reporters -- then doesn't that, to extend your common-sense line of argument, clear the prosecutors?

Or has there no investigation of any kind?
Just shake down the reporters?
That would be a scary implementation of the district judge's order.

And, yes, I'd rather have grand jury testimony about me broadcast than live under a government that locks up reporters for doing their job. Then, when I'm not indicted, the reporters free to do their jobs can tell their readers how wicked the prosecutors were.

 

Ah, and there's the rub. The reporters wouldn't do the latter because, if they did, then they and their newspaper would be cut off forever from the former. That was the whole problem with the OIC under Kenneth Starr. There were two tracks running at once -- the Clinton-Lewinsky story and the story of the activist-elves behind the Paula Jones suit and the phony-scandal machine out of Arkansas, You couldn't cover the former -- the really big noisy one -- if you diligently covered the latter -- which, I would argue, was just as important a story, since it involved a well-financed attempt to bring down an elected president. Some people tried, but the second track just petered out, and it did so, I would argue, because the news organizations involved didn't want to lose access to the leaks about the Great Oval Office Hummer investigation
And I can't remember any news organization embarking on an investigation of a prosecutor's office's -- or law enforcement generally -- leaking of confidential Grand Jury information. Not one. Ever.

 

There you go again, assuming prosecutors are leakers. I mentioned "wicked" prosecutors not to accuse them of leaking but to say they had screwed up by accusing me in the first place.
On your memory that no news organization ever investigated prosecutors leaking grand jury testimony -- I'd have to agree with that -- but I'd also have to ask when's the last time a prosecutor was ever found guilty of that? I don't remember that, either.

 

As I mentioned earlier, the Chronincle ruled out Victor Conte after information that would seem to point to him as the leaker was publicized (seemed like subterfuge to me). Maybe the Chronicle can rule out the prosecutors, too? Maybe the leaker will grow a set and take the reporters off the hook?

 

Ditto. I actually had a lot easier time supporting Judith Miller, and I liked her a lot less than these guys. These guys published leaked grand jury testimony. Miller didn't even publish the leaked CIA agent's name.

Bottom line, I don't particularly want them to go to jail, but I would not have done what they did. I just can't believe the president commended them for breaking the law. Oh wait, nevermind.

 

Oh, no, you don't.
Judy Miller isn't just the Plame case. Judy Miller is a whole stack of stories emanating from lying exiles and the stovepipe crew in and around Cheney's office. She couldn't write the fake-intelligence story -- US Lied Into War. Film At 11 -- because most of her pre-war reporting was freaking based on it. Same principle. Same problem.

 

In terms of why she went to the clink, it is. The rest of your spiel is part of the reason I didn't much like her.

 

In terms of jail, sure, it was the Plame case. But from the standpoint of journalism, there's a lesson to be learned about using sources and how much you should trust them. The Judy Miller episode, though tragic, pretty vividly demonstrates how hard it is to turn back once you've gone down the road even a little way. A healthy does of cynicism serves you well when it comes to granting anonymity.

 

To everyone who thinks the source should grow a set and fess up: That will have roughly the same effect on reporting as if Mark and Lance go to jail. The only difference is that instead of reporters choosing not to accept confidential information in the future, potential sources just won't offer it. (The source for this story could go to jail for five years.)

To the person who keeps clinging to the notion that this story undermined grand-jury secrecy and that a prosecutor had to be a source of the leak: The grand jury had expired, and indictments had been returned. That's why the documents were turned over to the defense. They weren't considered confidential after that, BUT the judge issued a protective order at the request of the prosecution, and the defense agreed. The prosecutors covered for the athletes in this case from Day One. That said, they didn't and couldn't grant the athletes/witnesses absolute confidentiality when they testified. In a case that yields an indictment, grand jury witnesses become trial witnesses, with the prospect of testifying in open court.
I believe the same person ah-ha'ed someone else who made this distinction by saying "So you agree that leaking testimony while a grand jury is in session is wrong?'' That's like saying: "So you agree that apples grow on trees?'' after someone establishes that the fruit in question is a potato.
When a grand jury is in session, the names of the targets are kept secret. In this case, the targets were indicted, and the indictments were announced at a big news conference held by the U.S. Attorney General. Only after that, almost 10 months later, were the transcripts published. I say potato. So does the law.

To the person who said that the Senate had held hearings in March 2004, long before Mark and Lance wrote a word: 1-BALCO was raided in September 2003. Mark and Lance started covering this story then. 2-The significant hearings were held in March 2005, in front of a House committee, and after the grand-jury testimony had been revealed. McCain had done some piddling work on this before, but the McGwire, Canseco, Palmeiro, etc. hearing was in 2005. 3) Less than a week after the publication of the testimony, the players association reps met in Phoenix and pushed Fehr and Orza for stricter testing and penalties, which became stricter still when Congress got involved. The players reps were reacting specifically to the stories in the Chronicle.

To the person who keeps saying "Well, just let us know who is the source is, so we can decide whether the confidentiality deal was legit'': You see the problem there, don't you? It's like dunking someone to find out if she's a witch.

The real issue, for me, is why the government protected the richest and most powerful people involved in this conspiracy not just from prosecution, but from public shame. Read the SI piece on Patrick Arnold, the THG chemist, and check out the part where he bitterly complains about going to prison while the ballplayers keep making millions. After that, ask yourself whether the prosecutors are really the only likely sources of the leak, and whether it's remotely possible that the attempts to cover up for the athletes constituted an injustice that needed to be exposed.

 

No it wouldn't have the same effect on reporting. See Scooter Libby. And, considering you assert that there was no illegality involved in the leak, how could the source go to jail for five years?

So you think the grand jury process isn't undermined when protective orders are breached? Please. You know better. And, in my humble opinion, the prosecution side remains the most likely source of the leak.

Sorry I had that wrong. While there were Senate hearings in March 2004, McCain's initial Senate hearings on the subject took place in June 2002 -- during baseball's first negotiations for testing. Baseball's first testing program was announced in September 2002.

The House hearings amounted to PR for a hoplessly out of touch group of Congressmen who demonstrated breathtaking ignorance on the topic. McCain had been the leader on the subject for a long time. Were McCain's Senate hearings just "piddly" because the Chron. didn't make a big deal of them? Were the House hearing significant just because they had better celebrities and more TV cameras? It's fair to say that the House hearings brought the most attention the issue but I guess we all get to decide for ourselves what significant means.

That player rep meeting you talk about was a little something called the union's annual board meeting, not some hastily convened meeting in the wake of the testimony's publication. It was probably scheduled a year in advance. At that meeting, the board gave the union leaders their OK to finalize agreements that had been agreed upon weeks earlier. You should know this.

Yes, of course (not that anybody actually posted such silliness). But you don't seem to understand it works both ways. We don't know if the confidentiality deal was legit, so please don't expect me to sing the Chron.'s praises, either. We don't know if the Chronicle used good judgement. I believe Poynter Insitute has also withheld its support. The Chronicle seems to want the glory without any scrutiny of its practices.

Wait! I thought this story was all about the children! And the great public service! Now you're telling me the real purpose of the leaks and the reporting was putting ballplayers "who make millions" to "public shame."

 

We've gone more than a month without a reply on this thread. I'm replying now to keep it at the top, but unstickying it. If it stays at the top because of reader interest, cool. If not, it'll be on Page 6 soon.