Call It A Comeback
Sen. Roberts (R) just said that Fitzgerald’s investigation had “a lot of leaks.” Is he kidding?
Can anyone identify a leak from Fitzgerald’s investigation? There may have been one, but I can’t think of any and for a DC investigation, that’s remarkable.
The press release:
Former Primary Opponent Backs
Roskam in Congressional Campaign
Carney Endorses RoskamWHEATON ? J.P. ?Rick? Carney met with State Senator Peter Roskam earlier this week and is no longer a candidate for Congress. Carney issued a statement via the Roskam campaign that he is supporting Roskam and has formally endorsed his candidacy. Carney served DuPage County for over 20 years as the Recorder of Deeds. Carney retired from public service six months ago so he could spend more time with his wife and four children in Wheaton.
?Although we may disagree on a couple matters, Peter and I are in complete agreement on solid fiscal Republican issues. I like Peter Roskam and have always considered him a strong family man and good friend. In fact, I wasn?t looking forward to running against him. He has always had an open door with people from all viewpoints and I am confident he will do so as our Congressman. Today, I am endorsing Peter Roskam,? said J.P. ?Rick? Carney.
?I am pleased to have the support of my friend Rick Carney. As a public servant for more than 20 years, Rick brings a wealth of knowledge and experience to my campaign,? said Senator Peter Roskam.
$761,650 on hand with $226865 raised.
Doesn’t seem like activity of a guy running for Governor
Just over $22,000, with $16,400 on hand. $4500 in personal loans from Peter to the campaign.
I’m not sure what Peter’s goal is and what his timeline is, but as a start-up quarter it’s just sort of a start-up quarter. Nothing sticks out in the report as especially interesting. He has hired Mia Phifer for fundraising and campaign work. She was previously a consultant to Carol Moseley Braun and Finance Director to Lauren Beth Gash in IL-10 which was a high dollar race.
A very good start–lots of Illinois money and a little national money to top it off. It does include some people who donated for both the primary and general election, but given he’s unlikely to face any primary opposition, that’s not as unusual as when a primary is contested. Only $1000 in kind.
The round number of $100,000 seemed strange to me, but there isn’t any padding in the numbers so it’s a very good start for this seat.
Not very exciting $38,000 raised with $23,000 on hand. It’s the first cycle for his reporting. He’s using Victory Enterprises out of Davenport.
“Free Flow of Information Act of 2005”
I find both of these overly broad. I’m far more comfortable with the Illinois law that is described here:
Under the Privilege, reporters are not required to disclose the source of any information unless a court finds that “all other available sources of information have been exhausted” and that “disclosure of the information sought is essential to the protection of the public interest involved.” 735 ILCS 5/8-907 (2001). The burden of proving these two elements is on the person or entity seeking access to the information.
The problem with both of the proposed bills above is that it allows someone doing something clearly illegal to hide when there the crime is relaying the information. This has significant implications for national security.
Say Philip Agee wanted to disclose the name of US operatives again, but he wanted to avoid prosecution under the current law. All he would have to do is find a person with a web site that covers news and then leak the information to them once he receives a promise of confidentiality. The way both laws above are written, there would be no way to determine the source because such a move is explicitly forbidden.
The Illinois law does provide a level of protection, but if the reporter is the only source of that information, she may be compelled to testify. My reading of the law would mean to me that Judith Miller could have been charged with contempt in Illinois and jailed.
The reason I don’t buy the doom and gloom scenarios that many journalists are trying to make sound inevitable is that Illinois journalists don’t have absolute protection and it is likely that in a state case, Judith Miller would be in jail in Illinois as well, but the Illinois press is doing just fine with anonymous sources.
This to me is over the top:
It is about showing other countries the United States wants to democratize — and for which a free press is essential — how to do it right.
A free press is essential, but it’s still unclear to me that forcing a reporter to testify about an act that they observed removes the freedom of the press. Making the burden difficult to force such disclosure seems like a good way to promote free flow of information, but I see no argument for an absolute protection.
Most anonymous sources aren’t violating any laws and so a shield law is irrelevant in those cases. When a source is violating the law would primarily be violating the secrecy of a Grand Jury by a lawyer, passing confidential information or something similar. Potentially this could keep some whistleblowers from talking to a reporter, but how is that any different than the law at current?
Finally, in cases where a defendent is attempting to present a defense, I’m very reluctant to remove the ability of such a person to subpeona all material that may be exculpatory.
A second part is worrisome to me as well.
A concern among lawmakers — especially those who have been prosecutors — is finding the balance between national security and the need for journalists to protect confidential sources. The bill writers will not want to cover every blogger, and some journalism organizations are uncomfortable in having Congress define who is a journalist. But these issues can be addressed if there is a will.
I’m not certain the issue of who to cover can be easily solved. In fact, by trying to limit who is legally considered a journalist, I’m afraid of a precedent that those who don’t fit that definition may be interpreted by the courts to be regulatable.
Further, if it’s such an important protection, why limit who is covered?
Even more troubling is that I might have different rules depending on where I publish. I write for the Arch City Chronicle a bi-weekly paper on politics in St. Louis. Presumably I’d be covered if I worked on a story for them, but not as a blogger–so what about stories that I both blog about and write paper stories about? And why is my blog a different protection level given it’s where I write most?
My reading of the Illinois statute is I’m covered by the law as a blogger.
Me upon reading it, not the author
People don’t like us much, but then, they never really have. Hence, there’s not much risk in b-slapping reporters. It’s a good business model.
Here is how it goes in modern media:
“Those of you who dislike journalism, come to me! I, too, dislike journalism and I’m going to tell you, endlessly, exactly how much. Then, once you have gathered, I am going to sell you diet supplements and lots of other things because I am in show business and the bigger and more loyal my audience, the better.”
Don’t be misled. If you get all your news from these people, surprise, it’s not news. It is just endless clouds of gas. The same is true of “liberal” talk radio, a relatively recent arrival. It’s not news.
Even worse on the left, it’s derivative gas, an imitation of what is happening in talk radio on the right, except on the right, it works because the audience is in lockstep with the message and the people on the right are real pros.
If you want to hear masterful timing at work, listen to Rush Limbaugh. The man is a genius.
Bloggers love bashing news, too, to the point that it is becoming a career for some of them. It seems a little parasitic to me, waiting around for news to criticize. It gives them something to do, I suspect.
I hope that my criticism of the media isn’t that poorly done. I think there is a lot to criticize, but at the same time many things to praise. Madigan’s column is in the latter category. What has stricken me in the last 48 hours is the amount of invective hurled at reporters and news organizations by people who have never tried to get multiple sources to agree on what a school funding formula means to the average kid in a school district.
That may sound trivial to many of those with big bylines and those with popular nationally focused blogs, but the reality is that such a story is one of the most practicial and important issues to most families. It is also one of the most complex stories one can try and tell because it involves a set of facts that are especially hard to deterimine..
Understanding that while a formula may benefit most citizens, there are inevitably losers is an importan lesson for those trying to report ‘reality’. ‘Reality’ is seldom a set of facts that are clear, but a set of conditions that make certain outcomes likely. What I find most disturbing about the reporting of the last few days isn’t the issue of whether both sides are being presented equally, but a fundamental lack of reporing on what the facts of the case are.
Facts are often misunderstood to be biased and so unstrustworthy. The reality is that because the facts are biased towards logical conclusions is exactly why they are trustwrohty. For some reason, many confuse determining facts with bias which is a confusion about the order. Determining facts allows one then to make conclusions that are reliable.
And way too often, all media outlets (meaning bloggers too) forget the above.
Has Fox News been taken over by the Onion? Because you can’t make this stuff up.
John Gibson thinks we ought to out and identify secret spymasters. There’s video. It’s hysterical and sad. Mainly hystical, but maybe after I stop laughing I’ll find it sad–but that’s going to take a long time.
I’ve hired one of Washington, D.C.’s most respected advisers on congressional ethics issues to make sure that there are no conflicts with my official duties. I consulted with the Ethics Committee and received bipartisan guidance on potential conflicts and situations when I should not vote. The committee’s guidance was very clear — I represent a large constituency and it is my duty to represent them — through my vote unless my wife or I stand to benefit directly and financially because of a vote I cast, which simply is not the case with CAFTA.
To assert that just because my wife is a congresswoman in Guatemala there is automatically a conflict doesn’t make it the case. CAFTA is a regional trade agreement between several nations, not just one, affecting millions of people in seven different countries.
That’s a quaint way of looking at it, but a more realistic is that his wife is an official in a foreign government and hence, there is a conflict of interest in the family.
More bizarre is his insistence on maintaing his membership on the Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere that oversees US-Guatemalan relations and certainly deals with issues of human rights. Zury Rios Montt (as her own web site identifies her) is a political supporter and member of a party founded by a man who was a genocidal dictator. How can anyone justify that relationship and his role in overseeing State Department operations in Guatemala?
ArchPundit