October 7, 2003 - Robert D. Novak, like every citizen is presumed to know the law. In Novak’s case it is likely that the presumption is more than the formulation of the legal truism that “ignorance of the law is no excuse”. The veteran conservative columnist was a DC fixture in 1995 when then Congressman Torricelli was accused of violating Title 50 Chapter 15 Section 421 of the US Code and joined the Gingrich led hue and cry to oust the NJ Democrat from the House Select Intelligence Committee. When Novak wrote his July 14th column blowing Valerie Plame’s cover he can be presumed to have actually known that the leak to him constituted a crime. There can be no doubt that when he subsequently identified the CIA cover company on CNN he knew precisely what he was doing.

President Bush said yesterday, “This is a very serious matter, and our administration takes it seriously," He also said, "If anybody has got any information inside our government or outside our government who leaked, you ought to take it to the Justice Department so we can find the leaker," One thing is sure, Robert D. Novak knows the leaker. It follows that even Attorney General John Ashcroft knows that Novak is the sure source for information as to the identity of the person who gave him the information that he published.

The Whitehouse says that there is no need for an independent counsel’s investigation of the matter. The President expresses confidence in the Justice Department’s ability to conduct a thorough investigation and has directed the Whitehouse staff to furnish all documents that relate to the exposure of the covert agent’s identity. Nobody doubts that the Justice Department has the capacity to conduct such an inquiry, but there is am understandable skepticism that it has the will to do so. Every day that passes without Novak being subpoenaed to produce his records and testify to a Grand Jury feeds that skepticism.

Let me be clear here. The First Amendment guarantee of a free press does not provide a newsman with immunity from prosecution where, as in this case, what he published constitutes a criminal act. Neither does the First Amendment provide legal cover for a reporter to conceal the identity of the criminal who provided him with the information identifying Ms. Plame as a CIA covert agent or Brewster-Jennings as a CIA front company. There is nothing in the law to prevent Attorney General Ashcroft from sweating the truth out of Novak. It is only the lack of the will to do so that is preventing the Justice Department from exercising this obvious first step in identifying the criminal in the Administration.

But that is what you get when you send the Fox to investigate the Hen House.