novak forced to reveal sources? maybe.

this time i wont try to impart my own constitutional analysis. Im in law school, but im focusing more on other things, so my knowledge of con law isnt as sharp as it will be next year when i sit for the bar.

so here is some legal analysis that sounds more accurate than mine courtesy of Volokh.com

http://volokh.com/2003_09_28_volokh_archive.html#106494751387414760">Volokh analysis

Volokhs main conclusion: "The rule in criminal cases is at least as pro-disclosure, and probably even more so. Since this evidence is critical to identifying who may have violated the law, and since it's hard to see how prosecutors can realistically uncover it without asking Novak or one of the other reporters, Novak probably won't have a privilege"


(I know its more of a right wing site. Disregard the other nonsense, but read the legal reasoning. This author believes Novak might just be forced to reveal.)

push Novak.

It wasn't the act of printing the story in the paper which was illegal, it was that the information was divulged six times to reporters. Once the get one (or five) other reporters to give evidence, or if they get people withing the WH who give evidence, they won't need Novak even though he was the only person who published the information.

i wouldn't be willing to bet my dog on it but there is this one cat that leaves dead mice on my midnite path to the john that i may lay on the line.

no one has ever revealed their source have they?

but if was unethical. He should become persona non grata on the pundit circle.