Balco leak uncovered

I'm sure it has a beat.
Please use a hanky before resuming work on it.

 

Actually, I was referring to something at the link.

But I'm sure you and the pigeons will find it later, when you're out of crumbs and need some entertainment.

 

The Book is closed for this evening.
Chapter Five -- The Poloponies Years -- will begin later.
Time to trim the dumbass kudzu again.

 

Uh, no, they're not. Because such circumstances could not, by definition, involve journalists in the first place. A journalist never is in a position by which he or she could "unseal" (i.e., leak) anything. Journalists do not have custody of secret information. There are, theoretically, unlimited circumstances under which a journalist could disobey a judge's order. None of them include an order to refrain from leaking information. Such information would not be known to a journalist until after it had been leaked.

 

First, go back and read the statutes.

Second, this claim that journalists don't have custody of secret information is exactly the kind of ridiculous statement I'm talking about. I'll go very slowly so you can understand:

The defense attorney is ALWAYS going to have information almost no one else will have. That's because said defense attorney has sworn not to disclose this info.

If said defense attorney gives that information to our heroes Bo and Luke, it has been leaked. Bo and Luke still have a choice as to whether to run with it. If they don't, no one knows there's been a leak. They would have custody of secret information.

Let's say that down the road, Coy and Vance hit town and get the same info. They publish it. Eventually said defense attorney admits to leaking. In the process, said attorney says he gave the same info to Bo and Luke. They now have the unsealed, sealed information.

Even if you and the other Kool-Aid drinkers do the inevitable and disregard this scenario, there are many, many others where journalists do have "secret" information. Most of them choose to be responsible and get confirmation before running with it.

 

This may be the most moronic statement of anything the Kool-Aid drinkers have offered so far.

So you would have us believe someone would be subpoenaed, but would choose not to get any kind of legal advice before testifying? Obviously someone would go over with an attorney what might be asked, what the response would be, etc.

You also say the witness would consult with the lawyer. I don't know if this is what you mean or yet another example of someone leaving out the word "not."

But if someone would consult with the lawyer, I would think the lawyer would have information about what was asked, what was said, etc.

Also, I seem to remember one of Bo and Luke's claims was that the testimony already had been unsealed for sharing with other parties -- which probably included the defense. If that's true, then even if what you had said HAD made sense, it would be somewhat moot.

I realize you and the other Kool-Aid drinkers are going to keep coming up with some sort of hypothetical and using it to obscure reality. That's why the call for "SHIEEEEEEEEEEEELDLAW" will always be flawed; the heart of journalism is presenting all the facts. For "SHIIEEEEEEEEEEEELDLAW" the facts are still concealed.

That's where the real Game of Shadows lies.

 

Precisely, and this is where the legal question, so far as it involves journalists, ends. Thank you for conceding the point.

True, but this is no longer a legal question. It is an ethics question, out of reach of the law. A judge may not issue an order to Bo and Luke to refrain from publication, because that would be prior restraint. That's unconstitutional. The "secrecy" of the information in question is irrelevant. As a legal concept, "secret" applies only to government custodians of information. It is not permitted, under the First Amendment, to apply to journalists.

Again, irrelevant from a legal standpoint.

If there were to be any contempt finding against the journalists, it would have zero to do with the substance of the information itself or its potential publication. It would be confined to compelling the journalists to reveal the source of leaked information. That is a very different, very crucial, distinction.

And that is why shield laws are needed.

 

Way to miss the entire point, which was the witness likely would go over potential questions and testimony with an attorney before testifying.

 

I stopped reading your argument after you started going all over the place. You claimed there NEVER could be secret information. I proved you wrong, so you started arguing everything possible under the sun, then ended predictably with "SHIEEEEEEEEEEEELDLAW!"

The rest of your babbling about prior restraint, etc., has little to nothing to do with the Balco investigation. You seem to be lost in the journalism world's Game of Shadows. Better find a flashlight, fast.

 

BTW, Ragump, I found this little tidbit about what Bo and Luke's lawyers believe:

"They believe that when the U.S. Attorney's office released the grand jury transcripts to the BALCO defense teams, the government removed that information from the domain of the grand jury and put it into the public."

In other words, the defense teams already had the information.

I got that straight from the Free Bo and Luke site.