Comments on: The Power of the Jump™: Those Non-Confidential Confidential Sources http://patterico.com/2005/07/08/the-power-of-the-jump%e2%84%a2-those-non-confidential-confidential-sources/ Harangues that just make sense Fri, 05 Dec 2008 14:12:32 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.5 By: steve M. http://patterico.com/2005/07/08/the-power-of-the-jump%e2%84%a2-those-non-confidential-confidential-sources/#comment-17472 steve M. Mon, 11 Jul 2005 02:52:32 +0000 http://patterico.com/?p=3303#comment-17472 I was interpreting "general waiver" to mean a boilerplate form that was handed to every person who might be the source of the leak. The idea being that if you refuse to sign, you become an immediate suspect. I didn't read it as the form being handed to just one person because they already knew who it was. I don't know for sure which way it happened. It doesn't seem to make sense for it to be Rove in both cases -- why would he save one reporter with a direct message and not another? I was interpreting “general waiver” to mean a boilerplate form that was handed to every person who might be the source of the leak. The idea being that if you refuse to sign, you become an immediate suspect. I didn’t read it as the form being handed to just one person because they already knew who it was. I don’t know for sure which way it happened.

It doesn’t seem to make sense for it to be Rove in both cases — why would he save one reporter with a direct message and not another?

]]> By: Paul Deignan http://patterico.com/2005/07/08/the-power-of-the-jump%e2%84%a2-those-non-confidential-confidential-sources/#comment-17409 Paul Deignan Sat, 09 Jul 2005 18:35:44 +0000 http://patterico.com/?p=3303#comment-17409 If Miller thinks the source signed the waiver involuntarily, the source is not Rove. Really, who is going to force Rove to sign anything against his will? If Miller thinks the source signed the waiver involuntarily, the source is not Rove. Really, who is going to force Rove to sign anything against his will?

]]> By: Justene http://patterico.com/2005/07/08/the-power-of-the-jump%e2%84%a2-those-non-confidential-confidential-sources/#comment-17404 Justene Sat, 09 Jul 2005 14:42:55 +0000 http://patterico.com/?p=3303#comment-17404 If the written waiver wasn't signed voluntarily, then those seeking the testimony procured it and already knew who the source is. So Steve's suggestion that the source still wants to be confidential makes no sense. The source's signing of a waiver, even "involuntarily", also destroys the new "theory" that the source (Rove) already testified and lied that he or she (Rove) is the source and they need Miller's testimony to prove it. The waiver would be enough to prove that. If I were the MSM, my headline would read "Source signs waiver" Para one would read "Miller suggests that prosecutor obtained waiver directly from source but jailed her anyway." This is so obvious to me that either I am missing something or those still accusing Rove are being purposely obtuse. If the written waiver wasn’t signed voluntarily, then those seeking the testimony procured it and already knew who the source is. So Steve’s suggestion that the source still wants to be confidential makes no sense.

The source’s signing of a waiver, even “involuntarily”, also destroys the new “theory” that the source (Rove) already testified and lied that he or she (Rove) is the source and they need Miller’s testimony to prove it. The waiver would be enough to prove that.

If I were the MSM, my headline would read “Source signs waiver” Para one would read “Miller suggests that prosecutor obtained waiver directly from source but jailed her anyway.”

This is so obvious to me that either I am missing something or those still accusing Rove are being purposely obtuse.

]]> By: Paul Deignan http://patterico.com/2005/07/08/the-power-of-the-jump%e2%84%a2-those-non-confidential-confidential-sources/#comment-17394 Paul Deignan Sat, 09 Jul 2005 03:13:50 +0000 http://patterico.com/?p=3303#comment-17394 It seems clear to me. If the source wanted to come out, <strike>Scooter</strike> the source would have done so already. I'm with Steve on this one. It seems clear to me. If the source wanted to come out, Scooter the source would have done so already.

I’m with Steve on this one.

]]> By: Patterico http://patterico.com/2005/07/08/the-power-of-the-jump%e2%84%a2-those-non-confidential-confidential-sources/#comment-17381 Patterico Fri, 08 Jul 2005 22:12:39 +0000 http://patterico.com/?p=3303#comment-17381 <em>I don’t buy it, Patterico. If the source wants to free her from her specific agreement, he or she knows how to pick up the phone. The source would have contacted her or her editors by now to save her from jail. I think it is clear the source doesn’t want to be revealed.</em> I am not expressing an opinion on whether Miller is right. I'm just saying that, if there is a written release, I don't think it's clear. And I think the information should have been put higher in the story. You seem to be asserting that Miller affirmatively claims her source hasn't released her other than by the written document. I haven't heard that. It could be that there is detail about this that has been reported that I haven't heard about; I haven't followed it very closely. But if there is publicly available information that contradicts the prosecutor's statement that Miller's source released her, other than just her assertion that she feels it wasn't voluntary, then that should have been reported too. Maybe he hasn't phoned her because he feels a written waiver is enough, or even better. I'd just like to see this be a more prominent part of the story. As it is, the implication on the front page is that the source is clearly, 100% confidential. I don’t buy it, Patterico. If the source wants to free her from her specific agreement, he or she knows how to pick up the phone. The source would have contacted her or her editors by now to save her from jail. I think it is clear the source doesn’t want to be revealed.

I am not expressing an opinion on whether Miller is right. I’m just saying that, if there is a written release, I don’t think it’s clear. And I think the information should have been put higher in the story.

You seem to be asserting that Miller affirmatively claims her source hasn’t released her other than by the written document. I haven’t heard that. It could be that there is detail about this that has been reported that I haven’t heard about; I haven’t followed it very closely. But if there is publicly available information that contradicts the prosecutor’s statement that Miller’s source released her, other than just her assertion that she feels it wasn’t voluntary, then that should have been reported too.

Maybe he hasn’t phoned her because he feels a written waiver is enough, or even better.

I’d just like to see this be a more prominent part of the story. As it is, the implication on the front page is that the source is clearly, 100% confidential.

]]> By: steve M. http://patterico.com/2005/07/08/the-power-of-the-jump%e2%84%a2-those-non-confidential-confidential-sources/#comment-17377 steve M. Fri, 08 Jul 2005 21:31:20 +0000 http://patterico.com/?p=3303#comment-17377 I don't buy it, Patterico. If the source wants to free her from her specific agreement, he or she knows how to pick up the phone. The source would have contacted her or her editors by now to save her from jail. I think it <strong>is</strong> clear the source doesn't want to be revealed. I don’t buy it, Patterico. If the source wants to free her from her specific agreement, he or she knows how to pick up the phone. The source would have contacted her or her editors by now to save her from jail. I think it is clear the source doesn’t want to be revealed.

]]>