I had a “See, I told you so” moment yesterday morning watching Sen. Chuck Schumer on Fox News Sunday attempt to excuse the NYT/NSA leaks.

First, watch Schumer spin when Chris Wallace asks him about the DOJ criminal investigation into the NYT/NSA leaks:

Download the video (.wmv file).

“There are differences between felons and whistleblowers, and we ought to wait until the investigation occurs to decide what happened,” Schumer sputtered as he complained about Republican “distractions.” The quote, of course, found its way into a prominent place in the NYTimes and elsewhere.

Full transcript here.

This “good” leak/”bad” leak meme from one-armed Democrat plumbers who have no desire to plug the ones that hurt the President is just as I predicted on Friday:

1) Won’t be long before we start hearing the Bush-haters at the Times and elsewhere moaning about how this probe is a waste of time/distraction from the important business of Congress/politically motivated(!).

2) Look for the Plamegate apologists to argue that the NSA leaks were “good” leaks, justified in the name of safeguarding civil liberties and the national interest, and should therefore be exempt from criminal prosecution.

By contrast, they argue that disclosures about Valerie Plame were “bad” leaks worthy of pulling out all prosecutorial stops–though no one has been charged with leaking classified info, and even if they did, the adverse effects on national security are infinitesimal compared to the damage done by the NYT/NSA leaks.

The law, may I remind the Bush-bashers, does not grant an exception based on leakers’ motives…

Bluto, who was a whistleblower himself, sets Schumer straight:

There is a process for Federal employees to become officially recognized as whistleblowers through the US Office of the Inspector General. Recognition by the OIG protects the employee from retaliatory employment actions, and triggers an OIG investigation of the charges made by the whistleblower.

It’s not enough to simply declare oneself a whistleblower. And whistleblower disclosures are never sanctioned to outside agents, including and especially the Press.

Darleen Click asks:

Really, Chuck? So the new goal posts are not whether or not a law was broken and actual damage was done, but only if there is proof that the leakers did want to damage national security?

Schumer, as noted many times on this blog (see below), has some nerve pontificating about leaks. Guess he puts his former DSCC staffers, Katie Barge and Laurie Weiner, in the noble “whistleblower” category. Eh, Chuck? (I checked with the US Attorney’s Office in DC, by the way, and the investigation into Barge and Weiner’s involvement in illegally obtaining a credit report on Maryland’s lieutenant governor Michael S. Steele is still ongoing.)

***

More caustic reaction to Schumer’s motives-based test for leakers:

Rhymes with Right
The Bo’sun Locker
Don Singleton
Right Voices
The Political Dogs
Scipio the Metalcon

Related: Jeff Goldstein weighs in on “domestic spying,” historical context, and media manipulation.” Read the whole thing.

Update: Reader Paul L. writes:

Cropped from your video clip was Chuckie at his finest. He mentioned twice in the interview, if memory serves me, that the proper course for the President was to have open debate and change the law which everyone would support.

How does one have open debate about a classified program?

Has the NSA been eavesdropping on Schumer? Scrappleface has the scoop.

And John Hinderaker weighs in.

***
Previous:

Whitewashing Chuckaquiddick
Chuckaquiddick: Look who’s paying the tab
NY Times “looks into” Chuckaquiddick
Chuckaquiddick: Where’s the MSM?
The NYTimes ombudsman is totally worthless
Democrat dumpster diving
A despicable Democrat dirty trick

comments (0)   trackbacks (13)