Another Comment on Tate-Vogel

I wanted to make one thing clear from this entire debacle.  I have never said that I think Mark Tate is guilty or innocent of the charges brought against him.  I've never met Mark Tate, and I have no idea about any of the facts of the specific action brought against him.

However, I think the entire thing (indictment date being known and leaked, Vogel supporter getting his bank records, etc.) has been handled poorly by the Commonwealth Attorney's involved, and that the General Assembly should consider new laws next year in order to prevent this in the future.  Maybe a law that a candidate for public office can not be indicted for anything regarding SBE filings in the 90 days before an election unless they happened within 90 days of the election?

By the way- as far as the beating up of Shaun Kenney- it should stop.  If you read all the articles the only time I attack Shaun is when he lies about telling me about the indictments in advance.  However, Shaun is a BIT PLAYER in all of this.  VCAP had the rumors before Shaun told me.  Ed Gillespie called Mark Tate before Shaun called me.  From that (and the Tate campaign saying there was an RPV conference call after Gillespie called Tate, but before Shaun told me) we can be fairly sure that someone in the Grand Jury did NOT leak this information to Shaun directly.  Shaun would be out of this entire thing if he would just say who told him about the date of the indictment.  Other than that the only thing Shaun appears to have done wrong is mislead the media when they first called him about it.  He'll recover from that once he comes clean and says who told him and when.

As I said before, under normal circumstances I always protect my sources.  However I will not sit by while someone is charged with felonies and not reveal information that is critical to their defense.  In this case that outweighs my source and their confidentiality.

Comments

[Not Bill Howell]

Debacle? Whose debacle? Surely not yours. Your line of inquiry and actions were appropriate and they have been rewarded with the attention of one of the top two papers in the country. Perhaps traditional/mainstream/establishment reporters would have protected the source over helping the victim of abused power, but is that a more moral position?

The blogosphere is a new medium; its mores are still evolving. What you did was not out-of-bounds in the least. Don't let partisan apologists for these political gangsters cause you even a pensive moment.

[Not Larry Sabato]

You're right, it's not my debacle. The point I am trying to make it the story isn't about me. Or Shaun Kenney. It's about who leaked this information and whether it was leaked in order to hurt a candidacy.

[Not Scooter Libby]

Republicans don't leak stuff for partisan purposes. They hate government, they don't use the levers of power for their own partisan advantage. C'mon who are you are you trying kid?!?

Q Do you think that the Justice Department can conduct an impartial investigation, considering the political ramifications of the CIA leak, and why wouldn't a special counsel be better?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Let me just say something about leaks in Washington. There are too many leaks of classified information in Washington. There's leaks at the executive branch; there's leaks in the legislative branch. There's just too many leaks. And if there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is. And if the person has violated law, the person will be taken care of.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/09/20030930-9.html

[notroberthurt]

Three cheers for your ideas about indictments.

This whole thing stinks to high heaven.

I think that whether you're from the left or right, this looks awfully fishy right before a primary election. I will be interested to see the ultimate adjudication in the matter. If it is not guilty, perhaps bloggers on the right and left should think about organizing a campaign to get the CAs involved defeated in a primary/general?

[Loudoun Insider]

Loudoun CA Jim Plowman is not challenged for the Republican nomination, and no Democrat filed. There are rumors of an independent challenger, but nothing confirmed yet.

[Loudoun Insider]

Loudoun CA Jim Plowman is not challenged for the Republican nomination, and no Democrat filed. There are rumors of an independent challenger, but nothing confirmed yet.

[phriendlyjaime]

Who said you did anything wrong?

[InsideScoop]

I will repeat myself: Jim Plowman leaked the details. He was conducting the investigation and he leaked the information. Go with it, Not Larry Sabato. Go with it. You won't be wrong. I have strong, inside info on this.

[Not Bill Howell]

No one is opposing Britton yet either, but a lot of support is lined up and waiting for whoever does -- if they'll only jump in. KG Dems met tonight, and a pitch was made. Better hurry: Deadline for petitions is June 12.

WAIT A SEC.

Your earlier comments said you called Kenney, not vice versa...

Get your story straight, Ben! Then have the guts to apologize.

[Not Larry Sabato]

You're right. It should be Shaun "told" me not Shaun "called" me. The call itself is on my phone bill so I obviously called him.

[Doug in Mount Vernon]

Jim Plowman certainly deserves a challenger from the Democratic Party! This is the one weak area for the Loudoun Dems right now--their lack of having recruited strong constitutional office candidates.