Suskind and the tapes

Submitted by Floater on Mon, 08/11/2008 - 9:05pm. Tags:

Politics

So it looks like Richer did not know that Suskind had made recordings of the conversations and thought he could lie with impunity. Now he's making noises about legal action.

Rob Richer, the CIA's former associate deputy director of operations, said in a lengthy statement Friday rebutting some of the more explosive charges in the book attributed to him that he plans to consult an attorney to determine whether he has a case against author and Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Ron Suskind for recording an interview with the ex-spy without his permission.

"It is clear that he did record some of our conversations – but at no time did he inform me that he was doing so or seek my permission," Richer said in a statement. "I plan to consult counsel about the legality of his action."

Link

I'm not sure of Suskinds legal exposure but I think Richer would be really foolish to try to pursue legal action against Suskind.
--

Floater's blog
Login or register to post comments

He said/she said (#109449)

by Sulla on Tue, 08/12/2008 - 8:40am

until the tapes are released. Then if everything is exactly as Suskind claims (in the article Richer says the limited transcripts released by Suskind do not tell the whole story) the question becomes when was Richler lying, then or now.

"That Sam-I-am! That Sam-I-am! I do not like that Sam-I-am!"- Dr. Seuss

(

)

Given the way Richer is backtracking (#109452)

by Floater on Tue, 08/12/2008 - 8:57am

He's definitely a liar. The question is why? Was he telling the truth originally in which case it appears that high officials in the Bush administration are guilty of high crimes? Or was he trying to burn Suskind by lying to him back then?

(

| parent )

In the article you link to (#109455)

by Sulla on Tue, 08/12/2008 - 9:03am

he claims Suskind got what he said wrong, so I wouldn't say it's definite he lied until the tapes are released, although I'll grant that suspicion is cast upon his claims if he'd rather sue Suskind for making the tapes rather than encouraging them to be released to verify his side of the story.

"That Sam-I-am! That Sam-I-am! I do not like that Sam-I-am!"- Dr. Seuss

(

| parent )

Oh please yes. (#109428)

by Punditus Maximus on Tue, 08/12/2008 - 12:32am

Let Discovery take place. Oh yes oh yes.

It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.

(

)

My understanding (#109394)

by HankP on Mon, 08/11/2008 - 9:17pm

is that if it was a face to face interview, Richer has no claim but if it was a phone interview Suskind is open to prosecution if he didn't give notice in advance that he was recording.

I blame it all on the Internet

(

)

Depends (#109408)

by BChurch on Mon, 08/11/2008 - 9:55pm

Some states do not require prior notice for recording intrastate calls. Not sure what the federal interstate law is.

IIRC, some states may even have disclosure requirements for in person recording.

(

| parent )

OK (#109413)

by HankP on Mon, 08/11/2008 - 10:10pm

You overcame my natural sloth to find this. In DC and 38 states (including VA) one party to a conversation can record it and make it public without the other parties consent. Twelve states require the consent of all parties to a conversation in order to make the recording public: CA, CT, FL, IL, MD, MA, MI, MT, NV, NH, PA and WA. So unless the interviews took place in one of those states, Suskind would seem to be in the clear (and unless he made written or verbal assurances that he would not record it, that would make it a bit messier).

The funny thing, of course, is that the White House denied that the conversation even took place before he produced the tapes and transcripts. Kind of par for the course at this point.

I blame it all on the Internet

(

| parent )

Cite? (#109417)

by Macallan on Mon, 08/11/2008 - 10:23pm

"the White House denied that the conversation even took place"

I don't recall that, nor does that make much sense.

“I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.”

(

| parent )

Oops (#109422)

by HankP on Mon, 08/11/2008 - 11:19pm

skimmed that part a little too fast. The two interviewees, Richer and Maguire, denied Suskind's quotes attributed to them until he came up with the tapes of the interviews.

What sharp gimlet little eyes you have, Mac.

I blame it all on the Internet

(

| parent )

Edwardsian (#109415)

by Steve Peterson on Mon, 08/11/2008 - 10:20pm

HankP wrote:

The funny thing, of course, is that the White House denied that the conversation even took place before he produced the tapes and transcripts. Kind of par for the course at this point.

Yah -- they should work out a deal with John Edwards where they can vouch for each other!

Steven Palmer Peterson

(

| parent )

Compared to the White House (#109423)

by HankP on Mon, 08/11/2008 - 11:24pm

Edwards is a piker. His lie only held up for a year or two.

I blame it all on the Internet

(

| parent )

A no brainer (#109393)

by Steve Peterson on Mon, 08/11/2008 - 9:08pm