Could & should a 'deep throat' informer be successful today?

from JoeUser Forums
With today's outting of the identity of the original Watergate-era 'deep throat' (see Dr. Guy's article: Deep Throat Outed or any major news source, including The Washington Post for more news on the topic) I'm left with a few questions that were somewhat inspired by AM Talk radio on WMAL (AM630, DC) on the topic.

Hopefully I'm not borrowing too much from afternoon drive host Chris Core, but if I am, then apologies.

A few questions worth discussion and commentary by other folks here at JoeUser.

1. Could a 'deep throat' type character be successful today, or are we living in a time (thanks to CBS News, the New York Times, Newsweek, and a few other sources lately) when we need much more than one single source for a major story -- especially, for example, if we are talking about a story that could result in the impeachment of a high government official (to be fair, lets say it's any high government official, not just the President of the U.S. It could be a Supreme Court justice, the President, the Speaker of the House, the Senate Minority leader, or any other highly placed and influential government official)?

2. If we were to see a deep throat style character again, should that individual be successful and considered a hero for cleaning up government corruption, or would that individual be considered a traitorous disgrace?

As an example for question number two, lets hypothetically bring in some cases from both the current and the past president so that both parties can be considered and we won't (hopefully) play party favorites (but get ready for question number 3 to follow).

For my hypothetical (or feel free to substitute an example or two of you own), lets say that the Democratic President's administration is guilty of some things that have been insinuated against the current administration through their pushing for and use of the Patriot act: the Democratic administration has been spying on individual citizens, snooping at tax returns trying to get donor information and/or use confidential tax return information and other sensitive FBI file information to blackmail people into contributing to the DNC. If a highly placed official that was able to verify what was happening leaked that information to the press which started a full scale Watergate type investigation would you consider them a hero or a traitor? (And just to be sure, lets say this happened during the pre-9/11 times, with no Patriot act to use to even remotely make legal any of the snooping that was going on)

For the Republican example, lets try something similar to the "No Way Out" (the Costner movie from the 1980/1990 time frame) where a highly placed government official is keeping a mistress who threatens to spill the details of the relationship and instead is murdered during a drug or alcohol induced post-sexual encounter fight. The act is covered up with the disappearance of the body and some made up story about the woman leaving town. If you wish, a Chandra Levy (look up Gary Condit and/or Chandra Levy if you don't get the reference) type situation. Again, if someone highly placed had information about these occurences, would you consider them a hero for releasing the information to the press, or no?

With those relatively clear cut hypotheticals laid out, can you suggest other situations when you would be less inclined to cheer for a 'deep throat' and more inclined to consider them a traitor? For example, lets say someone has militarily significant and important information that could result in the deaths of troops, but which relates to practices that are questionable. Should the informant release the story even if it compromises the safety of the troops, or sit on the information?


3. Would your answer to question number 2 change depending on the party in power, or can you honestly and truthfully say that regardless of party affiliation corruption and illegal activities would be bad and should never be tolerated (therefore you would want a deep throat type character, and would consider them a hero)?


The jist of the questions is would a deep throat character be something we want now or not?
politics
7,903 views 34 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
It's tough, because justice is and should be blind. I think what Nixon did was wrong. People should be punished for what they do, but the response in terms of justice can also be very damaging to the overall good. I think Watergate and the whole ordeal thereafter was very, very damaging for America, and the blame for it lies with those who broke the law.

I think, though, that the damage done by 'bringing down a President' was far, far worse than the sin of the President. Does that mean a President should get a free ride? No. Whether it is Clinton's perjury or any other crime, Presidents rely upon trust. $40 million to prosecute a lie, though?

When you rate all the hate and mistrust and self-expressed validation of people who should NEVER have been validated, what Nixon did was peanuts. When you compare the benefits of Nixon in office to the loss of his expertise, we were much better with him there. When you look at what the whole thing did to the press in the US, we are STILL suffering for it.

So, in the end, it is justice at our own expense. Sure, people who break the law should pay. Sure, the final cost is on their shoulders. That doesn't mean we don't suffer for our need to 'bring them down, not by a long shot.
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
While my knowledge of history could be lacking, I was under the impression what 'deep throat' did was tell the reporter what wrong happened. Then the reporters went and did all sorts of snooping to put their story together. 'Deep throat' wasn't the only source, just the one that pointed them in the right direction where they could get everything confirmed (or denied). So in that regard, I think anyone that has knowledge on illegal dealings would be helpful to get that knowledge to those that might be able to do something about it. If the only way to do that is as an anonymous (or unnamed, deep, whatever) source, then so be it. So long as the unnamed source isn't the only information being used, and is just the hints to send those searching in the right direction, then it's all good. If the unnamed source is used as evidence on it's own, well that's bad.
I guess the jist of what I'm saying is that we want people that will let it be known when laws are broken, not sit quietly on the side while watching people abuse their power. Power corrupts, and one way to cut down on the corruption is to have those in power be held accountable to those that put them in power (we the people...).
Elemental: Reforged
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top

Just one minor revision to the original article.  Deep Throat was viewed as a traitor at the time.  He had a thankless job.

IN response to Bakerstreet, it is amusing that you use that arguement for Nixon, as that was the argument used by Moveon and other Clinton sycophants.  Of course there was no deep throat there.

And to Danny, no Deep throat provided the leads and facts to refute the administration's spin.  He did not lay out the story page by page, but each time they drifted off the reservation, he pointed them in the right direction.

Finally, was Vince Foster a Deep Throat wanna be on Whitewater?  One will always wonder and never know.

Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
Of course there was no deep throat there.


'Scuse me? I hear that's not what Bill was saying privately.

Sorry - big fat hangin curve ball & I just had to take a rip at it. Troll me away.

Cheers,
Daiwa
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
[switch]Serious mode back ON[/switch]

There is some irony in the timing of Deep Throat's outing himself. Deep Throat has always been a hero of the liberal left. The one thing he pushed Woodward & Bernstein hardest to do was "follow the money" which led to the presumption by the media for many years that funding of various organizations by conservative sources tainted the accomplishments and objectives of those organizations. For a long time now the media have sought to undercut conservative causes by infering that nefarious objectives were involved based on the source of some of the funding of those causes. It's one of the first things they do now when they want to discredit some group.

A couple of recent JU articles concerning funding sources of some CNN programming caught my eye, because if the same standard were to be invoked, the media should be all over this because not only was the funding from an overtly political source with an openly avowed agenda (Soros), attempts were made to hide the source of that funding. Sadly, the purity of left-money is still a widely held fundamental tenet of the mainstream media, while all right-money is deemed tainted & evil (look at the feeding frenzy over where money for some of DeLay's trips came from). Just thought it was a bit ironic. "Following the money" is investigative bread & butter, but only when it serves to undermine causes which are opposed; causes to which the media are sympathetic get a free ride. Just one guy's opinion. And they protest there is no media bias.

Cheers,
Daiwa
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
a. i find it amusing--and somewhat telling--yall keep referring to this as an 'outing'. nobody was 'outed' for the same reason a self-confessed criminal isn't 'ratted out.' there are a lotta things a person can do to himself...this aint one of em.

b. the most accurate characterization of what felt did for woodward & bernstein would not be 'point them in the right direction' so much as 'steered them away from non-productive directions'--if i'm understanding woodward correctly.

c. vince foster? do tell. (i'm gonna love this.)

d. 'follow the money' is exactly how one should approach any investigation, be it criminal, political or both. no matter how much you abhor soros, there's a world of difference between soros spending his money as he sees fit in conformance with the law, a broadcast station accepting funds from soros and delay (or any other public official) accepting 'gifts' from professional vote buyers.
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
I mean, come on people! Who "really" cares about this crap? It happened "how" many years ago? And if you say you care about it then I gotta ask "why"?
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
I'd add several comments about following the money.

The comments about the money on the left (pointed out by Daiwa) are dead on. The MSM (main stream media) has absolutely no interest in following that money. For example, the huge pile of money that Soros spread around all over the place, nah, no interest. The pile of money that Amnesty International and it's friends gave to the Kerry campaign, nope no interest. The uncounted piles of money that was raised for Hillary and friends of Bill & Hillary? No interest in where that came from either, or how it was accumulated.

The part of this story that starts putting Mark Felt into the traitorous sleazebag category is his family. They were the ones behind the "outing." They know the old man is sliding fast, and they want to cash in while they can. There are quotes from Felt himself reportedly saying that he had come around to believing that people had come to see him as a hero.


Some additional comment here, hearsay if you will....

I was listening to Tony Kornheiser's radio show the day after the news came out. He had one of his usual (regular) guests on, John (Jr.) Fienstein, former Post writer (as is Kornheiser for the most part) and Fienstein went into a story about how this news almost came out back in 1999. According to Fienstein's story, Felt had told Woodward that he could go ahead and release the info on his identity. The problem was that Felt was already showing signs of dementia, and was not able to remember details that would have proven to the world he was who he claimed to be. Woodward apparently made the decision that he couldn't be sure that Felt was "of sound mind and body" in giving permission to release his identity and terminate the original agreement he had made with the Washington Post, Woodward & Bernstein and their superiors. So Woodward sat on the story.

If that story is true, and hell, even if it's not, I do have to respect the Post, Woodward and Bernstein, and the others involved that kept their promise and never told the public who Deep Throat was until after the identity was released to the public elsewhere (thereby ending the original agreement).


The Washington Post provided some history in various columns about how the news that was out in print in Vanity Fair almost didn't come to be. Apparently the person that was selling the story to Vanity Fair was trying to do just that. VF turned it down initially, refusing to pay for the story. From there, a book was going to be assembled instead. The book apparently didn't find a publisher/distributor, and the story wound up back in VF's hands.

As I've clearly heard quotes from the family, the family felt it was time to "cash in" on the notorieity of the long kept secret. Again, in my mind, taking away any chance to try to be a hero, and instead showing Felt to be someone who was mad that he was passed over and who instead took to providing information to the Post, rather than going to Congress. All the more making it seem to me that Felt was being greedy, and was trying to pay back the Nixon administration for being passed over.

What if Felt hadn't been passed over, and had gotten the top job at the FBI, would Deep Throat have existed at all, and would we even care about Watergate?


One other comment here, can those that remember watching All The President's Men not get over an eery feeling that the people that made the movie just about outed Felt through their choice of actor for the role? Single individual, male, etc. Holbrooke fit the description fairly well, but also bears a pretty decent resemblance to what Felt looked like during the the time of the story.
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
And if you say you care about it then I gotta ask "why"?


if ya gotta ask, you'll never know.
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top


#9 by kingbee
Friday, June 03, 2005





And if you say you care about it then I gotta ask "why"?


if ya gotta ask, you'll never know.



Oh come on!!! What do you "possibly" hope to accomplish with it? Absolutely NOTHING is what it will accomplish.! It's OVER and DONE WITH! So once again I gotta ask "why"?
Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top
"N response to Bakerstreet, it is amusing that you use that arguement for Nixon, as that was the argument used by Moveon and other Clinton sycophants. Of course there was no deep throat there."


Honestly I despised President Hillary and her husband, but I thought the whole $40 million dollar blowjob investigation was silly. Again, I'd (shudder) agree with the folks you mention that it did more harm than good.

I would have much rather seen Clinton's involvement in the Population Council, Vince Foster's death, his submissive behavior toward terrorists, and on and on..., be investigated. It was almost as if Republicans conspired to keep all the REAL scary and offensive stuff about the man out of the news...

The equivalent would be Nixon's watergate scandal being shoved to the back page because he lied about having a girlfriend. I didn't get it then, and I don't get it now.
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top

#10 by drmiler
Friday, June 03, 2005







#9 by kingbee
Friday, June 03, 2005





And if you say you care about it then I gotta ask "why"?


if ya gotta ask, you'll never know.




Oh come on!!! What do you "possibly" hope to accomplish with it? Absolutely NOTHING is what it will accomplish.! It's OVER and DONE WITH! So once again I gotta ask "why"?


You of course do realize that Nixon has been dead for 11 years?
Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top
The MSM (main stream media) has absolutely no interest in following that money. For example, the huge pile of money that Soros spread around all over the place, nah, no interest. The pile of money that Amnesty International and it's friends gave to the Kerry campaign, nope no interest. The uncounted piles of money that was raised for Hillary and friends of Bill & Hillary? No interest in where that came from either, or how it was accumulated.


daiwa was complaining something totally different. your problem seems to be with 527 groups. as far as the clintons fundraisers, there is an ongoing trial involving a fundraiser in la in 2000.

bottom line? what clinton or kerry did or didn't do doesnt absolve illegalities on the other side.
Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top
"what clinton or kerry did or didn't do doesnt absolve illegalities on the other side."


No, but sometimes it is telling how easy it is for the press to brush off one sin and stick like glue to another.
Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top
You of course do realize that Nixon has been dead for 11 years?


jeez youre quoting your own comments?

of course it's important. just as any discovery or revelation that contributes to a fuller understanding of the past is important.

the most powerful man in the world (at one time) went to his grave not knowing this 'crap'. you should feel privileged but obviously you got no clue.
Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top
No, but sometimes it is telling how easy it is for the press to brush off one sin and stick like glue to another


you may have a point here in that a democrat presidential candidacy raising anything close to as much tainted money as his republican opponent IS more newsworthy. just on shock value alone.
Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top
took to providing information to the Post, rather than going to Congress.


perhaps we're less naive now...perhaps things are more transparent now than then. maybe it's just the absence of kissinger. whatever the reason, who exactly would you have trusted to protect you if you'd been him?
Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top
kingbee -

Actually, terpfan did a better job of saying what I meant than I did. I'm not sure that Soros trying to influence public opinion through a secretly bought and misrepresented "news" piece occupies any higher moral ground than an individual using the "wrong" credit card to charge an expense. Money trails are only interesting to the media if they have the potential to harm or embarrass those they have chosen to oppose, whether the funding is legitimate or not. How much play does that trial about the 2000 LA fundraiser get? The media think such investigations are just baseless witch hunts by a politically manipulated DOJ, after all. Oh, they'll report an initial allegation and do an occasional lip-service update, but they rarely actually go digging.

Cheers,
Daiwa
Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top
you may have a point here in that a democrat presidential candidacy raising anything close to as much tainted money as his republican opponent IS more newsworthy.


At least you acknowledge it - YOUR money is fine, THEIR money is tainted.

Cheers,
Daiwa
Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top
who exactly would you have trusted to protect you if you'd been him?


Senator Sam? I have a block on his last name, but he chaired the Watergate Committee.

Cheers,
Daiwa
Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top
Senator Sam?


donaldson? aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahhahahaahh i mean ervin.

in a time when the president couldnt be protected and people still believed intelligence agencies could actually do stuff they said they could do....i'm not sure i woulda been sure of anyone's help.
Reply #22 from JoeUser Forums Top
I'm not sure that Soros trying to influence public opinion through a secretly bought and misrepresented "news" piece occupies any higher moral ground than an individual using the "wrong" credit card to charge an expense.


oh the old wrong credit card bit huh? i shoulda known it was an innocent mistake.

as far as manipulating the news...how about prostitute who pretends to be a journalist? or columnists who are paid to shill for the administration?
Reply #23 from JoeUser Forums Top
it's
At least you acknowledge it - YOUR money is fine, THEIR money is tainted


actually what i was saying was it would be news cuz it's unexpected. dog bites man aint news.
Reply #24 from JoeUser Forums Top

Honestly I despised President Hillary and her husband, but I thought the whole $40 million dollar blowjob investigation was silly. Again, I'd (shudder) agree with the folks you mention that it did more harm than good.

I think you will find that $40 million was for all the investigations, primarily Whitewater.  And unlike so many witch hunts the democrats have been on of late, that one had convictions, and if not for the silence of the guilty, would have had probably more.  The Lewinsky affair stemmed from a civil case brought by Paula JOnes and exposed by Clinton's own deep throat, Linda Tripp.  Which we then did see how the media treated her as well as the administration.  Her actions were no more or less controversial than Mark Felt's.

I fail to understand why people rail against criminals going free, and then rail against the cost of investigating and prosecuting the criminals.  It would seem that they want their cake, they just dont want to pay for it.

Reply #25 from JoeUser Forums Top

how about prostitute who pretends to be a journalist? or columnists who are paid to shill for the administration?

First, Barney Frank.  Second, it has already been exposed that Clinton did it (I have not seen if other presidents did it), but since he was a democrat, the MSM decided it was a non-news story. As there was nothing illegal about it, it really is a non-news story.  But they tried to make it another scandal of a scandal free Bush Administration.

Kind of like the Homeless disappearing overnight on January 20, 1993, only to re-appear overnight on Jan 20, 2001.