Reporter From Time Is Held in Contempt in C.I.A. Leak Case

[gldstwmn]

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/10/politics/10leak.html

A federal judge in Washington held a reporter for Time magazine in contempt of court yesterday and ordered him jailed for refusing to name the government officials who disclosed the identity of an undercover C.I.A. officer to him. The magazine was also held in contempt and ordered to pay a fine of $1,000 a day.

The judge, Thomas F. Hogan, chief judge of the Federal District Court in Washington, suspended both sanctions while Time and its reporter, Matthew Cooper, pursued an appeal. But the judge firmly rejected their contention that the First Amendment entitled journalists to refuse to answer a grand jury's questions about confidential sources.

"The information requested," Judge Hogan wrote, "is very limited, all available means of obtaining the information have been exhausted, the testimony sought is necessary for completion of the investigation, and the testimony sought is expected to constitute direct evidence of innocence or guilt."

The ruling came in an investigation into whether Bush administration members illegally disclosed the identity of a covert C.I.A. officer.

Legal experts said yesterday that the potential jailing of a journalist represented perhaps the most significant clash between federal prosecutors and the news media since the 1970's. The case is one of several making their way through federal courts in which journalists have been ordered to reveal their sources.

The subpoenas for Mr. Cooper and other journalists were issued by a special prosecutor, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, trying to learn who told the syndicated columnist Robert Novak the identity of an undercover C.I.A. officer, Valerie Plame. Ms. Plame is married to Joseph C. Wilson IV, a former diplomat who asserted in a July 6, 2003, Op-Ed article in The New York Times that President Bush had relied on discredited intelligence when he said, in his 2003 State of the Union address, that Iraq had sought uranium from Africa.

On July 14, 2003, Mr. Novak wrote in his column that "two administration officials" told him that Ms. Plame "is an agency operative on weapons of mass destruction." Disclosing the identity of a covert officer for the Central Intelligence Agency officer can be a crime. Mr. Wilson has suggested that the White House might have leaked his wife's name as retribution for his criticism of the president.

It is not known whether Mr. Novak has received a subpoena or, if he did, how he responded. His lawyer, James Hamilton, declined to comment yesterday.

On July 17, 2003, Time reported that "some government officials" had disclosed Ms. Plame's identity to the magazine.

Mr. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and a number of White House officials have been questioned in the inquiry, which Mr. Fitzgerald, the United States attorney in Chicago, took over after Attorney General John Ashcroft recused himself in December.

Like Mr. Cooper, Tim Russert, of the NBC program "Meet the Press," received a subpoena in May. In a decision dated July 20 but made public yesterday, Judge Hogan ordered Mr. Russert and Mr. Cooper to testify before the grand jury.

Mr. Cooper refused, leading to the contempt order yesterday. By contrast, Mr. Russert agreed to cooperate.

In a statement, NBC said Mr. Russert was interviewed under oath by prosecutors on Saturday. NBC said Mr. Russert had not been a recipient of a leak and was not asked questions that would have required him to disclose a confidential source.

"The questioning focused on what Russert said when Lewis (Scooter) Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, phoned him last summer," NBC reported Saturday. "Russert told the special prosecutor that at the time of the conversation he didn't know Plame's name or that she was a C.I.A. operative and did not provide that information to Libby."

A spokesman for Mr. Fitzgerald declined to comment on the investigation.

A Washington Post reporter, Glenn Kessler, was interviewed by prosecutors in June. The Post reported then that he had testified about conversations with Mr. Libby at Mr. Libby's request and that he did so without violating any promises to confidential sources.

A second Post reporter, Walter Pincus, said he received a subpoena yesterday. He referred questions about whether The Post would challenge the subpoena to the paper's lawyers. Neither The Post's in-house lawyers nor its outside lawyer, Seth P. Waxman, responded to messages seeking comment.

Legal experts, including some sympathetic to the arguments by Mr. Cooper and Time, said the appeals court was unlikely to reverse Judge Hogan's decision.

"I think we're going to have a head-on confrontation here," said Lucy Dalglish, executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. "I think Matt Cooper is going to jail."

Time's managing editor, James Kelly, said the judge had given too little weight to the importance to the public of allowing reporters to pledge confidentiality to their sources in exchange for important information.

Several reporters, including James Risen and Jeff Gerth of The New York Times, have been ordered to reveal their confidential sources in a case brought by Wen Ho Lee. Mr. Lee, a scientist at the Los Alamos nuclear laboratory, was suspected of espionage in 1999 but ultimately pleaded guilty to a single felony count of mishandling secrets. Mr. Lee is suing the federal government, alleging violations of his privacy.

Later this month, Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson, also of the Federal District Court in Washington, is scheduled to rule on a motion by Mr. Lee's lawyers to hold the reporters in contempt. Mr. Lee's case is a civil one, seeking money, while the Plame investigation is a criminal one.

In his ruling in the Plame matter last month, Judge Hogan said a federal Supreme Court decision from 1972 known as Branzburg required Mr. Cooper to disclose his sources.

Judge Hogan wrote, "Branzburg makes clear that neither the First Amendment nor the common law protect reporters from their obligations shared by all citizens to testify before the grand jury when called to do so."

Floyd Abrams, a lawyer for Time and Mr. Cooper, said the decision would make it harder for reporters like Mr. Cooper to do their jobs.

"The story was essentially critical of the administration for leaking information designed to focus the public away from what Ambassador Wilson was saying was true and toward personal things," Mr. Abrams said of the Time article. "That sort of story, about potential government misuse of power, is precisely the sort of thing that is impossible to do without the benefit of confidential sources."

[dissention]

Now that we know Russert is a sleazeball, I'm curious about this Cooper character. He's written quite a few puff pieces about Bush and Co., so I wouldn't be surprised to find out he's in their pocket. God, this is going to be huge in a few days. Novak is going up the river!

[strandinthewind]

Now that we know Russert is a sleazeball . . .

How do you get that from:
______________________________________________

Mr. Cooper refused, leading to the contempt order yesterday. By contrast, Mr. Russert agreed to cooperate.

In a statement, NBC said Mr. Russert was interviewed under oath by prosecutors on Saturday. NBC said Mr. Russert had not been a recipient of a leak and was not asked questions that would have required him to disclose a confidential source.

"The questioning focused on what Russert said when Lewis (Scooter) Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, phoned him last summer," NBC reported Saturday. "Russert told the special prosecutor that at the time of the conversation he didn't know Plame's name or that she was a C.I.A. operative and did not provide that information to Libby."
________________________________

Russert was doing what any law abiding person would do :shrug:

I'm curious about this Cooper character. He's written quite a few puff pieces about Bush and Co., so I wouldn't be surprised to find out he's in their pocket. God, this is going to be huge in a few days. Novak is going up the river!

Your def. of a puff peece about Bush and the definition of the vast majority of people probably significantly differs :laugh: I think to you anyone that gives W slight credit in any regard is a traitor :laugh: ;) :p

God, this is going to be huge in a few days. Novak is going up the river!

I am unsure if a significant number of people will more than slightly if at all care about the leaking of the name. Now, if this goes to a criminal court and W or Cheney is implicated in a crime, which remains to be seen and is, at the slightest, an uphill battle, then yes, it will be huge :cool:

[dissention]

How do you get that from:

Russert was doing what any law abiding person would do :shrug:

You need to read some more articles about this other than the one you posted. Russert was under investigation himself in the leak of Plame and only agreed to testify once NBC told him he had to. However, the rules were that they could only ask him very limited questions and the whole testimony ended up being nothing. He didn't give anyhting up or tell them anyhting they didn't know.

Your def. of a puff peece about Bush and the definition of the vast majority of people probably significantly differs :laugh: I think to you anyone that gives W slight credit in any regard is a traitor :laugh: ;) :p

Have you read any of his articles? The magazines came with a fresh **** stain from all the ass kissing, Jason. ;)

I am unsure if a significant number of people will more than slightly if at all care about the leaking of the name. Now, if this goes to a criminal court and W or Cheney is implicated in a crime, which remains to be seen and is, at the slightest, an uphill battle, then yes, it will be huge :cool:

The investigation is being held because they believe the leak came from the White House and that the press (namely Novak) is helping in covering it up. :shrug: I think it's a big deal if we find out that it was the WH after all. It doesn't bode well for Shrubya. It's very telling that Cooper is willing to go to jail for this and it leads me to believe that this is more than just a man trying to protect his informant. All they need to know is who Cooper heard it from and this case will be blown open. I hope Novak goes up the river, seeing as how he's one of the big wigs under investigation, because what he did was treasonous. :wavey:

[strandinthewind]

You need to read some more articles about this other than the one you posted. Russert was under investigation himself in the leak of Plame and only agreed to testify once NBC told him he had to. However, the rules were that they could only ask him very limited questions and the whole testimony ended up being nothing. He didn't give anyhting up or tell them anyhting they didn't know.

AHHHHH - I was just wondering - you statment "Now that we know" implied to me that you concluded this from the posted article. I like Russert and do not see the big deal here. But, if you do - so be it.

Have you read any of his articles? The magazines came with a fresh **** stain from all the ass kissing, Jason. ;)

:laugh: :laugh: Bless your liberal "the sky is falling" heart ;) :p

The investigation is being held because they believe the leak came from the White House and that the press (namely Novak) is helping in covering it up. :shrug: I think it's a big deal if we find out that it was the WH after all. It doesn't bode well for Shrubya. It's very telling that Cooper is willing to go to jail for this and it leads me to believe that this is more than just a man trying to protect his informant. All they need to know is who Cooper heard it from and this case will be blown open. I hope Novak goes up the river, seeing as how he's one of the big wigs under investigation, because what he did was treasonous. :wavey:

I agree. It will be a horrible thing if they can prove it. But, my question is will anyone care unless W and/or someone high up (like Cheney or Rumsfeld) is implicated and convicted. Things like that rarely happen. It is usually the little guy. But, all talk points to a high ranking official(s) so . . . .

[dissention]

AHHHHH - I was just wondering - you statment "Now that we know" implied to me that you concluded this from the posted article. I like Russert and do not see the big deal here. But, if you do - so be it.

I know, that came across as bitchy...not my intention, darling. :xoxo:

:laugh: :laugh: Bless your liberal "the sky is falling" heart ;) :p

It's true! I'll try to find some of his articles, they read like his reelection website!

I agree. It will be a horrible thing if they can prove it. But, my question is will anyone care unless W and/or someone high up (like Cheney or Rumsfeld) is implicated and convicted. Things like that rarely happen. It is usually the little guy. But, all talk points to a high ranking official(s) so . . . .

Or...Karl Rove. :eek:

PS: If you go to the DU, you'll find all the information you need about the Plame case. There are 17 threads about it!

[strandinthewind]

Rove is the most intersting of them all.

He is relatively unknown outside of people like us. I think if you polled most Americans, they may say, I have heard of him, but that would be about it. Thus, if Rove did say it, the effect will not be the same as if someone like Runsfeld, who many many more people know and trust (not us :wavey: ) said it. I do not think Rove will EVER let it out if it is him. He knows too many things about where many many skeletons are in many different peoples' closets. They may get him though. Although he is unquestionably brilliant, he is also HATED by many. That does not bode well for him.

I would be saddest if it came from Powell. I think Powell is still the most altruistic of the that pack of liars. I think without Powell, it would be a whole lot worse. So, I hope it is not him or that they do not try to blame it on him, which they are not above.

[dissention]

I would be saddest if it came from Powell. I think Powell is still the most altruistic of the that pack of liars. I think without Powell, it would be a whole lot worse. So, I hope it is not him or that they do not try to blame it on him, which they are not above.

Read the "Powell Doctrine" and get back to me. ;) He's a shill who sold out and whored himself to the higher-ups in the GOP. Any respect I had for him went out the window when he jumped aboard this ship. They won't sell him out because he's just as much involved in this as they are and couldn't risk him blowing things.

[strandinthewind]

Read the "Powell Doctrine" and get back to me. ;) He's a shill who sold out and whored himself to the higher-ups in the GOP. Any respect I had for him went out the window when he jumped aboard this ship. They won't sell him out because he's just as much involved in this as they are and couldn't risk him blowing things.

Bless your heart - do you like anyone other than Ford :laugh:

I think Powell stayed because he thought he could help stay these people. That is a far cry from selling out. But, I know I know - to give anything related to W any credit is never possible :cool: :) :rolleyes: :laugh:

[dissention]

Bless your heart - do you like anyone other than Ford :laugh:

Yes, Olympia Snowe. ;) It's only a matter of time before she switches to Democrat.

I think Powell stayed because he thought he could help stay these people. That is a far cry from selling out. But, I know I know - to give anything related to W any credit is never possible :cool: :) :rolleyes: :laugh:

Look at his actions over the last four years. Even he knew the intel he presented to the UN was bogus, but he did so anyways.

[strandinthewind]

Yes, Olympia Snowe. ;) It's only a matter of time before she switches to Democrat.

I LOVE her!!!!!!

Look at his actions over the last four years. Even he knew the intel he presented to the UN was bogus, but he did so anyways.

It was bogus in hindsight. But, did we know it then? The world did not think so - they believed he had these WMD. Even Blix believed it because he went on in the beginning about how SH had to comply with proving he destroyed the WMD. Thus, it is murky about whether Powell knowingly lied to the UN IMO. But, I know you do not think so and never will :cool:

[CarneVaca]

You need to read some more articles about this other than the one you posted. Russert was under investigation himself in the leak of Plame and only agreed to testify once NBC told him he had to. However, the rules were that they could only ask him very limited questions and the whole testimony ended up being nothing. He didn't give anyhting up or tell them anyhting they didn't know.

I still don't see how that makes him a sleazeball.

What makes a sleazeball in this case? A reporter who violates the source/reporter contract to reveal the source and save his hide? Or a reporter who refuses to reveal the source who potentially but an agent in mortal danger?

[dissention]

It was bogus in hindsight. But, did we know it then? The world did not think so - they believed he had these WMD. Even Blix believed it because he went on in the beginning about how SH had to comply with proving he destroyed the WMD. Thus, it is murky about whether Powell knowingly lied to the UN IMO. But, I know you do not think so and never will :cool:

Curve Ball. :wavey:

[dissention]

I still don't see how that makes him a sleazeball.

What makes a sleazeball in this case? A reporter who violates the source/reporter contract to reveal the source and save his hide? Or a reporter who refuses to reveal the source who potentially but an agent in mortal danger?

Besides for the fact that I already thought Russert was a sleazeball ( :laugh: ), I think that anyone who would involve themselves in the outing of an undercover CIA agent, putting not only her life in danger but the lives of 70 other officers, is a sleazeball of the highest order.

[strandinthewind]

Besides for the fact that I already thought Russert was a sleazeball ( :laugh: ), I think that anyone who would involve themselves in the outing of an undercover CIA agent, putting not only her life in danger but the lives of 70 other officers, is a sleazeball of the highest order.

But wasn't the article saying Russert had nothing to do with the outing of her. He was just reporting on it as every other reporter whose news agancy picked up the story did :shrug:

BTW - although I am sure I will disagree and am hesitant to ask, why is Chris Matthrews a racist :eek:

[dissention]

But wasn't the article saying Russert had nothing to do with the outing of her. He was just reporting on it as every other reporter whose news agancy picked up the story did :shrug:

We don't really know everything about the Plame case or testimonies becaus eit's under such security, but I highly doubt that was the only reason Russert was there.

BTW - although I am sure I will disagree and am hesitant to ask, why is Chris Matthrews a racist :eek:

After the convention, I was given a tape of Hardball before I left and it was Matthews and Sharpton. Matthews was all polite and proper to start off, then launched into the most vicious and blatantly racist tirade against Sharpton that I've ever seen. Yelled at him and told him that his whole career is based on a lie, that he never did anything to help anyone, that he lied about affirmative action and Clarence Thomas; it was brutal. If there's a transcript out there, I'll post it for you. You won't believe your eyes!

[strandinthewind]

After the convention, I was given a tape of Hardball before I left and it was Matthews and Sharpton. Matthews was all polite and proper to start off, then launched into the most vicious and blatantly racist tirade against Sharpton that I've ever seen. Yelled at him and told him that his whole career is based on a lie, that he never did anything to help anyone, that he lied about affirmative action and Clarence Thomas; it was brutal. If there's a transcript out there, I'll post it for you. You won't believe your eyes!

I would love to see it. I am always suspicious when anyone claims racism. I have seen too many use that term too loosely and without merit IMO. I will look for it as well. :cool:

Here is a pretty cool site that kind of goes into it a little (just a little)

http://www.opednews.com/wade_073004_demcon.htm

[CarneVaca]

Besides for the fact that I already thought Russert was a sleazeball ( :laugh: ), I think that anyone who would involve themselves in the outing of an undercover CIA agent, putting not only her life in danger but the lives of 70 other officers, is a sleazeball of the highest order.

Well, thinking like a reporter, I'd have to disagree. The sleazeball is the source. If I am given information, I'm going to publish it. If it is so sensitive that perhaps I should exercize some self-censorship, I'm going to get my editor to make a decision. That's how it works.

[dissention]

I would love to see it. I am always suspicious when anyone claims racism. I have seen too many use that term too loosely and without merit IMO. I will look for it as well. :cool:

Here is a pretty cool site that kind of goes into it a little (just a little)

http://www.opednews.com/wade_073004_demcon.htm

I'm not the kind of person to call anyone a racist, but what I saw on that show sickened me. Tweety went too far.

[dissention]

Well, thinking like a reporter, I'd have to disagree. The sleazeball is the source. If I am given information, I'm going to publish it. If it is so sensitive that perhaps I should exercize some self-censorship, I'm going to get my editor to make a decision. That's how it works.

I can understand where you're coming from because you were a reporter, but I think that any paper, editor, or reporter that would publish something so secretive that it would immediately endager the lives of over 70 government agents is a disgrace to the profession of journalism. :sorry:

[dissention]

Here is a pretty cool site that kind of goes into it a little (just a little)

http://www.opednews.com/wade_073004_demcon.htm

Why was this guy watching MSRNC in the first place? Does he not have CSPAN? And I forgot about the police and firemen line, that was the cheapest and lowest shot Tweety took. He said that they shouldn't vote for Kerry because Al Sharpton is supporting him. I was stunned.

[strandinthewind]

I'm not the kind of person to call anyone a racist, but what I saw on that show sickened me. Tweety went too far.

I know - I was just stating my reasons for asking as I had not heard anything about it :wavey:

[dissention]

I know - I was just stating my reasons for asking as I had not heard anything about it :wavey:

I wonder if there's a video out there on the internet. :confused: I'll bet there is, I'll try to find it. Have you seen the video of Hannity accosting Dean at the convention and Dean telling him to go see Outfoxed, then laughing at him and walking off? :laugh: It's PRICELESS!!!

[CarneVaca]

I can understand where you're coming from because you were a reporter, but I think that any paper, editor, or reporter that would publish something so secretive that it would immediately endager the lives of over 70 government agents is a disgrace to the profession of journalism. :sorry:

It's not that cut and dry. A news organization has to weigh overall public good v. immediate danger to individuals. This kind of thing goes on more often than we know. I think you and I could make a pretty good case that Novak is a sleazoid for disclosing the woman's name, but as a reporter, I am less inclined to reach that conclusion. I have to believe that he and his superiors went through the trouble of weighing potential consequences v. the public's right to know.

If they didn't, shame on them. But it's unlikely they can be punished for it. Willing disclosure of the identity of a covert operative is a serious felony under Federal law, punishable by fine and/or imprisonment. The Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982 makes it a crime for anyone with access to classified information to intentionally disclose information identifying a covert operative. The penalties get worse for doing it to a deep cover Directorate of Operations (DO) case officer (as opposed to an undercover DEA Agent). The question becomes who has access to the classified information. Once it gets into the reporter's hands, it no longer is classified.

I would love to see Novak thrown in jail for contempt, though. Most likely, he would cave. The moment when he has to make that decision will come. I can't wait.

[dissention]

It's not that cut and dry. A news organization has to weigh overall public good v. immediate danger to individuals. This kind of thing goes on more often than we know. I think you and I could make a pretty good case that Novak is a sleazoid for disclosing the woman's name, but as a reporter, I am less inclined to reach that conclusion. I have to believe that he and his superiors went through the trouble of weighing potential consequences v. the public's right to know.

I think the problem is that I fail to see how the public was served by the disclosure of an undercover CIA agent's name. :shrug: I don't think that she was served by having her cover blown, or the hordes of other agents whose lives were endangered because of it.

If they didn't, shame on them. But it's unlikely they can be punished for it. Willing disclosure of the identity of a covert operative is a serious felony under Federal law, punishable by fine and/or imprisonment. The Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982 makes it a crime for anyone with access to classified information to intentionally disclose information identifying a covert operative. The penalties get worse for doing it to a deep cover Directorate of Operations (DO) case officer (as opposed to an undercover DEA Agent). The question becomes who has access to the classified information. Once it gets into the reporter's hands, it no longer is classified.

I don't know much about this stuff, but are you saying that someone with access to classified information can give it to someone and that someone they gave it to can't be punished for making it public? Doesn't seem right to me. :shrug: This whole thing is abhorrent to me, as is the media in cases like this.

[Vianna]

I thought reporters were protected under the first and fifth amendments from having to reveal confidential sources? How can this man be held in contempt? I don't get it...

[strandinthewind]

I thought reporters were protected under the first and fifth amendments from having to reveal confidential sources? How can this man be held in contempt? I don't get it...

On June 29, 1972, the United States Suprmem Court issued the decision of BRANZBURG v. HAYES ET AL., JUDGES (408 U.S. 665, 92 S. Ct. 2646, 33 L. Ed. 2d 626 1972), which in a nutshell held that:

The First Amendment does not relieve a newspaper reporter of the obligation that all citizens have to respond to a grand jury subpoena and answer questions relevant to a criminal investigation, and therefore the Amendment does not afford him a constitutional testimonial privilege for an agreement he makes to conceal facts relevant to a grand jury's investigation of a crime or to conceal the criminal conduct of his source or evidence thereof.

__________________________________________________

Here is a site with the text of the opinion. I know nothing of this site except that the opinion seems to be published there and it came up first on Google :cool:

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/legal/l1970/branzburg_v_hayes_et_al_judges.htm

[gldstwmn]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A52895-2004Aug9.html

Reporter Held In Contempt in CIA Leak Case

While NBC fought a subpoena issued May 21 and was included in the opinion, it avoided a contempt citation after Tim Russert, moderator of NBC's "Meet the Press," agreed to an interview over the weekend in which he answered a limited number of questions posed by special prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald, NBC said in a statement.

Lawyers involved in the case said it appears that Fitzgerald is now armed with a strong and unambiguous court ruling to demand the testimony of two journalists -- syndicated columnist Robert D. Novak, who first disclosed the CIA officer's name, and Washington Post reporter Walter Pincus, who has written that a Post reporter received information about her from a Bush administration official.

Pincus was served with a subpoena yesterday after Hogan's order was unsealed.

In their statement, NBC officials said Russert agreed to the interview after first resisting on First Amendment grounds. NBC lawyers reached an accommodation with the prosecutor in which Russert "was not required to appear before the grand jury and was not asked questions that would have required him to disclose information provided to him in confidence."

Washington Post reporter Glenn Kessler agreed to a similar interview with Fitzgerald's office earlier this summer. In both Kessler's case and Russert's, prosecutors' questions concerned conversations the reporters had in early July 2003 with Lewis I. "Scooter" Libby, chief of staff for Vice President Cheney. Both reporters have said they told Fitzgerald's staff that Libby did not disclose the identity of the CIA employee, Valerie Plame, to them.

Fitzgerald has shown a continuing interest in Libby, witnesses have said, but it now appears that his reasons may be more complex than was first apparent. Libby has signed a waiver allowing reporters to tell the prosecutor whether he disclosed Plame's name to them. Prosecutors have e-mails and phone records showing his contacts with reporters, and witnesses have said they are interested in a story Cooper wrote last summer in which Libby was interviewed.

The investigation was sparked by a July 14, 2003, column by Novak that called into question the findings of an outspoken Bush foreign policy critic sent to the African nation of Niger in 2002 to investigate claims that Iraq had tried to buy uranium there for its weapons of mass destruction program. Cheney had asked for more information about fragmentary intelligence on the subject.

The envoy, former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, was recommended for the CIA mission by his wife, Plame, a CIA nonproliferation "operative," Novak wrote, adding that two administration officials offered the information as an explanation of why Wilson was selected. By then, Wilson was publicly accusing the Bush administration of "twisting" intelligence, including his findings in Niger, to build a case for going to war in Iraq.

Novak's lawyer, James Hamilton, declined to comment yesterday on whether his client has received a subpoena.

Pincus co-wrote a story last October that said an administration official gave similar information to a Post reporter on July 12, 2003 -- before Novak's column appeared -- though Plame's name was not disclosed at the time. Washington Post counsel Mary Ann Werner confirmed yesterday that Fitzgerald has demanded testimony from Pincus.

"We intend to file a motion to quash the subpoena," she said.


One defense lawyer involved in the case said the judge's ruling gives Fitzgerald significant leverage to compel testimony from Novak and Pincus. "This is now open season on these reporters," the lawyer said. The court's ruling establishes unequivocally that "in a grand jury context, reporters don't have a privilege," the lawyer said.

It can be a felony to intentionally disclose an undercover CIA officer's identity.

Media lawyers involved in the case have sought to avoid a showdown in the court of appeals because their chances of winning appear remote. Citing a 1972 Supreme Court case, Branzberg v. Hayes, Hogan wrote in his opinion that the high court has found that "there is no First Amendment privilege exempting members of the press from appearing before grand juries upon issuance of a valid subpoena."

Hogan cited language from the Branzberg decision in which the justices wrote that "we cannot accept the argument that the public interest in possible future news about crime . . . must take precedence over the public interest in pursuing and prosecuting those crimes."

He wrote that the information the prosecutor is seeking from Cooper and Russert "is very limited, all available alternative means of obtaining the information have been exhausted, the testimony sought is necessary for the completion of the investigation, and the testimony sought is expected to constitute direct evidence of innocence or guilt."

Time Managing Editor Jim Kelly said reporters must be able to protect confidential sources. His magazine will file an appeal today, he said, and pursue it "if it means taking it all the way up to the Supreme Court."

NBC News President Neal Shapiro said: "Compelling reporters to reveal their newsgathering to government investigators is, in our view, contrary to the First Amendment's guarantee of a free press."

NBC has said previously that Russert was "not a recipient" of Plame's name. A statement from the network yesterday said "the Special Prosecutor's questions addressed a telephone conversation initiated by Mr. Libby and focused on what Mr. Russert said during that conversation. Mr. Libby had previously told the FBI about the conversation and had formally requested that the conversation be disclosed."

NBC officials said that at the time of the conversation Russert "did not know Ms. Plame's name or that she was a CIA operative" and "he did not provide that information to Mr. Libby." Network representatives would not elaborate on Fitzgerald's interest in learning whether Russert disclosed information to Libby.

William K. Marimow, managing editor of National Public Radio News, said he would counsel reporters to keep commitments to confidential sources, even if they are likely to spend time in jail.

"I would say to them: When you make a promise, you keep it," he said. "Keep your promise and we will do everything humanly possible to protect your right to do that."

Lucy A. Dalglish, executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, said Hogan's ruling is troubling because it allows prosecutors to make their case by trying force reporters to violate confidentiality commitments, rather than by extracting answers from administration officials.

"You just can't tell me none of the people appearing before the grand jury knows who the leaker was," she said.

[CarneVaca]

I don't know much about this stuff, but are you saying that someone with access to classified information can give it to someone and that someone they gave it to can't be punished for making it public?

That's about the long and the short of it. Nice loophole for reporters, huh?

[strandinthewind]

It is such a touchy area. On the one hand, reporters being compelled to reveal their sources in many ways stifles a free press and people's willingness to open up to the press. On the other hand, illegal activity should not be tolerated. The SC, correctly IMO, said the rights of law enforcement is so fundamental in our society that these rights outweigh any rights the press may have under the First Amendment.

[CarneVaca]

I thought reporters were protected under the first and fifth amendments from having to reveal confidential sources? How can this man be held in contempt? I don't get it...

Not quite. That historically has been the position the press has taken. But there is no consitutional protection for anonymous sources. This is why once in a while some reporter gets his/her arse thrown in a cell.

The protection is primarily against prior restraint. That is, if the government learns that a newspaper is about to publish something negative and the government wants to prevent publication, case law holds that it cannot do so. Doesn't mean it can't try. And it is conceivable that, especially in a time of war, it could get an injunction against a publication. Of course, except for very rare circumstances where a hearing might be kept secret, seeking an injunction would have the unintended effect of making some of the information public that the government wanted to suppress in the first place. Beautiful, isn't it?

This is why we have libel laws. They're punitive, not preventive. And that is as it should be.

[strandinthewind]

That's about the long and the short of it. Nice loophole for reporters, huh?

Although the reporters may go to jail as punsihment for contempt of court if they fail to comply with the subpoenas, I do not think the reports are being indicted by the grand jury. The focus of this investigation as far as I can tell is to prosecute the member or members of the WH staff that leaked this name, which can be a felony.

That foes not mean Novak is not a jerk though. It just means he probably will not go to jail for publishing this name. Interestingly, if the prosecution can prove collusion in that Novak was a pawn of the felonious WH staff, Novak could probabaly go to jail on a conspiracy charge because his intent was to assist in the commiting of a felony. That would be a VERY hard case to prove though.

[dissention]

That's about the long and the short of it. Nice loophole for reporters, huh?

No ****. Now I have even less respect for journalists. :laugh:

[dissention]

Although the reporters may go to jail as punsihment for contempt of court if they fail to comply with the subpoenas, I do not think the reports are being indicted by the grand jury. The focus of this investigation as far as I can tell is to prosecute the member or members of the WH staff that leaked this name, which can be a felony.

That foes not mean Novak is not a jerk though. It just means he probably will not go to jail for publishing this name. Interestingly, if the prosecution can prove collusion in that Novak was a pawn of the felonious WH staff, Novak could probabaly go to jail on a conspiracy charge because his intent was to assist in the commiting of a felony. That would be a VERY hard case to prove though.

Novak is being investigated along with the WH and I think he'll go to prison eventually. :shrug: Why do you think he hasn't been summoned yet?

[gldstwmn]

I thought reporters were protected under the first and fifth amendments from having to reveal confidential sources? How can this man be held in contempt? I don't get it...

It doesn't apply to reporters testifying before a grand jury.

[strandinthewind]

No ****. Now I have even less respect for journalists. :laugh:

If you read the USSC decision, it really goes into the history and source of confidentiality exceptions for the press and why law enforcement purposes outweigh any such right. IMO - it was a well written decision because if my kid was killed and the only thing stopping the prosecution of the killer was some reporter saying, well, I interviewed the killer but cannot reveal the source, heads would roll :cool:

[CarneVaca]

Although the reporters may go to jail as punsihment for contempt of court if they fail to comply with the subpoenas, I do not think the reports are being indicted by the grand jury. The focus of this investigation as far as I can tell is to prosecute the member or members of the WH staff that leaked this name, which can be a felony.

Right, Jason, that is my understanding as well. The reporter(s) in this case risk jail time only for refusing to reveal the source. But the reporter is not being prosecuted. Even a surface reading of the law would seem to exonerate the reporter for publishing formerly classified information.

That foes not mean Novak is not a jerk though.

Nor does it mean he's not. ;) I totally agree.

It just means he probably will not go to jail for publishing this name.

Unless he's found in contempt, as you pointed out, for refusing to reveal the source. In fact, I'm surprised the Time guy got it first. Novak, after all, was the first to publish.

Interestingly, if the prosecution can prove collusion in that Novak was a pawn of the felonious WH staff, Novak could probabaly go to jail on a conspiracy charge because his intent was to assist in the commiting of a felony. That would be a VERY hard case to prove though.

Fat chance. Making the case would be virtually impossible. Never mind the chilling effect. Reporters would get thrown in jail constantly, if such a case were successfully prosecuted.

[strandinthewind]

Novak is being investigated along with the WH and I think he'll go to prison eventually. :shrug: Why do you think he hasn't been summoned yet?

It remains to be seen if Novak has been summoned - not matter what is said by his lawyer. Again, I think Novak is being or will be summoned so that he can be compelled to reveal the name or names of the sources. I do not think he is the one the grand jury was convened to indict. If they can prove collusion (e.g. Hey Novak, this Amb. is a D jerk, here is his wife's name, she is a secret spy and we wanna screw her husband because we do not like him - now go and publish this info. ) Novak could very well go to jail. Again, outside of some document specifically invomving Novak in some scheme, I think it would be next to impossible to implicate Novak. Thus, his testimony will serve to indict others and rightly so IMO.

[dissention]

It remains to be seen if Novak has been summoned - not matter what is said by his lawyer. Again, I think Novak is being or will be summoned so that he can be compelled to reveal the name or names of the sources. I do not think he is the one the grand jury was convened to indict. If they can prove collusion (e.g. Hey Novak, this Amb. is a D jerk, here is his wife's name, she is a secret spy and we wanna screw her husband because we do not like him - now go and publish this info. ) Novak could very well go to jail. Again, outside of some document specifically invomving Novak in some scheme, I think it would be next to impossible to implicate Novak. Thus, his testimony will serve to indict others and rightly so IMO.

I don't think Novak is the one they were convened to indict, but I believe that they are looking at him. I have a feeling soemthing is going to go down and we find out that Novak and the WH were in cahoots together. Call me crazy, but that's what I think. ;)

[strandinthewind]

I don't think Novak is the one they were convened to indict, but I believe that they are looking at him. I have a feeling soemthing is going to go down and we find out that Novak and the WH were in cahoots together. Call me crazy, but that's what I think. ;)

Did you just ask me to call you CRAZY :eek: :rolleyes: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :laugh:

Seriously, I think Novak may very well be in trouble if they have some kind of smoking gun proof (an email, etc.) that cleraly indicates Novak published this name with the intent to out this person and with full knowledge that he was doing this at the behest of the WH; in other words they would have to show Novak and the WH staff members were in on this together and acted as co-conspirators. That is a very hard, almost insurmountable, burden of proof though. But, if they have a smoking gun, it could be done.

[CarneVaca]

No ****. Now I have even less respect for journalists. :laugh:

It may seem like legal mumbo jumbo, but it makes a lot of sense when you think about it. Unfortunately, like anything, it can be abused.

It's hard to feel sympathy with Novak in this case, but it's important from a First Amendment standpoint that he prevail should he be put in the same position as the Time guy. Same goes for the Time reporter of course.

[CarneVaca]

Novak is being investigated along with the WH and I think he'll go to prison eventually. :shrug:

Fat chance, as I said before. He will land in jail only, and only, if he is found in contempt for refusing to name sources.

[dissention]

Fat chance, as I said before. He will land in jail only, and only, if he is found in contempt for refusing to name sources.

No way in hell will he name sources. He would take prison over that, Carne, c'mon.

[CarneVaca]

If you read the USSC decision, it really goes into the history and source of confidentiality exceptions for the press and why law enforcement purposes outweigh any such right. IMO - it was a well written decision because if my kid was killed and the only thing stopping the prosecution of the killer was some reporter saying, well, I interviewed the killer but cannot reveal the source, heads would roll :cool:

In that case, I'd agree with you. But in most cases I would have to disagree. Besides, the chance of a killer confessing to a reporter in a not-for-attribution interview is slim, and the chance of a reporter actually going to print with something like that is even slimmer.

[CarneVaca]

No way in hell will he name sources. He would take prison over that, Carne, c'mon.

Hard to say. If he goes to prison, that is one honorable thing he does.

[dissention]

Hard to say. If he goes to prison, that is one honorable thing he does.

More like saving his own ass. If he gives it up, he's toast.

[strandinthewind]

In that case, I'd agree with you. But in most cases I would have to disagree. Besides, the chance of a killer confessing to a reporter in a not-for-attribution interview is slim, and the chance of a reporter actually going to print with something like that is even slimmer.

Touche' (I gotta make an icon for that :laugh: )

But, it does happen not often, but it does, usually in the context of bragging to a reporter in a phone call saying "I'll give you the exclusive if you agree not to identifiy me and tell the world I under my pseudonym (like the Boston Strangler) killed such and such - make me glorious in your paper." Sad and sick, but true. It also more frequently occurs with mob trials in that a witness tells thge reporter something and asks not to be names. The prosecutor reads it and is like ???????? so, they subpoena the reporter to the grand jury. But, I agree these are VERY limited occurances even though they certainly occur.

[dissention]

Touche' (I gotta make an icon for that :laugh: )

Speaking of icons, I found these earlier and thought they were great:

http://instagiber.net/smiliesdotcom/cwm/cwm/pezfox.gif

http://instagiber.net/smiliesdotcom/contrib/ruinkai/nopityA.gif

[strandinthewind]

Speaking of icons, I found these earlier and thought they were great:

http://instagiber.net/smiliesdotcom/cwm/cwm/pezfox.gif

http://instagiber.net/smiliesdotcom/contrib/ruinkai/nopityA.gif
if not disturbing :laugh:

[dissention]

http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000604122

Plame Leak Case Could End in Supreme Court Standoff
Lucy Dalglish: "I think we are headed for a showdown."

By Joe Strupp

Published: August 10, 2004 12:21 PM EST

NEW YORK The recent pressure on reporters to reveal sources in the Valerie Plame investigation could end in a U.S Supreme Court standoff, according to two leading First Amendment attorneys, one of whom fears several leading Washington reporters could wind up in jail before it's over.

"I think we are headed for a showdown and it would not surprise me in the least to see half a dozen reporters sitting in a jail in D.C.," said Lucy Dalglish, executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, which monitors such cases. She believes Time magazine and other media outlets "will be willing to take this all the way to the Supreme Court because the atmosphere here has become so difficult for journalists to promise confidentiality that the stakes are too high."

Sandra Baron, executive director of the Media Law Resource Center, agreed. "Eventually it will go to the Supreme Court," she said. "I'm not sure if a lot of people want to see that because there is always the danger that the Supreme Court will take a strong stand against the press on this issue."

Dalglish's and Baron's comments followed word Monday that Time reporter Matthew Cooper had been held in contempt of court for failing to reveal sources who disclosed that Plame was an undercover CIA officer. In addition, Walter Pincus, a reporter for The Washington Post, received a subpoena Monday ordering him to testify in the investigation, which is being directed by special prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald. Other newspaper reporters are expected to receive subpoenas soon.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A53622-2004Aug10.html

Ruling Offers Window Into Plame Investigation

By Dan Froomkin
Special to washingtonpost.com
Tuesday, August 10, 2004; 11:39 AM

Sure the newly unsealed order by a federal judge in the Valerie Plame case sets up what could be the greatest First Amendment clash in decades -- but it also contains some very intriguing clues about the hugely secretive investigation into the leak of Plame's identity as a CIA operative.

And it does appear that special prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald is asking a lot of questions about Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, Lewis I. "Scooter" Libby.

U.S. District Chief Judge Thomas F. Hogan's ruled Time magazine reporter Matt Cooper in contempt of court for refusing to testify in front of the grand jury investigating the case.

The ruling contains a "background" section that provides a rare -- if still fragmented -- view into the investigation.

[gldstwmn]

http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000604122

Plame Leak Case Could End in Supreme Court Standoff
Lucy Dalglish: "I think we are headed for a showdown."

By Joe Strupp

Published: August 10, 2004 12:21 PM EST

NEW YORK The recent pressure on reporters to reveal sources in the Valerie Plame investigation could end in a U.S Supreme Court standoff, according to two leading First Amendment attorneys, one of whom fears several leading Washington reporters could wind up in jail before it's over.



From the WaPo article that I posted earlier:

Media lawyers involved in the case have sought to avoid a showdown in the court of appeals because their chances of winning appear remote. Citing a 1972 Supreme Court case, Branzberg v. Hayes, Hogan wrote in his opinion that the high court has found that "there is no First Amendment privilege exempting members of the press from appearing before grand juries upon issuance of a valid subpoena."
So, I don't think so Lucy.

[strandinthewind]

I know its an old thread, but this is a continuation of it:

New York Times reporter held in contempt
From Terry Frieden
CNN Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A federal judge Thursday declared New York Times reporter Judith Miller in civil contempt for her refusal to testify before a grand jury, but agreed not to jail her pending an appeal.

Miller had been subpoenaed to testify as part of the Justice Department investigation into who leaked CIA operative Valerie Plame's name to syndicated columnist and CNN contributor Robert Novak last year.

With renowned First Amendment attorney Floyd Abrams at her side, Miller said she refused to divulge any off-the-record information and confidential discussions with her sources in order to protect their identity.

U.S. District Judge Thomas Hogan said he understood her position, but rejected her argument.

"We have a classic confrontation between the freedom of the press and the right of the government to investigate criminal activity before a grand jury," Hogan said.

He said he had read a detailed summary of the status of the prosecutor's investigation, and is satisfied the government "is not on a fishing expedition."

The judge said both the government and Miller had acted in good faith, and were appropriately doing their respective jobs, but the law is on the government's side.

He then declared Miller in contempt, ordered her confined in a suitable place for a period not to exceed 18 months. She was released on a personal recognizance bond, pending an appeal.

Afterward Miller described the ruling as "really frightening."

"I'm disappointed that I am being held in contempt of court for an article I never wrote," she said. Miller stressed she was only gathering information from sources for a possible story.

The government declined to comment.

Both sides agreed to seek an expedited appeal and complete filing their cases by November 10.

Hogan agreed with Assistant U.S. Attorney James Fleischner that a fine would not be sufficient to compel Miller's testimony. No fine was imposed along with the planned incarceration.

Fleischner was representing the government in the absence of Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald who was appointed by the Justice Department to get to the bottom of the leak.

Fitzgerald has subpoenaed several reporters as part of his probe.

Time Magazine and one of its reporters, Matthew Cooper, also were held in contempt, but Cooper then reached an agreement under which he gave an interview to Fitzgerald leading to the citation being dropped.

Last month Cooper was subpoenaed again and was asked for additional information. Hogan has refused to quash that subpoena, and a new contempt hearing for Cooper is scheduled for next week.

Abrams noted the government's continued interest in forcing Cooper to testify, and said it was proof Miller should not agree to testify under a government promise of limited questioning.

Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/10/07/miller.contempt/index.html

[gldstwmn]

This is the same reporter who admittedly exagerrated the government's WMD claims prior to the war.
What comes around goes around, Judy.

[dissention]

This is the same reporter who admittedly exagerrated the government's WMD claims prior to the war.
What comes around goes around, Judy.

:nod: She's a total whore. She gladly did the dirty work for the admin.

[strandinthewind]

:nod: She's a total whore. She gladly did the dirty work for the admin.

and here is the NY Times' response :laugh:

October 10, 2004
The Promise of the First Amendment
By ARTHUR OCHS SULZBERGER JR., chairman and publisher, and RUSSELL T. LEWIS, chief executive, The New York Times

ast Thursday, a federal district judge ordered a New York Times reporter, Judy Miller, sent to prison. Her crime was doing her job as the founders of this nation intended. Here's what happened and why it should concern you.

On July 6, 2003, Joseph C. Wilson IV - formerly a career foreign service officer, a chargé d'affaires in Baghdad and an ambassador - wrote an article published on this page under the headline, "What I Didn't Find in Africa." The article served to undercut the Bush administration's claims surrounding Saddam Hussein's nuclear capacity.

Eight days later, Robert Novak, a syndicated columnist, wrote an article in which he identified Ambassador Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, as an "operative on weapons of mass destruction" for the C.I.A. "Two senior administration officials told me," Mr. Novak wrote, that it was Ms. Plame who "suggested sending Wilson" to investigate claims that Iraq had tried to purchase uranium ore from Niger. After Mr. Novak's report, several other journalists wrote stories in which they said they received similar information about Ms. Plame from confidential government sources, in what many have concluded was an effort to punish Mr. Wilson for speaking out against the administration by exposing his wife as a C.I.A. operative. The record is clear, however, that Judy Miller is not one of those journalists who reported this information.

Because the government officials who revealed Valerie Plame's status as a C.I.A. operative to the press might have committed a crime in doing so, the Justice Department opened a federal criminal investigation to find whoever was responsible.

During the course of this investigation, the details of which have been kept secret, several journalists have been subpoenaed to provide information about the source of the leak and threatened with jail if they failed to comply.

On Aug. 12, Ms. Miller received a subpoena in which she was required to provide information about conversations she might have had with a government official in which the identity and C.I.A. connection of Mr. Wilson's wife might have been mentioned. She received this subpoena even though she had never published anything concerning Mr. Wilson or his wife. This is not the only recent case in which the government has subpoenaed information concerning Ms. Miller's sources. On July 12, the same prosecutor sought to have Ms. Miller and another Times correspondent, Philip Shenon, identify another source. Curiously, this separate investigation concerns articles on Islamic charities and their possible financial support for terrorism that were published nearly three years ago. As part of this effort to uncover the reporters' confidential sources, the prosecutor has gone to the phone company to obtain records of their phone calls.

So, unless an appeals court reverses last week's contempt conviction, Judy Miller will soon be sent to prison. And, if the government succeeds in obtaining the phone records of Ms. Miller and Mr. Shenon, many of their sources - even those having nothing to do with these two government investigations - will become known.

Why does all of this matter? The possibility of being forced to leave one's family and sent to jail simply for doing your job is an appalling prospect for any journalist - indeed, any citizen. But as concerned as we are with our colleague's loss of liberty, there are even bigger issues at stake for us all.

The press simply cannot perform its intended role if its sources of information - particularly information about the government - are cut off. Yes, the press is far from perfect. We are human and make mistakes. But, the authors of our Constitution and its First Amendment understood all of that and for good reason prescribed that journalists should function as a "fourth estate." As Justice Potter Stewart put it, the primary purpose of the constitutional guarantee of a free press was "to create a fourth institution outside the government as an additional check on the three official branches."

The founders of our democracy understood that our government was also a human institution that was capable of mistakes and misdeeds. That is why they constructed a First Amendment that would give the press the ability to investigate problems in the official branches of our government and make them known to the public. In this way, the press was sensibly put in a position to help hold government accountable to its citizens.

An essential tool that the press must have if it is to perform its job is the ability to gather and receive information in confidence from those who would face reprisals for bringing important information about our government into the light of day for all of us to examine. Without an enforceable promise of confidentiality, sources would quickly dry up and the press would be left largely with only official government pronouncements to report.

A quarter of a century ago, a New York Times reporter, Myron Farber, was ordered to jail, also for doing his job and refusing to give up confidential information. He served 40 days in a New Jersey prison cell. In response to this injustice, the New Jersey Legislature strengthened its "shield law," which recognizes and serves to protect a journalist's need to protect sources and information. Although the federal government has no shield law, the vast majority of states, as well as the District of Columbia, have by now put in place legal protections for reporters. While many of these laws are regarded as providing an "absolute privilege" for journalists, others set out a strict test that the government must meet before it can have a reporter thrown into jail. Perhaps it is a function of the age we live in or perhaps it is something more insidious, but the incidence of reporters being threatened with jail by the federal government is on the rise.

To reverse this trend, to give meaning to the guarantees of the First Amendment and to thereby strengthen our democracy, it is now time for Congress to follow the lead of the states and enact a federal shield law for journalists. Without one, reporters like Judy Miller may be imprisoned. More important, the public will be in the dark about the actions of its elected and appointed government officials. That is not what our nation's founders had in mind.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/10/opinion/10sulzberger.html?hp=&oref=login&pagewanted=print&position=

[gldstwmn]

http://www.thekcrachannel.com/news/3819788/detail.html

Another Reporter Ordered To Jail In CIA Leak Case
Journalists Expected To File Joint Appeal

POSTED: 5:53 pm EDT October 13, 2004
UPDATED: 6:12 pm EDT October 13, 2004

WASHINGTON -- A federal judge has ordered Time magazine White House correspondent Matthew Cooper to jail for 18 months for refusing to reveal sources to a grand jury that is probing the leak of an undercover Central Intelligence Agency officer's identity.

Judge Thomas Hogan then suspended the jail time for contempt of court pending an appeal.

Hogan's actions are nearly identical to those he took last week against New York Times reporter Judith Miller.

The journalists are expected to file a joint appeal on First Amendment grounds.

Judge Hogan said reporters must testify to grand juries unless they can show prosecutorial harassment or bad faith.

"No reporter in the United States should have to go to jail for simply doing their job," Cooper said in response.