Karl Rove

[strandinthewind]

Newsweek is reporting that Rove may be implicated in the Vlaerie Plame leak :eek: -- which of course Rove's lawyers deny and Rove will not publicly comment on but he did give grand jury testimony. This is unfolding into something that could be huge.

[gldstwmn]

Newsweek is reporting that Rove may be implicated in the Vlaerie Plame leak :eek: -- which of course Rove's lawyers deny and Rove will not publicly comment on but he did give grand jury testimony. This is unfolding into something that could be huge.

Sweet Jesus!!!!! :xoxo: :blob2: :blob2: :blob2:

[SuzeQuze]

Holy crap, he actually got his hands dirty? About time.

[gldstwmn]

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/huffpost/20050703/cm_huffpost/003584_200507031044

Lawrence O'Donnell
Sun Jul 3,10:44 AM ET

On Friday, I broke the story that the e-mails that Time turned over to the prosecutor that day reveal that Karl Rove is the source Matt Cooper is protecting. That provoked Rove’s lawyer, Robert Luskin, to interrupt his holiday weekend to do a little defense work with Newsweek and the Los Angeles Times.

On Saturday, Luskin decided to reveal that Rove did have at least one conversation with Cooper, but Luskin told the Times he would not “characterize the substance of the conversation.” Luskin claimed that the prosecutor “asked us not to talk about what Karl has had to say.” This is highly unlikely. Prosecutors have absolutely no control over what witnesses say when they leave the grand jury room. Rove can tell us word-for-word what he said to the grand jury and would if he thought it would help him. And notice that Luskin just did reveal part of Rove’s grand jury testimony, the fact that he had a conversation with Cooper. Rove would not let me get one day of traction on this story if he could stop me. If what I have reported is not true, if Karl Rove is not Matt Cooper’s source, Rove could prove that instantly by telling us what he told the grand jury. Nothing prevents him from doing that, except a good lawyer who is trying to keep him out of jail.

:woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo:

[ShangriLaTroubl]

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Newsweek magazine is reporting that e-mails between Time magazine reporter Matt Cooper and his editors show that Karl Rove, President Bush's top political adviser, spoke to Cooper in the days before a CIA operative's identity was revealed in the media, but it wasn't clear what Cooper and Rove discussed.

Rove's attorney told CNN his client did not disclose any confidential information.

Attorney Robert Luskin confirmed that Cooper called Rove in July 2003 but said he's "not characterizing the subject matter of that conversation."

A special prosecutor is investigating whether senior Bush administration officials leaked the name of CIA operative Valerie Plame to the media in retaliation after her husband wrote an opinion piece critical of the administration.

Cooper and New York Times reporter Judith Miller face jail on civil contempt charges for refusing to reveal their sources to a federal grand jury. Judge Thomas Hogan has set a final hearing on Wednesday and will make a decision after that.

Time Inc. announced Thursday that it would hand over subpoenaed documents, including Cooper's notes, after the Supreme Court refused to hear the reporters' appeals in the case.

Cooper's attorneys argued that Time's decision "should obviate" the contempt citation against him because the material gives the grand jury the information and makes his testimony "duplicative and unnecessary."

Time Inc. is a unit of Time Warner, which is also CNN's parent company.

Luskin said prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald "has confirmed repeatedly, most recently last week, that he (Rove) is not a target of the investigation."

Added Luskin, "Karl did nothing wrong. Karl didn't disclose Valerie Plame's identity to Mr. Cooper or anybody else ... Who outed this woman? ... It wasn't Karl."

Luskin said Rove "certainly did not disclose to Matt Cooper or anybody else any confidential information."

Rove has testified at least twice as part of the inquiry, but sources involved previously told CNN that while Rove acknowledged talking to reporters about the issue, he said he never knowingly disclosed classified information.

Luskin stressed that his client has cooperated fully with the government.

"I've been assured by the prosecutor they have no reason to doubt the honesty of anything he's said," he said.

The case stems from a July 14, 2003, column by Robert Novak in which he revealed Plame's identity as a CIA operative. Novak, who also is a CNN contributor, attributed the information to two senior administration officials.

Plame's husband is Joe Wilson, a former U.S. ambassador to Iraq. Wilson charged that his wife's name was leaked to retaliate against him after he disputed Bush administration statements that Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein had tried to purchase uranium in Africa.

Federal law makes it a crime to deliberately reveal the identity of a CIA operative.

The subpoena issued to Time sought documents relating to "conversations between Cooper and official source(s) prior to July 14, 2003, concerning in any way" Wilson, Wilson's 2002 trip to Niger, Plame, and any affiliation between Plame and the CIA.

Under federal law, civil contempt can carry up to 18 months in jail or the length of the grand jury's term, whichever is shorter. Hogan said the term of the grand jury in this case expires in October, so Miller and Cooper only face up to four months in jail.

As part of his probe, Fitzgerald subpoenaed a number of journalists to testify about their sources. Miller and Cooper and their news organizations decided to fight the subpoenas, although Cooper did reveal one unnamed source who released him from a confidentiality pledge.

Miller faces jail time for refusing to reveal sources she developed during her reporting, even though she never actually wrote a story on Plame or Wilson. But Novak -- who has refused to discuss the case on the advice of his attorney -- has not been held in contempt.

CNN's John King contributed to this report.

[ShangriLaTroubl]

I saw a good documentary on Rove/Bush today....it was called BUSH'S BRAINS..It was on Sundance, VERY good..anyone seen it?

Chris

[gldstwmn]

I saw a good documentary on Rove/Bush today....it was called BUSH'S BRAINS..It was on Sundance, VERY good..anyone seen it?

Chris

Yes, I have. Rove goes all the way back to the days of ...Nixon. He was a young college Republican then. He learned all his tricks from the late Lee Atwater who, on his deathbead from brain cancer, asked for forgiveness for all the horrible things he had done over the years.
Rove's comeuppance, should it be his time now, has been a long time coming. :nod:

[strandinthewind]

I hope that fuc&er falls and falls hard and then gets a big - and I mean BIG - minority boyfriend at CLub Fed :mad:

[gldstwmn]

I hope that fuc&er falls and falls hard and then gets a big - and I mean BIG - minority boyfriend at CLub Fed :mad:

If Rove goes down, then the whole house of cards goes down with him. This goes directly to the office of the Vice President and we all know George had to sit on his lap while they had their little interview with the special prosecutor so...

[macfanken]

I hope the pasty-faced piece of filth goes down, but I'm sure he'll lie, cheat and slime his way out of it. :mad:

[gldstwmn]

I hope the pasty-faced piece of filth goes down, but I'm sure he'll lie, cheat and slime his way out of it. :mad:

I don't think so. He has many enemies. I'm sure some of them will be more than happy to contribute to his political demise. After all, he f*cked with the CIA like it was some kind of frat boy prank and those are not the kind of people you do that to. These people take down governments, for Christ's sake. They're not above taking this one down, either. Those people take their jobs very, very seriously.

[strandinthewind]

I don't think so. He has many enemies. I'm sure some of them will be more than happy to contribute to his political demise. After all, he f*cked with the CIA like it was some kind of frat boy prank and those are not the kind of people you do that to. These people take down governments, for Christ's sake. They're not above taking this one down, either. Those people take their jobs very, very seriously.

Plus, they LOVE to eat their own :shrug: Politics is a hard game and no one is sacred :nod: Ask Clinton :cool:

[gldstwmn]

Plus, they LOVE to eat their own :shrug: Politics is a hard game and no one is sacred :nod: Ask Clinton :cool:

Which brings me to this-I can't help but thinking that there is a reason that Clinton is running around with Poppy. An ulterior one.

[strandinthewind]

Which brings me to this-I can't help but thinking that there is a reason that Clinton is running around with Poppy. An ulterior one.

THAT on top of Billy Graham commenting that Clinton should preach the work of Jesus and Clinton's wife should run the country - BIZARRE :eek:

[darklinensuit]

I don't get hopeful often, but I really think this is it for him.

- Jake

[strandinthewind]

I don't get hopeful often, but I really think this is it for him.

- Jake

Karma my friend - I mean this is the man who made an entire country hate gay people more than they already do -- all in an effort to hide W's BS war in Iraq and the fallacy and misguided farce that it became. I hope it hits him hard and hurts trememdously - and I am ashamed to have that hate in my heart :(

[gldstwmn]

THAT on top of Billy Graham commenting that Clinton should preach the work of Jesus and Clinton's wife should run the country - BIZARRE :eek:

Oh yeah. Now there's something going on there. But where does Poppy fit in?

[strandinthewind]

Oh yeah. Now there's something going on there. But where does Poppy fit in?

Well, Clinton, esp. Hillary, seemingly has more to gain from that. So, I think Clinton has some goods on ole Poppy :shrug: Or - maybe, as has long been thought by some, they were always in bed together.

[gldstwmn]

Chris, you might find this interesting about Rove. If I remember correctly, it wasn't in Bush's Brain:

Copyright 2003 The Houston Chronicle Publishing Company
The Houston Chronicle

November 09, 2003, Sunday 4 STAR EDITION

SECTION: A; Pg. 33 MetFront

LENGTH: 611 words

HEADLINE: Karl and Bob: a leaky history

SOURCE: Staff

BYLINE: RICK CASEY

BODY:
ONE OF THE great pleasures of studying history is the discovery that the interesting stuff is often in the footnotes.

That's where you find material not important enough for the main text, but too much fun to omit altogether.

This is such a footnote. It has to do with one of the great controversies of this political season - columnist Robert Novak's outing of CIA undercover operative Valerie Plame - and the controversy's Houston connection.

There were reports last week that the FBI's probe into what may be a criminal offense of disclosing the name of an intelligence operative has expanded.

Agents have questioned a number of high White House officials, and with good reason.

James Reston, former New York Times Washington bureau chief and columnist, once described government as "the only vessel that leaks from the top."

Novak brought that quip to mind when he wrote that "two senior administration officials" told him of Plame's profession.

The disclosure appeared to be part of an effort to discredit Plame's husband, former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, who publicly debunked a White House contention that Iraq had been trying to buy uranium to build nuclear weapons from Niger.

Washington gossip mills immediately focused on President Bush's chief political adviser, Karl Rove, as the possible leaker to Novak.

And in Houston, some eyebrows raised.

The reason: The Rove-Novak speculation seemed an echo from the 1992 re-election campaign of President George H.W. Bush.

Novak wrote a column then describing a secret Dallas meeting in which Houstonian Rob Mosbacher was stripped of his authority as state campaign manager for Bush because "the president's re-election effort in Texas has been a bust."

Novak wrote that the meeting was called by then-U.S. Sen. Phil Gramm.

"Also attending the session was political consultant Karl Rove, who had been shoved aside by Mosbacher," wrote Novak.

Mosbacher met with top leaders of the campaign, including George W. and Dallas Republican heavyweight Fred Meyer, who assured him they did not consider the campaign to be a bust.

Mosbacher laid out his suspicion that Rove was the source of the Novak column.

Rove, a direct mail specialist, had the entire contract for that service in Bush's 1988 campaign, Mosbacher recalled recently.

"I thought another firm was better," he said. "I had a million dollars for direct mail. I gave Rove a contract for $ 250,000 and $ 750,000 to the other firm."

"I said Rove is the only one with a motive to leak this," Mosbacher recalled. "We let him go."

Novak has since denied Rove was the source of that leak. In a profile last spring, Texas Monthly quoted Rove as saying, "As far as I know, Mosbacher still thinks I am the one who did it."

He's right.

"I still believe he did it," says Mosbacher, who is not pleased to have the matter resurrected.

Mosbacher does believe Rove's denials this time, however.

"I think he's a smart guy, and I don't believe he would break the law," he says.

That 1992 Novak column echoed again last week when former President Bush riled some conservative Republicans by presenting the George Bush Award for Excellence in Public Service to Sen. Ted Kennedy at the Bush Library at College Station.

"The right grumbles that moderate Republican Tom Luce, Ross Perot's lawyer and chairman of his aborted presidential campaign, was feted by the Bushes with an overnight White House stay," wrote Novak. "Luce still has not endorsed Bush at this writing, while right-wing activists who labor for the president are snubbed."

Current President Bush, with Rove at his side, clearly has taken Novak's warning to heart.

[gldstwmn]

So, now we have a pattern. What do you all think he will be charged with?
When was the last time anyone was charged with treason?

[strandinthewind]

So, now we have a pattern. What do you all think he will be charged with?
When was the last time anyone was charged with treason?

Other than the "liberals" who dared to even think about questioning the War in Iraq and the Dixie Chicks :eek:

[golddustdragon]

Oh boy. Like all the other scandals that this Administration has, it never did s*** because it was under Rove's control. However, since he may be implicated in the Plame case, this ought to finish Bush blow by blow. Impeachment/resignation can happen some time. It's still four more years.

[gldstwmn]

Other than the "liberals" who dared to even think about questioning the War in Iraq and the Dixie Chicks :eek:
:lol: No seriously. Was Benedict Arnold the last guy to be charged with treason?

[strandinthewind]

:lol: No seriously. Was Benedict Arnold the last guy to be charged with treason?

The Jewish couple in WWII - Streep played her in Angels in America.

[gldstwmn]

Oh boy. Like all the other scandals that this Administration has, it never did s*** because it was under Rove's control. However, since he may be implicated in the Plame case, this ought to finish Bush blow by blow. Impeachment/resignation can happen some time. It's still four more years.

True but they are completely neutralized by this. They will be essentially powerless and not only on a national scale but a global one as well.
Finally, the youngin's might get a taste of what Watergate was like and how it paled in comparison to what is going on now.
Did you know that one of the four articles of impeachment drawn up against Nixon was for bombing Cambodia?
I think Bush might actually be foolish enough to try to cowboy this out. I also think his father and Clinton might see the writing on the wall. If this thing really blows, the Republican Party will be castrated for the next decade.

[gldstwmn]

The Jewish couple in WWII - Streep played her in Angels in America.

The Rosenbergs. Roy Cohn f*cked those people badly. I think he went to a very special place in Hell.

[strandinthewind]

The Rosenbergs. Roy Cohn f*cked those people badly. I think he went to a very special place in Hell.

thank goodness he just fuc&ed guys and was not gay :rolleyes:

[gldstwmn]

thank goodness he just fuc&ed guys and was not gay :rolleyes:

I know. He was in denial right up until the end. I wonder how many people he infected. :(

[strandinthewind]

Newsweek: Rove spoke to reporter before leak
Bush adviser didn't reveal confidential information, attorney says
From Elaine Quijano
CNN Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Newsweek magazine is reporting that e-mails between Time magazine reporter Matt Cooper and his editors show that Karl Rove, President Bush's top political adviser, spoke to Cooper in the days before a CIA operative's identity was revealed in the media, but it wasn't clear what Cooper and Rove discussed.

Rove's attorney told CNN his client did not disclose any confidential information.

Attorney Robert Luskin confirmed that Cooper called Rove in July 2003 but said he's "not characterizing the subject matter of that conversation."

A special prosecutor is investigating whether senior Bush administration officials leaked the name of CIA operative Valerie Plame to the media in retaliation after her husband wrote an opinion piece critical of the administration.

Cooper and New York Times reporter Judith Miller face jail on civil contempt charges for refusing to reveal their sources to a federal grand jury. Judge Thomas Hogan has set a final hearing on Wednesday and will make a decision after that.

Time Inc. announced Thursday that it would hand over subpoenaed documents, including Cooper's notes, after the Supreme Court refused to hear the reporters' appeals in the case.

Cooper's attorneys argued that Time's decision "should obviate" the contempt citation against him because the material gives the grand jury the information and makes his testimony "duplicative and unnecessary."

Time Inc. is a unit of Time Warner, which is also CNN's parent company.

Luskin said prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald "has confirmed repeatedly, most recently last week, that he (Rove) is not a target of the investigation."

Added Luskin, "Karl did nothing wrong. Karl didn't disclose Valerie Plame's identity to Mr. Cooper or anybody else ... Who outed this woman? ... It wasn't Karl."

Luskin said Rove "certainly did not disclose to Matt Cooper or anybody else any confidential information."

Rove has testified at least twice as part of the inquiry, but sources involved previously told CNN that while Rove acknowledged talking to reporters about the issue, he said he never knowingly disclosed classified information.

Luskin stressed that his client has cooperated fully with the government.

"I've been assured by the prosecutor they have no reason to doubt the honesty of anything he's said," he said.

The case stems from a July 14, 2003, column by Robert Novak in which he revealed Plame's identity as a CIA operative. Novak, who also is a CNN contributor, attributed the information to two senior administration officials.

Plame's husband is Joe Wilson, a former U.S. ambassador to Iraq. Wilson charged that his wife's name was leaked to retaliate against him after he disputed Bush administration statements that Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein had tried to purchase uranium in Africa.

Federal law makes it a crime to deliberately reveal the identity of a CIA operative.

The subpoena issued to Time sought documents relating to "conversations between Cooper and official source(s) prior to July 14, 2003, concerning in any way" Wilson, Wilson's 2002 trip to Niger, Plame, and any affiliation between Plame and the CIA.

Under federal law, civil contempt can carry up to 18 months in jail or the length of the grand jury's term, whichever is shorter. Hogan said the term of the grand jury in this case expires in October, so Miller and Cooper only face up to four months in jail.

As part of his probe, Fitzgerald subpoenaed a number of journalists to testify about their sources. Miller and Cooper and their news organizations decided to fight the subpoenas, although Cooper did reveal one unnamed source who released him from a confidentiality pledge.

Miller faces jail time for refusing to reveal sources she developed during her reporting, even though she never actually wrote a story on Plame or Wilson. But Novak -- who has refused to discuss the case on the advice of his attorney -- has not been held in contempt.

Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/07/03/cooper.rove/index.html

[SuzeQuze]

The case stems from a July 14, 2003, column by Robert Novak in which he revealed Plame's identity as a CIA operative. Novak, who also is a CNN contributor, attributed the information to two senior administration officials.

Federal law makes it a crime to deliberately reveal the identity of a CIA operative.

Miller faces jail time for refusing to reveal sources she developed during her reporting, even though she never actually wrote a story on Plame or Wilson. But Novak -- who has refused to discuss the case on the advice of his attorney -- has not been held in contempt.
CNN's John King contributed to this report.

Okay, this is what is insane about this whole thing. Novak writes the column but Miller and Cooper are held in contempt and face jail time? And why did the Supreme Court refuse Miller's appeal? This is very frightening. "Freedom of the press" is long gone. Why did Novak reveal Plame's identity? Just because someone tells you who an operative is does not mean you should print it. :confused: This whole story stinks of something really awful.

[gldstwmn]

Okay, this is what is insane about this whole thing. Novak writes the column but Miller and Cooper are held in contempt and face jail time? And why did the Supreme Court refuse Miller's appeal? This is very frightening. "Freedom of the press" is long gone. Why did Novak reveal Plame's identity? Just because someone tells you who an operative is does not mean you should print it. :confused: This whole story stinks of something really awful.

Oh yes. This thing could go in a lot of different directions, none of them pretty.
It was speculated for a while that Plame was actually outed because her WMD work was leading her in the direction of Cheney.

[gldstwmn]

Newsweek: Rove spoke to reporter before leak
Bush adviser didn't reveal confidential information, attorney says


Heh. All Luskin did was reveal what Rove had already told the grand jury.

[gldstwmn]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/theblog/archive/lawrence-odonnell/roves-ididnotinha_3637.html

07.04.2005 Lawrence O'Donnell

Rove's I-did-not-inhale Defense
Karl Rove's lawyer, Robert Ruskin, had his holiday weekend ruined on Friday when I broke the story that the e-mails that Time delivered to the special prosecutor that afternoon reveal that Karl Rove is the source Matt Cooper has been protecting for two years. The next day, Luskin was forced to open the first hole in the Rove two-year wall of silence about the case. In a huge admission to Newsweek and the Los Angeles Times, Luskin confessed that, well, yes, Rove did talk to Cooper. It is a huge admission in a case where Rove and Luskin have never, before Friday, felt compelled to say a word about Rove's contact with Cooper or anyone else involved in the case.

Luskin then launched what sounds like an I-did-not-inhale defense. He told Newsweek that his client "never knowingly disclosed classified information." Knowingly. That is the most important word Luskin said in what has now become his public version of the Rove defense.

Not coincidentally, the word 'knowing' is the most important word in the controlling statute ( U.S. Code: Title 50: Section 421). To violate the law, Rove had to tell Cooper about a covert agent "knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent's intelligence relationship to the United States."

So, Rove's defense now hangs on one word—he "never knowingly disclosed classified information." Does that mean Rove simply didn't know Valerie Plame was a covert agent? Or does it just mean that Rove did not know that the CIA was "taking affirmative measures" to hide her identity?

In Luskin's next damage control session with the press, let's see if any reporter can get him to drop the word 'knowingly' from the never-disclosed-classified-information bit.

[strandinthewind]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/theblog/archive/lawrence-odonnell/roves-ididnotinha_3637.html

07.04.2005 Lawrence O'Donnell

Rove's I-did-not-inhale Defense
Karl Rove's lawyer, Robert Ruskin, had his holiday weekend ruined on Friday when I broke the story that the e-mails that Time delivered to the special prosecutor that afternoon reveal that Karl Rove is the source Matt Cooper has been protecting for two years. The next day, Luskin was forced to open the first hole in the Rove two-year wall of silence about the case. In a huge admission to Newsweek and the Los Angeles Times, Luskin confessed that, well, yes, Rove did talk to Cooper. It is a huge admission in a case where Rove and Luskin have never, before Friday, felt compelled to say a word about Rove's contact with Cooper or anyone else involved in the case.

Luskin then launched what sounds like an I-did-not-inhale defense. He told Newsweek that his client "never knowingly disclosed classified information." Knowingly. That is the most important word Luskin said in what has now become his public version of the Rove defense.

Not coincidentally, the word 'knowing' is the most important word in the controlling statute ( U.S. Code: Title 50: Section 421). To violate the law, Rove had to tell Cooper about a covert agent "knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent's intelligence relationship to the United States."

So, Rove's defense now hangs on one word—he "never knowingly disclosed classified information." Does that mean Rove simply didn't know Valerie Plame was a covert agent? Or does it just mean that Rove did not know that the CIA was "taking affirmative measures" to hide her identity?

In Luskin's next damage control session with the press, let's see if any reporter can get him to drop the word 'knowingly' from the never-disclosed-classified-information bit.


and the def. of "is" is . . . :laugh: What an ass.

[irishgrl]

Ah, the wonder boy may have made a HUGE tactical error..... :blob2: I tell you, if he does go down, there may be a glimmer of hope yet for this country, for without the puppet master, the puppet is nothing more than wood and string.....
Let us pray........... :angel:

[gldstwmn]

Ah, the wonder boy may have made a HUGE tactical error..... :blob2: I tell you, if he does go down, there may be a glimmer of hope yet for this country, for without the puppet master, the puppet is nothing more than wood and string.....
Let us pray........... :angel:

Well, he's still got Cheney to prop him up. But it look like if Karl goes down, this would pretty much lead to Cheney's door so we shall see.

[strandinthewind]

Sharks Smelling the Blood in the Water :eek:

_________________________________________________

Plame Prosecutor Demands Time Journo Testify

Tuesday, July 05, 2005



WASHINGTON — A federal prosecutor on Tuesday demanded the grand jury testimony of Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper (search), even though Time Inc. has surrendered e-mails and other documents to the investigation into the leak of a CIA officer's identity.

Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald (search) also opposed the request of Cooper and New York Times reporter Judith Miller (search) to be granted home detention — instead of jail — for refusing to reveal their sources.

Fitzgerald said allowing them home confinement would make it easier for them to continue to defy a court order to testify.

Special treatment for journalists may "negate the coercive effect contemplated by federal law," Fitzgerald wrote.

"Journalists are not entitled to promise complete confidentiality — no one in America is," Fitzgerald wrote in filings with the court.

Miller and Cooper could be ordered to jail as early as Wednesday when U.S. District Judge Thomas Hogan will hear arguments from Fitzgerald and lawyers for the reporters about whether they should testify.

Hogan has found the reporters in contempt of court for refusing to divulge their sources and he indicated last week that he is prepared to send them to jail if they do not cooperate.

In his court filings, Fitzgerald said it is essential for courts to enforce their contempt orders so that grand juries can get the evidence they need.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,161595,00.html

[strandinthewind]

and another:

Prosecutor: Time reporter must testify about CIA leak

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A federal prosecutor on Tuesday demanded that Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper testify before a grand jury investigating the leak of a CIA officer's identity, even though Time Inc. has surrendered e-mails and other documents in the probe.

Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald also opposed the request of Cooper and New York Times reporter Judith Miller to be granted home detention -- instead of jail -- for refusing to reveal their sources.

Allowing the reporters home confinement would make it easier for them to continue to defy a court order to testify, he said. Special treatment for journalists may "negate the coercive effect contemplated by federal law," Fitzgerald wrote in filings with the court.

"Journalists are not entitled to promise complete confidentiality -- no one in America is," Fitzgerald wrote.

Fitzgerald is investigating who in the administration leaked the identity of CIA officer Valerie Plame.

Plame's name was first published in a 2003 column by Robert Novak, who cited two unidentified senior Bush administration officials as his sources. Novak has refused to say whether he has testified or been subpoenaed.

Miller and Cooper could be ordered to jail as early as Wednesday when U.S. District Judge Thomas Hogan will hear arguments from Fitzgerald and lawyers for the reporters about whether they should testify.

Hogan has found the reporters in contempt of court for refusing to divulge their sources and he indicated last week that he is prepared to send them to jail if they do not cooperate.

In his court filings, Fitzgerald said it is essential for courts to enforce their contempt orders so that grand juries can get the evidence they need.

The case is among the most serious legal clashes between the media and the government since the Supreme Court in 1971 refused to stop the Times and The Washington Post from publishing a classified history of the Vietnam War known as the Pentagon Papers.

Thirty-one states and the District of Columbia have shield laws protecting reporters from having to identify their confidential sources. Legislation to establish such protection under federal law has been introduced in Congress.

Time Inc. is owned by Time Warner, which is the parent company of CNN.

Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/07/05/cia.leak.ap/index.html

[SuzeQuze]

I guess if you read between the lines Novak must have talked and whatever he said pointed to the other two reporters. However, he's not saying anything so it is hard to tell. Also, by forcing these reporters to reveal sources, isn't that inhibiting the freedom of the press as protected in the first amendment?

First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Here's another story:

Reporters argue against jail after Time surrenders notes

By The Associated Press
07.05.05

WASHINGTON — Time magazine and New York Times reporters, held in contempt for refusing to name sources, tried to stay out of jail on July 1 by arguing for home detention instead after Time Inc. surrendered its reporter’s notes to a prosecutor.

Producing the documents makes it unnecessary for Time reporter Matthew Cooper to testify to the federal grand jury investigating the leak of a CIA officer’s identity, Cooper’s attorneys argued in papers filed with a federal judge.

“The decision of Time Inc. to comply with the special counsel’s demand should obviate the need to enforce the subpoena served on Mr. Cooper and the contempt citation against him,” the court papers stated. “Mr. Cooper submits that his testimony would be duplicative and unnecessary.”

New York Times reporter Judith Miller will never reveal her sources and depriving her of her freedom “offers absolutely no realistic likelihood” that she will tell the prosecutor what she knows, her attorneys wrote.

U.S. District Judge Thomas Hogan found the two reporters and Time Inc. in contempt for refusing to cooperate in the investigation of who in the Bush administration disclosed the identity of CIA officer Valerie Plame.

Plame’s name was first published in a 2003 column by Robert Novak, who cited two unidentified senior Bush administration officials as his sources. Novak has refused to say whether he has testified or been subpoenaed.

Cooper, who wrote a subsequent story naming Plame, and Miller, who gathered material but never wrote an article, could be ordered to jail at the conclusion of a hearing before Hogan tomorrow.

Time turned over the documents four days after the Supreme Court refused to consider the case.

If Hogan refuses to lift his civil contempt order, a term of home detention would be appropriate for Cooper and Miller, the court papers stated. In the alternative, Cooper should be sent to the Federal Prison Camp in Cumberland, Md., and Miller to the Federal Prison Camp for women in Danbury, Conn., lawyers for each said.

Home detention would restrict Cooper’s activities “without unduly punishing” his wife and very young son, his lawyers said.

Nine members of the Army with whom Miller spent time when she was covering the war in Iraq submitted letters on her behalf, saying that she is someone who keeps her word and would never reveal secrets or her confidential sources under any circumstances.

One of the letters was from Lt. Gen. David Petraeus, who is in command of training Iraqi security forces.

On Capitol Hill, Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., said on July 1 that several unidentified Senate Republicans had placed a hold on a proposed resolution declaring support for Miller and Cooper.

“Cowards!” Lautenberg said of the Republicans. “Under the rules, they have a right to refuse to reveal who they are. Sound familiar?”

Lautenberg’s resolution is co-sponsored by Sens. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., and Christopher Dodd, D-Conn. It says that no purpose would be served by imprisoning Miller and Cooper and that the First Amendment of the Constitution guarantees freedom of the press.

Thirty-one states and the District of Columbia have shield laws protecting reporters from having to identify their confidential sources. Legislation to establish such protection under federal law has been introduced in Congress.

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=15517

[gldstwmn]

and another:

Prosecutor: Time reporter must testify about CIA leaak


It's on! :woohoo:

[irishgrl]

ok....I dont know where this is going but I will say this: Reporters are RABID about protecting sources and will willingly endure jail so as not to reveal them.... including my Grandmother, the first woman reporter for the Oakland Tribune...

if its up to the reporters, then its jail time......if the paper gives it up, what's the point????

in any event, I hope and pray Rove and the entire row of dominoes goes D.O.W.N. :nod:

[strandinthewind]

ok....I dont know where this is going but I will say this: Reporters are RABID about protecting sources and will willingly endure jail so as not to reveal them.... including my Grandmother, the first woman reporter for the Oakland Tribune...

if its up to the reporters, then its jail time......if the paper gives it up, what's the point????

in any event, I hope and pray Rove and the entire row of dominoes goes D.O.W.N. :nod:


Well, since, I think, the 70's, they have no Const. right to keep a source a secret if it is relevant evidence in a criminal case. That is the law and it was just reiterated by the USSC. I mean we cannot pick and chose which USSC decision to apply or we are back to half of Georgia being declared by The Court to belong an Indian nation and the President (Jackson I think) saying, oh yea, well let The Court go enforce its verdict because I and the Congress are not :shrug:

[Nixxxed]

A former WH Counsel for Nixon was just on Countdown (sorry, didn't catch his name), and basically called the Shrub Admin cowards and liars.

He said letting the reporters go down, as opposed to whoever revealed the info stepping up and admitting so, is the same thing that drug cartel czars and Mafia kingpins do.

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :thumbsup:

[gldstwmn]

ok....I dont know where this is going but I will say this: Reporters are RABID about protecting sources and will willingly endure jail so as not to reveal them.... including my Grandmother, the first woman reporter for the Oakland Tribune...

if its up to the reporters, then its jail time......if the paper gives it up, what's the point????


We're talking about a couple of different things here. First of all, Time magazine, who Matt Cooper works for was asked by Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald for his notes or they would be penalized on daily basis.
Wanting to avoid that and hoping to grease the wheels a bit for Cooper, Time handed them over. Fitz said that's nice but Cooper and Judith Miller of the New York Times still need to testify. He also pretty much laughed off Miller's request for house arrest.
Now, I'm not sure if you're aware of what Miller's role in all of this is. She never published a story. But the New York Times issued an unprecedented apology due to a string of Miller stories in the run up to the war that were complete propaganda.
http://www.manticeye.com/article.php?id=303_0_4_0_C

When George W. Bush and Tony Blair made their fraudulent case to attack Iraq, the Times, along with most corporate media outlets in the United States, became cheerleaders for the war. And while Jayson Blair was being crucified for his journalistic sins, veteran Times national security correspondents Judith Miller and Michael Gordon were filling the Times' front pages with unchallenged government propaganda. Unlike Blair's deceptions, Miller and Gordon's lies provided the pretext for war. Their lies took lives.

The White House war propaganda blitz was launched on September 7, 2002, at a Camp David press conference. British Prime Minister Tony Blair stood side by side with his co-conspirator, President George W. Bush. Together, they declared that evidence from a report published by the UN International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) showed that Iraq was "six months away" from building nuclear weapons.

But there was no such IAEA report. But the following day, "evidence" popped up in the Sunday New York Times under the twin byline of Gordon and Miller. Their article began "More than a decade after Saddam Hussein agreed to give up weapons of mass destruction, Iraq has stepped up its quest for nuclear weapons and has embarked on a worldwide hunt for materials to make an atomic bomb, Bush administration officials said today."

The Bush administration knew just what to do with the story it had fed to the Newspaper of Record. The day the Times story ran, Vice President Dick Cheney made the rounds on the Sunday talk shows to advance the administration's bogus claims. On NBC's Meet the Press, Cheney declared that Iraq had purchased aluminum tubes to make enriched uranium. It didn't matter that the IAEA refuted the charge both before and after it was made. But Cheney didn't want viewers just to take his word for it. "There's a story in The New York Times this morning," he said. "And I want to attribute the Times."

This was the classic disinformation two-step: the White House leaks a lie to the Times, the newspaper publishes it as a startling exposé, and then the White House conveniently masquerades behind the credibility of the Times.

Much of The Times coverage of Iraq in the build-up to the invasion relied on Iraqi dissidents, most prominently Ahmed Chalabi-head of the Iraqi National Conference. This week's New Yorker has a piece on Chalabi called "The Manipulator," which looks at Chalabi's role. The piece quotes a key Chalabi aide Francis Brooke as saying "This war would not have been fought had it not been for Ahmed Chalabi."

Brooke told The New Yorker that Chalabi's sophisticated marketing operation at the I.N.C. was "an amazing success." Brooke met Chalabi when they both worked at the Rendon Group's Iraq project, a London-based C.I.A.-funded program to influence global opinion on Saddam Hussein. According to Brooke, the Rendon Group signed a secret contract with the C.I.A. that guaranteed the company a ten-per-cent management fee on top of whatever money it spent on the campaign.

The New Yorker also revealed that Ahmad Chalabi's niece, Sarah Khalil, was hired last year by Patrick E. Tyler, the chief correspondent for The New York Times, to be the paper's office manager in Kuwait. The magazine cites Chalabi's daughter Tamara as saying that Khalil actively supported her uncle's efforts while she was working for the Times. In April, 2003, after Chalabi was stranded in the desert shortly after U.S. forces airlifted him into the country, he used a satellite phone to call his niece for help. According to the magazine, Khalil commandeered money from I.N.C. funds and rounded up a convoy of S.U.V.s which she herself led across the border into Iraq, while she was working for the Times. Khalil was dismissed when word of her employment reached editors in New York.

So while you're going to watch the corporate media whores spin that this is about protecting sources, I can assure you that it is not.
We are talking about national security here. These journalists not only betrayed the CIA and Valerie Plame, they betrayed the public whose best interest they are supposed to be working in.
Plame's duties included work with WMD'S and nuclear proliferation. Ponder for just a minute how long it has taken to put that network together. With a vengeful little phone call, in fact many phone calls, Plame was outed as a CIA agent and everyone who ever came in contact with, and everyone who came in contact with them and so on was suspect. We have no idea how many people have been killed because of this. It's effectively destroyed a good part of our intelligence network on WMD'S and nuclear proliferation, making us less safe as a nation.
Again, this is not about protecting a journalist's sources. This trumps that. Whoever did this put our country's security at stake. And isn't that a big part of W's line? He's gonna make us safer. The red state folks think he'll keep us safer?
I'll get into the part where this could very well lead to the vice president later. :)

[strandinthewind]

. . . Again, this is not about protecting a journalist's sources. This trumps that . . . .

Yes it does - and I would like to remind everyone that this is a bitter pill to swallow when the chips fall in favor of the opponent, which they did not here. But, the rule of law must govern and it will.

[gldstwmn]

Yes it does - and I would like to remind everyone that this is a bitter pill to swallow when the chips fall in favor of the opponent, which they did not here. But, the rule of law must govern and it will.

I'm just grateful that the rule of law still prevails because I was getting very, very worried there for a while.

[SuzeQuze]

A former WH Counsel for Nixon was just on Countdown (sorry, didn't catch his name), and basically called the Shrub Admin cowards and liars.

He said letting the reporters go down, as opposed to whoever revealed the info stepping up and admitting so, is the same thing that drug cartel czars and Mafia kingpins do.

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :thumbsup:

That's wicked pissa! So true. :nod: Thanks for sharing.

[SuzeQuze]

We're talking about a couple of different things here. First of all, Time magazine, who Matt Cooper works for was asked by Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald for his notes or they would be penalized on daily basis.
Wanting to avoid that and hoping to grease the wheels a bit for Cooper, Time handed them over. Fitz said that's nice but Cooper and Judith Miller of the New York Times still need to testify. He also pretty much laughed off Miller's request for house arrest.
Now, I'm not sure if you're aware of what Miller's role in all of this is. She never published a story. But the New York Times issued an unprecedented apology due to a string of Miller stories in the run up to the war that were complete propaganda.

http://www.manticeye.com/article.php?id=303_0_4_0_C

...

So while you're going to watch the corporate media whores spin that this is about protecting sources, I can assure you that it is not.
We are talking about national security here. These journalists not only betrayed the CIA and Valerie Plame, they betrayed the public whose best interest they are supposed to be working in.
Plame's duties included work with WMD'S and nuclear proliferation. Ponder for just a minute how long it has taken to put that network together. With a vengeful little phone call, in fact many phone calls, Plame was outed as a CIA agent and everyone who ever came in contact with, and everyone who came in contact with them and so on was suspect. We have no idea how many people have been killed because of this. It's effectively destroyed a good part of our intelligence network on WMD'S and nuclear proliferation, making us less safe as a nation.
Again, this is not about protecting a journalist's sources. This trumps that. Whoever did this put our country's security at stake. And isn't that a big part of W's line? He's gonna make us safer. The red state folks think he'll keep us safer?
I'll get into the part where this could very well lead to the vice president later. :)

Well, now that I am a bit better informed. I say lock her the hell up. She felt no responsibility to report the truth for whatever reason, whether ideological, monetary (follow the money, did she benefit financially?), or just plain laziness. I don't know, I know that her reporting in Iraq though is not directly related to her outing the CIA agent, if she did that. Man this is confusing. :confused:

Also, I'm surprised the Times even bothered to apologize. Its been so long, WTF? I'm so mad at the media right now, again.

[irishgrl]

Well, now that I am a bit better informed. I say lock her the hell up. She felt no responsibility to report the truth for whatever reason, whether ideological, monetary (follow the money, did she benefit financially?), or just plain laziness. I don't know, I know that her reporting in Iraq though is not directly related to her outing the CIA agent, if she did that. Man this is confusing. :confused:

Also, I'm surprised the Times even bothered to apologize. Its been so long, WTF? I'm so mad at the media right now, again.

Im not disputing this is a huge issue, I wasnt completely aware of all the implications...all I was saying is that Journalists are adamant about protecting sources, but, like Suze, I now have a bit clearer picture and I agree: Lock her up, hell: Lock them ALL up, including Novak (especially Novak!)

I would LOVE to be a fly on the wall over at the White House, it must be PANIC time for the eejits over there.... :shocked:

[irishgrl]

I'm just grateful that the rule of law still prevails because I was getting very, very worried there for a while.

heck, Im STILL worried, those jerks in the White House are expert liars and spinners and I dont doubt they are formulating a web of deceit even now...
I just hope the truth comes OUT in spite of their tricks... :eek:

[SuzeQuze]

heck, Im STILL worried, those jerks in the White House are expert liars and spinners and I dont doubt they are formulating a web of deceit even now...
I just hope the truth comes OUT in spite of their tricks... :eek:

I do too, up until now they've been so slippery. On Morning Sedition Mark just said that Plame's husband said right away, after the leak of her name, that he thought the trail would lead straight to Rove, which it has.

[strandinthewind]

I just think whoever it is is a coward to let people go to jail for them, esp. a woman (I am Southern ya know :laugh: ) -- I mean own up to it and be a man.

[gldstwmn]

Well, now that I am a bit better informed. I say lock her the hell up. She felt no responsibility to report the truth for whatever reason, whether ideological, monetary (follow the money, did she benefit financially?), or just plain laziness. I don't know, I know that her reporting in Iraq though is not directly related to her outing the CIA agent, if she did that. Man this is confusing. :confused:

Also, I'm surprised the Times even bothered to apologize. Its been so long, WTF? I'm so mad at the media right now, again.

I'm pressed for time right now but I'll explain Judy's predicament a little better later on.

[gldstwmn]

Im not disputing this is a huge issue, I wasnt completely aware of all the implications...all I was saying is that Journalists are adamant about protecting sources, but, like Suze, I now have a bit clearer picture and I agree: Lock her up, hell: Lock them ALL up, including Novak (especially Novak!)

I would LOVE to be a fly on the wall over at the White House, it must be PANIC time for the eejits over there.... :shocked:

I am of the mind that Novak sang, so he won't be going to jail.

[gldstwmn]

heck, Im STILL worried, those jerks in the White House are expert liars and spinners and I dont doubt they are formulating a web of deceit even now...
I just hope the truth comes OUT in spite of their tricks... :eek:

So do I. Did you know that the war is costing us $5 billion a month? :shocked:

[gldstwmn]

I just think whoever it is is a coward to let people go to jail for them, esp. a woman (I am Southern ya know :laugh: ) -- I mean own up to it and be a man.

Hey, it takes two to tango. Miller is just as complicit as the leaker. Hell, one of her sources on the WMD stories was Chalabi.

[SuzeQuze]

I am of the mind that Novak sang, so he won't be going to jail.

Yes, I completely agree.

[strandinthewind]

Hey, it takes two to tango. Miller is just as complicit as the leaker. Hell, one of her sources on the WMD stories was Chalabi.

true - but only one is dancing (does that sound like bad 40's movies dialogue :laugh: )

[strandinthewind]

So do I. Did you know that the war is costing us $5 billion a month? :shocked:


I think that is for all operations - not just Iraq - But and in any event, that is public knowledge so I am unsure of your point other than you think we should not have invaded Iraq and now it is costing us a fortune despite W's assurances that Iraq's oil rev. would pay for the purportedly at the time far less costly invasion - which I agree is and was a horrible thing.

[gldstwmn]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/reporters_contempt

Time Reporter to Testify in CIA Leak Case

WASHINGTON - Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper agreed Wednesday to testify about his sources in a government leak of a CIA operative's identity, while New York Times reporter Judith Miller refused to reveal her source in a protracted First Amendment wrangle with the government.

Both reporters faced threats of jail time.

Cooper told U.S. District Judge Thomas Hogan that he would now cooperate with a federal prosecutor's investigation because his source gave him specific authority to discuss their conversation. "I am prepared to testify. I will comply" with the court's order, Cooper told Hogan.

Cooper's turnaround came at a hearing at which Hogan was to consider whether to jail Cooper and Miller for defying his order to testify about their confidential sources in the leak of CIA operative Valerie Plame's identity.

Cooper took the podium in the court and told the judge, "Last night I hugged my son goodbye and told him it might be a long time before I see him again."

"I went to bed ready to accept the sanctions" for not testifying, Cooper said. But he told the judge that not long before his early afternoon appearance, he had received "in somewhat dramatic fashion" a direct personal communication from his source freeing him from his commitment to keep the source's identity secret.

The prosecutor, U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald responded to Miller's refusal to name her source by saying that "we can't have 50,000 journalists" each making their own decision about whether to reveal sources.

"We cannot tolerate that," he said. "We are trying to get to the bottom of whether a crime was committed and by whom."

Miller attorney Robert Bennett said that prosecutors traditionally have shown great respect for journalists and "have had the good judgment not to push these cases very often."

"The interests of justice are often served with a bit of humility and respect for people in the position Judy Miller is in and with a heavy dose of compassion and understanding," Bennett said.

Hogan held the reporters in civil contempt of court in October, rejecting their argument that the First Amendment shielded them from revealing their sources. Last month the Supreme Court refused to intervene.

In court documents filed Tuesday, Fitzgerald urged Hogan to take the unusual step of jailing the reporters, saying that may be the only way to get them to talk.

"Journalists are not entitled to promise complete confidentiality — no one in America is," Fitzgerald wrote.

Fitzgerald had disclosed Tuesday that a source of Cooper and Miller had waived confidentiality, giving the reporters permission to reveal where they got their information. The prosecutor did not identify the source, nor did he specify whether the source for each reporter was the same person.

Cooper said he had been told earlier that his source had signed a general waiver of confidentiality but that he did not trust such waivers because he thought they had been gained from executive branch employees under duress. He told the court that he needed not a general waiver but a specific waiver from his source, which he did not get until Wednesday.

"I received express personal consent" from the source, Cooper told the judge.

Hogan and Fitzgerald accepted Cooper's offer.

"That would purge you of contempt," Hogan said.

Prior to the hearing, Miller argued that it is imperative for reporters to honor their commitments to provide cover to sources who will only reveal important information if they are assured anonymity. Forcing reporters to reneg on the pledge undercuts their ability to do their job, she said.

Last week, Time Inc., last week provided Fitzgerald with records, notes and e-mail traffic involving Cooper, who had argued that it was therefore no longer necessary for him to testify. Time also had been found in contempt and officials there said after losing appeals it had no choice but to turn over the information.

The case is seen as a key test of press freedom and many media groups have lined up behind the reporters. Before Wednesday's hearing, a small rally was held in a park beside the courthouse to urge Congress to pass a federal shield law protecting reporters from having to disclose their confidential sources. The rally, organized by the Communications Workers of America, drew about three dozen people in Washington. Organizers said similar rallies were occurring in Cleveland, Denver, Minneapolis, New York and Los Angeles.

Thirty-one states and the District of Columbia have shield laws protecting reporters from having to identify their confidential sources.

Fitzgerald is investigating who in the Bush administration leaked Plame's identity. Her name was disclosed in a column by Robert Novak days after her husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, impugned part of President Bush's justification for invading Iraq.

Wilson was sent to Africa by the Bush administration to investigate an intelligence claim that Saddam Hussein may have purchased yellowcake uranium from Niger in the late 1990s for use in nuclear weapons. Wilson said he could not verify the claim and criticized the administration for manipulating the intelligence to "exaggerate the Iraqi threat."

Novak, whose column cited as sources two unidentified senior Bush administration officials, has refused to say whether he has testified before the grand jury or been subpoenaed. Novak has said he "will reveal all" after the matter is resolved and that it is wrong for the government to jail journalists.

Disclosure of an undercover intelligence officer's identity can be a federal crime if prosecutors can show the leak was intentional and the person who released that information knew of the officer's secret status.

Cooper spoke to White House deputy chief of staff Karl Rove after Wilson's public criticism of Bush and before Novak's column ran, according to Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin, who denies that Rove leaked Plame's identity to anyone. Cooper's story mentioning Plame's name appeared after Novak's column. Miller did some reporting, but never wrote a story.

Among the witnesses Fitzgerald's investigators have questioned are Bush; Vice President Dick Cheney; Rove; Cheney's chief of staff, Lewis Libby; and former White House counsel Alberto Gonzales, who is now the attorney general.

Fitzgerald has said that his investigation is complete except for testimony from Cooper and Miller.

[gldstwmn]

BREAKING: Miller sent to jail! :eek:

[strandinthewind]

BREAKING: Miller sent to jail! :eek:


I know - I just saw that :eek: Oh well, the rule of law, which has been failrly clear for years now, must prevail. Again, the person she is protecting is a coward for allowing her to serve jail time for them. A true Christian and any man worth his salt would step forward and face atonement for their sins rather than let a woman go to jail to keep them out of it. So much for morality.

[strandinthewind]

"a direct personal communication from his source freeing him from his commitment to keep the source's identity secret."

:eek: something is afoot here.

[gldstwmn]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/reporters_contempt

Judge Orders Jail for N.Y. Times Reporter

WASHINGTON - A federal judge on Wednesday jailed New York Times reporter Judith Miller for refusing to divulge her source to a grand jury investigating the Bush administration's leak of an undercover CIA operative's name.

"There is still a realistic possibility that confinement might cause her to testify," U.S. District Judge Thomas Hogan said.

Miller stood up, hugged her lawyer and was escorted from the courtroom.

Earlier, Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper, in an about-face, told Hogan that he would now cooperate with a federal prosecutor's investigation into the leak of the identity of CIA operative Valerie Plame because his source gave him specific authority to discuss their conversation. "I am prepared to testify. I will comply" with the court's order, Cooper said.

Cooper took the podium in the court and told the judge, "Last night I hugged my son goodbye and told him it might be a long time before I see him again."

"I went to bed ready to accept the sanctions" for not testifying, Cooper said. But he told the judge that not long before his early afternoon appearance, he had received "in somewhat dramatic fashion" a direct personal communication from his source freeing him from his commitment to keep the source's identity secret.

As for Miller, unless she decides to talk, she will be held until the grand jury ends its work in October. The judge speculated that Miller's confinement might cause her source to give her a more specific waiver of confidentiality, as did Cooper's.

Cooper, talking to reporters afterward, called it "a sad time."

"My heart goes out to Judy. I told her as she left the court to stay strong," Cooper added. "I think this clearly points out the need for some kind of a national shield law. There is no federal shield law and that is why we find ourselves here today."

"Judy Miller made a commitment to her source and she's standing by it," New York Times executive editor Bill Keller told reporters.

"Judy Miller has not been accused of a crime or convicted of a crime," Abrams said. "She has been held in civil contempt of court."

[gldstwmn]

"a direct personal communication from his source freeing him from his commitment to keep the source's identity secret."

:eek: something is afoot here.

More than one source? Miller has one source, Cooper another? This is getting more intriguing by the minute.

[DavidMn]

I'm not surprised in the least

[Sugar]

"a direct personal communication from his source freeing him from his commitment to keep the source's identity secret."

:eek: something is afoot here.

That's what I thought, too. Who is this going to be?

[gldstwmn]

I don't know, I know that her reporting in Iraq though is not directly related to her outing the CIA agent, if she did that. Man this is confusing. :confused:


Miller is one of a handful of journalists who the Plame story got shopped to. Another is Chris Matthews. Now, it's hard to know why Miller is so important to the grand jury because they conduct their proceedings in secret but ostensibly she was called as a witness to a crime and refuses to divulge who told her that Valerie Plame was a CIA agent. She has been ordered by the court to do so. She refused, so she was sentenced to jail.

[BombaySapphire3]

I hope Miller does not become the Susan McDougal of this scandal.Spill the beans Judy these slimeballs aren't worth a second of jail time.

[strandinthewind]

Miller is one of a handful of journalists who the Plame story got shopped to. Another is Chris Matthews. Now, it's hard to know why Miller is so important to the grand jury because they conduct their proceedings in secret but ostensibly she was called as a witness to a crime and refuses to divulge who told her that Valerie Plame was a CIA agent. She has been ordered by the court to do so. She refused, so she was sentenced to jail.


I am unsure if Miller has that much to add or is she is truly standing on principle - though I do not agree with her, she is a respected journalist :shrug: So, it is difficult to tell with her and she certainly has nothing to gain by going to jail. But, who knows, maybe she is W's "Susan McDougal" :shrug: For the life of me, I will never understand how these men can let anyone suffer for them much less a woman. Cowards!! :mad:

[strandinthewind]

I hope Miller does not become the Susan McDougal of this scandal.Spill the beans Judy these slimeballs aren't worth a second of jail time.


LOL - we posted the same thing at the same time - ahhhhh great minds think alike :cool: :angel:

[gldstwmn]

I am unsure if Miller has that much to add or is she is truly standing on principle - though I do not agree with her, she is a respected journalist :shrug: So, it is difficult to tell with her and she certainly has nothing to gain by going to jail. But, who knows, maybe she is W's "Susan McDougal" :shrug: For the life of me, I will never understand how these men can let anyone suffer for them much less a woman. Cowards!! :mad:

Her source supposedly released her. She still won't talk.
As for the respected journalist part, well, read what I posted earlier.

[gldstwmn]

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000974740

'NY Times' Says Source Who Gave Matt Cooper Waiver Was Karl Rove

[estranged4life]

Newsweek is reporting that Rove may be implicated in the Vlaerie Plame leak :eek: -- which of course Rove's lawyers deny and Rove will not publicly comment on but he did give grand jury testimony. This is unfolding into something that could be huge.

CBS evening news just metioned exactly that, That Rove is the leak.

[irishgrl]

Well, now: if Rove is the leak and he gave permission to one, why not the other?
and what will happen to HIM now I wonder? tar and feathers seem to paltry...
I wonder, if he goes down, who he will drag with him? Gawd, this is getting juicy :]