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

[dissention]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

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

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.

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

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

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]

Originally Posted by dissention

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.

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]

Originally Posted by dissention

Besides for the fact that I already thought Russert was a sleazeball ( ), 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]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

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.

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]

Originally Posted by CarneVaca

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.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

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]

Originally Posted by dissention

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

[dissention]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

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

I wonder if there's a video out there on the internet. 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? It's PRICELESS!!!

[CarneVaca]

Originally Posted by dissention

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.

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]

Originally Posted by CarneVaca

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. 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.

Originally Posted by CarneVaca

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. 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]

Originally Posted by 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...

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

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/..._al_judges.htm

[gldstwmn]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-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]

Originally Posted by dissention

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.