Posted on 04/19/2005 3:12:31 PM PDT by stinkerpot65
Two reporters facing up to 18 months in jail for refusing to testify about their sources lost another round in the courts today. The reporters, Judith Miller of The New York Times and Matthew Cooper of Time magazine, now have only one appeal left, to the United States Supreme Court.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
FYI....
Because journalists are NOT above the law.
"Don't know why the bother. Doesn't look like any crime was even committed."
You know this?
LOL! But I do mean it.
I hope they rot in jail.
There is no such thing as a journalistic privilege.
I disagree. Protected sources are an important way to weed out corruption.
If Matt Drudge gets a picture of Ted Kennedy taking a bribe, his source ought to be protected. Otherwise, he is far less likely to get such a picture.
Well, the US Supreme Court disagrees with you.
In no uncertain terms, actually.
The leak was the crime. It was not a leak about a crime.
Writing with First Amendment lawyer Bruce Sanford in the Washington Post recently, former Assistant Deputy Attorney General Victoria Toensing explained that she helped draft the law in question, the 1982 Intelligence Identities Protection Act.
Says Toensing, "The Novak column and the surrounding facts do not support evidence of criminal conduct."
For Plame's outing to have been illegal, the one-time deputy AG says, "her status as undercover must be classified." Also, Plame "must have been assigned to duty outside the United States currently or in the past five years."
Since in neither case does Plame qualify, Toensing says: "There is a serious legal question as to whether she qualifies as 'covert.'"
The law also requires that the celebrated non-spy's outing take place by someone who knew the government had taken "affirmative measures to conceal [the agent's] relationship" to the U.S., a prospect Toensing says is unlikely.
The whole thing was a liberal media witchhunt which Bush caved in to.
If these journalists want to be protected under the law, they'll have to get the U.S. Congress and 50 state governments to change their laws. Making a Constitutional issue of this is nothing more than a lame attempt by one of the most mediocre professions in the U.S. today to elevate their work to the same level of "legal sanctity" as that of a lawyer or doctor working on behalf of his or her client.
they convicted and sent Martha Stewart to jail for the "crime" of "lying" to the FBI about a transaction that they didn't prosecute her for.
If Martha gets convicted for that then these snakes should be put to death.
(that's a joke, son)
"Since in neither case does Plame qualify, Toensing says:"
Mr. T knows this how?
I agree. Another witchhunt. Although, in this case, Stewart did commit a crime by lying. But the prosecution of a lie over a non-crime was all about her fame.
Mrs. T is Assistant Deputy Attorney General Victoria Toensing. She wrote the original law.
Did you even read the article?
Who was prosecuted over the Pentagon Papers?
Read this from the Court today:
http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200504/04-3138b.pdf
If I read it correctly, the jusdge is not without sympathy for the reporters but says they'd lose anyway in these circumstances, comparing it to the "crime/fraud" rule. IE, can't use the "privilege" to shield the crime.
"Did you even read the article?"
Did you? Where is it shown her knowledge about Plame's circumstances?
Thanks, I will check that out!
True, but the courts general only go after reporter's confidential sources as a last resort. This case is a political sham over a crime that never was.
But, there ought to be some protections for the press so that whistleblowers feel that they can get things out anonymously. The MSM sucks, but the press still has an important function in a democracy.
Lots of corruption would never come out otherwise.
It would be foolish to throw the baby out with the bath water.
Another example might be this: A big city election worker calls Fox News with evidence of massive fraud. He doesn't want to lose his job, but he will send the evidence to Fox only he can remain anonymous.
I disagree. Protected sources are an important way to weed out corruption.
In this day of the Internet, more people will read what I am now "reporting" as a "journalist" here on FreeRepublic than will read my local ink and paper weekly newspaper in a year.
The problem with "journalistic privilege" is that journalism is a trade, not a profession. Anyone who says they are a journalist is a journalist.
If virtually everyone has this same privilege it may make it impossible to get anything done in a court.
But here's another example that shows the dangers that lurk behind the presumption that "whistleblowers" should have some kind of legal protection . . .
A "journalist" for CNN has no evidence of any kind of fraud, but concocts a story of "big-time fraud" with quotes from anonymous sources with ties to an elected official. Providing legal protection to sources makes it impossible to distinguish between legitimate and fictitious sources.
Someone who is called to testify in a civil or criminal court case has no choice but to testify, except in some very narrowly-defined cases (spousal protection, Fifth Amendment, and lawyer confidentiality). Anyone else is simply out of luck -- regardless of what kind of sanctimonious view they have of their profession.
The is the subject of the article. I don't understand your question. Are you implying that she is a liar?
She was a lawyer in the Reagan Justice department. She wrote the law.
What if, instead of Fox, he sends to a blogger. Say Stephan Sharkansky, the Seattle blogger who has played such a large role in revealing the corruption in King County elections.
By definition, Sharkansky is not a "journalist". And his blog is not "a part of the media". If special privileges and immunity is going to be allowed the journalism profession, the first question that should be asked is: What is a journalist?
Unlike doctors and lawyers, there is no special training nor any licensing required to call one's self a "journalist". Nor should there be. So, how does one go about giving "journalists" immunity from prosecution?
True, but no legal protection makes it far more difficult to discover government or corporate fraud.
I don't trust the press, but I trust the government even less. Bush won't be President forever. Now that we have some actual conservative news outlets, we need a protected conservative press in case Hillary becomes President.
Getting down to the nitty gritty.
Personally, I think bloggers ought to have some protection too. The only reason prosecutors need to go after reporters or bloggers is that they wern't getting the job done to begin with.
If government employees were able to pass along info with confidence, all sorts of things would come out, and Bill Clinton would probably be in prison.
New Yiork Times version:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/19/politics/19cnd-medi.html
"Nor did Judge Tatel offer any apologies today for the eight blank pages that were part of his concurrence in February, presumably setting out the factual reasons why the reporters' testimony was needed. Lawyers involved in the case have speculated that the pages described Mr. Novak's mysterious role in the matter."
MSM hubris. The judge owes the New York Times apologies. And the Times doesn't give the judge's explanation.
As I figure it, the judge is politely saying that even if the rules Stinker advocates existed, the reporters would still lose.
And "journalists", whether MSM or bloggers or the local gossip, would have full freedom to fabricate story lines.
Everybody would have immunity. And there would be no way to corroborate their claims.
SEC v. Martha Stewart and Peter Bacanovic 03-CIV-4070
http://www.sec.gov/litigation/litreleases/lr18169.htm
She was charged with insider trading (links above). The trial was stayed while her perjury case was underway. I don't know how the insider trading case developed, i.e., if she paid the fine, or the case was dropped, or the case remains pending.
True. The rules I advocate don't exist, but they should. The media may pay a heavy price for their little witchhunt in the Supreme Court.
It's fun to watch the MSM get a stick in the eye, but we will all pay the price if we let our corrupt court system control the press. Canadians are learning that lesson the hard way.
She was never charged because she wasn't an "insider". She was not an officer of the company in question.
Read the links and get back to me if you still hold that position.
03 CV 4070 (NRB)COMPLAINT
Plaintiff Securities and Exchange Commission ("Commission"), for its Complaint against defendants Martha Stewart ("Stewart") and Peter Bacanovic ("Bacanovic") (collectively the "Defendants"), alleges as follows:
1. The Commission charges Stewart and Bacanovic with committing securities fraud by engaging in illegal insider trading. ...
Correction: She was charged but the case was never pursued because the prosecutor had no legal standing. To save face, they went after her for lying, which she did.
Normally, prosecutors don't bother with lying over a crime that never occurred. But Martha was famous.
Suppose a prosecutor is investigating a murder. His chief suspect lies about his whereabouts to cover up a affair. Later, it is discovered that no murder occured because the "victim" simply skipped town.
Does the prosecutor then go after the suspect because he lied?
I was wrong. She was charged but not tried. Why not?
The insider trading case was stayed while the perjury case was tried. I don't know the eventual closure on the insider trading case. It could have been paid (all the SEC wanted was 50 grand, if she was smart, she would have paid that in the first place); or the SEC could have dropped it; or it could be still pending.
I never bothered to look it up. The closure isn't that important. But it is interesting that the [false] meme that she was never charged with insider trading is believed by a substantial majority of the public.
the case was dropped for insufficient evidence.
She supposedly lied to the FBI about something she isn't charged with doing. She still denies that she lied. She was convicted by a VERY carefully picked "I hate successful white people and successful women" jury.
Of course, the FBI and the courts lie to American citizens all the time, but that's "ok."
They're "in charge" so that's "the way it's supposed to be."
Pretty bizarre justice system, regardless of your own prejudices about Martha Stewart.
It may have been. As I said, I don't know how the case was disposed. Do you have a cite for the "dismissed" disposition?
To take it one step further, the best way to limit government fraud is to eliminate the entire concept of a "government employee" as we know it. Every person employed by the government gets fired at the end of the year, and replaced by someone else -- that way, there would be no need for a government worker to have any fear of losing your job by exposing criminal activity on the part of his superiors.
You're presuming the only crime would be the leaking of Plame's "name".
Shermy you know I've always posited that the leaking of Plame's name was not the crime...
You know this is the third court ruling upholding the contempt citation...
Or maybe you don't. But it is.
That's unanimous rulings saying the reporters have to testify. Including by judges who concede there is a time and place to grant reporters exceptions.
But not in this case.
Sorry (not).
Judge Sentelle in particular expounds on the question of who is a journalist.
bump
These journos are not protecting a Pubbie....
Check this out.
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20050422.html
Good wrap up. I found the comments about the secret testimony to the judge very interesting.
In a November 10, 2004 ruling, Judge Hogan addressed this information: "In his ex parte affidavit, Special Counsel outlines in great detail the developments in this case and the investigation as a whole," he explained. "The ex parte affidavit establishes that the government's focus has shifted as it has acquired additional information during the course of the investigation. Special Counsel now needs to pursue different avenues in order to complete its investigation." (An ex parte affidavit is one to which the other side in the dispute is not privy.)
Judge Hogan then found, based on Fitzpatrick's information, that "the subpoenas were not issued in an attempt to harass the [reporters], but rather stem from legitimate needs due to an unanticipated shift in the grand jury's investigation." The Judge concluded that because the "subpoenas bear directly on the grand jury investigation and are of a limited time and scope," Fitzpatrick was entitled to this information.
Now what caused this shift..
Here is another thing....every Judge has seen the In his ex parte affidavit....and has sided the Fitzgerald. There is something explosive in that affidavit.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
