Posted on 02/14/2006 4:26:09 AM PST by jimbo123
Former New York Times reporter Judith Miller turned up at a federal appeals court in Manhattan yesterday for arguments over whether the feds have a right to subpoena her phone records as part of a probe into Islamic charities and terror financing.
The New York Times is seeking to stop authorities from gaining access to records for calls that Miller and another reporter, Philip Shenon, made to sources in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
I'm beginning to wonder if her seperation from the Times was more of a self-preservation move (for the Times) than it was for stated differences.
Note: MSM BLACKOUT on Judith Miller's new subpoena for tipping off Al Qaeda fundraisers to an upcoming FBI raid so they could destroy documents. Only the NY Post is carrying the story.
CONTACT the NY Times public editor and ask him why they're not reporting the news they've they've been subpoenaed over their raid tipoff to Al Qaeda fundraisers.
• E-mail: public@nytimes.com
• Phone: (212) 556-7652
'Must be nice to have connections.
This stuff just gets better every day!
Page 13
On December 3, 2001, consistent with
The Times’ policy of seeking comment from the subjects of its articles,
Miller telephoned HLF (Holy Land Foundation) and spoke with HLF
representatives about the information that had been disclosed to
her by one or more confidential sources. According to Miller, she
sought comment from HLF at this time only "about the government’s
intent to block HLF’s assets," and she did not intend to tip-off HLF
about the impending FBI search of HLF’s offices. Patrick J.
Fitzgerald, U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois
("Fitzgerald"), representing the government, has stated that on the
night of December 3, 2001, Miller disclosed to HLF personnel that "government action was imminent"
(Affirmation of Patrick J. Fitzgerald, dated Nov. 19, 2004, and that
the HLF personnel were surprised by the information conveyed by Miller.
According to Miller, "[t]hat government action was taken against [HLF]
did not come as a surprise to even a casual observer."
Miller, Shenon and the NY Times don't want to give up their Justice Department sources who told her about the upcoming raid on the Al Qaeda fundraisers.
Miller's tip to the terrorists allowed them to destroy thousands of documents and computer files before the FBI was able to secure their offices.
Miller tipped off the Holy Land Foundation before the post-9/11 FBI raid, and Shenon tipped off the Global Relief Foundation.
I would consider trying to find the source of those "tips" far more important than whether Valerie Plame was/wasn't/could be/should be an undercover agent
I bet this new development won't be on Chris Matthews tonight. The NY Times today is defending in court their right to tipoff Al Qaeda terror financiers based on tips from pro-terrorist sources in the Justice Department.
So she admits to being criminally stupid? Sounds like a clear-cut case of obstruction of justice. Why isn't she back in the slammer?
It's what Rush has been saying all along.
Unfortunately, I can't get Rush in the office, and hear him once in a very blue moon.
Well, then let me say: Bright minds think alike!
The fact that Patrick Fitzgerald spent over two years on what everyone on the Net knew to be a no-brainer about Plame, now clearly shows what a Smoke Screen it was.
There was a very popular theory here that Fitz's deal with Miller in the Libby case had to do with her Holy Land testimony. I researched it at the time, and have known since then that the government appeal (re: the Holy Land subpoena) was pending.
But Fitz's attachment to this case should not come as a surprise, I guess is my point.
Old subpoena. She fought it and won in District Court. The government appealed, and that appeal is pending.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1494693/posts?page=16#16
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1494693/posts?page=24#24
Tonight's Hardball theme will be:
What sweet irony if Fitzgerald turns out to be a/the leaker.
Well I hope the appeals court does it's job and comes through on this one.
Miller might as well get her place in line for the legal battles between the government and the press that are inevitably going to happen, NSA etc.
Why isn't she in jail for leaking this information? Seriously.
If Fitzgerald wins on appeal, what happens if the "Libby Rule" is applied to Miller's testimony? The "Libby Rule" being that the government has to have the other elements of its case in place in order to require truthful testimony.
Miller might as well get her place in line for the legal battles between the government and the press that are inevitably going to happen ...
This, NYT v. Gonzales, is a fairly important case regarding reporter/source privilege. The current legal posture based on Judge Swett's ruling is at odds with the outcome of the "Miller and Cooper Must Testify" case in the context of the Plame disclosure.
If the Plame case is bogus, should the legal rulings made therein be disregarded?
According to the lower court, she has no duty to disclose her sources.
I don't know what law she might have broken as a conduit of information - does she have a legal duty of confidentiality? I believe that the government actors who were planning the raids have a legal duty of confidentiality.
U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois
("Fitzgerald"), representing the government, has stated that on the night of December 3, 2001, Miller disclosed to HLF personnel that "government action was imminent"
(Affirmation of Patrick J. Fitzgerald, dated Nov. 19, 2004, and that the HLF personnel were surprised by the information conveyed by Miller.
So the media can let our enemies know they are under investigation and that action is imminent without fear of legal action? Then we need to change the law.
The NY Times will have to give up their phone records on the terror raid sources. Fitzgerald will win on this appeal.
... [tons of VERY interesting and informative data -snipped-]In other words, Patrick Fitzgerald may already have known who leaked news of the impending FBI government action before the federal case was even filed.
It poses an interesting quandry. If Sweet's ruling is upheld, then presumably Fitzgerald cannot use those phone records even to investigate the leakers (fruit of the poisoned tree); if it's upheld, he can. But everything depends upon the fate of the appeal of Sweet's ruling -- not on the testimony of Judith Miller.
In fact, I am certain that Miller would refuse to testify about the HLF case in any event, on grounds much firmer than some journalistic shield law: she would probably stand on the Fifth Amendment, since she could well be incriminated as an accessory or even accomplice in obstruction of justice. And she could not be put in jail for refusing to testify if she took the Fifth, as she could (we now see) for refusing to testify on grounds of journalistic "privilege."
This is because a few days before Judge Sweet made his ruling, the D.C. Circuit held in Miller v. United States/Cooper v. United States that the reporters themselves could be compelled to testify; as this is certainly more chilling to investigative journalism than merely obtaining phone records, I suspect that Fitzgerald believes that when Sweet's ruling comes up in the New York Circuit -- or at least before the Supreme Court -- that it will be overturned. In which case, Fitzgerald can subpoena Miller and Shenon at that time (under a new or extended grand jury) and compel testimony, telephone records in hand, about who tipped them off to the action against HLF and GRF. Even if they take the Fifth, Fitzgerald can still proceed against whoever is incriminated by the phone records.
http://biglizards.net/blog/archives/2005/10/millers_time.html
I've been looking for the briefs and other related primary documents. The case below (Swett's NYT v. Gonzales) was cited like crazy in the "Miller and Cooper Must Testify" case.
Not only that, government leakers can operate through the press and have their identities shielded.
Just shows what a bunch of weasles populate the slimes...they don't even have the balls to step up to the lick log when they get caught red handed.
I'd like to see the law changed in this regard. If a government official feels strongly enough about an issue, they should put their money where their mouth is and let their name be put on the public record.
This is gargantuan.
No, I don't think so. But my questions above were "process" related, not outcome related. Should the rules permit a witness to dummy up or lie, until the government proves that the investigation will otherwise support a conviction?
B-U-M-P
BTTT
Man, the Times surely isn't doing a thing to help in the terror war.
This is great. We get endless speculation in the news media about who said what to whom concerning Valerie Plame, but no one cares about New York Times reporters tipping these fund raisers off to Federal investigations. I guess the news media has to take care of their own.
As long as the Times exists in its present state run by Pinchie Sultzberger, we cannot win the WOT. . . . .Fifth Column
Is that a cool sentence or what?
She's not going to jail for this, but she will be forced to reveal her sources. Whoever leaked this information to her is going to jail for a good long time.
Hmmmm....
I sure do hope you're right, McGavin.
Me too Peach. I'm so tired of these leaks. It's like half the country has a death wish. I really don't know if they're just frivolous and stupid or if it's something more sinister.
I wouldn't mind seeing the law changed with regard to leaks and how the media is permitted to report on them.
Career bureaucrats should't be permitted to hide behind the media and should be forced to put their name to their "leaks".
Gee, Miller is a great advocate of the First Amendment, isn't she?
I, for one, just love to see free speech in action (/snicker).
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.