Must Reporters Divulge Names of Leakers?

Branzburg v. Hayes In the Matter of Paul Pappas, Petitioner. United States, Petitioner, v. Earl Caldwell. — 85, 70 8212 94, 70 8212 57, 408 U.S. 665, 92 S.Ct. 2646, 33 L.Ed.2d 626 (1972) is one of the leading cases on this issue.

Fact Summary. Branzburg one of the Petitioners observed the making of hashish from marijuana and was later called before a grand jury to implicate the persons involved. He refused to participate in the grand juries claiming a newman’s privilege.

Issue. This case considers whether reporters are to be held to the same standards as other citizens.

Held. The Supreme Court of the United States (Supreme Court) held that reporters are subject to grand jury investigations, but in limited circumstances can quash evidence and/or refuse to cooperate under their First Amendment freedom of the press, when their own safety or the identity of an informant would be compromised.

Dissent. Justice Douglas: Even while dissenting Justice Douglas affirms that there is no privilege to refuse to testify where the reporter is complicit in a crime. “It is my view that these [sic] is no 'compelling need' that can be shown which qualifies the reporter's immunity from appearing or testifying before a grand jury, unless the reporter himself is implicated in a crime. (emphasis added)

There is no “newsman’s privilege” as it has been conceived. Reporters are subject to the same civic duties as are other citizens. The First Amendment freedom of the press does not protect a reporter who has participated in illegal activity.

It has generally been held that the First Amendment does not guarantee the press a constitutional right of special access to information not available to the public generally. Zemel v. Rusk, 381 U.S. 1, 16—17, 85 S.Ct. 1271, 1280—1281, 14 L.Ed.2d 179 (1965); New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713, 728 730, 91 S.Ct. 2140, 2148—2149, 29 L.Ed.2d 822 (1971), (Stewart, J., concurring); Tribune Review Publishing Co. v. Thomas, 254 F.2d 883, 885 (CA3 1958); In the Matter of United Press Assns. v. Valente, 308 N.Y. 71, 77, 123 N.E.2d 777, 778 (1954).

'(T)he trial court might well have proscribed extrajudicial statements by any lawyer, party, witness, or court official which divulged prejudicial matters.' Id., at 361, 86 S.Ct., at 1521. See also Estes v. Texas, 381 U.S. 532, 539 540, 85 S.Ct. 1628, 1631—1632, 14 L.Ed.2d 543 (1965); Rideau v. Louisiana, 373 U.S. 723, 726, 83 S.Ct. 1417 1419, 10 L.Ed.2d 663 (1963).

“Although stealing documents or private wiretapping could provide newsworthy information, neither reporter nor source is immune from conviction for such conduct, whatever the impact on the flow of news. Neither is immune, on First Amendment grounds, from testifying against the other, before the grand jury or at a criminal trial. The Amendment does not reach so far as to override the interest of the public in ensuring that neither reporter nor source is invading the rights of other citizens through reprehensible conduct forbidden to all other persons. To assert the contrary proposition to assert the contrary proposition

'Is to answer it, since it involves in its very statement the contention that the freedom of the press is the freedom to do wrong with impunity and implies the right to frustrate and defeat the discharge of those governmental duties upon the performance of which the freedom of all, including that of the press, depends. . . . It suffices to say that however complete is the right of the press to state public things and discuss them, that right, as every other right enjoyed in human society, is subject to the restraints which separate right from wrong-doing.' Toledo Newspaper Co. v. United States, 247 U.S. 402, 419—420, 38 S.Ct. 560, 564, 62 L.Ed. 1186 (1918).30

“'Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be (guilty of misprision).' 18 U.S.C. § 4”

In the case of leaked information, it violates a federal statute. Knowledge of a crime compels the reporter to report it. Protecting the identity of a thief is not the case of a reporter protecting a 3rd party who has knowledge of crime.

While not reporting the crime, publication of that information arguably is a crime in that the reporter might be considered to be an accessory after the fact. [i.e. Every person who, after a felony has been committed, harbors, conceals or aids a principal in such felony, with the intent that said principal may avoid or escape from arrest, trial, conviction or punishment, having knowledge that said principal has committed such felony or has been charged with such felony or convicted thereof, is an accessory after the fact to such felony.]

The court wrote: “It would be frivolous to assert—and no one does in these cases—that the First Amendment, in the interest of securing news or otherwise, confers a license on either the reporter or his news sources to violate valid criminal laws.”

It would appear that the DOA has grounds to compel reporters to disclose the names of the leakers.

We don’t even need the courts to remedy this, we just need Americans running Congress instead of the Treasonous Bastards we have now.

Congress has ALL the power in washington, the executive and judicial branch operate according to the whims of CONGRESS!

“U.S. CODE
TITLE 2—THE CONGRESS
CHAPTER 6—CONGRESSIONAL AND COMMITTEE PROCEDURE; INVESTIGATIONS
Sec. 193. Privilege of witnesses
No witness is privileged to refuse to testify to any fact, or to produce any paper, respecting which he shall be examined by either House of Congress, or by any joint committee established by a joint or concurrent resolution of the two Houses of Congress, or by any committee of either House, upon the ground that his testimony to such fact or his production of such paper may tend to disgrace him or otherwise render him infamous.”

Simply look up Hinds Precedents, especially chapters 53 and 51, and Cannon’s Precedents, especially chapters 184-185. You’ll find numerous detailed cases of Congress asserting its power, arresting people, holding them until they agreed to answer questions, and then releasing them. Some of these people did not refuse to appear, but simply failed to satisfactorily answer questions. One has to wonder how a previous Congress might have responded to Alberto Gonzales’s endless recitations of “I do not recall.”

Congress can Remove the President
Congress can remove the head of every executive agency Congress can remove ALL of their employees
Congress can Abolish every agency they so choose
Congress can remove EVERY JUDGE IN AMERICA, including every supreme court justice.
Congress can abolish every federal court except the supreme Court
Congress can decide which cases the Judicial Branch can hear and decide
CONGRESS can Imprison ANYONE they want for any reason they so desire for as long as they wish.
Congress can declare WAR

No other governing body has even 10% of the power CONGRESS has!!

CONGRESS IS ALLOWING ALL OF IT!!!

Congress has the authority to arrest and imprison those found in Contempt. The power extends throughout the United States and is an inherent power (does not depend upon legislated act)

If found in Contempt the person can be arrested under a warrant of the Speaker of the House of Representatives or President of the Senate, by the respective Sergeant at Arms.

Statutory criminal contempt is an alternative to inherent contempt.

Under the inherent contempt power Congress may imprison a person for a specific period of time or an indefinite period of time, except a person imprisoned by the House of Representatives may not be imprisoned beyond adjournment of a session of Congress.

Imprisonment may be coercive or punitive.

Some references

[1] Joseph Story’s Commentaries on the Constitution, Volume 2, § 842 http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/print_documents/a1_5s21.html

[2] Anderson v. Dunn - 19 U.S. 204 - “And, as to the distance to which the process might reach, it is very clear that there exists no reason for confining its operation to the limits of the District of Columbia; after passing those limits, we know no bounds that can be prescribed to its range but those of the United States.” http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/19/204/case.html

[3] Jurney v. MacCracken, 294 U.S. 125 http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/294/125/case.html 73rd Cong., 78 Cong. Rec. 2410 (1934) https://archive.org/details/congressionalrec78aunit

[4] McGrain v. Daugherty, 273 U.S. 135 - Under a warrant issued by the President of the Senate the Deputy to the Senate Sergeant at Arms arrested at Cincinnati, Ohio, Mally S. Daugherty, who had been twice subpoenaed by the Senate and twice failed to appear. http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/273/135/case.html

[5] Rules of the House of Representatives, Rule IV Duties of the Sergeant at Arms - [] execute the commands of the House, and all processes issued by authority thereof, directed to him by the Speaker. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/HMAN-105/pdf/HMAN-105-pg348.pdf

[6] An analysis of Congressional inquiry, subpoena, and enforcement http://www.constitutionproject.org/documents/when-congress-comes-calling-a-primer-on-the-principles-practices-and-pragmatics-of-legislative-inquiry/

In 1857, a New York Times reporter refused to say which members of Congress had asked him to get them bribes (protecting his “sources” just as various Judith Millers today protect the people who feed them proven lies that costs thousands of lives), so Congress locked him up until he answered and then banned him from Congress.

In 1924 an oil executive appeared but refused to answer certain questions, so the Senate held — literally held — him in contempt. Senator Thomas Walsh of Montana argued that this question of contempt was of the gravest importance, and that it involved “the very life of the effective existence of the House of Representatives of the United States and of the Senate of the United States.” The matter was taken to court, and the witness fined and imprisoned.

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.