I ain't tell 'em nuthin!
Posted on 08/09/2004 2:40:43 PM PDT by Former Military Chick
Russert Held in Contempt in CIA Leak Case
Monday August 9, 2004 10:16 PM
By CURT ANDERSON
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) - A federal judge held a reporter for Time magazine in contempt of court Monday for refusing to testify before a grand jury investigating the leak of the identity of a covert CIA officer.
In an order issued July 20 but not made public until Monday, U.S. District Judge Thomas F. Hogan ruled that Time's Matthew Cooper and ``Meet the Press'' host Tim Russert were required to testify ``regarding alleged conversations they had with a specified executive branch official.''
NBC News issued a statement saying that Russert already had been interviewed under oath by prosecutors on Saturday under an agreement to avoid a protracted court fight. The interview concerned a July 2003 phone conversation he had with Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, Lewis ``Scooter'' Libby.
Time and Cooper, however, did not agree to be interviewed and intend to appeal the judge's ruling, said Managing Editor Jim Kelly. If Time loses those appeals, Cooper could be jailed under Hogan's order until he agrees to appear and the magazine could be fined $1,000 a day.
``We are disappointed in the decision,'' Kelly said. ``We don't think a journalist should be required to give up a confidential source. We're going to appeal it as far as it goes.''
Neal Shapiro, president of NBC News, said the network agreed that forcing reporters to testify about their sources is ``contrary to the First Amendment's guarantee of a free press.'' Shapiro said Russert answered ``only limited questions'' about the conversation with Libby ``without revealing any information he learned in confidence.''
The subpoenas of Russert and Cooper were issued by U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald of Chicago, who was appointed as a special prosecutor in the leak case. Hogan denied the claims by the two journalists that they were protected by the Constitution from having to testify.
``There have been no allegations whatsoever that this grand jury is acting in bad faith or with the purpose of harassing these two journalists,'' Hogan wrote in an 11-page ruling.
The investigation concerns the leak last summer to syndicated columnist Robert Novak of the identity of CIA officer Valerie Plame. Disclosure of an undercover official's identity can be a felony.
Plame's name appeared in Novak's column on July 14 last year, about a week after her husband, former ambassador Joseph Wilson, published a newspaper opinion piece criticizing President Bush's claim in the 2003 State of the Union address that Iraq had tried to obtain uranium from Niger.
Wilson had been sent by the CIA to Niger to check the allegation, and he concluded it was unfounded. Novak wrote that Plame had suggested her husband for the mission, a claim Plame and Wilson have denied.
NBC said in its statement that Russert told Fitzgerald in the interview that he did not know Plame's name or her identity as a CIA officer, and that he did not provide that information to Libby. The statement said that Libby had told the FBI about his conversation with Russert and requested that it be disclosed.
A number of Bush administration officials have appeared before the grand jury or have been interviewed by prosecutors and the FBI.
Bush himself was interviewed in the White House on June 25, and earlier this month Secretary of State Colin Powell was interviewed.
^---
On the Net:
Hogan's decision: http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/04ms296a.pdf
Sooo-weeeee! Time to squeal, Timmy! Give us the Full Beatty!
Free Tim!!!!!!
I don't see anywhere in the article that it says Russert has been held in contempt. Just Cooper.
I ain't tell 'em nuthin!
Must tell you I did get a chuckle out of this. Would be interesting to see what he would do to protect a source if he HAD to.
I know Novak can just don't know about .... Russert.
Agreed, that's some really crappy journalism.
Article says the Time reporter held in contempt, not Russert.
Russert testified.
Cooper did not.
I don't see it either. Very false headline.
Are these esteemed journalists being quite to protect evil members of the Bush Administration?
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/09/29/novak.cia/
"Nobody in the Bush administration called me to leak this," Novak said on "Crossfire." "There is no great crime here."
Looks like Cheney's staff is more than willing for these RAT journalists to spill their guts in the Grand Jury as they have nothing to hide and it appears Mandy Grunwald's husband may, indeed, have something to hide.
You know as usual the title does NOT reflect the article. Go figure. But, I do think this has to make him feel a bit well squirmish.
There must a bit more to this then we see.
Wasn't Valerie Plame first outed by Aldrich Aimes to the Soviets in the 90's?
It makes all these other claims a little silly.
DK
It's hard for reporters to write articles when they're not handed them directly from staffers at the DNC.
I think they should absolutely have to reveal their sources. I do not think they should necessarily ALWAYS have to reveal their sources. But they should have to have a pretty darn good reason not to. Where'd all that "the public's right to know" rhetoric go? The media elites are two-faced.
Isn't the concern the other way around??
Wilson had been sent by the CIA to Niger to check the allegation, and he concluded it was unfounded. Novak wrote that Plame had suggested her husband for the mission, a claim Plame and Wilson have denied.
And the Senate Intel Committee produced the letters where Plame suggested her ego-maniac husband for the 'mission'.
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.