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
One day behind bars with cell mate Bubba, and Russert will be singing like the Birdman...
Russert....Cooper........Novak....who are the other three reporters?
Andrea Mitchell was another.
The problem with Joe's assertion is when he speaks he is clearly (well, clearly to those who see how he frames his accusation and the context which points to a certain timeframe) referring to media contacts with the administration AFTER the Novak article appeared.
Ah, Brit reporting the Cooper contempt cite right now.
Oh--and the other two reporters were with Newsday, I believe.
A face only a terrorist could love??
Yes I agree they like to envoke their shield deal as a member of the press. I just wonder who decides that wont take court time. I do think this will be a hit to russert. He TRIES to be the middle ground, this little scandal might humble him.
Bingo...
For the first time, this whole thing is starting to make sense. Joe Wilson et al planned this whole thing and got the typical DEM "goon" squad of reporters and Clintonistas to supposedly out Mrs. Wilson -- and then blame it on the Republicans.
Now the truth is coming out. I'm expecting to see some RATs do time in federal prison with their cell mate being Sandy Berger.
With that image, you could confuse the daylights out of the next newbie that asks "what's a ping"!
YUP.
Can't we assume that Cooper is not risking jail and the magazine a heavy fine in order to protect a Bush loyalist?
Would they risk it, though, for, say, Richard Clarke...???
Right on. If it were a republican who leaked it they would not be fighting against testifying. They must be protecting a fellow lib.
Russert has not been held in contempt. This title is wrong.
What would ole Red think.
So who'll be interviewing Tater Russett on "Beat the Mess"?
Why should he? Note that Novak hasn't been cited for contempt by any court. He can sit back, reputation intact, and laugh as this whole thing plays out. And it WILL play out, one way or the other.
Funny how the Democrat operative, Cooper, is the one who is really on the hot seat, no? Russert is a sideshow, and he has not been cited for contempt since he is "cooperating".
I think Cooper is taking his marching orders from the other Democrat operative, his wife. Maybe Mandy is tired of the guy and sees this as a handy way to get rid of him, lol.
We addressed that long agon in this thread.
Sadly this will not be the first AP aricle that changes the merits by only changing the title.
Yet, having discussed the way it was titled those on the thread got a lot out of the behavior of the AP. Most are pretty bright to catch this. At least that is how I see it.
Thank you for your concern.
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.