Posted on 02/15/2005 7:35:47 AM PST by KidGlock
Edited on 02/15/2005 8:17:37 AM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
WASHINGTON (AP) - A federal appeals court on Tuesday upheld a ruling against two reporters who could go to jail for refusing to divulge their sources to investigators probing the leak of an undercover CIA officer's name to the media.
The three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit sided with prosecutors in their attempt to compel Time magazine's Matthew Cooper and The New York Times' Judith Miller to testify before a federal grand jury about their confidential sources. "We agree with the District Court that there is no First Amendment privilege protecting the information sought," Judge David B. Sentelle said in the ruling, which was unanimous.
In October, Judge Thomas F. Hogan held the reporters in contempt, rejecting their argument that the First Amendment shielded them from revealing their sources. Both reporters face up to 18 months in jail if they continue to refuse to cooperate.
The special prosecutor in the case, Chicago U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald, is investigating whether a crime was committed when someone leaked the identity of CIA officer Valerie Plame. Her name was published in a 2003 column by Robert Novak, who cited two senior Bush administration officials as his sources.
The column appeared after Plame's husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, wrote a newspaper opinion piece criticizing President Bush's claim that Iraq had sought uranium in Niger. The CIA had asked Wilson to check out the uranium claim. Wilson has said he believes his wife's name was leaked as retaliation for his critical comments. Disclosure of an undercover intelligence officer's identity can be a federal crime if prosecutors can show the leak was intentional and the person who released that information knew of the officer's secret status.
---
On the Net:
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit:
http://www.cadc.uscourts.govinternetinternet.nsf
It is a long read... And some of the best stuff is redacted... But probably worth the time for anyone who is interested in really understanding why the ruling was upheld...
Thanks for the ping, excellent (and somewhat surprising, but I'm not looking a gift horse in the mouth!) development.
Thank you very much for providing the link. I did read it earlier and posted an interesting excerpt at #74.
Very interesting, indeed.
BTW, did anyone here happen to watch Hardball and Matt Cooper? I would like to know if the fact that Cooper has given limited testimony to the grand jury was discussed during his appearance.
I have long maintained this was an organized attempt by a group of people---rogues at CIA and State plus media---to bring down GWB.
It is part and parcel, IMO, of the "Sexed Up Dossier" business that was attempted in England against Blair, and not coincidentally (in my view) was being rolled out at the exact same time.
It is more than one person and I think it is very telling that the grand jury doesn't want to know from Miller just what was said or not about Plame, but what was said about Iraq and uranium. It goes right to my theory, that they are looking at much more than the leaking of her "name" (which I believe was no crime since she more than likely hadn't been covert in years and that was settled early on). I just double checked the phrasing from the subpoena and notice it is in quotes in the ruling: "...or concerning Iraq efforts to obtain uranium".
Why would the grand jury care what was said in that conversation about that topic? Unless they are taking a broader look at the whole story...just as I have surmised.
I hope the Grand Jury is diligent and smokes these people out.
Isn't there something in the uranium story about some forged documents? Perhaps the GJ is looking at that aspect of this story? Only time will tell.
The name of Plame's front company was exposed by the leak and because Plame used the front company name to make donations to ...who was it, Al Gore?
Well, Novak never said she was 'undercover.' I think that honor went to the NY Times and Washington Post - [Pincus?], who implied they got that from reading Novak's article even though it wasn't in there.
Yep...let's see, going by memory, it was called Brewster Jennings?
Yes, forged documents that were given to our embassy in Rome...but after Wilson's trip.
However, part of the spin he gave out was he hinted he was sent due to these forged documents. He and anonymous sources tried to imply that this administration had custody of obvious forgeries and were either too stupid or too eager to go to Iraq that they didn't realize it or acknowledge it. However, the timeline doesn't fit since he went to Niger in Feb. 2002 and I believe Oct. 2002 is when the documents appeared on the scene.
I think Newsday was the first publication to call her undercover...I'm not 100% positive, but that's what I'm recalling.
I think you're right.
It would be great if this investigation caused a bunch of civil-service-protected Clintonistas to be ousted from State and CIA.
I'm probably hoping for too much.
Ousted? I'm a real dreamer...I'm thinking jail for some!
:)
My mistake, as cyncooper pointed out it was Newsday.
Oooo - I like the way you think.
I would agree with you if you can explain what is the difference between an "unnamed source" and a made up source.
Just how would they name a made up source?
That's just wonderful.
How do you propose then to cross-examine an "un-named source?"
What happens when some "un-named source" makes up some lies and ruins a career for political purposes?
How do you fight that?
What if the victim were YOU?
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.