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
OPINION (IN RE: GRAND JURY)
A federal appeals court rules that New York Times reporter Judith Miller and Time reporter Matthew Cooper lack any First Amendment privilege to prevent them from testifying before a federal grand jury about their confidential sources in the investigation over an apparent leak within the Bush administration over former covert CIA agent Valerie Plame's identity.
http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/plame/inregjmiller21505opn.pdf
The Plame Leak Investigation: Background Materials
http://news.findlaw.com/legalnews/lit/iraq/documents.html
The First Amendment
http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/constitution/amendment01/index.
Attorneys For Reporters Judith Miller And Matthew Cooper:
Floyd Abrams
http://pview.findlaw.com/view/1951448_1
Joel Kurtzberg
http://pview.findlaw.com/view/2715483_1
Donald J. Mulvihill
http://pview.findlaw.com/view/2582003_1
its Wilson himself - he outed his own wife.
Novak has probably already done that.
yeah, yipee, hoo-rah!!!
Odd, I was just, this morn, aruging this very issue with a friend...damn liberal..he lost!
:O)
P
just imagine if the decision had gone the other way - is everyone posting to FR a "journalist"? I think so. So that would mean we all had some special right to not testify.
My question is as followed: Was Mrs. Plame a diplomatic spy, such as at the embassy's and dinners, cuz if not she was a horrible spy, since the media has photos of her meeting with Bill Clinton.
Yes. He was threatened with contempt and cut a deal where he gave testimony. He admitted Libby did not discuss Plame with him.
Around the same time Matt Cooper was actually held in contempt, then avoided jail by cutting the same deal. Then the grand jury wanted him back for more, hence this latest contempt citation that was upheld today.
BTW, Matt Cooper was just on the phone on MSNBC talking about "protecting his source" (no mention of the previous testimony, natch). *He will be on Hardball tonight. I'll have to miss it but hope somebody takes notes.
Things to keep in mind: My point that he has already been held in contempt once and given some testimony---viewers should see if that is mentioned and what is said about it (I would think they would mention it) and
He is married to clintonista Mandy Grunewald so we know the Bush administration isn't going to leak to the likes of Matt Cooper in an effort at "retaliation", as the lame theory goes.
I read part of the DU thread. They are wrong (as usual).
He did not say here on FR that he had been subpoenaed. He did know about the article published by Newsday placing him on the list of reporters that would be subpoenaed.
Are they really too dense to understand?
I love the timing of this ruling.
Just as the Daily Kos and DU were working up a frenzy over the possibility that Gannon would be called before the grand jury, they are slapped in the face with two different reporters, not Gannon, being told they must testify.
It's perfect.
(And your point is spot on. There is lots of evidence that points away from Plame's supposed position as covert and points to her being a run of the mill analyst)
LOL -they don't want to or can't -delusion is the only thing keeping them from facing the reaity of utter complete defeat....
Miller, for sure, isn't being questioned about her sources in the Plame Affair. Instead, in her case, the source the court is interested in dates back to October, 2001.
As I recall, Cooper isn't necessarily associated with the Plame Affair, either.
It's related to the Plame affair, but I propose it's how that story was wielded in the press in conjunction with the rogues in order to attack this administration.
In the meantime, on August 12 and 14, grand jury subpoenas were issued to Judith Miller seeking documents and testimony related to conversations between her and a specified government official "occurring on or about July 6, 2003 to on to or about July 13, 2003,...concerning Valeri Plame Wilson (whether referred to by name or by description as the wife of Ambassador Wilson) or concerning Iraq efforts to obtain uranium".
Back to the Miller 2001 business, that's into the leaking by her colleague at the Times to an Islamic charity that they were about to be raided.
Perhaps he has. But the investigation has moved on to bigger and better things.
Though the MSM has been loathe to admit it -- this article being a prime example -- the scope of this grand jury investigation goes far beyond the Plame Affair.
The GJ is actually investigating the entire nexus of unauthorized leaks from and about the CIA, many of which had national security implications.
The media is not thrilled by this development, as they have assiduously cultivated these leaks in order to serve their anti-Bush political agenda. Thus, we see the odd situation where the media is keeping their reporting low-key and practicing damage control over a "freedom of the press" issue they would normally be screaming from the rooftops.
Yes.
Interesting development. Whether this proves to be a plus for our society or not will not be seen for many years, but I'm looking forward to seeing how these reporters and news organizations react.
I'm wondering if they're circling the wagons because they all want to protect their pal Ari Fleischer. Ie, it wasn't Rove or similar who the MSM hate.
Novak described the tipster as "not a partisan gunslinger." Off hand I assumed that the Admin's spokesman would be "partisan" but could Novak's descrition, if he meant it, fit Fleischer.
NYTimes and such have tried to paint the investigation as just about "Plame" and just about "Novak" as if they received the leak nothing was wrong unless they printed it.
Then there's the Newsday intelligence leak, and the State or Cia memo leak later, probably by the Admin, confirming Wilson's wife recommended, suggested, whatever, her hubby for the Niger job.
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.