Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Appeals Court Upholds Ruling in CIA Leak (Journalists Must Testify in Plame/CIA Leak Case)
ASSOCIATED PRESS ^ | 2/15/05 | MARK SHERMAN

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


TOPICS: Breaking News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: cialeak; judithmiller; matthewcooper; plame; plamegate; ruling; turass; wilson
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 121-123 next last
To: KidGlock; Mo1; Howlin; Peach; BeforeISleep; kimmie7; 4integrity; BigSkyFreeper; RandallFlagg; ...

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


61 posted on 02/15/2005 10:53:16 AM PST by OXENinFLA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hobbes1

its Wilson himself - he outed his own wife.


62 posted on 02/15/2005 10:56:18 AM PST by oceanview
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Txsleuth

Novak has probably already done that.


63 posted on 02/15/2005 10:57:26 AM PST by oceanview
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: KidGlock

yeah, yipee, hoo-rah!!!


Odd, I was just, this morn, aruging this very issue with a friend...damn liberal..he lost!
:O)

P


64 posted on 02/15/2005 10:58:16 AM PST by papasmurf (Dear Lord, Please make me the Commanding General In Iraq for just 3 months, Amen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OXENinFLA

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.


65 posted on 02/15/2005 10:59:41 AM PST by oceanview
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Fishtalk
I just love the fact that the media jihad over the Wilson/Plame affair is biting the media in the backside. And they thought they were going to nail Dick Cheney. He plays way above their paygrade.
66 posted on 02/15/2005 11:06:50 AM PST by colorado tanker (The People Have Spoken)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: All

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.


67 posted on 02/15/2005 11:17:06 AM PST by Esteemed Scholar Jack Bauer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: BushisTheMan
Actually, didn't Tim Russert already sing?

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.

68 posted on 02/15/2005 12:10:11 PM PST by cyncooper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: DBeers

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?


69 posted on 02/15/2005 12:16:44 PM PST by cyncooper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Esteemed Scholar Jack Bauer

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)


70 posted on 02/15/2005 12:20:57 PM PST by cyncooper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: cyncooper
Are they really too dense to understand?

LOL -they don't want to or can't -delusion is the only thing keeping them from facing the reaity of utter complete defeat....

71 posted on 02/15/2005 12:29:01 PM PST by DBeers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: cyncooper
Interesting that the media continue to restrict the reported scope of the investigation to the Plame Name Blame Game, even though the investigation has gone far beyond that single incident.

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.

72 posted on 02/15/2005 12:38:30 PM PST by okie01 (A slavering moron and proud member of the lynch mob, cleaning the Augean stables of MSM since 1998.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: okie01

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.


73 posted on 02/15/2005 12:43:25 PM PST by cyncooper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: OXENinFLA; Shermy; MizSterious; EllaMinnow
Well, I'm reading the decision (see links provided at the post I'm replying to) and I think the reference to Judith Miller's subpoena is very interesting: Its a PDF file so I can't cut and paste but it says:

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".

74 posted on 02/15/2005 12:52:09 PM PST by cyncooper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: okie01

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.


75 posted on 02/15/2005 12:54:02 PM PST by cyncooper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: Txsleuth
I may be totally ignorant here, but why isn't Robert Novak who actually wrote the article that "outed" Valerie Plame, being forced to testify to HIS source?

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.

76 posted on 02/15/2005 12:57:05 PM PST by okie01 (A slavering moron and proud member of the lynch mob, cleaning the Augean stables of MSM since 1998.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: cyncooper
Are they really too dense to understand?

Yes.

77 posted on 02/15/2005 1:01:10 PM PST by okie01 (A slavering moron and proud member of the lynch mob, cleaning the Augean stables of MSM since 1998.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: Miss Marple; Dog; cyncooper

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.


78 posted on 02/15/2005 1:08:18 PM PST by AFPhys ((.Praying for President Bush, our troops, their families, and all my American neighbors..))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: cyncooper

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.


79 posted on 02/15/2005 1:15:04 PM PST by Shermy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: okie01

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.


80 posted on 02/15/2005 1:18:23 PM PST by Shermy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 121-123 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson