Posted on 03/23/2005 2:19:24 PM PST by cyncooper
Time Magazine's White House correspondent Matt Cooper said he is still trying to find the right words to explain to his six-year-old son that "daddy might not be coming home for a while."
In a talk at the Law School Tuesday evening, Cooper explained the details of a case that could land him behind bars. Last month a federal appeals court upheld a ruling that Cooper could face time in prison for refusing to reveal the name of a confidential government source who leaked the name of CIA operative Valerie Plame in 2003. Judith Miller of The New York Times is also being prosecuted for refusing to comply with subpoenas, and the controversy surrounding the case has sparked a debate about the nature of journalistic privilege in regard to the confidentiality of sources, Cooper said.
~snip~
Cooper said he may face sentencing this week unless he obtains a stay. When asked about the prospect of serving prison time, Cooper said he would rather go to prison than break the confidentiality of his source.
~snip~
Cooper said he found the case proceedings and how it has been enshrouded in secrecy to be almost comic.
"Lots of the evidence of the case … is being kept sealed by the courts," Cooper said. "It's one of the ironies of this case that Judith Miller and I are being denied this information even though we've shown that we're pretty good for keeping secrets."
(Excerpt) Read more at yaledailynews.com ...
The excerpt cited in the court decision states the grand jury seeks from Cooper any documentation and information he received regarding Joseph Wilson and his trip to Niger in 2002, in addition to Plame and her relationship to the CIA.
Matt Cooper thinks the time may be close to having to do jail time.
The part about explaining it to the son was touching, don't you think?
BTW, I asked the mods to add (Cooper/Plame) to the title in order to alert those following the saga.
The reporters would love to know what evidence the grand jury has.
I wonder why they don't know if it's all a matter of simply who leaked Plame's name and it's presumably one person?
Could it be the investigation is broader than popular wisdom would have it?
I think so.
There is no Republican alive that Cooper would protect.
"There is no Republican alive that Cooper would protect."
My thoughts too.
Not the issue. If he gave up his source he would NEVER work in journalism again. NEVER!
"There is no Republican alive that Cooper would protect."
Clarke, Wilson, Thielmann, a couple of others he spoke to.
Cynically, there's a possibility none of them told them about Plame and his comments that two officials told him before Novak heard could be some kind of me-tooism.
Don't know that, but his comments about "arrogance" are well-thought and polite. Sounds like a thoughtful fellow.
The MSM has a code of conduct? The NYT? LOL.
He already has given limited testimony to this same grand jury telling them Lewis "Scooter" Libby of Dick Cheney's office was not the source.
Of course Libby had signed a confidentiality waiver as his name had been bandied about for months as the "leaker" (Chris Matthews would say "Scooter" or "Libby" or both dozens of times per show for weeks on end).
I also think it's interesting how Cooper references not being able to know all the evidence the prosecutor has. It's not the first time he or Judith Miller has spoken of wishing to know what the grand jury knows.
I just have to wonder why.
I agree, his comments on arrogance and having humility were measured and thoughtful.
The good doc is prinicpled and assumed with the past hoo-hah he'd get a big showing. Unfortunately the MSM locked themselves into the position of exposure of these contacts presuming it was Libby, Rove, or some "neo-con." Think the figured out it wasn't.
That's a very likely explanation for the low attendance. It's becoming more clear there is not going to be a high-profile Bush administration official frog-marched off to jail and no impeachment of Bush over Plame.
~smirk~
Boo-hoo. You're not above the law, Mr. "Journalist." Doctors and lawyers have privileges against testifying in order to protect confidential relationships, but in exchange they agree to be regulated by the state.
The message was sent via NYTimes article a month back saying, hey, maybe this investigation is not such a good idea after all.
Then deflecting to whether or not Novak testified. As far as I can tell that doesn't matter since the officials who told him already testified, according to one source.
I can't figure out the Judith Miller angle, but the fact she didn't write anything is doesn't make a leak of a CIA agent's name to her right.
Rightly so. No journalist who betrays their sources should be trusted.
Novak gave them a warning that the first one at least was not "a partisan gunslinger."
"No journalist who betrays their sources should be trusted."
Yeah, and how about Novak's argument? The CIA official who confirmed asked him not to reveal the agents name, but because the official didn't say her life would be at harm Novak went ahead anyway. Swell.
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.