Court Declines Case of Reporters in Leak Case (Plame Case)

New York Times ^ | 4/19/2005 | Adam Liptak

[stinkerpot65]

Two reporters facing up to 18 months in jail for refusing to testify about their sources lost another round in the courts today. The reporters, Judith Miller of The New York Times and Matthew Cooper of Time magazine, now have only one appeal left, to the United States Supreme Court.

[okie01]

I really think the leaker in the government is the focal point here, not the reporters.

cyncooper is right about this.

No crime may have been committed by leaking Plame's name -- the original focus of the grand jury.

However, whoever leaked the planned raid on the Muslim charity to Judith Miller most certainly performed a criminal act.

[stinkerpot65]

However, whoever leaked the planned raid on the Muslim charity to Judith Miller most certainly performed a criminal act.

If that is the case, they should go to prison for a lot more than contempt. Got any article on that?

[cyncooper]

Exactly.

In addition to the Muslim charity raid, I'm wondering about any leaks of classified information pertaining to Niger/Iraq and yellowcake.

In the appellate court ruling they cite excerpts from the subpoenas to the reporters and the grand jury wants to know what information was given to the reporters on those issues (which is afield of the narrow issue of Plame's status).

[cyncooper]

Without protected sources it is much difficult for reporters to get information.

That's fine. Even judges who agree with your point and are inclined to grant such a privilege have ruled that in this case it does not apply.

Please read this ruling (I advise you read the whole thing):

U.S. Court of Appeals Ruling Upholding Contempt Citations

[cyncooper]

And one more point before you delve into your reading assignment; the courts have ruled based on current law per the Supreme Court.

You are commenting as if a new standard has been made. It has not.

[Southack]

"1. No crime was committed."

Incorrect. Libel and slander *are* crimes. So is lying to federal judges about "sources" that don't really exist.

The reporters *fabricated* the whole affair from soup to nuts. They aren't "protecting" any confidential sources...because none exist.

The reporters have committed NUMEROUS crimes (e.g. slander, libel, conspiracy, contempt, perjury, etc.) and are attempting to hide behind an ill-conceived judicial principle that would create political classes of Americans (i.e. those protected as "journalists" versus everyone else).

The reporters all need to go to jail and their whole fabricated affair needs to be exposed to the public. Then, whatever culpability that the NY Times and WaPost have to these crimes should be investigated.

[Southack]

"Do you want a Hillary Clinton presidency with the same power to intimidate Fox or Rush Limbaugh? She would surely do it, just as she did with the IRS."

False logic. She could do all of the above, and more, regardless of how we behave at this point in time. She demonstrated that by using the IRS to attack her opponents long before we behaved in any manner whatsoever in this Plame affair. QED.

[Southack]

"Government control of the press (or any other speech) is dangerous. The only good solution is a robust conservative press to counter their lies. 3. Gig 'em. Class of 82 (for Southack) How dare you call me a troll. You must be a B.Q.!"

Telling our courts to NOT prosecute libel, slander, conspiracy, contempt, and outright lies in the news media would be a disastrous policy to follow.

Don't go there.

Jail the tainted reporters and expose their whole sordid affair.

[cyncooper]

TIMESMAN TIPPED OFF TERROR CHARITY: FEDS (NY Times Correspondent Accused)

New Leak Probe Concerns 2001 Raid on Islamic Charity

(Even though the above says "new leak probe", reading various accounts shows Fitzgerald has been pursuing it since 2002)

And an interesting connection:

Virginia Man Charged With Conspiring to Assassinate President Bush

[stinkerpot65]

Do you really want to make lying and slander criminal? Really? Who defines the lies?

If a paper had printed that Bill Clinton raped Juanita Broderick, should the Clinton Justice Department have had the power to take the reporter throught a criminal trial?

Sure, he might have been found innocent, but the mere threat of criminal prosecution, with all the legal costs, stress, and possibility of conviction, would stifle free speech.

Our courts are corrupt, the goverment is corrupt, and any Democrat justice department would certainly be corrupt. Do you really want to give them that kind of oppressive power?

[okie01]

Got any article on that?

Not offhand. The MSM (in particular, the NYT) doesn't trumpet exactly what it is that the grand jury is after from Miller.

However, it was reported (as an incidental aside) that the conversation Miller refuses to identify took place in October, 2001. That is, immediately post 9/11 and well before La Affaire d'Plame.

[BJungNan]

Don't know why the bother. Doesn't look like any crime was even committed.

The New York Times said there is something there when they thought they could nail Bush. Now there is nothing there when their reporters are on the hook to produce nothing.

Let the reporters prove their case. All they have to do is produce nothing, same as they insisted of Bush. This one has been fun to watch.

[doug from upland]

The only crime committed was that the taxpayers had to pay to send her incompetent husband to the Middle East so he could sip green mint tea around the pool.

[stinkerpot65]

Let the reporters prove their case.

The reporters have no case to prove. It not against the law to lie. Slander and libel are not crimes, although you may be sued for it in civil court.

The only "crime" they are charged with is contempt of court for refusal to turn over their notes and reveal confidential sources.

Unless they have none, in which case the they will be discredited.

If lying is against the law, which law did they break?

[stinkerpot65]

She could do all of the above, and more, regardless of how we behave at this point in time.

Which specific law would she use to bring a criminal charge against a member of the press for lying?

[FreedomPoster]

Agreed.

I don't much like Martha or her politics, but for her to have gone to jail the way she did, for what she did, was absurd.

The lesson for thinking people, is never cooperate with Federal authorities/agents, without having a lawyer present. And maybe not even then.

[Shermy]

http://www.asahi.com/english/Herald-asahi/TKY200504050125.html

What do you make of this story, esp. the quotes attributed to Pincus? Strange, and comes from a Japanese paper.

[cyncooper]

Thanks very much for the ping.

Strange, indeed, and I filed it in my Wilson/Plame folder.

It sounds like Pincus is trying to make sure to keep the "her name was leaked in retaliation for Wilson's 'whistleblowing'" line as the main focus.

I found it very interesting that he claims his source had no problem with him testifying as long as he didn't name him, and further, that he says the source he's speaking of has spoken to the prosecution.

Very intriguing.

[Fedora]

I wouldn't trust anything Pincus says, but assuming he's not lying in this particular instance, his statements seem to imply his discussions with members of the Bush administration triggered his unnamed source to contact him:

Over breakfast recently, Pincus said, ``Joseph Wilson finally came forward the first week in July (2003) and wrote his own story. I was doing a follow-up to that story on July 12, and in gathering information for the story, I spoke to (several members of) the Bush administration, and I got a call that day. The caller suddenly went off on a tangent and said, `By the way, why do you keep writing about Joe Wilson's trip? Don't you know it was arranged by his wife?''. . .Pincus went ahead and wrote about the leak and its background, but he didn't reveal his government source.

I assume as likely (though not certain, but it's the simplest scenario per Occam's Razor) that his source was the same source who approached Novak with similar information. This seems to imply that there was an individual with good contacts in the Bush administration who was going around to reporters leaking this information.

Now on previous threads, we've discussed Pincus' apparent relationship with the Clintons.

This leads me to theorize that perhaps the Clintons have a mole close to or in the Bush administration who is leaking information to the press and is being protected by Pincus and others. This is, of course, only one possibility, but it might explain some things, such as the reluctance of reporters with anti-Bush leanings to reveal their source even under threat of legal penalties (i.e., presumably, if it was a pro-Bush source, anti-Bush reporters would be eager to reveal that the Bush administration outed Plame, while conversely the prosecutors would not be so intent on pressing the inquiry). A corollary of this hypothesis would be that the motive for leaking the information about Plame was not actually to discredit Wilson but rather to damage Bush by portraying Plame as a martyr (and, perhaps, to thus pre-empt any legitimate inquiry into Wilson's connections to elements in the CIA). Again, this is only one possibility. The other major possibility is a supporter of Bush's Iraq policy did out Plame in an attempt to discredit Wilson, but in that case certain things remain puzzling, such as the reporters' reluctance to name their sources even in the face of jail-time; so at this point I'm leaning towards the other possibility.

[Royal Wulff]

Because journalists are NOT above the law.

You know, I completely agree with this, but what I don't understand is why it isn't Novak's neck on the line since he's the one who reported it???