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.

[piasa]

It's all the same people who keep appearing. I sometimes wonder if they have super-secret meetings at their headquarters under the UN, complete with minions dressed in James Bond type villain-minion uniforms. LOL!

FEBRUARY 2002 : (GEORGE SOROS HIRES MORTON H. HALPERIN*** OF VIETNAM ERA "PENTAGON PAPERS" FAME TO HEAD THE "OPEN SOCIETY INSTITUTE") Soros had hired Halperin in February 2002, to head the Washington office of his tax-exempt Open Society Institute – part of Soros’ global network of Open Society institutes and foundations located in more than 50 countries around the world. Given Halperin’s history, the appointment revealed much about Soros’ political goals. --- "The Shadow Party: Part I," by David Horowitz and Richard Poe, FrontPageMagazine.com, 10/06/04

JULY 17, 2003 : (LONG ISLAND, NY : GEORGE SOROS' BEACH HOUSE : SHADOW PARTY IS LAUNCHED AT SOUTHAMPTON MEETING; STRATEGISTS, DONORS, LABOR LEADERS ATTEND, AS WELL AS MORTON HALPERIN - SEE OPEN SOCIETY INSTITUTE) The Southampton Meeting : To the extent that the Shadow Party can be said to have an official launch date, July 17, 2003 probably fits the bill.[10] On that day, a team of political strategists, wealthy donors, leftwing labor leaders and other Democrat activists gathered at Soros’ Southampton beach house on Long Island. Aside from Soros, the most noteworthy attendee was Morton H. Halperin. Soros had hired Halperin in February 2002, to head the Washington office of his tax-exempt Open Society Institute...--- "The Shadow Party: Part I," by David Horowitz and Richard Poe, FrontPageMagazine.com, 10/06/04

JULY 17, 2003 : (NY : SOUTHAMPTON MEETING AT GEORGE SOROS BEACH HOUSE : RADICAL ENVIRONMENTALIST WESTERN STATES LOBBYIST TOM NOVICK & DEMOCRAT STRATEGIST MARK STEITZ ATTEND, REPORT ON THEIR FINDINGD ABOUT BUSH, PROPOSE MASSIVE GET OUT THE VOTE DRIVES) Jeanne Cummings of The Wall Street Journal reports that both [Tom] Novick and [Mark] Steitz were present at the Southampton meeting [held July 17, 2003], to brief the team in person. Working independently, the two analysts [Tom Novick & Mark Steitz] had reached similar conclusions. Both agreed that Bush could be beaten. Voter turnout was the key. The analysts proposed massive get-out-the-vote  drives among likely Democrat voters in seventeen “swing” or “battleground” states: Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Iowa, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Washington. --- "The Shadow Party: Part I," by David Horowitz and Richard Poe, FrontPageMagazine.com, 10/06/04

And so on...

Anyway, definitely go read this thread:

CLICK HERE

*** [Morton H.] Halperin has a long and controversial track record in the world of Washington intrigue, dating back to the Johnson Administration. Journalists sympathetic to Halperin’s leftwing sentiments give him high marks for blowing the whistle on the Vietnam War, but his activism helped undermine America’s war effort and contributed to the Communist victory.

The Johnson Defense Department placed Halperin in charge of compiling a secret history of U.S. involvement in Vietnam, based on classified documents. This secret history later emerged into public view as the so-called “Pentagon Papers.” Halperin and his deputy Leslie Gelb assigned much of the writing to leftwing opponents of the war, such as Daniel Ellsberg who, despite his background as a former Marine and a military analyst for the Rand Corporation, was already evolving into a New Left radical. In his memoir, Secrets, Ellsberg admits to concluding, as early as 1967, that, “we were not fighting on the wrong side; we were the wrong side” in the Vietnam War. [11] Evidently Ellsberg had come to view Ho Chi Minh’s Communist regime as the wave of the future.

With Halperin’s tacit encouragement – and perhaps active collusion – Ellsberg stole the secret history and released  it to The New York Times, which published the documents as “The Pentagon Papers” in June 1971.[12]  This was a violation of the Espionage Act, which forbids the removal of classified documents from government buildings. Not surprisingly, “The Pentagon Papers” echoed Halperin’s long-standing position that the Vietnam War was unwinnable, and ridiculed Presidents Kennedy and Johnson for stubbornly refusing to heed those of their advisors who shared this opinion. It marked a turning point in America’s failed effort to keep Indo-China from falling to the Communists. The government dropped its case against Ellsberg as Nixon’s power collapsed during the Watergate intrigues. --- "The Shadow Party: Part I," by David Horowitz and Richard Poe, FrontPageMagazine.com, 10/06/04

Doesn't that sound familiar?

[Lancey Howard]

These two scumbags are protecting a Democrat source.
If it was a Republican, they would have sang like canaries loooong ago.

[AmishDude]

Such a law would never happen because it would force the state to determine who is, and who is not, a journalist.

[Lancey Howard]

Thanks for posting that link - - ecdellent summary.

Judge Hogan then found, based on Fitzpatrick's information, that "the subpoenas were not issued in an attempt to harass the [reporters], but rather stem from legitimate needs due to an unanticipated shift in the grand jury's investigation." The Judge concluded that because the "subpoenas bear directly on the grand jury investigation and are of a limited time and scope," Fitzpatrick was entitled to this information.

This "shift in the grand jury's investigation" is particularly interesting. There is something big going on beneath the surface and I am hoping like crazy that the trail somehow ends up at the feet of Hillary.

[piasa]

From your link:

First, under Chief Justice Rehnquist, the Supreme Court has not exactly been "reporter friendly." In fact, if the Miller and Cooper cases were to be considered by the high Court, it could be an ironic career closing case for the ailing Chief Justice. (Unless, of course, the Supreme Court took the case, but held it over to the next term, and in the meantime Rehnquist were to resign. This is the best hope for Miller and Cooper, while the worse case for Fitzpatrick's investigation.) ----- "An Update on the Investigation Into the Leak Of CIA Agent Plame's Identity: Will The Supreme Court Take The Miller And Cooper Cases?," By JOHN W. DEAN, Friday, Apr. 22, 2005

That might explain the absolute desperation on the left to stall all judicial nominations, as well as their hope to stave off any future SC nominations should an opening arise. Perhaps they are hoping Renquist does leave before this case comes up, and are not just being their normal activist-judge-loving selves.

[Mo1]

Thanks for the ping and the updates

I haven't had the time to follow the latest on this case .. but it sure as heck is getting really interesting

[stinkerpot65]

These two scumbags are protecting a Democrat source. If it was a Republican, they would have sang like canaries loooong ago.

No doubt true. But the bigger issue is the ability of the press to glean info from anonymous sources. Without a strong, free press, we will end up like Canada.

[Shermy]

The reporters added lawyer Ted Olson to the case

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ep/20050427/en_bpiep/dealstruckfortimingofmillercoopersupremecourtappeal

[cyncooper]

Thanks for the update and the tidbit about Olson representing Cooper now. I believe Ken Starr is (or was) working with the New York Times, in addition to Floyd Abrams.

At any rate, if the Supreme Court declines to hear the case that will be that.

It will be interesting if they do agree to take it up. I predict they won't.

[stinkerpot65]

Thanks.

[Shermy]

Here's a link to a Wilson interview at the DailyKos

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/4/25/850/84929

The respoding posters are hilarious, whipped up by Wilson's circumlocutions and sophistries. Still denying his wife had anything to do with his trip.

One thing: he shows his cards on Rove: Rove acted after the Novak article. Wilson before said he expected criticism, however. When the report comes out he'll deflect to the Left MSM that rove's the real bad guy and so on.

One more: He is so sensitive about not having seen the documents. Hmm...

[Southack]

"Now what caused this shift.."

The "shift" was that the reporters were caught fabricating the whole "get Bush" witchhunt around the supposed leaking of Plame's name. Naturally, their attorneys blame the "confidential" sources rather than the reporters themselves, which may or may not even exist.

If the reporters won any of these court rulings, then their alibi of blaming the unnamed sources would hold up...as well as give reporters in the future the full rights to fabricate the most slanderous and libelous of stories with full immunity (after all, they could simply blame their "confidential" sources taht don't really exist).

...And the trolls supporting the reporters in this case want that very thing; they want to give reporters full immunity from slander, conspiracy, and libel in order to turn loose the Leftwing news media against every Conservative, in office or not.

[Southack]

There are only 3 reasons to add Olson to their legal team.

1. They simply want the best attorney out there.

2. They think that a conservative, government attorney will aid them in the judges' eyes.

3. They want to communicate via backchannels with the Bush Administration.

Won't work.

Jail 'em.

[Shermy]

""The "shift" was that the reporters were caught fabricating the whole "get Bush" witchhunt around the supposed leaking of Plame's name.""

It was whipped up by Joe Wilson's invoking names the Left MSM hate (Rove), fueled by his angry obsession to denounce not so much the outing of his wife's name, but the accusation she might have had something to do with with his trip.

[mewzilla]

They're not covering for a Pubbie....

[stinkerpot65]

So then:

1. No crime was committed.

2. In your view, the only justification for the whole investigation is to prove the reporters to be liars. I wouldn't be surprised that they are, and it would be poetic justice since they whipped up the story to begin with.

However, it is not the job of the Justice Department to hammer reporters for lying. Sooner or later, that hammer will be in the hands of a corrupt Democrat.

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.

Besides, the lies of the MSM over the decades are already catching up to them. They are the most despised insitution in the country.

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.!

[cyncooper]

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

[okie01]

3. They want to communicate via backchannels with the Bush Administration.

Won't work.

Jail 'em.

I'm beginning to believe this case could be as much of a watershed moment as the Bolton nomination or invoking the "nuclear option".

There is a "last gasp" quality to all of this...

[Loud Mime]

This entire case has me scratching my head. It makes more sense that the reporters are protecting a liberal instead of a conservative.

If it was a liberal who leaked the information, they'd protect them as one of their own.

and

What good would it do a conservative to leak the info? NONE

It just makes no sense...

[stinkerpot65]

I suppose we will find out sooner or later, but reporters go to jail all the time to protect their sources, though not usually for long, because they know that protected sources are their bread and butter.

Without protected sources it is much difficult for reporters to get information. If we had had a strong conservative press in 1994, Bill Clinton would probably be in jail.

If Hillary wins in '08, and Hillary has the power to muzzle the conservative press, I hate to think about it.