Posted on 06/30/2005 6:15:10 AM PDT by KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle
NEW YORK - Time Inc. said Thursday it would comply with a court order to deliver the notes of a reporter threatened with jail in the investigation of the leak of an undercover CIA officer's name.
U.S. District Judge Thomas Hogan is threatening to jail Matthew Cooper of Time and Judith Miller of The New York Times for contempt for refusing to disclose their sources.
The Supreme Court on Monday refused to hear the reporters' appeal and the grand jury investigating the leak expires in October. The reporters, if in jail, would be freed at that time.
In a statement, Time said it believes "the Supreme Court has limited press freedom in ways that will have a chilling effect on our work and that may damage the free flow of information that is so necessary in a democratic society." '
But it also said that despite its concerns, it will turn over the records to the special counsel investigating the leak.
so much for protecting your source.
"Exactly. But is that the focus? No, we're treated to endless harping on the lie that Wilson "discovered" there were no yellowcake deals being made."
What the Bipartisan Senate report showed was how unimportant and minute Wilson's role in the Niger matter was. A few thought his findings supported Iraqi/Nigerien contacts, some said it did nothing, some noted the trip was worthless because the Nigeriens would deny it anyway.
Wilson created a narrative where his information was crucial and linked to a personal request from the Vice President.
That kind of misses the point. The Second Amendment doesn't give you the right to gun down your neighbor just because you feel like it. You can own a gun, but there are limits to how you can legally use it. The same with the First.
By 'SCOTUS', I assume you are referring to the Socialist Court of the United States.
Folded like a pair of deuces!
Time folded, I don't think he has.
My guess is the internal e-mails and such will show what two officials told Cooper about Wilson's wife. Will this be enough to get him out of testimony I don't know.
That's odd. I wouldn't consider this routine news by any stretch.
Not necessarily. If the source is already gone, this could be a bad thing. Think about it. Hypothetically, if the source was let go because of this, it means someone else had knowledge of it.
This is my first posting on FR after lurking for months. My question which I hope someone can answer is; who is going to end up paying for this delaying tactic? I have to assume that it has cost a lot of money to delay a federal Grand Jury investigation for over six months. I would hope that Time and NYT and the reporters in question get handed a hefty bill. I do not see why taxpayers should have to pay so that the media can distort and abuse US Law.
PS- I was given this screen name by the mods. Maybe they know something even I don't know... LOL
The delay was expected in a case such as this.
I'd say the source, if revealed, will be paying the bill.
Your right the smears then were worse than they are now. It was a different game though. Everyone knew they were smears and most people knew who wrote the various articles since it was usually a well known individual publishing under a false name.
In the end, it would be pretty funny if no source actually existed.
Another guess. Miller and Cooper aren't in as much trouble about not revealing sources as they are with perjury or lying to a government official and this puts them in a box either which way they go. Miller is taking the easy way out by going with simple contempt but if Cooper testifies he goes down on contempt, perjury and/or lying to a government official, depending on his previous statements. Time has just stated that they will release his notes but that is no guarantee it discloses the "source" and one can't put notes under oath. Cooper, if he's smart, will take the contempt but file an appeal on other than "freedom of the press" grounds and request bail until the appeal could be heard.
I am less than enthusiastic these days about "freedom of the press." The press has repeatedly proven itself unworthy of protection. The press lies constantly, makes up the news often, and slants what purports to be hard news with total disregard to what should be its corresponding duty (corresponding to its oft-claimed freedoms) to present the news responsibly. I remain committed to freedom of the press to present slanted news, but I know of no reason why freedom of the press must include protection of sources who are complicit in crime. The so-called press has, for my money, gotten a little too big for its britches.
"Cooper testified that Libby said he had heard the same thing from the media"."
Judith Miller I bet was the first. Whom did she hear it from? My bet: Valerie Plame and hubby, if they wanted to promote themselves, if the tip was meant to be negative, George Tenet.
#137 should explain where she got her info.
She doesn't ask for much, does she?
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.