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.
I've long surmised that the investigation has taken a tangent...
See my #26.
Also, it's not just Miller and Cooper (and Novak, who has most likely cooperated). Tim Russert, for example, at first refused to testify and was threatened with contempt and then testified instead.
chilling effect.
another overused stock phrase.
Tho, I'd like a chilling effect right now. It's hotter than the hinges of the hot place and has been for 3 weeks.
Interesting why October????
Damn, I just realized, "October Surprise."
I'll take a leak too . . . umm I mean, well you know.
For sure, it can't be deep-throat. Why is the "investigation" still going on? She wasn't undercover or anything like that, so why the secrecy?
Will these be the original notes, or the retyped copies of the originals (which have no doubt been destroyed)? I trust nothing the MSM writes or says anymore.
Whichever ones are currently stashed away in Sandy Berger's pants. :)
Could this be to avoid an October surprise on someone running for office?
The words "knowling false and misleading" need to be added to the Time statement above between the word "of" and the word "information".
Then it would be a more accurate and dare I say truthful statement.
why all this sturm und drang about a non-story about a non-spy that broke no law and was therefore of very little interest--except to the liberal press who wanted to use it against the Bush people before the election.
Since there wasn't a real story, the reporters have firmed up the SCOTUS opinion against reporters having confidential sources.
CNN Inside Politics
ED HENRY: Two reporters facing possible jail time are expected to attend a hearing at the top of the hour at U.S. District Court here in Washington. Matthew Cooper of "Time" magazine and Judith Miller of "The New York Times" both face possible 18-month sentences for refusing to cooperate with a Grand Jury investigating the leak of a CIA agent's identity. Cooper and Miller asked for today's hearing after the Supreme Court earlier this week refused to hear their appeals.
Columnist and CNN political analyst Bob Novak was the first to reveal the CIA employee's identity, Valerie Plame. And Bob Novak joins me now on the show.
Bob, first, what's your reaction to the Supreme Court saying they would not hear this case?
BOB NOVAK, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, I deplore the thought of reporters -- I've been a reporter all my life -- going to jail for any period of time for not revealing sources, and there needs to be a federal shield law preventing that as there are shield laws in 49 out of 50 states. But, Ed, I -- my lawyer said I cannot answer any specific questions about this case until it is resolved, which I hope is very soon.
HENRY: In general, though, you believe in the principle of keeping the identity secret,of confidential sources. Have you ever revealed the identity of one of your confidential sources?
NOVAK: Well, people know -- who have read my column know there have been special case where I have. But the question of being coerced to by the government and being put in prison is, I think, something that should be protected by act of Congress.
HENRY: In general, have you cooperated with investigators in this case?
NOVAK: I can't answer any questions about this case at all.
HENRY: Okay. Now, just in general about the principle at stake here -- William Safire, fellow conservative, wrote an op ed in the New York Times saying that at the very least, he believes that you owe your readers, and in this case, your viewers, some explanation. He said, "Mr. Novak should finally write the column he owes readers and colleagues perhaps explaining how his two sources, who may have truthfully revealed themselves to investigators, managed to get the prosecutor off his back."
I think that's the question. Why sit that there are two reporters out there who may go to jail, Bob, but it doesn't appear that you are going to go to jail?
NOVAK: Well, that's what I can't reveal until this case is finished. I hope it is finished soon. And when it does, I agree with Mr. Safire, I will reveal all in a column and on the air. HENRY: Do you understand why in general there's frustration among fellow journalist after 41 years of distinguished work, where you've always pushed and been a fierce advocate of the public's right to know, you're not letting the public know about such a critical case, and two people may go to jail.
NOVAK: Well, they are not going to jail because of me. Whether I answer your questions or not, it has nothing to do with that. That's very ridiculous to think that I am the cause of their going to jail. I don't think they should be going to jail.
HENRY: Yes. But I didn't say you were the cause. But there are some people...
NOVAK: Yes, you do did.
HENRY: No, but some people feel if you would come forward with the information that you have, that maybe they would not go to jail.
NOVAK: But you don't know -- Ed, you don't know anything about the case. And those people who say that don't know anything about the case. And unfortunately, as somebody who likes to write, I'd like to say a lot about the case, but because of my attorney's advice I can't. But I will. And there might be some surprising things.
HENRY: We'll all be waiting to hear that story finally told, Bob.
Now I want to talk to you a little bit about what's in your notebook. Obviously, the president pushing very hard for CAFTA, the Central American Free Trade Agreement. But he's facing a very bumpy road. But you're hearing that there's been a sweetener added to the deal for some lobbyists.
NOVAK: Well, it came through the Senate Finance Committee by a voice vote -- a voice vote -- no opposition. And the word is that the secretary of Agriculture, Mike Johanns, was up on the Hill, and what he gave was some of the sugar money going into ethanol. That gets a couple of big lobbies, the ethanol lobby and the sugar lobby. The sugar lobbyists say theirs nothing that'll make them support the bill, but it did go through without objection in the Senate Finance Committee.
It's going to pass the Senate easily -- tougher row in the House of Representatives.
HENRY: Okay, what about "labor pains" right now for Democrats? There's a lot of trouble for Democrats among organized labor.
NOVAK: There's a new organization called Change that is anti- John Sweeney, AFL-CIO president. The Teamsters and the SEIU's workers are involved in that. But what's interesting is, it looks like as though the carpenters are going to join this group. And the big news is that the National Education Association may join the rebel group. So there may be a whole new labor organization coming out in opposition to the AFL-CIO. HENRY: Seems like at a time when Democrats are out of power, the last thing they could use would be the splintering within their own ranks.
NOVAK: And this new organization's going to put emphasis on organizing, rather than politics.
HENRY: Okay, finally, Congresswoman Katherine Harris: well- known, former Florida secretary of state during the contested 2000 election. She's planning a run for Senate, she's running against a Democrat who's vulnerable -- Bill Nelson. But now you're hearing there's some static from the White House.
NOVAK: Yes, there's some static from the White House, from the National Committee, from the State organization with Governor Jeb Bush -- they don't want her to run because they don't think she is the Republican who'll beat Bill Nelson. But she is almost impossible to defeat in a primary. What they would like to do is dry up her money so she backs out. But she's a pretty tough lady.
The candidate that they're trying to push is the speaker of the House of Representatives in Florida, Allan Bense. Nobody knows him. You don't -- you may never have heard of him till this minute. But that -- they think that Katherine Harris is a primary winner and a general election loser. But she's a tough lady. I don't know if she's going to be forced out and intimidated by this pressure from the party establishment.
HENRY: A lot of political intrigue in the Sunshine State. You obviously have good sources on that. Are you going to tell me who told you that?
NOVAK: Never.
HENRY: All right. Bob Novak, not revealing his sources.
isn't it impressive how the press stands up for what they consider "principle" - NOT!!!! see Time capitulate...gosh, i wouldn't want to be in a foxhole with these guys.
Is Novak writing a tell all book? (wink wink)
My guess is that Novak has already given them the name of the leaker.
I think it's very unlikely that Wilson was the one who leaked to Novak, but it's quite possible that he himself "outed" his wife at some earlier point in time, and that this entered into the gossip pipeline and was indirectly the source of the information that eventually got to Novak. Wilson is a yakker, and I wouldn't be surprised if he was the one who originally divulged his wife's CIA connection to someone.
First Wesley Clark now Matt Cooper??? I didn't know FOX had hired him. What in the world is Roger Ailes thinking??? "Keep your enemies closer"? Or maybe Roger is just looking for some comic relief:
""Cooper moonlights as a stand-up comedian, and in November 1998 was named "Washington's Funniest Celebrity" after an evening of comedy at Washington's Improv. His Clinton impersonation has been praised by Vanity Fair and New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd praised him for an ability to "spin whimsy out of smarmy," proclaiming, "I want to be more like Matt Cooper." "
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.