Prosecutor in CIA Leak Case Demands Time Reporter Testify

AP ^ | July 5, 2005 | Pete Yost

[summer]

WASHINGTON (AP) -- A federal prosecutor on Tuesday demanded that Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper testify before a grand jury investigating the leak of a CIA officer's identity, even though Time Inc. has surrendered e-mails and other documents in the probe.

Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald also opposed the request of Cooper and New York Times reporter Judith Miller to be granted home detention _ instead of jail _ for refusing to reveal their sources....

[Socratic]

if the feds don't indict the leaker?

Speculation. Let the process proceed apace.

[oceanview]

the notes can say anything - they are trying to get Cooper in a perjury trap - he could write anything in that notepad and turn it over to the prosecutor - my only guess is that they have some definitive proof from Novak, and if Cooper/Miller says something different, he commits perjury.

[Shermy]

The "Karl Rove" angle offered fresh meat to the MoveOn.Org types but couldn't last.

I don't think the "Wilsons as heroes" angle will hold.

What's the NYTimes to do? Tell the story straight? Naaawww.

[summer]

Also from the article:

----------

In his court filings, Fitzgerald said it is essential for courts to enforce their contempt orders so that grand juries can get the evidence they need.

Fitzgerald said it would be up to the judge to decide whether to send Cooper to the District of Columbia jail or some other facility. On Friday, Cooper's lawyers argued against sending him to the D.C. jail, saying it is a "dangerous maximum security lockup already overcrowded with a mix of convicted offenders and other detainees awaiting criminal trials."

Miller's lawyers argue that there are no circumstances under which she will talk, but Fitzgerald disagreed.

"There is tension between Miller's claim that confinement will never coerce her to testify and her alternative position that this court should consider less restrictive forms of confinement," the prosecutor wrote.

---------

This prosecutor seems tough as nails!

[summer]

Re post #18 - ROTFLMAO....

[summer]

Re post #19 - I agree.

[oceanview]

what deal could they make? the reporters essentially want one of two things - some new constitutional right to avoid testifying, or a right to commit perjury in the course of "providing the news".

[Eva]

My thought on this is that there is no proof that the computer records were not altered in anyway to mislead the Grand Jury and without the testimony, Cooper cannot be held for perjury. Additionally, there is also the side investigation into the CIA leak to the terrorist supporting agency that was being investigated by HSA, that would not be included in notes.

I don't understand why no one else is talking about this side investigation.

[PzLdr]

And that Plame in the A*S case just keeps draggin' on...

[oceanview]

I guess Miller want to be confined to Manhattan as her sentence.

[summer]

See the link in post #17.

[PzLdr]

Yeah. But only a defendant can assert the privilege.

[cyncooper]

The "Karl Rove" angle offered fresh meat to the MoveOn.Org types but couldn't last.

I don't think the "Wilsons as heroes" angle will hold

What's the NYTimes to do? Tell the story straight?

Exactly. That Wilson piece was pretty sticky stuff. ick

[Alberta's Child]

Thanks for the ping. I'm curious to see how this thing unfolds.

[cyncooper]

This prosecutor seems tough as nails!

I think you're right.

Also, throughout the appeals process there has not been one judge to opine that the contempt ruling was out of bounds or wrong.

Just a reminder to all: This is Cooper's second contempt citation before this grand jury. The first time he avoided jail by giving limited testimony. Then the grand jury subpoenaed his notes and further testimony and that brought us to where it is today.

[trebb]

His statement was: "Journalists are not entitled to promise complete confidentiality - no one in America is,"

In other words - journalists do not have the authority to tell someone that they will have complete confidentiality in all things. It is not a power given over to the average person - even priests are not immune when it comes to taking a confession of the sexual abuse of a child.

[mbraynard]

My point was directed at the "no one in America is." And I believe it stands. Irrelevant granted versus entitled arguments aside...

[Shermy]

"That would have been a good spot for Yost to note that the unanimous Appeals Court ruling noted that any privilege that might exist does not apply in this case.

Of course, that would undermine his theme that an out of control prosecutor is trampling the rights of these reporters."

I think posters at FR are the only ones who read the thing. Even the judge who sounded favorable to the reporters' legal arguments said in this instance the privileged would be trumped, because the leaks themselves involve a crime, and the judge was not willing to give the privilege the carte blanche like that given to priests.

[Shermy]

"Exactly. That Wilson piece was pretty sticky stuff. ick"

You don't think what the neighbors think is important?

/sarcasm

[kcvl]

I highly doubt that Matt Cooper (husband to Hillary's adviser, Mandy Grunwald) would go to this much trouble covering for Carl Rove.

******


Time magazine's Matthew Cooper married longtime Clinton adviser Mandy Grunwald in November 1997. Hillary Clinton even threw Grunwald a baby shower at the White House in July 1998. At the time Cooper was covering presidential politics for Newsweek.

media adviser Mandy Grunwald, who helped elect Bill Clinton president in 1992 and Mrs. Clinton to the Senate in 2000