=================================
The information sought by the subpoenas is appropriately limited to specific topics and time periods as required by 28 C.F.R. §§ 50.10(f)(4) and 50.10(f)(6).
Specifically, the information sought is focused on testimony and documents related to communications occurring during a limited time period, which specifically concern former Ambassador Joseph Wilson; the 2002 trip by former Ambassador Wilson to Niger; Valerie Plame Wilson; or Iraqi efforts to obtain uranium.
Given the limited scope of the information sought by the subpoenas and the general nature of the investigation, it is obvious that there is a real possibility that the information sought will be relevant and of substantial importance to the investigation, as required by Ss 50.10(f)
There is also reason to believe that the information sought by the subpoenas is essential to a successful investigation, particularly with respect to guilt or innocence. See id.
As discussed above, the subpoenas to Cooper, Time, and Miller seek testimony and documents relating to communications with government officials (a single, specified official in Miller’s case) regarding former Ambassador Wilson, Valerie Plame, and Iraqi attempts to purchase uranium.
This information bears a direct relationship to the grand jury’s investigation and is expected to constitute direct evidence of guilt or innocence. By definition, evidence needed to establish guilt or innocence is "essential" to a criminal case, and is not merely "peripheral" or "speculative" as those terms are used in 28 C.F.R. § 50.10(f)(1).
Moreover, prior to the issuance of the challenged subpoenas, the grand jury conducted an extensive investigation, and all reasonable efforts were made to obtain relevant information from alternative sources. Therefore, the subpoenas meet the requirements of both §§ 50.10(b) and (f) of the DOJ guidelines.
Appellants do not contest the fact that the Special Counsel attempted to negotiate with them and their counsel in order to obtain their voluntary cooperation before the subpoenas were issued in compliance with DOJ guideline § 50.10(c), or that the subpoenas were issued only after they refused to cooperate.
Thus, in light of the facts set forth in the Special Counsel’s ex parte affidavits, it is clear that the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that, even if the DOJ Guidelines were enforceable by appellants through motions to quash, compliance with the subpoenas would be required because the subpoenas met and exceeded those guidelines.
====================================
If Fitzgerald's investigation has now expanded to include perjury, as some close followers of the case suspect, ((per WashPost article)) that sharpens the dilemma for the journalists involved.
It's one thing to protect the identity of a confidential source, even if that person may have violated the law by disclosing the identity of a covert intelligence agent. But it is arguably quite a different matter if the reporter has reason to believe a source lied to a grand jury. Does a reporter's confidentiality agreement extend to protecting a cover-up?
Though the perjury issue hasn't surfaced in most discussions of the case, it's buried between the lines of the hundreds of pages of memos, briefs and other legal documents. Unless perjury is one of Fitzgerald's concerns, his tireless pursuit of Cooper and Miller is difficult to understand. As was said of Melville's "Moby-Dick," this is more than a story about a fish.
That doesn't should like Rove is the target
I don't recall a fish at all, but there was plenty of rope.
All that rhetoric does is justify a charge of civil contempt against Cooper, Miller, etc. for not testifying.
bttt