Posted on 10/23/2006 9:00:24 AM PDT by EdLake
ORDER that Pltf's [83] Motion to Compel the Identity of Deft's Confidential Sources is GRANTED. Deft shall reveal the identity of Confidential Sources #2,#3 and #4, to Pltf no later than Wednesday, 10/25/06 (see Order for details). Signed by Judge Liam O'Grady on 10/20/06. Copies mailed: yes (Copies faxed by chambers) (pmil) (Entered: 10/23/2006)
It should be remembered that the MEDIA was helping some conspiracy theorists to point the finger at Dr. Hatfill long before the FBI did their first public search and the world learned about Dr. Hatfill.
It's also important to know that court documents indicate that Dr. Hatfill was investigated by the FBI when his name first came up, in November of 2001, and the FBI found no reason to suspect him. But, the conspiracy theorists decided that the FBI was "covering up" for Dr. Hatfill and began an 8-month campaign to get Dr. Hatfill publicly investigated. To conspiracy theorists, if a person isn't being publicly investigated, he isn't being investigated at all.
The Dr. Hatfill situation is about POLITICS. It is NOT and NEVER HAS BEEN about the anthrax case.
Ed Lake
This is interesting. Thanks for posting this.
If they fail to give the information lock them up until they rot and their balls fall off.
Assuming they've got some?.......
I've got a smile on my face from ear to ear right now just thinking about the possiblity of that scumbag Nik Kristof sitting in a jail cell!
What's most interesting to me is that I'm the one who is breaking this news story.
The Order was evidently issued on Friday. I would think that an Order compelling the New York Times to name confidential sources would be BIG news.
How come I'm the first to report this?
Ed
no, just lock down their presses and have them go out of business.
I suspect that once they get wind of the possibility of more newspapermen being forced to name sources or go to jail, you'll see the entire press wake up in a hurry.
NY Times has not vested interest in a reporting being locked up. The better solution would be to lock up their printing presses and post a US Marshal as a guard on those presses until such time as they comply.
Don't get too revved up about that. I don't think Nicholas Kristoff is a defendant in the case any longer. I believe that it was decided long ago that the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia has no jurisdiction over Nicholas Kristof. But because the Times is sold in Virginia, the court DOES have jurisdiction regarding the Times.
I'm not sure who could be thrown in jail, but it would almost have to be the publisher.
Ed
Now that would require balls, which this administration has none.
Well, well, well.
You're right that this was not about finding out who dunnit; it was an attempt to imply or pursuade that it was not done by Muslim terrorists, but was done by a white, male, non-Muslim crackpot, which is what the media always wants to find behind any evil act.
They obviously targeted him but I have to ask. Why did the New York Times target Dr. Hatfill? What motive did they have?
I think you answered my question.
It's not as simple as that.
The Right Wing Media has been insisting all along that it was Muslims - even though the evidence says otherwise. It's the Right Wingers who always want to find some foreigners responsible for all the evil in the world.
The Left Wingers mistakenly believed that the attack anthrax was super-sophisticated and MUST have come from some secret and ILLEGAL U.S. Government bioweapons program. That's apparently what got them to start looking at Dr. Hatfill, since he was someone who talked about how easy it would be for a lone individual to create bioweapons.
Ed
But doesn't the US Constitution's 1st Amendment protect the rights of liberal humps to slander government agents during times of Republican rule, as long as they own a newspaper?
You're joking, I hope?
Ping!
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.