Posted on 08/17/2004 8:57:33 AM PDT by piasa
(snip)....U.S. District Chief Judge Thomas F. Hogan... unsealed an order that demands the "confinement" of Time reporter Matthew Cooper, who has refused to testify in the probe...
...
Hogan also issued an Aug. 6 order confining Cooper "at a suitable place until such time as he is willing to comply with the grand jury subpoena," and ordered Time to be fined $1,000 a day. ...
...
While NBC fought a subpoena issued May 21 and was included in the opinion, it avoided a contempt citation after Tim Russert, moderator of NBC's "Meet the Press," agreed to an interview over the weekend in which he answered a limited number of questions posed by special prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald, NBC said in a statement.
Lawyers involved in the case said it appears that Fitzgerald is now armed with a strong and unambiguous court ruling to demand the testimony of two journalists -- syndicated columnist Robert D. Novak, who first disclosed the CIA officer's name, and Washington Post reporter Walter Pincus, who has written that a Post reporter received information about her from a Bush administration official.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
(snip) Pincus was served with a subpoena yesterday after Hogan's order was unsealed....
Washington Post reporter Glenn Kessler agreed to a similar interview with Fitzgerald's office earlier this summer. In both Kessler's case and Russert's, prosecutors' questions concerned conversations the reporters had in early July 2003 with Lewis I. "Scooter" Libby, chief of staff for Vice President Cheney. Both reporters have said they told Fitzgerald's staff that Libby did not disclose the identity of the CIA employee, Valerie Plame, to them.
Fitzgerald has shown a continuing interest in Libby, witnesses have said, but it now appears that his reasons may be more complex than was first apparent. Libby has signed a waiver allowing reporters to tell the prosecutor whether he disclosed Plame's name to them. Prosecutors have e-mails and phone records showing his contacts with reporters, and witnesses have said they are interested in a story Cooper wrote last summer in which Libby was interviewed.
...
Pincus co-wrote a story last October that said an administration official gave similar information to a Post reporter on July 12, 2003 -- before Novak's column appeared -- though Plame's name was not disclosed at the time. Washington Post counsel Mary Ann Werner confirmed yesterday that Fitzgerald has demanded testimony from Pincus.
I've been out of the loop on this story. Are there allegations that the "leaks" were falsely linked to the Bush admin. when in fact it were a bunch of liberal reporters who "leaked"? Thanks in advance!
FYI........ping....................bttt
Good question. Since the liberals are no longer crowing about this it is probably safe to say it's not turning out like they hoped.
Can't say for sure but I find it hard to believe that Time magazine would pay $1000 a day in fines to protect a Republican source.
Some background info:
The Weekly Standard
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/337paflu.asp
"A Little Literary Flair"
From the July 26, 2004 issue: Joe Wilson wasn't a truth-teller.
by Matthew Continetti
07/26/2004, Volume 009, Issue 43
So the courts just got around to holding the reporters in contempt? The public has held them in contempt for quite awhile.
Hmmmm....certainly looks like the lies and dishonesty of the left are becoming less transparent in this matter. I hope the judge throws the book at those found guilty, especially if it's lib. reporters/reporterettes. Thanks for the info.
The cauldron is appearing to begin to bubble.
Great point!
true
Early on, Novak went on record that the leak was not "shopped" to him, it came out "offhandedly" in the course of a long conversation, it did not come from a "political gunslinger," but it DID come from someone in the Bush administration. As for the other reporters, I haven't a clue. So Novak contradicts the spin that the leak was a deliberate ploy to "get" Wilson or retaliate for his NYT article. It was an inadvertent leak of information that was apparently already widely known in some Washington circles.
BINGO !
NO. It came from a "Senior Admin. Official" that is not the same as a BUSH Administration official.
It came from a careerist whose sympathies do not lie with the Bushies.
That is why it took Russert so long to clear Libby, and why the Time "journalist" will not out his source.
IF his source was a Bushie, he would be able to do it with a little handwringing. But he isn;t. Because he would be burning a member of "The Team".
To complete my thought: I find it hard to believe that a Bush administration official would accuse two other administration officials of a federal crime by attributing an act to them which (1) has an incoherent and unconvincing motive; and (2) which just happens to correspond to the Democratic spin. How would this anonymous whistleblower know who made the leak and what their motive was? And why have we heard no more about this alleged whistleblower in the past year? It seems to me quite possible that Pincus was lying and was putting into the mouth of an administration official the very spin that the Democrats were trying to promote.
In the Bush administration, a senior administration official is a Bush administration official, regardless of whether he/she is a careerist or someone who was brought in by Bush. They are still part of the Bush administration. But I admit it could have been a careerist who was not one of Bush's people.
Look at your Pincus quote above.
An administration official told Pincus that two Bush administration officials leaked Plame's CIA identity in an effort to discredit Wilson."
If your contention is accurate why would Pincus make the distinction. He is telling those that know, something.
The court held reporters in "contempt", so do I.
I don't think the alternate use of "administration" and "Bush administration" is significant. Writers try to avoid repeating the same words over and over; I don't think this is any more than that. But it's predictable that the "Bush" adjective is used in the clause where the alleged illegal act is mentioned, not in the clause where the alleged whistleblower is speaking. But I still think Pincus is making this up.
I don't believe so, just the opposite. I'll look for verification on that.
Given the way the dems were milking the whole Plame "scandal" for everything it was worth, and the way that the media is keeping such a closed mouth on it, I would not be the least bit suprised if it turned out that it was NOT anyone in the Bush administration that leaked the info, but a dem...
Either by accident, or on purpose to try to damage the Bush administration
Mark
No, they wouldn't pay a dime to protect a Republican, but they would pay almost any amount to guarantee the principle that their "sources" need never fear disclosure of their identities.
If the government can discover the source in this case, they can discover the source in any future case, so the Times is screwed - and so are all the others who promoted this inquiry early on when they thought they'd get a "twofer" - embarrassing the administration AND embarrassing a conservative columnist.
is it just the fine? why don't they imprison him? the fine won't do anything to break him.
Well, as simply as I can put it. You're thinking is wrong.
Every single word in a description like that has a distinct meaning, and is used to denote a specific type of individual.
Ah, you've hit on a key point here and, no, it's NOT a dumb question!
Valerie Plame had previously made her name "public" when she openly advocated her husband for the job of going to Africa to investigate the "yellowcake" story.
When she got involved in the politics, she ceased to be undercover, and it was her own doing.
He'll get together with Sandy Berger and write a best seller for the DNC.
/sarcasm
Sounds like a member of the "permanent government" - Clintonoid career bureaucrat at State or CIA...
See my post #14. Everything I say on this topic goes back to those comments that Novak made; that is my starting point. Novak said that the leak - from a Bush adminstration official ("not a partisan gunslinger")- was inadvertent and offhand, which makes me question Pincus's allegations that the leak was done deliberately to embarrass Wilson. Thus I question the existence of Pincus's whistleblower, and the purported motive of the leak.
""Admittedly, a dumb question, but it HAS been settled that Palme was an undercover operative who's identity was a secret, correct?"
I've heard it emphatically stated both ways, by people who claim to be "in the know." We might have to wait for Fitzgerald's report to find out."
I've been using the old rule of 'common sense' - if she wasn't an undercover operative there was no crime committed in releasing her name. Bob Novak (I think) in his original article stated she was an 'operative, had been asked by the CIA not to disclose her name, but did so anyhow. The grand jury has to have a possible crime to be in session so long, AG Ashcroft recused himself, and people are going to jail & being fined for not cooperating.
So if no crime = no foul, and crime = possible jail time. Which scenario do you think fits; undercover or not? I vote - yes she was undercover & releasing her name violated national security.
I have a theory on this Joe Wilson affair and how it exploded into a Bush scandal, through the useful idiots in the press, Chris Lehane. Wilson once bragged that he had been working with the Kerry campaign since May 2003, it was shortly after that, that the Valerie Plame accusations started to fly. The Democrats first tried the "Bush knew" accusations and didn't get much traction, so they invented the Valerie Plame, CIA agent accusation. Wa-la, a feeding frenzie for the leftist press, and a whole lot of attention for Joe Wilson.
Naturally, the leftist press, who sided with the courts against Novak, suddenly wants to claim freedom of the press to protect Chris Lehane, former campaign pr guy for Kerry.
Wilson never worked for the CIA, but his wife, Valerie Plame, is an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction. Two senior administration officials told me Wilson's wife suggested sending him to Niger to investigate the Italian report. The CIA says its counter-proliferation officials selected Wilson and asked his wife to contact him. "I will not answer any question about my wife," Wilson told me.
Then in October
During a long conversation with a senior administration official, I asked why Wilson was assigned the mission to Niger. He said Wilson had been sent by the CIA's counterproliferation section at the suggestion of one of its employees, his wife. It was an offhand revelation from this official, who is no partisan gunslinger. When I called another official for confirmation, he said: "Oh, you know about it." The published report that somebody in the White House failed to plant this story with six reporters and finally found me as a willing pawn is simply untrue.
That is reporterese, for a Government Official, that is not a Bushie.
And the Current evidence, of subpeonaed journalists, all uinfriendly to the adminsistration bears that out.
Novak said exactly what I said he said, unless you're still quibbling about the "Bush administration" vs. "administration" point. Career employees who work through several administrations are routinely described as having worked "in the Bush administration" and "in the Reagan administration." This language does not necessarily imply that they were appointees of any particular administration.
"I wonder if Novak's source was a liberal though. I can't imagine people being fined or going to jail to protect a Republican."
Don't know for sure. I hate to say this, but the press just might be operating on principle here (gag) and would protect their own turf no matter who the 'source' was.
When the writer, is a political coverage operative, every word has meaning, regardless of your refusal to see exactly what is written before you.
However, given Gertz's column, it appears that this investigation is no longer about prosecuting someone for leaking Plames identity, but about trying to Frame someone, for leaking Plames id.
In the end you will see some manner of malfeasence charge.
Makes sense to me. Wouldn't be surprised if that's the direction the investigation is going--as opposed to another theory I've seen that they're trying to frame someone.
Wilson might have blabbed about his wife's identity in the past - and that might be why her identity was so well-known - but he clearly is not the one who leaked to Novak. However, it's quite possible that he got in on the act somewhere early on after Novak's story broke and - perhaps in cahoots with other reporters - tried to fabricate a scandal.
Related threads:
Court Holds Reporter in Contempt in Leak Case (WILSON/PLAME) 8/9/04
Russert (sic) Held in Contempt in CIA Leak Case 8/9/04
Reporter Held in Contempt in CIA Leak Case (Plame) 8/9/04
Judge Upholds Media Subpoenas in CIA Leak Case (PLAME/WILSON) 8/9/04
Also, regarding the TIME mag reporter, Matt Cooper. He is married to clintonista Mandy Grunewald.
Hardly the person a Republican would go leaking to.
Not that I ever bought the "leak" story in the first place, as represented by the LSM and the odious Wilson.
No. There has been no official statement as to her status. It is not a dumb question.
Evidence points to her not being undercover for many years (there is evidence she was at one time, years ago, well before the law in question would cover).
No, it is not just the fine. The order is on hold while TIME appeals. From the above link:
The judge's opinion, reached July 20 but not released until yesterday, will be immediately appealed, Time executives said. Hogan also issued an Aug. 6 order confining Cooper "at a suitable place until such time as he is willing to comply with the grand jury subpoena," and ordered Time to be fined $1,000 a day. The fine was also stayed while the magazine's expedited appeal is considered.
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.