Posted on 10/07/2004 5:14:08 PM PDT by ConservativeMan55
Per Foxnews. Judith Miller refuses to name her sources in the CIA Leak Case.
A federal judge has ordered her to jail. She will be allowed to remain free while her case is on appeal.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Clymeress.
I assume he has testified.
Several reporters have testified (several more are under subpoena right now) and some resisted and been threatened with or actually cited with contempt. Tim Russert was threatened and testified and Matt Cooper at TIME was found in contempt but testified before being sent to the hoosegow.
The investigation is broader than the Plame business and the NYT knows it and they don't like it.
I personally have not thought Judith Miller was complicit in any wrongdoing and think she might be more a witness to what they're looking into. We'll see.
To amend my one post, I don't know that the real sources or whatever Fitzgerald is getting at have testified.
I do know that Scooter Libby in Cheney's office was publicly accused by Wilson of being the number one suspect in "leaking" the information to Novak so Libby told the prosecutor he did not. Further he waived any confidentiality regarding discussions of this matter with reporters. Even in the face of that narrow testimony being requested---that reporters testify if that was true, that Libby did not give them Plame's involvement in her husband's trip to Niger (and I can't resist adding here that a logical assessment of known data prior to this charge being leveled pointed to it being well nigh impossible that the "leak" emanated from the WH, including Cheney's office and the media ignored this data in favor of pushing the innuendo of Wilson's smear)--they resisted on the grounds of protecting their sources.
That strikes me as insane.
Libby was asking that they clear his name here and they did not want to do it.
Now, as to the rest of what the investigation might be looking at, I agree there are times when a source should be protected, but it is not a blanket right that they can just throw over everything they do because they happen to draw a paycheck from what purports to be a "news" organization.
Payback time.
They should jail Sulzberger too, for contempt of court.
Are you sure this is correct? It's hard to believe the NYTimes did this without some caveats about freedom of the Press.
I did a Google looking for the article. All I came up with was this
Perhaps you can provide a link.
The Judge has characterized the prosecutor's efforts to compel journalists to reveal their sources in this case as restrained - but necessary given his lack of results when pursuing other avenues. Now if Novak has testified and revealed his sources no further pursuit would be necessary. If he didn't reveal his sources then it would be he rather than Miller who'd facing jail time. And if he hasn't been called then one can, rightly, question the legitimacy of the investigation.
Finally, other threads led me to believe that Miller was being asked to reveal her sources on another matter - not on the Plame case. Were they wrong - or is this article wrong?
Miller is under subpoena in two cases, so your assumption that this article or the other threads discussing the other case is wrong. Both this article and the other threads are right. Some of us have surmised both investigations are connected, though.
Novak revealing his sources would end the matter only to those who wish to follow the original Wilsonian talking points. I've told you before you're wrong to do so and the case trundles along going against the conventional wisdom with the NYT wailing and gnashing about the "expansion" of the investigation.
Too bad so sad. They did indeed call for an investigation of the Novak "leak" and now they don't like it. They probably didn't think an investigation would ever really be done and they could just use it to bash Bush with.
Hey kid, in the Internet Age we are *all* reporters. Ask yourself how lenient the judge would be to you if you withheld pertinent information in a federal felony case, then compare your own personal answer to the judge in this case letting the woman remain free pending the result of her appeal.
The AWB Has Expired - Gun Owners Have Won Again For All Americans!
It would not be necessary to compel anyone else to reveal those sources. That's all I meant and I think it's obvious.
That the government might feel compelled to enlarge the investigation beyond that to other leaks and issues surrounding the Plame-Wilson-Niger-Uranium business also seems reasonable.
That the government might feel compelled to investigate these other matters rather than investigating the leak of Plame's identity is totally unacceptable. I've told you that before and I reiterate.
I assume they did so publicly in a published article (otherwise how would you know about it?). Can you provide a link?
Finally, other threads led me to believe that Miller was being asked to reveal her sources on another matter - not on the Plame case. Were they wrong - or is this article wrong?
According to what I've read in the WaPost and elsewhere, no one knows whether Novak has been subpoenaed, or if he's testified. He's not talking about it.
I've also read a report -- Editor & Publisher, IIRC, that said Miller was asked to reveal her source on another matter, but that might have been speculation, based on the fact that Miller never wrote about the Plame/Wilson affair.
The case appears to involve more than the Plame "leak," perhaps because the same parties are involved in other leaks to the media on classified matters.
Read posts #107 and 109. Maybe there are some answers there. Maybe.
George W. Bush will be reelected by a margin of at least ten per cent
Election 2004 threads on FR
Direct link to the article, btw .....
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,134791,00.html
From the link @ #26:"The pending imprisonment of Judy Miller is an attack on the ability of all journalists to report on the actions of governments, corporations and others. The Times will continue to fight for the ability of journalists to provide the people of this nation with the essential information they need to evaluate issues affecting our country and the world."
ha! So since when has it been the NY Times practice to "provide essential information???" They are the mouthpiece of the DNC and spin machine/smear machine against the GOP.
Well, now the Democrats can't say no one went to jail over the leak...
How many NYTimes reporters would go to jail to protect a Republican administration?
Something is fishy here.
bttt
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.
