Posted on 10/07/2004 5:14:08 PM PDT by ConservativeMan55
She reports on WMD.
For those who haven't been following this grand jury, TIME reporter Matt Cooper (husband of Clintonista Mandy Grunewald) was also held in contempt by this judge and Tim Russert was threatened with it. Both worked out deals and gave limited testimony. (Though I just remembered that Cooper may have been recalled to give more and is hashing it out again...I'll need to check.)
I always liked Judith Miller. We'll see what she ends up doing.
If the NT times was involved you can count on it either being a democrat or made up. If it was a Republican they would out them just to cast dirt on the Bush Administration.
Martha can cook up some "Humble Pie" for Judith, or vice versa.
I can't see Russert in jail. He'd out the source whether it was Republican or Democrat.
bttt
Me, too. The kneejerk response on this thread is astonishing.
The "freedom of the press" in the first amendment does not seem to mention the right of journalists to have anonymous sources. In context it seems to infer that the congress (presumably the federal legislature) can't tell the press what it can and can not say.
However, it does seem there is a more universal right to privacy established in part by the fourteenth amendment, and expanded by judicial activism. But I don't see why this would apply to the press more then anybody else.
Albeit we do not know all the details of this case, it seems reasonable for a judge to rule a member of the press does not have an unlimited right to protect their sources against a compelling state interest.
I don't read the NYT so I don't know much about Miller....but she appears to be a liberal from the comments in this forum.
This is a Nat'l Security case until/unless a lib is asked to help solve the crime.
If a lib is asked to solve the crime...
It will never get solved! That may make it worse, LOL!
Why don't you "get this".
Scooter Libby was publicly accused by Joe Wilson of leaking his wife's "name". Libby signed a waiver and said any reporters that spoke with him during that time were free to testify.
Other reporters that have been called have testified after first balking.
I will not stand by and say the media has a "right" to make up news and publish it and then demand that Novak reveal his sources but howl when the focus turns on them.
Remember the NYT itself DEMANDED this investigation and DEMANDED that Novak reveal who had "leaked" (what a joke) Plame's "name". Where oh where was their vaunted respect for the First Amendment there, hm? Seems like when they were pushing the story (and a story it was) that the evil Bush WH had "leaked" a CIA agent's name, they were all for saying that for the sake of our country Novak must speak. They are the basest and vilest of hypocrites.
I'm all for freedom of the press. The sources are talking here. They aren't protecting anything as far as I can see except the scheme to bring down a president under false pretenses.
She deserves everything she has coming, she had some bad controversial stories about the Bush administration, and it wasn't pretty.
He already testified, (as I posted above).
Freepin awesome post at #51, cyncooper. Well said.
Thank you very much.
Oh sure, for this she has integrity! Not for unbiased reporting of course!
I don't doubt that it was a dem who leaked it.
Oh, Pretty much every chance she gets.
ITA!
I have no sympathy for what they brought on themselves.
I would like to know who/what the NYT's reporter is protecting. It certainly isn't Republicans.
This has been my feeling all along....all this talk about journalistic ethics is BS as we can all see by the stories they write and they way they write them...so, IMHO, were the source a Republican, they would have outed him/her already...the fact that they haven't leads me to believe they are protecting one of their own.
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.