Skip to comments.A Sign of Hope for Reporters in CIA Leak Case (PLAME/WILSON)
Posted on 12/09/2004 4:07:05 PM PST by cyncooper
Judith Miller, a reporter for the New York Times, and Matthew Cooper, Time magazine's White House correspondent, are contesting an October ruling by a federal judge that held them in contempt for refusing to cooperate with federal investigators looking into the outing of CIA operative Valerie Plame in July 2003.
Cooper has been subpoenaed twice, agreeing to sit for a deposition and answer questions in August about conversations with a source who encouraged him to cooperate with Fitzgerald. Within days of that deposition, he was subpoenaed again to discuss what his lawyers described as "an expanded array of topics," triggering his objection and ultimately the contempt finding.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
Chrissy just said to Miller and Cooper that he sympathizes with them. Can someone remind me if he was one who egged on an investigation when he couldn't stop saying "Scooter Libby"?
I should ping YaYa123 because she remembers the Scooter obsession Matthews had.
Miller was very circumspect and explained her protection of source rule is if the source has been honest.
It might be my biased imagination that saw Cooper hesitate before agreeing with that.
Chrissy asked several questions Miller simply refused to answer as pertains to the case itself. Cooper did say that the definition of criminality is subjective and he explained the specificity of the law that is ostensibly under investigation and he offered that at the end of the case the only people who may go to jail might be journalists. (the tease!)
Why should a reporter have some special exemption when they are part of a crime, such as leaking grand jury testimony or other such act that is illegal?
Ping to more Plamegate.
I'd like to see Cooper frogmarched.
I think source protection is a legitimate issue when no crime is involved, but I agree that if the leak itself constitutes a crime, then the journalist is an accessory to the crime and is not immune. And the issue of leaks that have a bearing on a crime, but are not themselves a crime, is a cauldron of swirling legal opinions.
The 'press' believes it is above the law we plebians must follow. You're absolutely correct of course, the publishing is in itself an illegal act, but you don't see a single presstitute mentioning that little fact. It was all about trying to entrap and embarrass the White House and the President's people. Bob Novak knows from whom the 'leak' was issued (him of course), but he's too dense to admit it and move on.
It's interesting that Cooper thinks that journalists might be the only ones to go to jail; is there any other explanation than that Fitzgerald's only way of getting at the leaker is through the journalists, and that they won't talk? But what was the "expanded array of topics" his lawyer was referring to?
While I have no sympathy whatsoever for Barry Bonds, I am concerned that the grand jury testimony was illegally obtained and there seems to be no interest in who committed that crime.
Did she explain that the investigation is about more than who first told reporters about Plame?
The "array of topics" phrase has me VERY intrigued.
On Spitball he described how he'd already given limited testimony, and then his version he was called back and they basically wanted him to open his notebook.
I don't believe Mr. Mandy Grunewald.
BTW, he also did state what we knew: His first testimony was about Scooter Libby. For those who don't know, Libby (Cheney's chief of staff) was the name the press gleefully bandied about as "the" likely leaker. Then when called to testify and confronted with Libby's confidentiality waiver, the reporters have had to admit Libby never discussed Plame with them.
So...who gave the reporters the idea to archly hint in the public square about Libby? Why, Joe Wilson.
Hello Shermy...I was going to ping you. Judith Miller would not discuss any details whatsoever to do with the grand jury.
She described her philosophy in general about reporters and their sources. She did say she does believe a source waives confidentiality when they've been dishonest with the reporter and she would not cover up a crime.
I came away with my working theory in tact that Miller is more of a witness to the newsgathering angle and not a participant in any skullduggery.
The First Amendment doesn't say that reporters are special, it says that whoever who wants to can be a reporter if they can pay for their paper and ink. Now as the Internet competes with print, virtual "paper and ink" is virtually free.
There is no justification for assigning special rights to people because they are doing something (reporting) that anyone is entitled to do. It is elitism to do so for the NY Times reporter and not for the Free Repubic poster.
Do you want to see Bob Novak frogmarched, too?
I've sort of given up subjecting myself to the aggravation of talk shows for the holidays, but I'll watch the overnight replay of Hardball
I'm seeing your note late, but don't feel you must subject yourself to Matthews. But I remembered you knew about his Scooter obsession.
No, we don't want to see Novak frogmarched for doing a public service.
I'd love to hear you articulate a rationale for why he should be.
I'll be back with popcorn for the doozy I'm sure you'll come up with.
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.