Skip to comments.Appeals Court Upholds Ruling in CIA Leak (Journalists Must Testify in Plame/CIA Leak Case)
Posted on 02/15/2005 7:35:47 AM PST by KidGlockEdited on 02/15/2005 8:17:37 AM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
WASHINGTON (AP) - A federal appeals court on Tuesday upheld a ruling against two reporters who could go to jail for refusing to divulge their sources to investigators probing the leak of an undercover CIA officer's name to the media.
The three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit sided with prosecutors in their attempt to compel Time magazine's Matthew Cooper and The New York Times' Judith Miller to testify before a federal grand jury about their confidential sources. "We agree with the District Court that there is no First Amendment privilege protecting the information sought," Judge David B. Sentelle said in the ruling, which was unanimous.
In October, Judge Thomas F. Hogan held the reporters in contempt, rejecting their argument that the First Amendment shielded them from revealing their sources. Both reporters face up to 18 months in jail if they continue to refuse to cooperate.
The special prosecutor in the case, Chicago U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald, is investigating whether a crime was committed when someone leaked the identity of CIA officer Valerie Plame. Her name was published in a 2003 column by Robert Novak, who cited two senior Bush administration officials as his sources.
The column appeared after Plame's husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, wrote a newspaper opinion piece criticizing President Bush's claim that Iraq had sought uranium in Niger. The CIA had asked Wilson to check out the uranium claim. Wilson has said he believes his wife's name was leaked as retaliation for his critical comments. Disclosure of an undercover intelligence officer's identity can be a federal crime if prosecutors can show the leak was intentional and the person who released that information knew of the officer's secret status.
On the Net:
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Good. There is no such thing as a "journalistic privilege to refuse to disclose source."
Never existed under the law or common law.
It is an invention of the liberal media and Carter-era appointees to the federal courts.
It needs to go.
I trust the media more than government. Only slightly more, mind you, but I want "unnamed sources" to feel free to rat out the permanent government.
The best privilege is when you keep your mouth shut.
Therefore, the 2nd best answers are:
"I don't know."
"I have no recollection."
Nome of them trust anybody anywhere. Throw himover the side!!!
Thanks! I got a note on another thread telling me that MSNBC reported this. I've been surfing the cables and looking for an article.
I am on record as predicting this would be the ruling.
\ Worked for Hillary.
You are absolutely correct and I want to spit in their haughty faces when they say this. However, they CAN, and hey I'd even encourage, choose to go to jail rather than testify.
Of course then the public gets all boo-hoo, poor lying journalist in jail. Then that's part of the plan.
Anyway, the Plame case is a waste of money although, tween you and I, I think the administration knows that whoever dropped the dime about Valerie Plame is a DEM operative.
Which is why I think the administration kept up the hunt. It was like, okay, Dems, you get what you ask for. The Dems never wanted this followed through this far. It was a grand scheme they concocted we all know this.
Methinks their yarn is about to come unraveled and I'm not convinced those journalists want to go to jail for Valerie's honest husband. Who is, by now, a proven liar who wasted America's time on a fraud meant to damage the President's re-election campaign.
I could be wrong here. But just a hunch.
Now maybe we'll get to the bottom of this story.
Pretty good hunch, if you ask me.
Will Jeff Gannon appear in costume?
One of the reporters will now have to decide if they want to go to jail...or tell who the leaker was.....who cracks first.
What the hell is that supposed to mean?
well, this sounds like something important.
They'll have to choose to talk or not, but I doubt it's about "the leaker" as I don't think that's the angle being investigated as she more than likely wasn't undercover and there was no crime in telling reporters she in fact recommended her husband for the Niger trip.
Rather, I think there are other aspects of the story being looked into. Maybe leaking, but not of her "name". Maybe other documents.
They did work.
As a chaplain and pastor, much of what is said to me is protected by privilege. It would hold up in a court.
The best way to handle it is never to speak about it at all, ever, anywhere. Then it never becomes an issue that you have information about any subject.
The second best thing is to realize that you can never remember anything perfectly, and that, therefore, it is honest to say, "I don't recollect."
I've always been impressed by that line that goes: "Anything you say can and will be used against you." They REALLY mean that. So, if you're even the slightest bit askew in your recounting of something, it could have tragic consequences for someone else.
"I don't recollect" is an honorable response when another's privacy or reputation is at stake.
The X-Files wing of the dims party now has him linked to this case, havent heard anything to back it up yet though..
I'll only trust the media more than the government when I start seeing journalists go to prison (for life, if necessary) in order to protect their "unnamed sources."
If a journalist does not have to reveal his or her sources in a court of law, then the entire system of securing testimony under oath collapses.
I'm with you. They did not expect this to go this far, figuring that W was beatable (historically he was) and they would again assume control of the DOJ. A terrible case of misunderestimation. Hehehehe...
I'm with you on that one. The list of reporters is longer than the Plame story and I've read elsewhere that other issues were being looked at by the GJ....
Finally hearing MSNBC reporting.
Ah, Pete Williams says a "unanimous court of appeals" decision.
Pete Williams is usually more accurate than the summation he just gave as background for the Plame/Wilson/Novak saga. Suffice to say he was a little careless in stating what happened and how it happened.
"The X-Files wing of the dims party now has him linked to this case, havent heard anything to back it up yet though.."
There was a thread about this about a year ago.
There is a talon article. Jeff Gannon, who is a fellow freeper, comments on the issue. It looks like some of the people who criticized Gannon are no longer members though, but of course I don't know if it's related. It was before I got here ;)
And here is a recent interview he did with editorandpublisher
I just got this googling and the interview is a good read.
No surprise. This 'scandal' was to hurt W, nothing more. Now it is out of the MSM's control. Hehehehe....
Remember the Clinton guy ( Josh somebody, I think?) who testified to a congressional committee that he lied to his diary?
I can't wait for Joe Wilson to get his just rewards for outting his wife.
This whole case bothered me from the get-go. I'd like to find out who the leaker was because of the fact that they used this story to get Bush.
This whole case took a very strange turn when the columnist who first posted the story (Robert Novak) was only involved in the investigation in a small way, while those who were running with the story after his original story (the NY Times reporter, for example) became targets of the investigation. What was that all about?
Mark your calendar - we may finally, for once, get some morsel of truth out of an MSM journo.
You know whoever Judith Miller is protecting is certainly not a Bushie.....
Other statements from Fitzgerald (the prosecutor) indicate they have other information going to what they know these reporters will testify to.
dunno, which is why I'd like to hear more.
Journalists should be required to abide the same laws as everyone else. I don't have any protection from naming sources if ordered by the courts and nether do you. Why should journalists have the 'right' to disobey court orders of disclosure?
Do you want "unnamed sources" to be able to give disinformation to reporters in an effort to bring down a sitting President?
I'll take that risk. To absolutely allow the government to control the press is something I'd rather not risk.
If such a "journalistic immunity" were ever enshrined in law, then any person could avoid testifying in any legal matter simply by posting a story on the internet about the case in question and calling himself a journalist.
Let me fill you in: Gannon interviewed Joe Wilson in October 2003 and asked him about a memo that proved that his wife in fact had recommended him for the trip (the point at issue in Novak's piece and a point now proven with the memo that did surface and Wilson denies to this day).
The left is using that question as evidence that Gannon had unique access to this memo. The problem is, he obviously based his question on a WSJ article of 10 days before which described the memo.
Gannon has been interviewed by the FBI for 90 minutes but not called (yet) to the grand jury.
How funny that the lefties wanted to make a big deal about Gannon being on the list of reporters the grand jury might call yet they ignore the significance of those reporters actually called. Matt Cooper has been called TWICE.
Good question. I would like to know too.
To those who come late to the thread...the thread started as breaking news and the article giving details was added later.
For all we know Novak has testified. The only reason we know these reporters were called is they're fighting the subpoena (Cooper did before, then made a deal to give limited testimony but the grand jury wants more).
Novak won't say if he's been called, so we can't say he's involved in a small way, though I suspect you're correct inasmuch as I don't think the main focus is his column or Plame's "name".
BTW, wanting testimony does not make that person a "target". It means they have information.
Following this story has been a tremendous lesson in delayed gratification; you know the end of the story will be very interesting and unpredictable, and it is torture to have to wait this long.
I trust Miller much more than Matt Cooper (who is married to a clintonista and for sure is not privy to WH "leaks", which are non-existant anyway).
My working theory that I have posted before is that Miller has valuable information and is more a witness than part of the "get Bush" scheme that this clearly was. Though if it turns out I'm wrong and she was involved I'll be "saddened" but accept it. But I don't think she was.
P.S. I've had Fox on and they have yet to report this story. I just listened to Bridget Quinn's news roundup. Nothing.
This is not the government controlling the press.
It's the press and rogue employees at State and the CIA trying to control the government.
Probalby, though now that she has taken itto this level, the "Silent Witness" has become co-conspirator....
Judge David Tatel wrote separately and said he might have quashed the subpoena "were the leak at issue in this case less harmful to national security or more vital to public debate."
It would be interesting to read the entire decision.