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.
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.