Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Appeals Court Upholds Ruling in CIA Leak (Journalists Must Testify in Plame/CIA Leak Case)
ASSOCIATED PRESS ^ | 2/15/05 | MARK SHERMAN

Posted on 02/15/2005 7:35:47 AM PST by KidGlock

Edited 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

Circuit:

http://www.cadc.uscourts.govinternetinternet.nsf


TOPICS: Breaking News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: cialeak; judithmiller; matthewcooper; plame; plamegate; ruling; turass; wilson
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-123 next last

1 posted on 02/15/2005 7:35:48 AM PST by KidGlock
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: KidGlock

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.


2 posted on 02/15/2005 7:38:05 AM PST by MeanWestTexan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Shermy; cyncooper

Hahaha!


3 posted on 02/15/2005 7:40:09 AM PST by Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: MeanWestTexan
It needs to go.

I disagree.

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.

4 posted on 02/15/2005 7:40:56 AM PST by Glenn (The two keys to character: 1) Learn how to keep a secret. 2) ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: MeanWestTexan

Fabulous news.


5 posted on 02/15/2005 7:41:19 AM PST by Peach (The Clintons pardoned more terrorists than they ever captured or killed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: MeanWestTexan

The best privilege is when you keep your mouth shut.

Therefore, the 2nd best answers are:

"I don't know."

"I have no recollection."


6 posted on 02/15/2005 7:42:06 AM PST by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: prairiebreeze; onyx; Texasforever; CyberAnt; BigSkyFreeper; Tamsey; mrs tiggywinkle; EllaMinnow; ...

FYI Ping


7 posted on 02/15/2005 7:42:08 AM PST by Mo1 (Question to Liberals .. When did supporting and defending Freedom become a bad thing??)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Glenn
When the media started fabricating "unnanamed scources" all cred went out the window anyway.

Nome of them trust anybody anywhere. Throw himover the side!!!

8 posted on 02/15/2005 7:43:18 AM PST by DainBramage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Dog

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.

Well!


9 posted on 02/15/2005 7:43:26 AM PST by cyncooper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: xzins
the 2nd best answers are:
"I don't know."
"I have no recollection."

\ Worked for Hillary.

10 posted on 02/15/2005 7:43:29 AM PST by KidGlock (W-1)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: MeanWestTexan
There is no such thing as a "journalistic privilege to refuse to disclose source."

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.

11 posted on 02/15/2005 7:44:15 AM PST by Fishtalk (Once a liberal and victim of all the spin. Ask me to interpret.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Mo1

Now maybe we'll get to the bottom of this story.


12 posted on 02/15/2005 7:46:22 AM PST by BigSkyFreeper (Smoke free since January 16, 2005)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Fishtalk

Pretty good hunch, if you ask me.


13 posted on 02/15/2005 7:47:10 AM PST by Miss Marple
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: KidGlock

Will Jeff Gannon appear in costume?


14 posted on 02/15/2005 7:48:33 AM PST by gopwinsin04
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Miss Marple; cyncooper

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.


15 posted on 02/15/2005 7:49:01 AM PST by Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: gopwinsin04

What the hell is that supposed to mean?


16 posted on 02/15/2005 7:50:02 AM PST by Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Dog

Cooper


17 posted on 02/15/2005 7:50:12 AM PST by Mo1 (Question to Liberals .. When did supporting and defending Freedom become a bad thing??)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: KidGlock

well, this sounds like something important.


18 posted on 02/15/2005 7:52:57 AM PST by rface ("...the most schizoid freeper I've ever seen")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dog

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.


19 posted on 02/15/2005 7:53:46 AM PST by cyncooper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: KidGlock

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.


20 posted on 02/15/2005 7:53:53 AM PST by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Dog

The X-Files wing of the dims party now has him linked to this case, havent heard anything to back it up yet though..


21 posted on 02/15/2005 7:56:31 AM PST by gopwinsin04
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Glenn
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.

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.

22 posted on 02/15/2005 7:57:02 AM PST by Alberta's Child (I'm not expecting to grow flowers in the desert.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Fishtalk
"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."

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...

23 posted on 02/15/2005 7:59:42 AM PST by eureka! (It will not be safe to vote Democrat for a long, long, time...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: cyncooper
"Rather, I think there are other aspects of the story being looked into. Maybe leaking, but not of her "name". Maybe other documents."

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....

24 posted on 02/15/2005 8:01:14 AM PST by eureka! (It will not be safe to vote Democrat for a long, long, time...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: xzins
"I have no recollection."

It's perjury-innoculation.

25 posted on 02/15/2005 8:02:39 AM PST by Lazamataz (Proudly Posting Without Reading the Article Since 1999!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: eureka!

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.


26 posted on 02/15/2005 8:03:29 AM PST by cyncooper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: gopwinsin04

"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.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1093819/posts

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

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000799182

I just got this googling and the interview is a good read.


27 posted on 02/15/2005 8:06:15 AM PST by sodiumodium
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: cyncooper
"Suffice to say he was a little careless in stating what happened and how it happened."

No surprise. This 'scandal' was to hurt W, nothing more. Now it is out of the MSM's control. Hehehehe....

28 posted on 02/15/2005 8:08:14 AM PST by eureka! (It will not be safe to vote Democrat for a long, long, time...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: xzins

Remember the Clinton guy ( Josh somebody, I think?) who testified to a congressional committee that he lied to his diary?


29 posted on 02/15/2005 8:08:49 AM PST by ken5050 ("Joe Biden is the dumbest person in the Senate"......the Great One, Mark Levin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: KidGlock

I can't wait for Joe Wilson to get his just rewards for outting his wife.


30 posted on 02/15/2005 8:13:05 AM PST by funkywbr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KidGlock

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.


31 posted on 02/15/2005 8:15:33 AM PST by 1Old Pro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 1Old Pro

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?


32 posted on 02/15/2005 8:19:28 AM PST by Alberta's Child (I'm not expecting to grow flowers in the desert.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: KidGlock

Mark your calendar - we may finally, for once, get some morsel of truth out of an MSM journo.


33 posted on 02/15/2005 8:22:20 AM PST by thoughtomator (If Islam is a religion, so is Liberal!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 1Old Pro

You know whoever Judith Miller is protecting is certainly not a Bushie.....



34 posted on 02/15/2005 8:22:41 AM PST by hobbes1 (Hobbes1TheOmniscient® "I know everything so you don't have to" ;)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: KidGlock
"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.

Other statements from Fitzgerald (the prosecutor) indicate they have other information going to what they know these reporters will testify to.

35 posted on 02/15/2005 8:23:48 AM PST by cyncooper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
What was that all about?

dunno, which is why I'd like to hear more.

36 posted on 02/15/2005 8:24:12 AM PST by 1Old Pro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Glenn

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?


37 posted on 02/15/2005 8:25:01 AM PST by RetroWarrior ("We count it death to falter, not to die")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Glenn
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.

Do you want "unnamed sources" to be able to give disinformation to reporters in an effort to bring down a sitting President?

38 posted on 02/15/2005 8:25:37 AM PST by cyncooper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: cyncooper
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.

39 posted on 02/15/2005 8:27:33 AM PST by Glenn (The two keys to character: 1) Learn how to keep a secret. 2) ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: RetroWarrior
What makes the whole thing preposterous is that there is no such thing as a "journalist" in a strictly legal sense. There is no licensing board for journalists, and no means of separating a "good" journalist from a "bad" one in any objective manner.

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.

40 posted on 02/15/2005 8:28:13 AM PST by Alberta's Child (I'm not expecting to grow flowers in the desert.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: gopwinsin04

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.


41 posted on 02/15/2005 8:30:13 AM PST by cyncooper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child

Good question. I would like to know too.


42 posted on 02/15/2005 8:30:34 AM PST by Gatún(CraigIsaMangoTreeLawyer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: cyncooper

To those who come late to the thread...the thread started as breaking news and the article giving details was added later.


43 posted on 02/15/2005 8:32:41 AM PST by cyncooper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child

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.


44 posted on 02/15/2005 8:36:21 AM PST by cyncooper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: KidGlock

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.


45 posted on 02/15/2005 8:36:44 AM PST by Steve_Seattle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hobbes1
You know whoever Judith Miller is protecting is certainly not a Bushie.....

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.

46 posted on 02/15/2005 8:40:37 AM PST by cyncooper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Glenn

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.


47 posted on 02/15/2005 8:42:12 AM PST by cyncooper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: cyncooper
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.

Probalby, though now that she has taken itto this level, the "Silent Witness" has become co-conspirator....

48 posted on 02/15/2005 8:42:52 AM PST by hobbes1 (Hobbes1TheOmniscient® "I know everything so you don't have to" ;)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: cyncooper

yup.


49 posted on 02/15/2005 8:43:30 AM PST by hobbes1 (Hobbes1TheOmniscient® "I know everything so you don't have to" ;)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: hobbes1
I've been refreshing Google News and finally found this Reuters article at the bottom of the page and then it was gone. Interesting last line:

Court: Reporters Must Testify in CIA Leak Case

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."

~snip~

It would be interesting to read the entire decision.

50 posted on 02/15/2005 8:59:28 AM PST by cyncooper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-123 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson