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 previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121-123 next last
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]

To: Glenn
Un-named sources are a propagandists dream. When ever I'm reading a news story and the term un-named source appears, I stop reading right there because it is no longer a news story but an unfounded rumor.

I was born and raised in the D.C. area and have seen the rumor mill that thrives there. Remember honesty is best. A forthright person is not afraid to speak the truth but a slanderer never wants their words to be ascribed to themselves.

51 posted on 02/15/2005 9:09:58 AM PST by fella
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: hobbes1

I tried the link AP provides for the Court but it doesn't work. Will try to find it later and read the decision.


52 posted on 02/15/2005 9:12:44 AM PST by cyncooper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Glenn

"I trust the media..."

As in Rather, Brokaw, Jennings, NYTimes, WashPost, BostonGlobe, CNN etc and all their associated News Creators?

Let's have a poll on this forum and see how many agree with you.

There are already laws to protect "Whistleblowers". That does not mean that "Whistleblowers" should be anonymous. And "moles" planted inside govt by the media for sourcing information should be treated no differently than "moles" planted by KGB or any other foreign entity. Moles ferret out secrets, and that was, is, and must be illegal. In wartime such activity can be a capital offense.

This is a case where information has been illegally revealed. It is necessary that the perps be outted.


53 posted on 02/15/2005 9:51:31 AM PST by GGpaX4DumpedTea
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Mo1

Actually, didn't Tim Russert already sing?


54 posted on 02/15/2005 9:52:45 AM PST by BushisTheMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | 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..

LOL -here is the recent DUmmie discussion:

DUmmies - 'Gannon' Interview: No Plame Subpoena, No Tie to White

It appears that anything 'gannon' is good troll bait. -the dems have no political power left -all they can do is whine and construct and promulgate conspiracy theories to attempt discrediting those in power -their political daddies!

55 posted on 02/15/2005 10:00:34 AM PST by DBeers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child

Sorry, but I trust the Bush Government more than the new-creation arm of the Democratic party, known as OLD MEDIA.


56 posted on 02/15/2005 10:02:33 AM PST by BushisTheMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: All

I may be totally ignorant here, but why isn't Robert Novak who actually wrote the article that "outed" Valerie Plame, being forced to testify to HIS source?


57 posted on 02/15/2005 10:10:02 AM PST by Txsleuth (---Proud to be a Texan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Txsleuth
I may be totally ignorant here, but why isn't Robert Novak who actually wrote the article that "outed" Valerie Plame, being forced to testify to HIS source?

If one first assumes the investigators know what they are doing THEN one might deduce they already know Novak's source and have determined no 'foul' to either the source and Novak -further that it has been confirmed that the source he/she/it was not the source for these other reporters. Hence, either there is a source yet to be revealed and investigated OR these other reporters are liars...

58 posted on 02/15/2005 10:24:35 AM PST by DBeers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: KidGlock

Re: 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.



Shades of Sidney Lumet's early 80's drama Absence of Malice, starring Paul Newman and Sally Field.

IIRC, Wilford Brimley drills Sally Field (playing a hungry journalist that just ruined Paul Newman's life and caused his sister to commit suicide) and her Miami Herald fat cat newspaper lawyer: "Don't tell me you have a constitutional privaledge to protect sources. Because you and I know there is no such passage in the Constitution saying that..."


59 posted on 02/15/2005 10:26:05 AM PST by sully777 (It's like my momma always said, "Two wrongs don't make a right but two Wrights make an airplane.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fella

Fair enough. I also have those terms or phrases which get me to stop reading.


60 posted on 02/15/2005 10:53:05 AM PST by cvq3842
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121-123 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