Skip to comments.Prosecutor in CIA Leak Case Demands Time Reporter Testify
Posted on 07/05/2005 11:16:02 AM PDT by summer
WASHINGTON (AP) -- A federal prosecutor on Tuesday demanded that Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper testify before a grand jury investigating the leak of a CIA officer's identity, even though Time Inc. has surrendered e-mails and other documents in the probe.
Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald also opposed the request of Cooper and New York Times reporter Judith Miller to be granted home detention _ instead of jail _ for refusing to reveal their sources....
(Excerpt) Read more at ap.tbo.com ...
Does anyone know if Time was in anyway legally preventd from making public all the documents it turned over.
See post #3 - you were right re No confidentiality.
On Friday, Cooper's lawyers argued against sending him to the D.C. jail, saying it is a "dangerous maximum security lockup already overcrowded with a mix of convicted offenders and other detainees awaiting criminal trials."
Keep your eye on the sparrow and dont do the crime if you aint Robert Blake.
While I agree with the sentiment, he is incorrect as that husband-wives have confidentiality, attorney-clients have confidentiality, and I am unsure about priest-confessors but they may as well.
The Star Chamber is calling.
Even though TIME was ordered to turn the docs over for the grand jury (and assuming the docs would stay sealed), they probably have no desire to make them public for the same reason they did not want to turn them over in the first place: to maintain source confidentiality. So even if no legal reason, they would probably hold them back anyway.
It seems that he saw through the sham of Time trying to finesse the info so that it would seem to point to Rove, when the truth is much different. Let's let Cooper tell the truth or face possible perjury.
Well, he's not the judge is he?
I thought that as well, but I think he meant in terms of news stories.
I must say, it seems like this prosecutor is sticking to his guns and not backing down one bit. No deals, no nothing for these journalists. I am wondering if Lawrence Lassie O'Donnell will be hearing from this prosecutor soon as a result of Lassie O's antics this past weekend.
Allowing the reporters home confinement would make it easier for them to continue to defy a court order to testify, he said. Special treatment for journalists may "negate the coercive effect contemplated by federal law," Fitzgerald wrote in filings with the courts
That would have been a good spot for Yost to note that the unanimous Appeals Court ruling noted that any privilege that might exist does not apply in this case.
Of course, that would undermine his theme that an out of control prosecutor is trampling the rights of these reporters.
Thanks for the update. Pinging others.
I suspect that is why he backpedaled on Drudge's rado show.
LOL, I love that photo.
Speculation. Let the process proceed apace.
the notes can say anything - they are trying to get Cooper in a perjury trap - he could write anything in that notepad and turn it over to the prosecutor - my only guess is that they have some definitive proof from Novak, and if Cooper/Miller says something different, he commits perjury.
The "Karl Rove" angle offered fresh meat to the MoveOn.Org types but couldn't last.
I don't think the "Wilsons as heroes" angle will hold.
What's the NYTimes to do? Tell the story straight? Naaawww.
Re post #18 - ROTFLMAO....
Re post #19 - I agree.
what deal could they make? the reporters essentially want one of two things - some new constitutional right to avoid testifying, or a right to commit perjury in the course of "providing the news".
My thought on this is that there is no proof that the computer records were not altered in anyway to mislead the Grand Jury and without the testimony, Cooper cannot be held for perjury. Additionally, there is also the side investigation into the CIA leak to the terrorist supporting agency that was being investigated by HSA, that would not be included in notes.
I don't understand why no one else is talking about this side investigation.
And that Plame in the A*S case just keeps draggin' on...
I guess Miller want to be confined to Manhattan as her sentence.
See the link in post #17.
Yeah. But only a defendant can assert the privilege.
I don't think the "Wilsons as heroes" angle will hold
What's the NYTimes to do? Tell the story straight?
Exactly. That Wilson piece was pretty sticky stuff. ick
Thanks for the ping. I'm curious to see how this thing unfolds.
I think you're right.
Also, throughout the appeals process there has not been one judge to opine that the contempt ruling was out of bounds or wrong.
Just a reminder to all: This is Cooper's second contempt citation before this grand jury. The first time he avoided jail by giving limited testimony. Then the grand jury subpoenaed his notes and further testimony and that brought us to where it is today.
In other words - journalists do not have the authority to tell someone that they will have complete confidentiality in all things. It is not a power given over to the average person - even priests are not immune when it comes to taking a confession of the sexual abuse of a child.
"That would have been a good spot for Yost to note that the unanimous Appeals Court ruling noted that any privilege that might exist does not apply in this case.
Of course, that would undermine his theme that an out of control prosecutor is trampling the rights of these reporters."
I think posters at FR are the only ones who read the thing. Even the judge who sounded favorable to the reporters' legal arguments said in this instance the privileged would be trumped, because the leaks themselves involve a crime, and the judge was not willing to give the privilege the carte blanche like that given to priests.
"Exactly. That Wilson piece was pretty sticky stuff. ick"
You don't think what the neighbors think is important?
I highly doubt that Matt Cooper (husband to Hillary's adviser, Mandy Grunwald) would go to this much trouble covering for Carl Rove.
Time magazine's Matthew Cooper married longtime Clinton adviser Mandy Grunwald in November 1997. Hillary Clinton even threw Grunwald a baby shower at the White House in July 1998. At the time Cooper was covering presidential politics for Newsweek.
media adviser Mandy Grunwald, who helped elect Bill Clinton president in 1992 and Mrs. Clinton to the Senate in 2000
I don't know the absolute corrrect answer, but how could TIME or Matt Cooper have been legally compelled to keep the documents, or the information, secret? (And according to Lawrence O'Donnell, they didn't. O'Donnell said he knew Rove was Cooper's source..how could he have known if Cooper didn't disclose it to him? I would think it would infuriate Fitzgerald if Cooper has made information public (via O'Donnell), that he refused to turn over to the grand jury.
I'm not the resident expert on all this, but today Rush opened his show by saying he knows Rove wasn't the source. Rush said common sense tells you that if Rove were Cooper's source, democrats would have used that information against Bush in the 2004 election.
Just curious, did Rush say he had some inside info on Rove not being source or was it just based on his "common sense" reasoning?
Cooper is in a real jam.
I don't understand what the delay is - their appeal to the SCOTUS is over - jail them.
I have no idea what your first sentence means. Are you stoned?
there has to be something else going on here - because of this were a "normal" media smear job - the reporters in question would just get their stories coordinated, and would just all walk into court and lie. without any direct evidence, there would be no perjury trap for them to fall into, at best it would be a "he said, they said". so there must be something else on the table.
yb = tv (television)
Rove is not the source.
That has been crystal clear since the start.
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.