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

Skip to comments.

Prosecutor in CIA Leak Case Demands Time Reporter Testify
AP ^ | July 5, 2005 | Pete Yost

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 ...


TOPICS: Front Page News; US: District of Columbia
KEYWORDS: cialeak; matthewcooper; patrickfitzgerald
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-179 next last
FYI.
1 posted on 07/05/2005 11:16:03 AM PDT by summer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: cyncooper

FYI.


2 posted on 07/05/2005 11:16:55 AM PDT by summer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
More from article:

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 court.s

"Journalists are not entitled to promise complete confidentiality - no one in America is," Fitzgerald wrote.

3 posted on 07/05/2005 11:18:47 AM PDT by summer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: summer

Does anyone know if Time was in anyway legally preventd from making public all the documents it turned over.


4 posted on 07/05/2005 11:19:11 AM PDT by ken5050
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child

See post #3 - you were right re No confidentiality.


5 posted on 07/05/2005 11:19:55 AM PDT by summer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: summer
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 don’t do the crime if you ain’t Robert Blake.

6 posted on 07/05/2005 11:21:24 AM PDT by dead (I've got my eye out for Mullah Omar.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: summer

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.


7 posted on 07/05/2005 11:21:51 AM PDT by mbraynard (Mustache Rides - Five Cents!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: summer
Paging Lawrence O'Donnell, paging Lawrence O'Donnell

The Star Chamber is calling.

8 posted on 07/05/2005 11:24:02 AM PDT by mware ("God is dead" -- Nietzsche........ "Nope, you are"-- GOD)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ken5050

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.


9 posted on 07/05/2005 11:24:56 AM PDT by NathanBookman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: summer

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.


10 posted on 07/05/2005 11:27:33 AM PDT by Socratic (Liberal's motto: Capio ergo sum.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: summer

Well, he's not the judge is he?


11 posted on 07/05/2005 11:27:55 AM PDT by Run Silent Run Deep (PRAY FOR THOSE THAT HURT AND HATE US)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mbraynard
Actually, he is corrected in a manner of speaking. No one is entitled to confidentiality, but those circumstances you mentioned are established by statute. In other words, the law has granted confidentiality in those cases, as they are recognized by tradition and practice as important considerations. Not trying to play with words here, but journalists are not protected by statute or tradition. Without the statues and case law that establishes this confidentiality, neither would husbands-wives or lawyers-clients be...
12 posted on 07/05/2005 11:28:24 AM PDT by Charles H. (The_r0nin) (Still teaching... or a reasonable facsimile thereof...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: mbraynard

I thought that as well, but I think he meant in terms of news stories.


13 posted on 07/05/2005 11:28:55 AM PDT by summer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: small voice in the wilderness

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.


14 posted on 07/05/2005 11:30:02 AM PDT by summer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: summer; Shermy; Fedora; MizSterious; Howlin
More from article:

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.

15 posted on 07/05/2005 11:30:29 AM PDT by cyncooper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

Comment #16 Removed by Moderator

To: summer

http://www.legalaffairs.org/webexclusive/debateclub_cooper1204.msp


17 posted on 07/05/2005 11:31:18 AM PDT by tumblindice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mware
You rang?


18 posted on 07/05/2005 11:32:23 AM PDT by STARWISE ( You get the govt. you deserve. CALL YOUR CONGRESS CRITTERS OFTEN -U.S. CONGRESS: 1-877-762-8762)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: summer
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.

I suspect that is why he backpedaled on Drudge's rado show.

19 posted on 07/05/2005 11:32:41 AM PDT by mware ("God is dead" -- Nietzsche........ "Nope, you are"-- GOD)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: STARWISE

LOL, I love that photo.


20 posted on 07/05/2005 11:33:11 AM PDT by mware ("God is dead" -- Nietzsche........ "Nope, you are"-- GOD)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Lynch
if the feds don't indict the leaker?

Speculation. Let the process proceed apace.

21 posted on 07/05/2005 11:33:23 AM PDT by Socratic (Liberal's motto: Capio ergo sum.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: NathanBookman

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.


22 posted on 07/05/2005 11:33:27 AM PDT by oceanview
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: cyncooper

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.


23 posted on 07/05/2005 11:35:01 AM PDT by Shermy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: cyncooper
Also from the article:

----------

In his court filings, Fitzgerald said it is essential for courts to enforce their contempt orders so that grand juries can get the evidence they need.

Fitzgerald said it would be up to the judge to decide whether to send Cooper to the District of Columbia jail or some other facility. 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."

Miller's lawyers argue that there are no circumstances under which she will talk, but Fitzgerald disagreed.

"There is tension between Miller's claim that confinement will never coerce her to testify and her alternative position that this court should consider less restrictive forms of confinement," the prosecutor wrote.


---------

This prosecutor seems tough as nails!
24 posted on 07/05/2005 11:35:08 AM PDT by summer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: STARWISE

Re post #18 - ROTFLMAO....


25 posted on 07/05/2005 11:35:42 AM PDT by summer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: mware

Re post #19 - I agree.


26 posted on 07/05/2005 11:36:03 AM PDT by summer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: summer

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".


27 posted on 07/05/2005 11:36:07 AM PDT by oceanview
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: summer

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.


28 posted on 07/05/2005 11:37:12 AM PDT by Eva
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: summer

And that Plame in the A*S case just keeps draggin' on...


29 posted on 07/05/2005 11:37:23 AM PDT by PzLdr ("The Emperor is not as forgiving as I am" - Darth Vader)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: summer

I guess Miller want to be confined to Manhattan as her sentence.


30 posted on 07/05/2005 11:37:53 AM PDT by oceanview
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: oceanview

See the link in post #17.


31 posted on 07/05/2005 11:37:57 AM PDT by summer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: mbraynard

Yeah. But only a defendant can assert the privilege.


32 posted on 07/05/2005 11:38:49 AM PDT by PzLdr ("The Emperor is not as forgiving as I am" - Darth Vader)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Shermy
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?

Exactly. That Wilson piece was pretty sticky stuff. ick

33 posted on 07/05/2005 11:44:38 AM PDT by cyncooper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: summer

Thanks for the ping. I'm curious to see how this thing unfolds.


34 posted on 07/05/2005 11:47:49 AM PDT by Alberta's Child (I ain't got a dime, but what I got is mine. I ain't rich, but Lord I'm free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: summer
This prosecutor seems tough as nails!

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.

35 posted on 07/05/2005 11:48:02 AM PDT by cyncooper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: mbraynard
His statement was: "Journalists are not entitled to promise complete confidentiality - no one in America is,"

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.

36 posted on 07/05/2005 11:48:59 AM PDT by trebb ("I am the way... no one comes to the Father, but by me..." - Jesus in John 14:6 (RSV))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: trebb
My point was directed at the "no one in America is." And I believe it stands. Irrelevant granted versus entitled arguments aside...
37 posted on 07/05/2005 11:52:23 AM PDT by mbraynard (Mustache Rides - Five Cents!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: cyncooper

"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.


38 posted on 07/05/2005 11:57:40 AM PDT by Shermy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: cyncooper

"Exactly. That Wilson piece was pretty sticky stuff. ick"

You don't think what the neighbors think is important?

/sarcasm


39 posted on 07/05/2005 11:58:59 AM PDT by Shermy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: cyncooper

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


40 posted on 07/05/2005 11:59:17 AM PDT by kcvl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: ken5050
You asked, "Does anyone know if Time was in anyway legally preventd from making public all the documents it turned over"

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.

41 posted on 07/05/2005 11:59:29 AM PDT by YaYa123 (@Cooper Is In Deep Doo Doo.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: YaYa123

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?


42 posted on 07/05/2005 12:04:45 PM PDT by NathanBookman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: cyncooper

Cooper is in a real jam.


43 posted on 07/05/2005 12:10:14 PM PDT by Dog (As Iraqi 's stand up, America will stand down.-- - - - President Bush)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

Comment #44 Removed by Moderator

To: Dog

I don't understand what the delay is - their appeal to the SCOTUS is over - jail them.


45 posted on 07/05/2005 12:15:11 PM PDT by oceanview
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: YaYa123
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 think you're exactly correct -- that's what happened here.

This weekend I thought O'Donnell was implying people in the grand jury room told him something -- but, no, O'Donnell was implying what you said, above.

Now, here is an interesting twist on all this: Some of the Dem posters are furious that if -- remember I said "if" because I am repeating what they said -- the leak was from Rove, AND Rove signed a waiver releasing all these journalists, then: Why didn't these journalists all rush out with this big disclosure? Especially when O'Donnell was apparently bragging on yb that every reporter in DC knew it was Rove?

The apparent spinelessness of the journalists who knew this about Rove (and I am only repeating what the Dem posters were saying) has some of the Dem posters angrier at the journalists than at Rove, believe it or not. Because, why then, didn't the journalists speak up?

Maybe that's why O'Donnell's numerous blog entries this weekend kept omitting the fact Rove had signed the waiver releasing all the journalists. Because it was only when I posted that, repeatedly, and others at FR posted it, that the Dem posters picked up on it. They didn't pick up on that from O'Donnell since he never mentioned it.

And, then, in the midst of this, we have Redford coming out and saying to the journalists to go after the president.

In Dem Famtasy Land, they really believed that Rove did whatever, that the President obstructed, and that impeachment proceedings should begiun any day now.


But, I have a feeling it is a little more complex than that, and this prosecutor intends to get to the truth, and the truth may not be what the Dem posters want to hear. Just my guess!
46 posted on 07/05/2005 12:15:22 PM PDT by summer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: ElDave

I have no idea what your first sentence means. Are you stoned?


47 posted on 07/05/2005 12:17:13 PM PDT by NathanBookman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: ElDave

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.


48 posted on 07/05/2005 12:17:51 PM PDT by oceanview
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: summer

yb = tv (television)


49 posted on 07/05/2005 12:19:02 PM PDT by summer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: NathanBookman

Rove is not the source.

That has been crystal clear since the start.


50 posted on 07/05/2005 12:19:30 PM PDT by cyncooper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-179 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