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 ...
Yes, I think he probably spent some time online this weekend -- anyone who did would have seen this matter posted somewhere!
Trust but verify...
But other than that...I'm a softy.
Who does Judith Miller think she is, Martha Stewart?? Go Fitzgerald GO! As for Lassie, I hope his day before the Grand Jury comes very soon. Roll over and beg will be his best tricks in that room! Woof!
she's gonna be described as "gorgeous" compared to Cooper's cellmate, let me tell you!
Mandy has....scary teeth. Very scary, pointy teeth.
Gannon's interview of Wilson was just about the only media interview of him worth anything. He asked some tough questions, and let Wilson have his say.
The loonies are obsessed with Miller because in their closed universe of the MSM she is the guilty party for reporting within the MSM there were WMDs in Iraq. This utterly avoids the fact that intel agencies the world over thought the same and for many years, long before Bush II. For the same reasons the Senate Bipartisan Intel report is ignored because it undercuts the "Bush Lied" meme, a meme much sponsored by Joe Wilson and his selective criticism of the nuclear claims.
...like garlic to vampires
I seem to remember that when this Grand Jury was convened that little tid-bit was also included in Fitzgerald's investigation, and I wondered if there weren't some other things discovered that had nothing to do with the Plame/Wilson affair but were actually more important.
I know there is a side issue that very few are discussing. I must admit a lack of knowledge on it myself, but saw it mentioned on some thread here.
The subpoena for Miller refers to someone specifically they want her to testify about. Contents of the subpoena are referenced in the Appellate Court's ruling upholding the contempt citations and the ruling states it as a "specified government official":
Ruling here, page 6.
Just think, that argument failed to win over how many judges?
Is there one judge that was persuaded by that argument? It was in fact presented.
No, so far it's the prosecutor and every single judge that has weighed the information that has concluded the reporters must testify.
He (Matt Cooper) doesn't work for the New York Times. He works for Time Magazine.
Judith Miller works for the New York Times.
They don't know what Novak told the prosecutors, as his name is curiously absent from the subpoenas.
indeed, that is the risk for them.
The fact that the prosecutor is violating DOJ guidelines is legally irrelevant - whether to initiate action is discretionary with the prosecutor.
What is going on here IMHO is typical government overreaching. It's SOP with prosecutors that if they can't prove the crime they're investigating, they'll make a consolation prize out of a perjury trap - a crime that never would have occurred if the needless investigation hadn't been started in the first place.
Look, I'm LMAO as much as anybody that the media commenced firing in this circular firing squad and are now taking hits, but I've never liked this tactic regardless of who the target is.
but the flipside is also true - if the prosecutors needed testimony from members of the media as part of "proving the crime", and they can't get it because some new right is asserted by the reporter witnesses - what are they supposed to do?
>>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.<<
This illustrates the idiocy of the media on these issues, and not only what you've said here. But also, the fact that any media member is talking about who is the source. If they truly respect the idea that unnamed sources should be protected, shouldn't they be protected by other media members as well -- thus eliminating speculation?
One aspect of this that I've seen little written about is that there is an exception to the attorney/client privilege and most other privileges, which is the "crime/fraud" exception. Most privileges do not apply if the testify would go to showing a crime or fraud has been committed.
Considering the lies that pass for regular journalism, I'd say this is almost a given, especially in this case. This whole thing was intended to bring harm to the President--I will enjoy the backfiring.
Cyncooper, thanks for the ping. Very interesting development--looks like they're not going to play pattycake with the "journalists" on this one!
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.