Skip to comments.Reporters facing jail in CIA leak case to be sentenced Wednesday
Posted on 07/05/2005 7:33:02 PM PDT by blogblogginaway
WASHINGTON - (KRT) - It may be one of the most important First Amendment cases in a generation.
And it is one the media is on the verge of losing.
Two reporters, one each from The New York Times and Time magazine, are to appear in federal court Wednesday for a hearing on whether they should go to jail for refusing to talk to prosecutors investigating the potentially illegal disclosure of the identify of a CIA operative.
Federal District Judge Thomas F. Hogan in Washington has said he would sentence the reporters, Judith Miller of the Times and Matthew Cooper of Time, to jail Wednesday if they refuse to answer questions before a grand jury.
A generation ago, the Times and The Washington Post successfully defied the government in publishing a classified history of the Vietnam War known as the Pentagon Papers, with considerable public support.
But this case comes amid growing public skepticism about the motives of the press and a string of high-profile media setbacks, notably CBS News' retraction of a story during the 2004 presidential campaign purporting to show that President Bush shirked his national guard duty.
"I don't think journalists as a group are particularly popular today, and the general public is not terribly inclined to be sympathetic to journalists in any situation in which they find themselves in trouble," said Richard Gordon, an associate professor and chairman of the new media program at the Medill School of Journalism at Northwestern University. "Now a picture of a journalist being handcuffed and taken off to jail - that might change that ... but it hasn't happened yet."
(Excerpt) Read more at sunherald.com ...
I'm really looking forward to reading about this tomorrow. Anyone know what time the hearing is scheduled?
The media is loosing it because they don't have a case. No matter how powerful they think they are, no one is above the law.
ODonnell was just on CNN - still talking about Rove.
So, CNN is now putting the madman on the air; it must have been with that ever-exiting newsman(gag), Aron Brown. Why doesn't this surprise me?
When it come right down to it, who REALLY revealed the CIA worker's identity? The way I see it, it was Miller and Cooper. The Times and Time.
Send them to Leavenworth, not the golf course prison for wusses.
Gitmo, we'll get some answers one way or the other.
yes, Brown's last question to him was "do you think Rove is going down for this?"
This should only be happening to the reporters if a CIA agent was really put into jeopardy. When that happens, I want all involved to be hung.
the case is now more about this new right the reporters are asserting, and perjury, then it is about Plame. the details of her role with the CIA pretty much puts the idea of her being "a secret agent that was outed" to bed.
I guess I haven't followed this one enough. What is the new right they are asserting?
And it is one the media is on the verge of losing.
They're not "on the verge". They lost. Unanimously, up the entire judicial chain based on an over 30-year old Supreme Court ruling.
The hearing is giving them the chance to comply or they'll receive the consequences.
This nonsese about precedent setting is so much nonsense and more evidence that the media is either stupid or deliberately deceitful.
The rumors were nothing but a revival of the original charge when Wilson started this nonsense about his wife being "outed".
We've known for well over a year that Rove has cooperated with the grand jury and it was obvious from the start he was not the original source.
That is so much foolishness.
Thanks for the report, oceanview. Look, summer, CNN had Lassie on.
well, they lost in the recent appeal to the SCOTUS - there is no special right for reporters to avoid testimony. now they appear to want some kind of right to know Novak's grand jury testimony, so they can avoid perjury. see the thread running now with Jonathan Turley's article (in their favor mind you) on this point. its quite twisted, it should be interesting to see what happens tomorrow.
I'll think we'll all be "surprised" when it comes out that Plame was not a "spy." Just another desk jockey. It was the Liberal MSM that said she was an undercover "spy."
They are just trying to get my hopes up... sigh.
Thanks for the info.
its getting absurd now - I expect Cooper to walk in there and tell the judge he won't talk, but offer his notes, with the word ROVE scrawled in crayon in a 3x5 flip pad.
Over the weekend wasn't it decided that Rove was the leaker? Thats whut I lerned watchin' tha tee vee, anyways.
The WH doesn't leak. The CIA and State leak and yes, the WH would like that to stop, as do the good people of those agencies.
But let the record show, the CIA initiated this investigation at the behest of a howling media and the DOJ turned it over to the Special Prosecutor. This was not started by the WH.
you're kidding... right??? where you been???
the RATS SCREAMED BLOODY MURDER for an investigation... and they got one... and now they don't like it!!!
The law is a law and it has been broken,now off to jail you go.
In case you missed it.......
'Wash Post' Wonders if Leaker of Plame's Identity Was a Reporter
NEW YORK The Washington Post, declaring Wednesday an "historic" day in the history of the press in America, suggested that perhaps the "leaker" of Valerie Plame's identity as a covert CIa operative was not a Bush administration official but a reporter (or reporters).
In a Wednesday A3 story, Carol Leonnig writes, "Sources close to the investigation say there is evidence in some instances that some reporters may have told government officials -- not the other way around -- that Wilson was married to Plame, a CIA employee."
I said it didn't come out of the WH and so has Novak. As you yourself admit, he said "administration", which covers anyone in the various agencies.
I'm fairly confident one of Novak's two sources was at CIA and the second was either CIA or State. That's my educated guess.
I also highly doubt Plame had been covert in many many years.
As to your (accidental?) misrepresentation of Rove, you are wrong to say the WH ever said Rove did not speak to reporters on the subject. How absurd of you to claim that! They have always stated he did. He was not "the" source for Plame recommending Wilson for the trip. He commented on the story after that ball got rolling.
And Rove has signed a waiver of confidentiality so any reporters he spoke with are free as the wind to reveal what he said to them.
And of course the idea that Rove would have such knowledge is ridiculous.
For sure. Threaten to flush their AP Style Manuals down the toilet. They'll sing like bluebirds.
BTW, before Wilson penned his op-ed for the New York Times and spoke openly of his trip to Niger, he was giving background to reporters about it and the stories that were published referred to a "former diplomat".
Kristoff references Sy Hersh's piece which really got the ball rolling. And Wilson has readily admitted he was a source for these reporters. You know he bragged to them about his glamorous wife, Jane Bond (so he exaggerated her role, later they all figured they could make it look like the WH "outed" her---but that was a spin they didn't come up with until circumstances presented themselves...):
(some title, eh?)
May 6, 2003
excerpt featuring guess who:
Consider the now-disproved claims by President Bush and Colin Powell that Iraq tried to buy uranium from Niger so it could build nuclear weapons. As Seymour Hersh noted in The New Yorker, the claims were based on documents that had been forged so amateurishly that they should never have been taken seriously. I'm told by a person involved in the Niger caper that more than a year ago the vice president's office asked for an investigation of the uranium deal, so a former U.S. ambassador to Africa was dispatched to Niger. In February 2002, according to someone present at the meetings, that envoy reported to the C.I.A. and State Department that the information was unequivocally wrong and that the documents had been forged.
I am correct that they all said up front Rove spoke with reporters.
We've known this for well over a year that Rove spoke with reporters.
Sorry if you weren't following the story, but there it is.
The envoy reported, for example, that a Niger minister whose signature was on one of the documents had in fact been out of office for more than a decade.
Now, today the New York Times had a very fawning piece on the Wilsons and they quoted Wilson as saying he "misspoke" when he linked the forged documents to his trip.
I posted that I think he lied. He clearly lied because the documents emerged after his trip to Niger, yet here is one of several examples where he acts like he saw them. Later he claimed he did not see them.
Rove isn't the source. It's either Joe Wilson himself, or a reporter(s). Novak, IMO, has already spilled the beans to a Grand Jury or to the Special Prosecutor. Now they want testimony from the 2 reporters to catch them in a lie when their stories don't jive w/Novak's. That's why the SP is insisting that both of them actually testify as opposed to accepting only the papers from Time. You can't interrogate papers. This all makes me laugh my derriere off, as the Dems insisted on a SP and now it's come back to bite them in the *ss. Just desserts, I'd say.