Reporters facing jail in CIA leak case to be sentenced Wednesday

SunHerald.com ^ | July 5, 2005 | CHRIS MONDICS

[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."

[cyncooper]

Thanks, blogbloggin

Ping-a-ling, Shermy

heheheheh

[cyncooper]

Exactly.

[cyncooper]

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".

[cyncooper]

For example, this piece by the New York Time's Nicholas Kristoff published in May 2003 (Wilson's op-ed appeard on July 6, 2003 in...The New York Times).

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...):

Missing in Action: Truth

(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.

~snip~

[cyncooper]

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.

[cyncooper]

And in this May 2003 piece it goes on to say of Wilson:

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.

[flaglady47]

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.

[cyncooper]

Well, I did overstate it by saying Rove stated "up front" he spoke with reporters about Plame (but certainly did not leak her "name", or more to the point, her role at the CIA and how that tied to Wilson).

But the fact is we have known for over a year he spoke with reporters. The WH did flat out deny on Rove's behalf that he had a hand in the original story (and facts support that and don't support that he had the knowledge to be able to leak the original business).

And of course this weekend his lawyer stated again (this is also something that was stated long ago) that Rove is not a target of the investigation. His lawyer also stated for the record that Rove spoke with reporters and that Rove has signed a waiver of any confidentiality.

[Voice of Dixie]

It was Novak that published Plame's name. Let's get our facts straight, lest the DUmmies call us on it.

[summer]

Re your post #20 - Yeah, I happened to see Lassie on CNN chatting with Aaron Brown. I thought it quite interesting Lassie's job title, superimposed under Lassie's face, was "Executive Producer of West Wing" -- with NO mention of his "Senior Political Analyst" position at MSNBC.

Thanks for the ping. I am now convinced the original investigation demanded by Dems had no basis in law. Why didn't Dems know that??

[eureka!]

Well said at #50. My sentiments exactly...

[Texas Songwriter]

I thought the focus of this case was supposed to be that a covert operator was exposed. You never hear about that anymore. NOw, it is all about the press and their little family being put upon by the special prosecutor who they demanded.

Seems to all depend on whose ox is being gored.

[Texas Songwriter]

Once they serve their 18 months, won't they be brought back before the judge and asked the same questions. If they do not answer or produce the documents, back to prison they go?

[TheForceOfOne]

I think they can send them back to jail (other FReepers would know better than I) like Susan McDougal for refusing to talk.

[TheForceOfOne]

Seems to all depend on whose ox is being gored.

You got that right Tex. The liberal media today believes they are beyond reproach, even by the legal system. The ability to destroy careers, reputations, undermine the military during wartime, etc. without ever being held accountable is what they think they have and what they're entitled too and that is completely false. Consider this a reality check for the MSM.

[WVNan]

Welcome to Free Republic. I hope you have a tough skin. Newbies have to go through a sort of "hazing" process. FR has been around a long time and some members have been here a long time. Just like a family, we have developed "traditions", "special language", etc. Try not to be offended when someone calls you an idiot, LOL. It's not personal.....really. We call each other idiots all the time. I think the rough and tumble debate is one of the most attractive things about this site. People are not afraid to voice an opinion, unlike society in general.