WSJ: U.S. Prosecutor Says Reporters Deserve Jail (Miller and Cooper of the NY Times and Time)

Wall Street Journal ^ | July 6, 2005 | JOE HAGAN

[OESY]

Apparently unappeased by Time Inc.'s offer last week to turn over a reporter's notes related to confidential sources, special prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald filed tough-language legal papers yesterday arguing that Time magazine correspondent Matthew Cooper, as well as New York Times reporter Judith Miller, should go to jail for civil contempt.

"Journalists are not entitled to promise complete confidentiality -- no one in America is," wrote Mr. Fitzgerald, speaking of the reporters' pledge to their sources. Mr. Fitzgerald was appointed by the Bush administration to investigate a government leak that exposed the identity of Central Intelligence Agency operative Valerie Plame Wilson.

Mr. Fitzgerald also raised the specter of criminal charges against Ms. Miller, asking the judge to advise the reporter that if she continues to refuse to testify "she will be committing a crime." He argued that a charge of criminal contempt might make her stand less popular among the "opinion leaders" who Ms. Miller's lawyers say support her....

Mr. Fitzgerald goes on to describe arguments made by editorial writers in the Chicago Tribune and the Los Angeles Times, as well as by Anthony Lewis, a former New York Times columnist, whom he says "also disagrees with Miller's absolutism."...

On Friday, Lawrence O'Donnell, a pundit on syndicated talk show "The McLaughlin Hour," claimed on the program that White House political strategist Karl Rove was the source named in Mr. Cooper's notes. But in an interview Monday, Mr. Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin, said his client "didn't disclose Valerie Plame's identification to anyone." Mr. Rove hasn't asked any reporter to treat him as a confidential source in the matter, Mr. Luskin said, "so if Matt Cooper is going to jail to protect a source, it's not Karl he's protecting."

[Steve_Seattle]

"Maybe other Freepers with more familiarity with Catholic doctrine could address this."

The question isn't about Catholic doctrine, but the law. I think priests generally tell a penitent that if he has committed a crime, he needs to report it to the proper authorities as a condition of absolution. That is fairly clear; what is not clear is whether the law could force a priest to divulge information heard in confession.

[stinkerpot65]

So, who is the leaker?

[monday]

"The prosecutor needs the reporters notes so the two reporters can't commit perjury about what they were told by the leaker and get away with it."

from the article; "Apparently unappeased by Time Inc.'s offer last week to turn over a reporter's notes related to confidential sources, special prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald..."

He could have the notes if he wanted them. Apparently thats not good enough.

"First Novak cooperated with the prosecutor and has had no contempt charges filed against him.. That means NOVAK told the prosecutor who leaked the information, gave the prosecutor his notes and told him what was leaked. The prosecutor has to all there is to know about the leaker."

Is that true? My understanding was that Novak got his information second hand and only told prosecutors Millers name?

from the article; "Journalists are not entitled to promise complete confidentiality -- no one in America is,"...Patrick J. Fitzgerald.

This is absurd. All sorts of people are not only entitled to promise complete confidentiality, but are required by their profession to promise complete confidentiality. Lawyers, doctors and priests as well as reporters. They may have to go to jail in order to maintain their promises and their integrity, but they are still required by their professions to keep them.

[monday]

"But this is not the case here. The whole Plame case was played to embarass the President, and it didn't work very well anyway."

from my post #18; "I don't see how it applies in this case however."

In other words, I agree. I guess you missed that part?

[monday]

"what is not clear is whether the law could force a priest to divulge information heard in confession."

No. The law could send a priest to jail, but could not make him divulge information heard in confession.

[cricket]

"But where does Prosecutor Fitzgerald's dictum leave Catholic priests and the sanctity of the confessional?"

Probably alone. If this info had been passed in the confessional; it would have stayed there; and no one would be the wiser.

As for Valerie herself and her husband; remember when this story 'broke' it was said, that her 'cover' was pretty much common knowledge inside the beltway; or at least the cocktail circuit.

Have seen little in the way of discretion emanting from this media-loving; Bush-hating couple.

[hobson]

First Novak cooperated with the prosecutor and has had no contempt charges filed against him.. That means NOVAK told the prosecutor who leaked the information, gave the prosecutor his notes and told him what was leaked. The prosecutor has to all there is to know about the leaker.

I'm beginning to think there was no leaker. I think Bob was having a friendly conversation like, "Who on earth would choose Joe Wilson to go to Niger, the guy's an idiot." So-called leaker, "Well, it must have been someone over at the CIA who has a thang for him." The lights go off in Novak's head, ah ha, his WIFE works there. So he makes more phone calls to shore up his suspicion and the rest is history.

[Polyxene]

"I would like to see these two go to the slammer, if only as surrogates for the whole scurvy lot of their profession."

ME, TOO!! There is a laundry list of so-called "journalists" who should be doing time in the gray-bar motel right now.

[Homer1]

I bet the reporters decide to go to jail. Having the Rove thing out there makes them look like martyrs, when in reality, they probably lied to investigators ala Martha Stewart.

[Texas Songwriter]

Priests and physicians are under a completely different law and standard as codified in the Fed and all State codes.