Posted on 07/06/2005 2:33:03 PM PDT by freepatriot32
WASHINGTON (July 6) - A federal judge on Wednesday jailed New York Times reporter Judith Miller for refusing to divulge her source to a grand jury investigating who in the Bush administration leaked an undercover CIA operative's name.
''There is still a realistic possibility that confinement might cause her to testify,'' U.S. District Judge Thomas Hogan said of the showdown in a case that has seen both President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney interviewed by investigators.
Miller stood up, hugged her lawyer and was escorted from the courtroom.
Earlier, Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper, in an about-face, told Hogan that he would cooperate with a federal prosecutor's investigation into the leak of the identity of CIA operative Valerie Plame. He said he would do so now because his source gave him specific authority to do so.
''Last night I hugged my son goodbye and told him it might be a long time before I see him again,'' Cooper said as he took the podium to address the court.
''I went to bed ready to accept the sanctions'' for not testifying, Cooper said. But he told the judge that not long before his early afternoon appearance, he had received ''in somewhat dramatic fashion'' a direct personal communication from his source freeing him from his commitment to keep the source's identity secret.
As for Miller, unless she decides to talk, she will be held until the grand jury ends its work in October. The judge speculated that Miller's confinement might cause her source to give her a more specific waiver of confidentiality, as did Cooper's.
Cooper, talking to reporters afterward, called it ''a sad time.''
''My heart goes out to Judy. I told her as she left the court to stay strong,'' Cooper added. ''I think this clearly points out the need for some kind of a national shield law. There is no federal shield law and that is why we find ourselves here today.''
''Judy Miller made a commitment to her source and she's standing by it,'' New York Times executive editor Bill Keller told reporters.
Floyd Abrams, a prominent First Amendment lawyer who represented Miller, told reporters: ''Judy is an honorable woman, adhering to the highest tradition of her profession and the highest tradition of humanity.''
''Judy Miller has not been accused of a crime or convicted of a crime,'' Abrams said. ''She has been held in civil contempt of court.''
The prosecutor, U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald had responded in court to Miller's refusal to name her source by saying ''we can't have 50,000 journalists'' each making their own decision about whether to reveal sources.
''We cannot tolerate that,'' he said. ''We are trying to get to the bottom of whether a crime was committed and by whom.''
Another Miller attorney, Robert Bennett, said earlier that prosecutors traditionally have shown great respect for journalists and ''have had the good judgment not to push these cases very often.''
Hogan held the reporters in civil contempt of court in October, rejecting their argument that the First Amendment shielded them from revealing their sources. Last month the Supreme Court refused to intervene.
In court documents filed Tuesday, Fitzgerald urged Hogan to take the unusual step of jailing the reporters, saying that may be the only way to get them to talk.
''Journalists are not entitled to promise complete confidentiality - no one in America is,'' Fitzgerald wrote.
Fitzgerald had disclosed Tuesday that a source of Cooper and Miller had waived confidentiality, giving the reporters permission to reveal where they got their information. The prosecutor did not identify the source, nor did he specify whether the source for each reporter was the same person.
Cooper said he had been told earlier that his source had signed a general waiver of confidentiality but that he did not trust such waivers because he thought they had been gained from executive branch employees under duress. He told the court that he needed not a general waiver but a specific waiver from his source, which he did not get until Wednesday.
''I received express personal consent'' from the source, Cooper told the judge.
Hogan and Fitzgerald accepted Cooper's offer.
''That would purge you of contempt,'' Hogan said.
Prior to the hearing, Miller argued that it is imperative for reporters to honor their commitments to provide cover to sources who will only reveal important information if they are assured anonymity. Forcing reporters to renege on the pledge undercuts their ability to do their job, she said.
Last week, Time Inc., last week provided Fitzgerald with records, notes and e-mail traffic involving Cooper, who had argued that it was therefore no longer necessary for him to testify. Time also had been found in contempt and officials there said after losing appeals it had no choice but to turn over the information.
The case is seen as a key test of press freedom and many media groups have lined up behind the reporters. Thirty-one states and the District of Columbia have shield laws protecting reporters from having to identify their confidential sources.
Fitzgerald is investigating who in the administration leaked Plame's identity. Her name was disclosed in a column by Robert Novak days after her husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, impugned part of President Bush's justification for invading Iraq.
Wilson was sent to Africa by the Bush administration to investigate an intelligence claim that Saddam Hussein may have purchased yellowcake uranium from Niger in the late 1990s for use in nuclear weapons. Wilson said he could not verify the claim and criticized the administration for manipulating the intelligence to ''exaggerate the Iraqi threat.''
Novak, whose column cited as sources two unidentified senior Bush administration officials, has refused to say whether he has testified before the grand jury or been subpoenaed. Novak has said he ''will reveal all'' after the matter is resolved and that it is wrong for the government to jail journalists.
Disclosure of an undercover intelligence officer's identity can be a federal crime if prosecutors can show the leak was intentional and the person who released that information knew of the officer's secret status.
Cooper spoke to White House deputy chief of staff Karl Rove after Wilson's public criticism of Bush and before Novak's column ran, according to Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin, who denies that Rove leaked Plame's identity to anyone. Cooper's story mentioning Plame's name appeared after Novak's column. Miller did some reporting, but never wrote a story.
Among the witnesses Fitzgerald's investigators have questioned besides Bush and Cheney are Cheney's chief of staff, Lewis Libby; and former White House counsel Alberto Gonzales, who is now the attorney general.
Fitzgerald has said that his investigation is complete except for testimony from Cooper and Miller.
Ding Ding Ding! We have a winner!
And they all wanted to see Karl Rove frog marched in cuffs off to jail.
Who's laughing now at the MSM? LOL!
Just a theory.....
How much money is Judith Miller going to make off being jailed. It will make her a high draw on the speaking circuit, a book deal, an a revered status on talk shows for perpetuity. She must be hoping for at least one night in jail. She just got rich.
Rubbish. You need to go to jail for aiding and abetting the felon who leaked confidential national security secrets, not be "shielded" from jail because someone pays you to type on a keyboard (i.e. "journalism").
snif..snif..i'm verklempt.
Just a short comment on Wilson: In the annals of bad intelligence jobs investigated by multiple committees and commissions, Wilson's stunt in Niger still stands as the sloppiest example of unprofessional intelligence gathering. It continues to be mindboggling that he was ever accorded a shred of credibility, though it is easy to see how the New York Times was duped by his ineptitude. They wanted to believe.
It is a sorry, but serious case where the liberal media tried to hijack the 2004 election. So what about the public's right to know the full background as to which editors were involved and who the sources were? One thing is certain: We know Miller and Cooper are not risking going to jail to protect Karl Rove and the White House.
Some Pigs are more equal than others!! Quite an Orwellian concept! Jail the sucker!!!!!
Did Judy sign a book deal yet? How about a miniseries? Maybe Molly Grunewald,who is supposed to be married to Cooper,can get her lots of interviews and even a picture with the woman who lost the Olympic games for New York, Hillary Rodham.
It may be two different sources, for two different offenses. If Miller's in hot water for tipping off terrorists before an FBI raid, I hope she rots.
The BBC is reporting that Cooper received a "dramatic message" which freed him to testify. I guess he had to come up with a dramatic excuse, or risk getting shunned -- for whimping out -- by his liberal colleagues.
oy vey
Miller's source waived confidentiality, too. We've known that. She claims it could be coerced so says it does not sway her to talk.
It is not clear if it is the same source as Cooper's.
Thank you for highlighting the part I was going to comment on next.
What disingenuousness for this article to state Wilson was sent "by the Bush administration".
That was the point of Novak's first column---Wilson's wife at the CIA recommended her rabidly anti-Bush husband.
This article's phrasing is designed to imply that Wilson was sent with the blessings of the administration and they then ignored the fine fellow.
Fact: The WH never had a clue about Wilson's sojourn. What he really did over there is suspect, but we do know the scope of his "investigation" into the matter of Iraq and yellowcake was shallow, indeed, and certainly was not extensive enough on which to be basing his accusations.
What a disgraceful article---starting with the blithe description of Plame as "undercover".
something tells me her family rabbi will be getting his first phone call from her since she was a teen...
Emphasizing:
I could go for a national shield law; however no reporter shall be permitted to protect someone who is breaking the law. Wanna blow the whistle on a defense contractor? Keep away from the secrets and blather all you want to a reporter. Anyone with security clearance knows how to walk the line on what is public knowledge and what isn't.
And sure, there will still be reporters who will stand up for what they believe in and go to jail. More power to them. Make them pay for the stay as well; typical room on that island is, what, $200 including meals and laundry service?
Bumping again.
Remember when liberals came after our political speech rights and the New York Times stood with us against legislation that would restrict our constitutionally protected rights?
Oh, wait, they didn't care...
Well, remember when the liberals came after our private property rights and the New York Times stood with us?
Opps, forgot, they stood with those who would steal our homes and give them to developers.
Well, remember when they stood with us as liberals weaken our constitutional rights to own a gun?
Oh, Jeeze, forgot, they stood with those who would take our rights away.
Wasn't there a time... Nah...
Never mind.
Nah...she's only protecting Rove, so there's no gain to what she's doing.
Exactly! And if this had been any kind of officially sanctioned trip, Joe Wislon, himself, would've been guilty of violating protocol when he decided to write on Op-Ed for the NY Times.
There are so many convoluted lies still being perpetrated by the media WRT this story. Heck, they continue to leave out the fact that Wilson was the one who was wrong...and rediculed for his role in this fraud.
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.