Posted on 08/17/2004 8:57:33 AM PDT by piasa
(snip)....U.S. District Chief Judge Thomas F. Hogan... unsealed an order that demands the "confinement" of Time reporter Matthew Cooper, who has refused to testify in the probe...
...
Hogan also issued an Aug. 6 order confining Cooper "at a suitable place until such time as he is willing to comply with the grand jury subpoena," and ordered Time to be fined $1,000 a day. ...
...
While NBC fought a subpoena issued May 21 and was included in the opinion, it avoided a contempt citation after Tim Russert, moderator of NBC's "Meet the Press," agreed to an interview over the weekend in which he answered a limited number of questions posed by special prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald, NBC said in a statement.
Lawyers involved in the case said it appears that Fitzgerald is now armed with a strong and unambiguous court ruling to demand the testimony of two journalists -- syndicated columnist Robert D. Novak, who first disclosed the CIA officer's name, and Washington Post reporter Walter Pincus, who has written that a Post reporter received information about her from a Bush administration official.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
(snip) Pincus was served with a subpoena yesterday after Hogan's order was unsealed....
Washington Post reporter Glenn Kessler agreed to a similar interview with Fitzgerald's office earlier this summer. In both Kessler's case and Russert's, prosecutors' questions concerned conversations the reporters had in early July 2003 with Lewis I. "Scooter" Libby, chief of staff for Vice President Cheney. Both reporters have said they told Fitzgerald's staff that Libby did not disclose the identity of the CIA employee, Valerie Plame, to them.
Fitzgerald has shown a continuing interest in Libby, witnesses have said, but it now appears that his reasons may be more complex than was first apparent. Libby has signed a waiver allowing reporters to tell the prosecutor whether he disclosed Plame's name to them. Prosecutors have e-mails and phone records showing his contacts with reporters, and witnesses have said they are interested in a story Cooper wrote last summer in which Libby was interviewed.
...
Pincus co-wrote a story last October that said an administration official gave similar information to a Post reporter on July 12, 2003 -- before Novak's column appeared -- though Plame's name was not disclosed at the time. Washington Post counsel Mary Ann Werner confirmed yesterday that Fitzgerald has demanded testimony from Pincus.
I've been out of the loop on this story. Are there allegations that the "leaks" were falsely linked to the Bush admin. when in fact it were a bunch of liberal reporters who "leaked"? Thanks in advance!
FYI........ping....................bttt
Good question. Since the liberals are no longer crowing about this it is probably safe to say it's not turning out like they hoped.
Can't say for sure but I find it hard to believe that Time magazine would pay $1000 a day in fines to protect a Republican source.
Some background info:
The Weekly Standard
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/337paflu.asp
"A Little Literary Flair"
From the July 26, 2004 issue: Joe Wilson wasn't a truth-teller.
by Matthew Continetti
07/26/2004, Volume 009, Issue 43
So the courts just got around to holding the reporters in contempt? The public has held them in contempt for quite awhile.
Hmmmm....certainly looks like the lies and dishonesty of the left are becoming less transparent in this matter. I hope the judge throws the book at those found guilty, especially if it's lib. reporters/reporterettes. Thanks for the info.
The cauldron is appearing to begin to bubble.
Great point!
true
Early on, Novak went on record that the leak was not "shopped" to him, it came out "offhandedly" in the course of a long conversation, it did not come from a "political gunslinger," but it DID come from someone in the Bush administration. As for the other reporters, I haven't a clue. So Novak contradicts the spin that the leak was a deliberate ploy to "get" Wilson or retaliate for his NYT article. It was an inadvertent leak of information that was apparently already widely known in some Washington circles.
BINGO !
NO. It came from a "Senior Admin. Official" that is not the same as a BUSH Administration official.
It came from a careerist whose sympathies do not lie with the Bushies.
That is why it took Russert so long to clear Libby, and why the Time "journalist" will not out his source.
IF his source was a Bushie, he would be able to do it with a little handwringing. But he isn;t. Because he would be burning a member of "The Team".
To complete my thought: I find it hard to believe that a Bush administration official would accuse two other administration officials of a federal crime by attributing an act to them which (1) has an incoherent and unconvincing motive; and (2) which just happens to correspond to the Democratic spin. How would this anonymous whistleblower know who made the leak and what their motive was? And why have we heard no more about this alleged whistleblower in the past year? It seems to me quite possible that Pincus was lying and was putting into the mouth of an administration official the very spin that the Democrats were trying to promote.
In the Bush administration, a senior administration official is a Bush administration official, regardless of whether he/she is a careerist or someone who was brought in by Bush. They are still part of the Bush administration. But I admit it could have been a careerist who was not one of Bush's people.
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.