Posted on 07/06/2005 7:20:26 PM PDT by USAfearsnobody
so if a reporter does a story on some gang leader in LA, and in the course of that comes to learn of a murder he committed, they should be able to withold that testimony from a grand jury?
yes, we are trying to make a point - reporters have no special rights regarding testimony. hell, in the age of blogs, every one of us is a "reporter" now - or does it only count if you work for the NYT and other media elites? suppose instead of Miller, this were Rush Limbaugh - what do you think would be happening?
Let me explain this to you
Corrupt politicians and businessmen usually control the levers of power in their particular area, and often times, it takes anonymous sources to take them down.
If I was on the staff of a governor, and I knew he was doing something illegal, but I also knew that, in order for the story to get out, my name would be attached to it, so I'd be subject to reprisal.
To be honest, I'm putting my own self-interest above the interest of the public, and most people in that situation will do the same thing if you end source confidentiality. Most people who serve as anonymous sources do so because while they want the truth out, they don't want to do anything that could get them blackballed (or even killed)
am I a reporter? why not, I post here. suppose I find out some piece of news from a "source" regarding a crime - and post it on FR. the authorities trace the post back to me, does the same right Miller asserted (rejected by the SCOTUS) apply to me? why not?
Why in the world would you think that Miller would protect a member of the Bush administration? The prosecutor is not even looking for the names of the sources. The prosecutor stated yesterday that the reason that the notes were not sufficient was that he was interested in the substance of conversations on other subjects that the reporters had with their sources. That doesn't sound like a member of the administration, maybe a former member, but not a current member.
in this case, the "leak" itself violates a federal law. its not like providing a reporter information that your corporate executive is stealing money.
I don't think that. It doesn't matter who the reporter thinks up stories for. The New York Times and L.A. Times have notable cases that I can remember offhand.
"in this case, the "leak" itself violates a federal law"
It's not as if this woman is the new incarnation of Pablo Escobar or anything.
this entire story may well have been a well conceived plan to try and take down a presidency - we all know that the maintenance of Plame's "secret identity" is all nonsense - she's not undercover, and her husband is telling everyone on the cocktail circuit about her anyway. its a bigger story then that now.
You are indeed a journalist. The FEC will say so... one day.
She wasn't undercover at the time of the "leak." Also, Wilson's own website said he was married to her.
But that's not the "crime." The "crime" (apparently) is that someone being investigated didn't tell the truth to the prosecutor, and the way to prove that is to force Miller to give them everything she's got on her conversations with everybody who potentially has knowledge.
Lying to the prosecutor about something that isn't a crime (the leak) is the crime.
Kind of like Martha Stewart. She didn't violate SEC rules (so saith the jury) but she lied to the FBI when she said that she'd cooperate with them.
Silly me, I thought people that are found guilty in a court of law should be punished, not sitting around watching cable T.V., playing pool, and drinking cokes on plush patio furniture.
BTTT
I don't think there is any certainty about that at all, and I don't like journalists putting themselves above the law no matter who is in office. Remember, the requirement is for her to testify to a federal grand jury who represents us. Journalists should comply.
Just tell the truth about the felony that was committed and don't give us the histrionics.
*shrugs*
I'd definately wouldn't want _all_ prisons to be as comfortable as that. But there's something to be said for having different options available for sentancing.
If I was a mid-level governmental official and I wanted to smear somebody about a felony with no real justification (but possibly to influence a presidential election), I would put my self interest above the truth and whisper it to a journalist. Then the sloppy journalist, knowing that he or she would never have to testify it could broadcast my lie far and wide knowing that it couldn't be challenged.
My story is kind of like yours, but different.
Yeah right, the government is always right, even when the Democrats are in charge.
And "I'm from the government and I'm here to help you" are the most welcome words in the English language. (/sarcasm)
Errr, exactly why do you call yourself "gogipper"? Reagan wouldn't have liked your take on life.
The 4th form of gov't - the "Media" - believe themselves above the (our) law.
Efff them. Kudos to any judge who can see the light.
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.