A Sign of Hope for Reporters in CIA Leak Case

One judge questions whether the government has unchecked power to make journalists reveal their sources in issues before grand juries.

December 9, 2004

WASHINGTON — Two journalists fighting to avoid jail for refusing to testify before a grand jury investigating the exposure of a CIA operative's identity appeared to find at least one sympathetic member on a federal appeals court panel Wednesday.

Judith Miller, a reporter for the New York Times, and Matthew Cooper, Time magazine's White House correspondent, are contesting an October ruling by a federal judge that held them in contempt for refusing to cooperate with federal investigators looking into the outing of CIA operative Valerie Plame in July 2003.

Both reporters face up to 18 months in jail. The case has come to symbolize a new era of aggressive tactics by prosecutors toward the media, testing the limits of government power to force journalists to reveal their sources even, in the case of Miller, for a story she never wrote.

Special prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald has said the testimony of Cooper and Miller is crucial to his investigation, which is entering its second year, and many legal observers have predicted that the government will probably prevail.

more...

http://www.latimes.com/news/custom/showcase/la-na-disclose9dec09,0,3896948,print.story

like some kind of crusading first amendment warrior when she's a shill, a ho and a scumbag.

if for no other reason that bolstering the neo-cons' case to send our country to war with Iraq. Then there is Plame where she is a participant in a federal criminal case where even Cooper admits there is "moral ambiguity". And then there is the little mentioned money laundering case where she gave a heads up to a Muslim "charity" that the feds were on the way. I hope her prison job is the actual laundry.

She was on Tweety tonight behaving like a perfect asp.

i have no mercy for her at all.

Miller brings out the worst vengeful aspects of my character, for there is no amount of harm that could befall her which would ever cause me to give her one iota of sympathy.

There are media plants in all major Media outlets. Check her background as an "implant" in the Iraq war. She was ordering the military leaders in her group around. It's one thing to protect a whistleblower, and they need full protection, but that being said, it's another thing for a reporter to be complicit in a crime. A tough line in some cases I'm sure and this issue can be seen from both sides.

in treason by withholding this name to protect this corrupt administration.

... Fitzgerald was going after the reporters who did not break the story on the logic that reporters not publishing the story weren't entitled to protect sources, someone said that the strategy was to generate court rulings protecting reporters in general, which would, in turn, protect Robert Novak from any scrutiny.

I'm afraid to say that such may be the case, with this news. I felt that Fitzgerald wasn't going after Novak because he broke the story, and would be the prime example of a reporter protecting his sources, while other reporters who chose not to publish the information leaked could be classified as witnesses, rather than reporters, only because they chose not to run the story. Because they didn't publish, it wasn't their story to protect, so the logic goes.

Still, Novak is at the center of the controversy, and, as far as I know, he hasn't been subpoenaed or deposed. That speaks volumes about the way Fitzgerald has approached the case.

:mad:

they all do. the rest of the inmates wherever they went would be befouled however.

Novak may actually be one of the targets of the grand jury, in which case he would have been sent a letter stating so. Now if he wants he could make a deal, but that would likely be for immunity. If Fitzgerald prefers to nail him rather than letting him off, he would have to get the info he needs on the person who leaked, from sources other than Novak. It has also been suggested in the last weeks that Novak took the 5th. Of course this is all speculation as the proceedings are secret and Novak and his lawyer aren't talking.

The law against revealing intelligence operatives' identities exempts the messenger. The press agent revealing the leak can't be prosecuted--only the leaker can.

Therefore, Novak can only be pressured, via a grand jury, to reveal his sources. That can only be done by direct appearance before the grand jury, and that requires a subpoena.

Cheers.

A case for obstruction has possibility, and I'm also wondering, if Novak knew it was against the law and published anyway, if he can be held liable? After all, he did speak to people at the CIA before publishing, looking for back-up sources, and they specifically asked him not to print the story.

The press isn't culpable for publishing the leak. The leaker is the responsible party.

As for obstruction, that depends upon a legal ruling on whether the journalist has a right to protect his or her sources in the matter. If a court rules favorably to the prosecution in the matter, Novak ought to be immediately called to testify.

But, the original point is whether or not Novak has not been called to appear because the prosecutor intends to go around his press privilege arguments. That's difficult to determine right now, but there has to be a reason why the government has played hardball with Miller and Cooper, but has ignored Novak. Is Fitzgerald seeking a ruling to, in a roundabout way, protect Novak, or one to trap him? That's not apparent from the evidence available now.

Cheers.

Fitz is seeking to trap Novak.

... and see.

But, what ultimately bothers me about this whole issue is that, in the past, the press defended their right to protect government sources as a continuing principle in the attempt to divine the truth about what the government was doing--to the general benefit of the public's right to know. Now, it seems, this defense of government sources is to shield an administration which protects the corporate interests of the press itself.

The motive of the press is paramount in this, and Judith Miller figures prominently here. She used her position with the "paper of record" to influence military personnel on the ground to promote the view of the administration before, during and after the invasion of Iraq with regard to Iraq's intent regarding WMDs. Now, she is fighting for the independence of the press? The law is required to disregard unrelated history, but for the rest of us, her motives are suspect in this, given how she's behaved and what she's written over the last couple of years.

Still, Novak ought to be center of this legal argument, because he wrote the story based on leaks provided him, and he's not the center of it, and that is very perplexing, on the basis of legal logic alone.

Cheers.

I read what you said about him not being a target because he's the "messenger". I see a different spin. Maybe they see his as a direct conspirator. I don't know if that's a legal possibility, but that's kinda how I read these amazingly unclear tea leaves.

Novak published a leak. The law says that's not actionable. End of that legal story.

However much one may wish that Novak receive his fair share of comeuppance, it won't happen in this case. He can't be treated as a co-conspirator unless he were part of the decision to leak the information. By definition, he could not be, since he is not an official part of the administration, where the leak originated. It would be very hard to prove that he was first asked to join in a conspiracy before given the information to leak. That's simply not how Washington and journalism are aligned.

Cheers.

I've seen a post here on DU which posted it before when this mess began. And it does look like there is leverage when there is a public interest involved.

If outing a CIA operative isn't grounds for impeachment, I don't know what is.

we are no longer free.

I still hold out a bit of hope, but when Putin called Bush a dictator I had to agree. Takes one to know one. I learned that in first grade.