Dan Abrams : One person's whistleblower is another persons criminal.

I find that interesting!

Was Linda Tripp a whistleblower or a criminal?

She wasn't reporting a crime, but telling reporters something she knew would cause problems for the President.



Was Mark Felt a whistleblower or a criminal?

He directed a reporter to places he would find proof of crimes by a lot of people.



I'm sure there are lots of examples other than these. I'm questioning myself on why I want Miller to go to jail. Am I more swayed in favor of it because I want to see this Admin crumble? Would I feel the same way if it was President Gore, Kerry, or Clinton?

Dan Abram's point is that a reporter has the right to protect his/her source the same as an Attorney defending a guilty man has to defend his client.

What do you really think?

Miller etc. were helping that person to commit a crime.
They were used to commit a crime by the source. That source should then be unprotected.

You know what, I don't get why this is so hard to grasp.

Other whistleblowers, like Linda Tripp (BWAHAHAHAHAHA! That's hilarious!) or any of the traditional whistleblowers are protected because they are REVEALING a crime. Revealing a crime serves the public interest. Committing a crime does not serve/protect the public interest.
:eyes:

it goes against what they wish to believe.

What Clinton did was stuppid and in my opinion extremely juvinile behavior, but NOT CRIMINAL.

She did not reveal a crime, she told something because she wanted Clinton brought down!

said it but they said something like this: Prosecutors do not recognize this right of reporters to protect their source. It used to be believed that it was to protect whistle-blowers who where giving information that would serve the people's interests. These guys were nothing but criminal LEAKERS, not whistle-blowers who were putting the lives of americans in jeopardy for political gain. Not for the public good.

She certainly was not a whistleblower in the Karen Silk tradition.

himself/herself a criminal, but reporting criminal activity ... the Abrams comparison is ludicrous ... reporters do NOT have the privilege of the attorney or confessional relationship ... reporters are NOT above the law if/when the source is subject/target in grand jury view ...

p.s. just because his father is Miller's attorney, Dan Abrams might want to peek at the law ... what a concept!

Is the journalist a Third Party?

Situation #1. Someone does something wrong. Someone else knows and talks. Journalist investigates and writes it up as a third party.

Situations #2. Someone does something wrong. Journalist partners with the person who does something wrong, then does or does not write it up.

In situation 2, the journalist is the Second party.

Second Party: Not protected in the self-vow of silence. Not justified in crying. Cannot have equally conniving journalists who never give the people the full or correct news turn around and tell us that we should cry for the journalists and that there will be no more whistleblowers.

Separate the bs from the reality.

If Miller works for a right wing newspaper who conspires with the right wing to promote a right wing agenda, then why should we listen to an Andrea Mitchell or a Dan Abrams who work for a right wing network in cooperation with a right wing adminstration. Just take a look bacdk about all the effort they have gone to to assassinate the Clintons and how they cover for Bush and Cheney...then ask yourself if you should even listen to a Dan Abrams.

The outing of Valerie Plame was the revenge of the Bushies.

I hope Judith Miller stays in jail for a very long time.

I hope Robert Novack goes to jail

I hope the Grand Jury gets to the Rove --- errrrrrr --- the real perpe-traitor and he is jailed, as well.

The Supreme Court ruled on this issue in 1972. It is black letter law that “a reporter called to testify before a grand jury regarding
confidential information enjoys no First Amendment protection.”
Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665 (1972).

The only testimonial privilege for unofficial witnesses that is rooted in the Federal Constitution is the Fifth Amendment privilege against compelled self-incrimination.” Id. at 689-90.

The Court expressly declined “to create another by interpreting the First Amendment to grant newsmen a testimonial privilege that other citizens do not enjoy.” Id. at 690.

The Court also stated that it could not “seriously entertain the notion that the First Amendment protects a newsman’s agreement to conceal the criminal conduct of his source, or evidence thereof, on the theory that it is better to write about a crime than to do something about it.” Id. at 692. “the right to withhold news is not equivalent to a First Amendment exemption from an ordinary duty of all other citizens to furnish relevant information to a grand jury
performing an important public function.” Id. at 697.

Bottom line, the appellate court in Miller's case was convinced that there was reasonable cause to show that Miller (and Cooper) had information about a potential violation of federal law, and saw no reason why a newsman (woman) should have any greater rights than any other citizen.

This is not to say that Miller, Cooper or any reporter has no recourse. They can, if the proof is there, move to quash the subpoena. (See, e.g., "If the newsman is called upon to give information bearing only on a remote and tenuous relationship to the subject investigation, of if he has some other reason to believe that
his testimony implicates confidential source relationships without a legitimate need of law enforcement, he will have access to the court on a motion to quash and an appropriate protective order may be entered. Id. at 710). They probably have the right to sue the prosecutor as well.

You can read the Appellate court decision here: http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200502/04-3138a.pdf

I really suggest that all who question this decision read it first.

As an (important) aside, the author of the majority decison in this case was David Sentelle, the appellate court justice involved in appointing Ken Starr.
(See, e.g. http://www.consortiumnews.com/1999/c041799b.html)

I really did see politics in this mess.

I didn't want it to be mine! I personally want to be reasonable and fair to all reporters, whether I agree with them or who they work for. I posted this because I was afraid I was supporting this ruling because I detest this administration, and I wasn't sure I would feel the same if there had been a Dem in the WH.

Thans for citing the legal side of this and why what this judge decided is not political, but the right thing to do.

I'm a huge First Amendment fan. We cannot compromise our beliefs just because it's politically expedient. I admire people who stick to principle. Rest assured, it's the (constitutionally) right decision. Good for you for questioning motives. Cheers.

I don't want either party to use manipulation of the law for political reasons. I also know both try all the damn time!

Having said that. Should there BE a law that allows reporters to protect thier sources "unless they are covering up aa crime or know a crime is going to happen"?

I may not have phrased that exactly right, but it's like a lawyer with attorney client privilege. The lawyer has privilege unless he knows a crime is about to be committed or knowingly allows his client to lie under oath.

of the shield law for reporters. They are pretty much protected unless there is reasonable cause for a prosecutor to believe they have information about crimes previously committed or about to be committed. There is an interesting twist on this in the current edition of huffington post. A reporter was subpoenaed by a criminal defense lawyer who wanted her notes about a story she published. The issue there was due process versus the First Amendment. In that case the First Amendment won. It's an extremely interesting area of the law. See here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/theblog/featuredposts.html#a003673

Keep up the good work. The First Amendment is worth fighting for.