Plame News Flash (MSNBC)

[H2O Man]

The federal appeals court ruled the two journalists must testify to the grand jury. YIPPIE!

[cthrumatrix]

1. drip drip drip

[in_cog_ni_to]

2. HALLELUJAH!!!!!!

WooHoo! Is Judith Miller one of them? Who's the other? Was Russert one of them?

:bounce::bounce:

[KharmaTrain]

10. Miller's Been One Of The Targets

Maybe our new friend "Gannon" got Fitzgerald off dead center here. Last weekend someone wrote an Op-Ed in the NYTs all but denouncing Miller...saying she writes for herself not the paper (paraphase), but this might be a tip off the paper is getting ready to cut bait on her if she gets indicted.

Russert? Doubtful. First, it's his network, according to your post, that broke the story. If it was GE/NBC, they'd be scurrying like rats to protect their "franchise" (ugh). If they're looking at anyone in that network, it would be Tweety...he was on of the "journalists" that got calls to use his TV Treehouse to out Plame.

Now don't start dancing in the aisles here. Expect Miller to play martyr here...ready to sit in a jail cell than to serve up whose been feeding her all this misinformation. And, of course, the corporate media will "ride to her defense" confusing "freedom of the press" with covering their asses.

[ProfessorGAC]

70. A Different Point of Confusion To Add

They are confusing freedom from the press and whistleblowing with lawbreaking. Whoever revealed Plame's name broke the law! They aren't protecting a whistleblower who is trying to create transparency between the powers that be and the people. They're trying to protect someone who committed a crime.

One is an attempt to assure justice, the other an attempt to obstruct it.

The news media seems incapable of understanding the difference.
The Professor

[H2O Man]

72. "The news media seems incapable

of understanding the difference." Good point. I'll add to it: many in the MSM are purposefully confusing the issues. It is part of their agenda. Fitzgerald is not going after "whistle-blowers." He is going after people who commited one of the most serious crimes in recent history.

[ProfessorGAC]

76. On The $

They are not reporting the fact that the reporters under investigation are protecting a felon, not a whistleblower. If you need sources so badly that you protect someone who broke the law from a legitimate criminal investigation, you are a horrible reporter and should find another line of work.
The Professor

[tsuki]

144. I have never understood this difference. Miller & Cooper did not reveal

Plame, Novak did. Why are Miller & Cooper being threatened with jail and Novak not? Also, Novak was on Crossfire and said that journalists should reveal their sources.

Novak knew he was "outing" a CIA deep cover and her network placing lives in jepardy. Yet, he has never been questioned?

[Dookus]

149. I don't think it's known

whether Novak has testified.

[dweller]

3. which 2?

and is there a link?

okay, i see the LBN thread, so link should be forthcoming.

dp

[E-Z-B]

15. Here's the link

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=615&u=/nm/20050215/pl_nm/bush_leak_dc&printer=1

[Roland99]

17. Thanks!...definitely a '5'!

[arcane1]

37. hell yes it is!

[JNelson6563]

29. Done

:kick:

[Califooyah Operative]

145. 5 nt

[Pithy Cherub]

4. Excellent! Jail or Truth?

What ever will the "journalists" decide...

[AlCzervik]

5. i bet it's Miller and Cooper

Miller should be canned for her run up to the war reporting.

[H2O Man]

8. Right.

They were the two who appealed. However, this closes the door for any others who might try to take the same route. The federal court ruled on two points: the first (and most significant) was based on the case law precedent, which includes a previous US Supreme Court decision.

This is huge.

[kohodog]

13. All I can say is: FROG MARCH!!!!

Does this mean that an appeal to the Supreme Court is unlikely??

We've been waiting for a long time for this! And the timing, coupled with Gannon's access to the classified memo may make it all too much for MSM and Congress to ignore.

[H2O Man]

19. Frog March!!!!

I love it. I'm thinking I hear my son's 12 pack of Guinness calling to me!

Any appeal would likely be taken from the comfort of a prison cell. The 83-page court decision closes the door on any issue that could be the foundation of an appeal.

The main part concerns the previous SC decision, and EVERY case since. The SC has refused to consider changing this ruling before. It is very, very unlikely that they will hear the case.

The MSM may try to focus more on the Michael Jackson case. Our focus has to be on creating a greater awareness of this case, especially by putting pressure on congress.

[kohodog]

21. Don't forget the Pope

Another major MSM distraction soon. Do you think they might...no I shouldn't think like that.

[merh]

48. If appealled, it is very unlikely the SCOTUS would grant the

certioria and hear the appear!

Wonderful news - don't you like it that some courts actually follow the law!

[H2O Man]

51. Bizarre how

the MSM is reporting on every other case, none of which have any real significance other than entertainment.

[merh]

54. The pea is under this shell . . .

no, it's under this shell! Grifters, one and all! Did you see that Soros is buying up media stock?!

Who knows what is ahead of us. We live in interesting times!

[Me.]

136. Heard That Soros Bought 209,00 Shares

of Time Warner and Buffett has doubled his shares of Comcast

[merh]

138. Here you go, the thread in LBN

with the latest article on it!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x1238995

[Me.]

146. Hmmmmm

wonder if they're up to anything interesting? Thanks for posting that.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

129. Thinking that

if your boy drinks Guiness... that's a fine job of parenting you've done.


:beer:


Oh yeah, Mikey's got the flu. There's a window of a week until until the circus comes back to town. Will that make a difference? Probably not.

[bear425]

62. Can they appeal the ruling? If not, how soon do you think they

will testify?

edit: I just read your responses regarding appeal.

Doing happy dance...

[H2O Man]

65. There's dancing

going on all over!!!!!!!

[MissB]

11. Cooper?

As in Anderson Cooper? Or another one?

[AlCzervik]

16. matthew---Time Magazine.

[seemslikeadream]

6. Journalist?

Then it couldn't be Gannon!

[kohodog]

7. But will this go to SCOTUS?

Can they drag this on and on?

[H2O Man]

9. The federal court

of appeals based their decision primarily upon the case law precedent, which is based upon a previous US Supreme Court decision. It is not possible that the SC would overturn this. Even should they decide to appeal, which is perhaps likely, they will likely be in the comfort of a prison cell.

[NewJeffCT]

24. You never know with this SC, though

They are pretty partisan, and a back channel message from Cheney to Scalia or Rehnquist could make them change their minds... esp. if Cheney thinks it is a serious problem. Then, the MSM can play it like the conservative SC stands up for a free press.

[H2O Man]

30. There are two

maybe three who would want to help the administration. But, unlike the 2000 election - when they made "new law" -- there is a well-set standard. It is unlikely they will hear the case.

[Occulus]

28. Do you think we're *finally* going to see some serious movement

on this case, then?

I hope we do.....

[H2O Man]

31. It has been "on hold"

to allow the appeal to be played out. Now the wheels are back in motion.

[Occulus]

82. Are they appealing to the full court? How long might that take? n/t

[H2O Man]

90. We can only hope

not long.

[AuntiBush]

163. My favorite part from the story:

Quoting Yahoo's story about Reporters Must Testify at http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=615&u=/nm/20050215/pl_nm/bush_leak_dc&printer=1.

"The subpoenas seek documents and testimony about conversations between Miller and "a specified government official," and between Cooper and "official source(s)," the ruling said."

So, "who is" the specified government official? That's where the cookie begins to crumble. And I can again enjoy a happy :beer:

[ultraist]

164. It looks like it might go to the USSC

excerpts
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/16/national/16leak.html?adxnnl=1&pagewanted=2&adxnnlx=1108540859-qWcNtuHz8dTw7zcsnP7COg
The crime, if there was one, was the communication from government officials to the reporters, Judge Tatel said. "It thus makes no difference," he continued, "how these reporters responded to the information they received."

Ms. Miller and Mr. Cooper were held in contempt of court by Chief Judge Thomas F. Hogan, of the United States District Court in Washington, in the fall. He ordered them jailed for as long as 18 months. They would be released, he said, if they agree to testify.

Despite the ruling against them, lawyers for the reporters took some comfort in the debate that the judges engaged in over the existence and potential scope of a common law privilege. They said the debate made it more likely that the Supreme Court would be willing to hear the case.

Judge Sentelle, who was appointed by President Ronald Reagan, wrote in his concurrence that the Branzburg decision had definitively rejected protections under both the First Amendment and common law. The reporters' arguments, he wrote, "should appropriately be made to the Supreme Court." But he added that Congress, rather than the courts, was the better forum for the consideration of whether reporters deserve protection.

[Mandate My Ass]

12. Yeeeeeeeeeeeeeehawwwwwwwww!

They were not protecting a source, just a criminal.

Sing or go to sing sing. I love it.

[Auntie Bush]

57. I think you spelled that wrong!

lol ;-)

[AuntiBush]

166. Me too, Mandate My Ass!

:bounce: :bounce: :bounce: and :party: time :beer:

Luving it as much as you! Better than any lousy :wtf: Valentine's Day!

[Roland99]

14. Why isn't King Douchebag being forced to testify??

Does he have some dirt on someone?

[E-Z-B]

18. Looks like it is Judith Miller and Matthew Cooper

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A U.S. appeals court ruled on Tuesday that two journalists must testify before a federal grand jury about their confidential sources in an investigation into a leak that exposed the identity of a covert CIA (news - web sites) officer.

The three-judge panel ruled that New York Times reporter Judith Miller and Matthew Cooper of Time Magazine must comply with a subpoena from a grand jury investigating whether the Bush administration illegally leaked the agent's name to the news media.

<snip>

The decision upheld a ruling by a federal judge that Miller and Cooper were in contempt of court and should be jailed for refusing to testify about their confidential sources.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=615&u=/nm/20050215/pl_nm/bush_leak_dc&printer=1

[Straight Shooter]

20. Judith Miller deserves a life sentence for her role in bush's war.

I don't know anything about Cooper, but Miller is one POS that I'll propose a toast to seeing her lying a** in prison.

[Me.]

22. Judy's Going To Jail

Judy's going to jail! Lest we forget in her "I am a martyr" appearances on the talk shows she has said she would choose a jail cell over talking. Looks like she may get her wish unless all that bravado goes down the drain and her lying for the admin loses its appeal when faced with spending her days in an 8' cell that doesn't have a computer or phone. God I hope this is the crack in the Dyke.

[No Exit]

23. She can have Martha's old cell!

I'm sure she'll appreciate being in tasteful surroundings.

[ElaineinIN]

32. The last person you go after is the true target

They are building a case against the person they really want....they don't really want Judy or Matt, just the info in their brains... which will probably tie to Scooter Libby, Rove or Novakula, if I had to guess

[Fleshdancer]

25. can someone explain this to me?

I'm trying to figure out why the heat is on Miller and Cooper when it was Novak who took the info and ran with it. Is it assumed that Novak talked so he wouldn't have to testify to the grand jury? If he did talk, then wouldn't we have the person who leaked the confidential documents? So then why Miller and Cooper?

[merh]

52. You don't call a target to testify before the grand jury if you can

get that information from other witnesses. You have to let a target know that he is a target. Once he knows that, he will plead the 5th when called to testify and you will get nothing.

Now with Gannon/Guckert in a position that is vulnerable (Did he lie to FBI when questioned, did he appear before this grand jury and tell them his name was Jeff Gannon or Jim Guckert? If he lied to FBI and grand jury, that's 2 felonies.) and the DC federal court letting other witnesses know that the 1st does not protect them -- the Plame matter has new life and a life that has the potential of dethroning the boy king!

[Fleshdancer]

55. Thank you so much for the clarification

I could sense that this was a big deal, but I couldn't string it togther. Thanks for the help.

[merh]

61. You are welcome.

It is frustrating to have that slug Novak out there, apparently unscathed by all of this. The only explaination I can give you is that he probably is one of the targets of the investigation.

Think of it like a fishing adventure. You use small fish to catch big fish and the big fish to catch even bigger fish until you get the prize catch you are after. You may use a net to scoop up the small ones, then you use the small ones on the line, to reel in the bigger ones. It is not a game, but it does require strategy, timing and some times, good old luck.

If Plame had been tried in 2004, would the Gannon information have been discovered or even paid attention too? Timing can be everything.

[ArnoldLayne]

26. It's about time they finally get Novak,Rove

Bush and Cheney.

[GalleryGod]

27. Vote it UP, Gang!

:bounce: Gimmee FIVE !!!!!:bounce:

[WilliamPitt]

33. I'll admit: This scares me.

Nailing the Plame perpetrators isn't worth throwing the most important tenet of journalism under the bus. If this case creates precedent which says journalists can be forced to reveal their sources, we've lost journalism forever.

[immoderate]

34. Thanks for bringing that up. It's on my mind.

Judith Miller deserves to be punished, but she's to be a pawn in this. Source confidentiality should be protected.

--IMM

[Honest_Abe]

35. I am concerned, but...

in most instances the source is revealing information about the crime and criminals. In this case, the source revealing the information IS the crime. Usually, when protecting a source, it makes it easier for the news media to get information ABOUT illegal activities. I see a significant difference when the information leak IS, in and of itself, the illegal activity.

[Sparkly]

38. Precisely my view as well. n/t

[liberalitch]

43. I remember something about loose lips and sinking ships

[ultraist]

117. I think you explained that there is a clear line

Journalists are not granted the same privileges as attorneys. Client/Attorney privilege should not apply to journalists.

If a journalist is complicit in breaking the law, they should be held accountable. In this case, I think it's clear whoever participated in that leak is complicit in breaking the law. Protecting a source does not mean someone is above the law and can be an accessory to a crime with no consequences.

If this line didn't exist, a journalist could do something like pass on top security info to a terrorist that aided him in a crime and claim protection because the source is confidential. BS. That would be aiding and abetting.

[H2O Man]

141. Confidentiality

is never a blanket protection. It simply isn't. Not for lawyers, therapists, ministers, and not for journalists.

[sadiesworld]

36. The ruling is based on legal precedent.

I guess journalism was lost some time ago. :shrug:

[NewYorkerfromMass]

39. I agree. Miller has been a distraction from Novak

Novak is the one who needs to talk.

[H2O Man]

44. Miller may have

played a far more substantial role than it appears.

[Daphne08]

40. I have to agree with you, Will.

If reporters lose their ability to protect whistle-blowers, then whistle-blowers will no longer come forward, and the American people will be the losers.

Watergate would not have gotten past the break-in if not for the protection of reporters! Deep Throat would never have come forward.

I understand the importance of discovering the leak, I sincerely do; but I also must weigh any future consequences of 'the truth' ever seeing the light of day should this go to the Supreme Court.

[H2O Man]

46. Just for fun

name the "whistle-blower" in the Plame case? If we are going to protect whistle-blowers, there should be one, right?

[Daphne08]

60. There isn't one in this case,

and you've rightly corrected me in my hasty analogy.

Look, I'm 56 years old, and I've never seen such a blatant disregard for our republic by those presently in control of government. (Nixon and his bunch came close, but it was not this bad back then.)

My fear is in regard to future journalists and their sources, that is all.

[H2O Man]

63. It shows

how well our MSM confuses the issues. For the past 8 months, the MSM has almost totally ignored the Plame case. The only attention was to the journalists' appeal .... and the conscious effort on the MSM's part to distort this issue by saying it involves "whistle-blowers." There have been literally hundreds of articles that say "whistle-blowers, whistle-blowers, whistle-blowers."

But there are none. The only whistle-blower in this case is Joe Wilson! He blew the whistle, in his essay to the NYT, and the administration has been attempting to punish him ever since.

The MSM has been effective in their distorting the issues involved in this case .... most people, including honest everyday citizens, could not explain what the case involves. But Bill Clinton's sex life?

I expect that we will see both the very best and very worst in journalism in the next two years. For the very worst, watch CNN: Wolfe Blitzer will be interviewing the journalists "live" soon.

[H2O Man]

41. It doesn't create a precedent.

I certainly respect any & all journalists who have concerns about this. In your case, more so. But it doesn't create any precedent. It follows a 1972 ruling from the US Supreme Court. That ruling has been challenged before, and it holds up under scrutiny.

We should all be opposed to any ruling that would force journalists to reveal the identity of a "whistle-blower." However, the 1972 ruling does not give a blanket authority for grand juries: in every case, the journalists have the option of claiming this defense against testifying.

The Plame case clearly does not involve any "whistle-blowers." In fact, it is the exact opposite. A whistle-blower exposes crime within the government; this case involves some journalists who have assisted in commiting a very serious crime. Being a journalist does not provide a protection against testifying in this case.

The laws regarding the rights of the press stem from interpretation of the Constitution. Yet the Constitution does not grant a blank check that allows license without restriction to journalists. Miller has claimed it could cause "sources" to not give her information; yet we know from her Chalabi comments on Hardball that her sources are still giving her the information they want to get attention.

Finally, if we have come to a point where the executive branch of the federal government is able to commit any crime it wants, without the public having any recourse, it is far worse than forcing journalists to testify to a grand jury investigating a crime of this nature.

[golden voyages]

58. Exactly. In this case the journalists are co-conspirators

for publishing sensitive info and compromising national security.

This nullifies the "protecting sources" argument ... IMO.

[slipslidingaway]

59. Thanks for the explanation! n/t

[tavalon]

66. Hmmm,

that is actually a really good counterpoint to those of us worrying about protecting sources.

I'll have to think about this one for a while.

[Clark2008]

42. I thought of that, too, but I seem to remember that journalists

have never had a shield law if the case involves a crime.

I'll have to look in my old Comm Law book when I get home.

[Ladyhawk]

167. But when you have a government that redefines the word "crime"...

...at will, then it gets scary.

I'm sure there are plenty of innocent people in Gitmo who have been re-defined as criminals. The word "crime" is losing its meaning. :(

[cmd]

45. I agree

Last week we were discussing the fact that so many high schoolers were ready to give up first amendment rights. As much as I want to here Novak sing, I will still defend his right to withhold his source.

[Norquist Nemesis]

47. I understand your reservations...but

I disagree that when it's a case of high crimes/treason. In that case, I think it's warranted.

I don't know much about the law on such things. Does the protection cover all situations? I was under the impression that journalists have gone to jail rather than give up their sources. If this is the case, that says to me that the courts already have the power to 'force' them, but it's the journalist's 'choice'. Of course, if they 'choose' wrongly, the consequences is jail. (Crap! That sounds like an argument my Republican Dad would try to put forth! LOL)

[H2O Man]

50. It also sounds

like Martin Luther King, Jr: in matters of conscience, if you are knowingly going to violate a law, you must be willing to accept the consequences. I think that this case is pretty clear-cut; however, I see a very real potential for abuse in other cases that are currently being "lumped" with Plame. I think it is important -- and possible -- to recognize the distinctions between these cases.

[Me.]

49. I Can Understand That

However, as with everything this admin touches, the water has been muddied, dirtied to the point of darkness. If this was a true whistle blower case (as in S. Edminds) I would be in complete agreement that the journalists’ protection is sacrosanct. Here, however, we have a situation where journalists knowingly aided and abetted the admin in the commission of a crime. The seeking to punish Wilson (the true whistle blower) for telling the truth by revealing that his wife was a NOC. They further tried to distort the case by saying it was common knowledge that everyone knew about V. Plame and that they were only passing on info that they read in the news.

Judy Miller has been in the admin’s and neo-con’s hip pockets since day one. She pushed the case for war with false stories on aluminum tubes and yellow cake. She has been implicated in an Islamic “charity” money laundering case where she allegedly warned the targets that a FBI search was on the way. (I Think Cooper was involved in this too, but not absolutely sure), And her connection to the WH and nefarious schemes has continued with her revealing last week that her pal Chalabi has been offered a high post in the new Iraqui gov., despite the fact that the voted hadn’t been fully counted.

She and Novakula make it difficult to further the case that these “journalists” should be protected. He, of course, has been a long time hit man for Rove. They have defiled the standards and ethics most journalists abide by and this begs the question; do we allow them to continue in such a manner, for the greater good of all, or must we expose and punish those of their ilk because to not do so, is far too dangerous in a time when fascism has taken the upper hand?

[H2O Man]

56. Novak's history : Part 2

Some DUers may recall that I have suggested that we examine the Nixon WH to understand today's criminal administration. Shall we examine the second paragraph of Patrick J. Buchanan's July 13, 1970 memo to President Nixon? Oh, let's!

"I have encouraged the people who gave me this information to give it to Bob Novak to see Gardner's reaction if and when he is smoked out -- and to also put the taint of 'politics' on his future criticisms of the President."

So, was our buddy Bob being contacted in expectation that he would work in his capacity as a journalist? Or as a partner with the WH scheme? This wasn't criminal, but it shows how our buddy Bob has long been willing to be a republican mouth-piece.

[librechik]

83. exactly--it's about abuse of power, not protecting a vulnerable witness

Officials should not be shielded by the law against revealing sources when the officials have committed crimes. That is against the spirit of the protecting sources clause--it is meant to protect the weak from consequences, not protect the strong from prosecution.

[LeftHander]

53. But wasn't a crime commited??? nt

[ItsTheMediaStupid]

84. Not just any crime but Treason

And in a time when we are at "War".

If it didn't involve Republicans, I'm sure they'd want someone hung.

[Dookus]

97. there was no treason

It's defined in the constitution.

[tavalon]

64. Well with just a few exceptions

including yourself, there are few journalists left and journalism is, for the most part, already lost.

That said, I agree with you. While I desperately want someone or ones taken down for what happened, this is a very dangerous way to do it. I hate to say it, but I hope they both hold out. For Judith, this will be her first opportunity to try out something new: journalistic integrity.

[merh]

67. Will - this is not a precedent! This is standard that has existed

since 1972.

If you drive a bank robber to the bank and watch him rob the bank and then report the story as an exclusive - you have been an accomplice to the crime, you cannot hide behind the 1st amendment.

Those journlists that were given the information on Plames identity and her covert functions for the CIA are accomplices to the crime, they leaked it and made it public, endangering Plame and other operatives that she worked with.

Don't let this bother you, celebrate it as the affirmation of justice which has been so rare with this admin.

[H2O Man]

69. Well said.

I believe that CNN is going to have a live interview with Miller and Cooper today with Wolfe Blitzer. CNN just announced they are going to ask a full panel to over-turn the decision. I think it is worthwhile to have an open discussion on the issues Will raised .... and I'm confident that we can agree that this isn't a "whistle-blower" case or any legal precedent. At the same time, we need to be aware that good law can be open to abuse.

[lancdem]

73. How long do you think this will be dragged out?

I'm confident the full Appeals Court will not overturn it, but I'm tired of waiting for this investigation to reach a conclusion.

[Me.]

78. Are We Talking Days, Weeks or Months? n/t

[Hell Hath No Fury]

68. I agree completely...

As much as I want Miller/Novak/The Plame leaker made toast, I am not sure at all that I am willing to give up the source confidentiality afforded journalists (the real kind).

The recent talk of Deep Throat is a perfect example of this - he was willing to help bring down a President because he felt he could trust Woodward & Berstein to keep his identity a secret. And in the lead-up to the invasion, members of the CIA were leaking like sieves to press members in attempt to get information out about things like the OSP, the faulty intel, etc. Imagine the reprocussions if Bush could have had the power to force those press members to tell all.

Why on earth would any governmental whistleblower come forward with information if they were certain that their identities could be

[H2O Man]

71. This is not a

whistle-blower case. The 1972 Supreme Court case isn't a blanket ruling. In cases of whistle-blowers, there is an option to contest a subpoena.

Judith Miller made the same case for not testifying .... that no one would provide her with information anymore. However, her recent appearance on HardBall, where she revealed insider information on the WH and Chalabi, indicates that this wasn't true.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

86. But do you really think...

that a distinction will always be be made? The appeals judge did not make that distinction, if I remember correctly. He just said that there is no protection in the Constitution for withholding the name of a source, period.
"

[H2O Man]

87. I think it is

a concern. I would agree that people should be keeping a close eye on this. But as far as the judges' decision today, they were ruling specifically on this case. The 1972 SC case leaves open the right for any journalist to have their case reviewed on merits. In this case, there were no merits, according to both the original federal judge hearing the case, and now a three-judge panel.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

111. well of course Miller's still getting insider info

she has proven her loyalty to confidentiality.

[H2O Man]

115. She has proven

her loyalty to a specific political agenda.

[annabanana]

74. If revealing the identity of an undercover agent is a crime

in and of itself, isn't this more of a case of accessory to a crime? This must be different in some material way from revealing confidential sources, no?

[annabanana]

75. self deleted, dupe

[Dookus]

79. no

revealing the identity of an undercover agent is not a crime in and of itself.

[seventythree]

135. I believe it is

explain why you say it isn't. I read the statute awhile back and it sure seemd that way to me.

[Dookus]

142. Say somebody

in the White House calls me up and says "seventythree" is an undercover agent. I post that information here.

I have not broken any laws.

The government alone is responsible for keeping its own secrets. I am not responsible, reporters are not responsible, NOBODY but people IN the government are responsible.

The law applies to people who have AUTHORIZED knowledge of the identity of covert agents - that is, people in the government with the proper security clearance.

So if *I* reveal that you are an agent, I did not break the law. If the person who told me was an authorized government insider, he broke the law. But he may not be... somebody else may have told HIM.

So that's the issue here - it's actually unlikely that Karl Rove, in his role as a political operative, had authorized access to that information. It's possible, but that in itself would be surprising. Now, if the President, while chatting with Rove, said "You know, Wilson's wife, Plame, is one of our CIA assets", then the President himself broke the law, but Rove did not by passing on the information.

So as I said, merely revealing the identity is not against the law in and of itself - it is against the law for "insiders" to do it.

[rodeodance]

80. "Disclosing the identity of a clandestine intelligence officer is a crime.

Yahoo link"
The decision upheld a ruling by a federal judge that Miller and Cooper were in contempt of court and should be jailed for refusing to testify about their confidential sources. Miller and Cooper each face as much as 18 months in prison.

"There is no First Amendment privilege protecting the evidence sought," Judge David Sentelle wrote in the opinion.

He rejected the argument by the two journalists that the identity of their confidential sources was protected by a reporter's privilege under the First Amendment, which guarantees freedom of speech and freedom of the press.

......Disclosing the identity of a clandestine intelligence officer is a crime. No charges have been brought so far in connection with the investigation. .........

[Dookus]

81. The reporter left out some important information

it is only a crime if somebody AUTHORIZED to know the identity of covert agents releases that information, OR if somebody not authorized engages in a pattern of activity designed to identify covert agents.

It is quite possible that the source in question here did not violate that law. It's also possible he or she did. We just don't know.

[H2O Man]

89. Please explain .....

because there would seem to be no reason to think the WH sources were very aware that it was a crime. Without going into a long explanation, when people attempt to cover up their activities, it is an indicator of consciousness of guilt. I think that there are very few WH officials that are unaware of the law.

[Dookus]

99. it's not about awareness of the law...

it's about who is covered under the law.

Clearly, somebody at some point violated the law. SOMEBODY who was authorized to know Plame was an agent told somebody else.

But we don't know how many links are in that chain. The person who spoke to the reporters may not be covered under the law.

[H2O Man]

102. The law

certainly pertains to each of the White House officials that Fitzgerald is considering. The identity of several of the people who talked to reporters is indeed known.

[Dookus]

103. how do we know that?

Who's he considering? How do we know those individuals are covered under the law?

[H2O Man]

106. By reading.

News reports from last fall listed those being considered.

[Dookus]

107. again

how do we know those people being discussed are covered under the law? I don't know that their security clearance level has been made public.

[H2O Man]

112. I agree

that you don't. I assume that Fitzgerald does. Do you know anthing that would indicate he does not? Do you have any reason to doubt that those people Wilson identified as suspect in his book are not suspect?

[Dookus]

114. sigh

you seem to be missing my point, perhaps deliberately.

The fact is, we do not know if Novak's source broke the law. We do know that Novak did not. Since the grand jury proceedings are secret, it's all just speculation as to where and when the actual law-breaking occurred, and by whom.

[H2O Man]

116. I'm not missing your point.

Considering that I have never said Novak broke any law, I don't feel the need to debate that. Hopefully that isn't your point.

I understand your point. I disagree with you 100%. By the same logic, we can not be sure if Richard Nixon was guilty of anything in Watergate, or Reagan and Bush 1 in Iran-Contra. Sorry. That doesn't hold water.

[Dookus]

77. I agree

this is NOT a victory in the long run. Our desire to see Bush brought down has caused a lot of people to abandon some good constitutional values.

Reporters should not have to reveal their sources. Forcing them to do so is a huge violation of the freedom of the press.

Many assert that Miller's and Cooper's source broke the law - that is unknown at this point. The law in question covers only certain people inside the government with the approved access to covert agents' identities. It is quite possible the person who leaked to them was not covered by the law.

[H2O Man]

91. The constitution does not

appear to have the same values as Judith Miller or Bob Novak. Requiring them to testify does not violate freedom of the press.

[Dookus]

108. I disagree

a free press is predicated on the ability of reporters to gain access to often-confidential information. Forcing them to reveal their contacts throws a chilling cloth over their abilities to do their jobs.

[H2O Man]

120. You have that right.

To disagree. However, the law remains the law. And in 1972, when someone wanted to test the law, your opinion lost. And in the 33 years since then, the federal law has held. If your "chilling cloth" theory were correct, the press would have stopped in 1972.

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

88. that precedent has already been set

multiple times-Judy knew the risk when she helped BFEE with their vendetta

[H2O Man]

92. Confidentiality

is not a "blanket" protection. You are absolutely correct in saying Judith knew the risks involved.

[Renew Deal]

93. Isn't the 1972 case already precedent?

Wasn't this argued based on precedent?

[H2O Man]

95. Yes.

It is an error to call this a precedent.

[mistertrickster]

124. Good point--why are they going after the journalists who committed

no crime? Why don't they start taking testimony of the WH criminals who actually did the deed? Any lies would come back to haunt them big time . . .

I'm mean it's not like the Justice Dept. doesn't know who had knowledge and motive. If W. really wanted the malefactors found and prosecuted, it would be taken care of by now.

[H2O Man]

126. Miller and Cooper

did commit a crime. They refused to follow a court order to testify. That is what the appeal is about.

Grand juries can have a couple of purposes. One is to investigate a possible serious crime. That is what this grand jury is doing. In this case -- like any grand jury hearings, actually -- a significant part is to hear the testimony of potential witnesses. It is not restricted to hearing the examination of suspects.

This grand jury is doing exactly what it should be doing.

[mistertrickster]

170. Okay, granted, but I still don't get why they don't just subpeona Novak

to testify. He ran the story. "They're building a case," all good and fine. But why build a case when they can just squeeze Novak for the information?

[Must_B_Free]

152. son, you lost journalism a long time ago...

hate to be the one to break it to you.

[LittleClarkie]

156. True, but I think there is a catch-22 here, which is probably by design

Novak doesn't have to reveal his source either. If the two journalists are defended, he is shielded.

It's rather like agreeing with Larry Flynt in the First Amendment case. You may not like your bedfellow, but not climbing into bed with him carries its own hazards.

[MnFats]

157. this is terrible, friends. it's a nightmare threat to a free press.

i know news organizations get bashed here a lot, I do some of the bashing myself, with good reason.

but chipping away at the First Amendment is never good, no matter the transitory apparent benefit. And if they can do it to the Times theyy can sure as hell do it to anybody who writes for a blog or a piece for DU.

The question is, "What's next?"
prior restraint?
turn over notes, unused photos?

Yeah, Miller screwed up repeatedly, and with crushing results. Look at the bigger, long-term picture.

I say this as a small-time journo...

[barb162]

85. this will go to the Supreme Court so it will be months befor we hear

anything if we ever do.

[H2O Man]

94. Maybe

maybe not. The reporters will attempt to delay. I think Fitzgerald will move forward. The decision today cleared up any issues that were potentially in the way. People are not always allowed to be "on the street" when they are violating contemp of court orders.

[barb162]

118. I hope they have to talk fast. I'd love to see where Novak got the

info.(which creep in that White House)

[H2O Man]

121. Well, a federal appeals court

thinks that the nation has the right to know. I think we are getting closer. Of course, maybe Judith is willing to go to jail.

[mzmolly]

96. YES!!!!!

:toast:

I'd love to see Novakula forced to out his source on the stand, and/or of course in jail. ;)

[H2O Man]

98. Good golly

mzmolly! Things sure look fine!

[mzmolly]

101. Indeed they do Mr. H2O Man!

:hi:

[Dookus]

109. well

no matter what the outcome, Novak isn't facing criminal prosecution. He broke no law. It's quite likely someone in the White House did, though.

[mzmolly]

122. Under this new precident he'll be forced to testify or ???

;)

[H2O Man]

123. It's not a new precedent.

It reinforces a 1972 Supreme Court decision. There have been numerous challenges to the decision, but none have held up.

[mzmolly]

125. Interesting!

We'll have to see where this goes?

[H2O Man]

127. We shall.

And it looks like it may get a little more interesting soon.

[seventythree]

137. explain, if it is illegal for an official

with access to the id's of CIA operatives to out them, then why wouldn't Novak be an accomplice to an illegal act?

[Dookus]

143. Because

nobody but the government has the responsibility for keeping its secrets. Being an accomplice to a crime is usually a crime itself, written into the statutes. As far as I know, the law in question here doesn't define accomplices - not in any way that would include Novak.

I understand that people really want to see Bush brought down and Novak punished, but I think too many are losing sight of the bigger issues.

Reporters are NOT responsible for keeping the government's secrets, and I think most of us would agree that is a good thing.

[seventythree]

155. see my post #153

[TruthIsAll]

159. There is no bigger issue..then getting at the perp.

Reporters are not responsible for keeping the government's secrets, but if a crime is committed and they are witnesses, then even if they are unaware that it was a crime, as citizens they must testify.

This whole thing about protecting sources is a canard. I fail to see any applicability in this case.

OTOH, as I'm not a lawyer, maybe I should just keep my mouth shut..

[CHIMO]

100. Convicted Attorney Lynne Stewart: "You Can't Lock Up the Lawyers"

Convicted Attorney Lynne Stewart: "You Can't Lock Up the Lawyers"


AMY GOODMAN: And now Pat Fitzgerald is the man now in Chicago, who is in charge of -- chosen by John Ashcroft -- in charge of investigating who outed Valerie Plame?

MICHAEL TIGAR: Yes, the fox has been placed in charge of a different hen house.

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/02/11/1545229

[H2O Man]

105. Bad choice.

Actually, Ashcroft approved the choice. He didn't make it; his assistant did.

[bvar22]

104. The National Security of the US is at stake.

The Plame network was tasked with tracking WMD to keep them out of the hands of terrorist organizations. By exposing Plame, this traitor hiding in the White House has put our nation at risk and impeded the War on Terror!!!

Can't Gonzales come up with a MEMO that would allow Miller and Novak to be tortured until they name the traitor. After all, if this traitor endangered America by exposing one undercover network, they would do it again.

The traitor hiding in the WhiteHouse threatens the National Security of the United States!

Torture Novak NOW!

[Me.]

110. Well If We're Going To Start Talking About

what V. Plame was really doing, then we're going to have to start looking at Cheney, Scooter et all and why they would have wanted her investigations stopped, and we may have to talk about Haliburton subsidiaries selling components of WMDs in the ME, specifically to the very Iranians we want to wage war against because they now have WMDs! In addition, the French will come into this along with the case against Cheney they're trying to build, if that is still ongoing...


edited for grammar.

[H2O Man]

113. Yep.

Whole can of worms here.

[kohodog]

128. Big Fat Juicy Ones! n/t

[bvar22]

119. Torture Novak NOW!!!!

We can't afford to wait until the smoking gun is a mushroom cloud!

Novak is protecting those who help the terrorists !

Torture Novak NOW!

[Renew Deal]

132. Now this is an idea that I can support.

He is a national security threat. Send him to Syria and soften him up.

:spank: :spank:

[kohodog]

130. From the MSNBS article:

Fitzgerald said he wants to bring his 14-month-old investigation “to a prompt conclusion.”

Guess we'll see what kind of fox is in the hen house soon!

[H2O Man]

131. Sounds great!

This looks to be getting interesting.

[Me.]

133. Interesting Twists & Turns

On the Latest Ruling in Plame Probe
Does Judith Miller of The New York Times have a much weaker legal case than her colleagues for protecting her sources in the Valerie Plame/CIA case? Several other reporters, newspaper executives, and attorneys involved in the case, which entered a new chapter today, think so.

By William E. Jackson Jr.

<<<snip
“As for Novak, it is not known if he was subpoenaed or if he has testified. However, it is widely believed by reporters and lawyers involved in the probe that he reached a negotiated “arrangement” with Fitzgerald -- and that he “sang.” Cont…

:The prosecutor countered by calling for a “reality check,” arguing that Miller “has no special privilege, qualified or otherwise.” In October, Judge Hogan, rejecting the notion that Fitzgerald was on “a fishing expedition,” held Miller and then Cooper in contempt and ordered them to jail. The sentences were stayed pending the consolidated appeal by Time and The New York Times, which was denied today.” Cont…

“In recent days, however, I was told by a top editor for one of the major national news outlets that when Abrams made his arguments in the district and appeals courts, and in the press, “lawyers for media organizations other than the Times were appalled by the ham-handed representation he provided in the case of Miller. He may be on the way to helping set an awful precedent for the rest of us by mishandling this case.” Cont…

“Based on that comment, and other conversations I've had, it is obvious that some attorneys for the other media empires caught up in the legal showdown think Abrams has acted like a “First Amendment Chicken Little” (in Slate columnist Jack Shafer's phrase) yelling “chilling effects” when presenting a weak case. He has pushed the envelope by insisting that Miller has a privilege way beyond what reporters can claim under existing law. These other lawyers' main concern is the “absolutist” position taken by Abrams when presenting a broad legal defense of Miller on First Amendment grounds.” Cont
Http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/columns/shoptalk_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000800586

[Me.]

Something Must Be Up

For the first time Leslie had a rebuttal guest on with Miller and Cooper, and Bruce Fein stated why he thinks Miller & Cooper have no leg to stand on. I totally expected Fein to defend them. It is interesting to me that CNN would have such a visibly staunch conservative as Fein to rebut Miller's and Cooper's claims. Why Fein? Was did Leslie actually ask them one or two tough questions?

[H2O Man]

134. Wow.

I've always admired Abrams as a constitutional lawyer of great skill. Yet he had to know that he didn't have a leg to stand on. The truth is that there is no argument that has merit in this case. The law is very clear.

[seventythree]

139. jail sentence stayed

pending appeal -- appeal over, for now at least, do they have to go directly to jail or was there another stay?

[H2O Man]

140. Good question.

I thought it was a fair move by the first judge to allow the stay until the defendants had time to appeal. Disobeying a court order is a serious charge. I assume that there will be consequences very soon.

[H2O Man]

147. Was a crime committed?

One contributor to this thread has questioned who, if anyone, may have committed a crime in this case. This person has questioned if "we know" that anyone has. That's a fair question.

First, we have really good reason to believe that White House officials committed a crime when they exposed CIA operative Valerie Plame's identity to at least a half-dozen reporters.

For example, a copy of a January 30, 2004 letter from the CIA to Rep. John Conyers details how hard the agency worked to get Ashcroft's Department of Justice to take up the case.

In response to Rep. Conyers' request for information, the CIA told him about:

{1} 7-24-03: The CIA contacted the Counterespionage Section of the Department of Justice to inform them that the CIA was initiating an investigation into the case.

{2} 7-30-03: The CIA sent a follow-up letter expressing belief that there was evidence of a serious crime being committed.

{3} 9-5-03: The CIA re-sent the 7-30 letter, hoping for a response.

{4} 9-16-03: The CIA sent another letter, saying that their investigation was complete, and they believed the FBI needed to initiate a criminal investigation of the White House officials who exposed Valerie Plame's identity to the journalists.

It is worth noting that on 12-5-03, " 'a senior White House official' was quoted in the Financial Times gloating, 'We have rolled the earthmovers in over this one.' " (Wilson; pg 360)

I would also note that there is no right to a presumption of innocence in the court of public opinion. That presumption only applies in a technical sense inside a courtroom. Yet common sense tells us when crimes are committed. The fact that administration officials felt the need to "roll the earthmovers in over this one" may be recognized as a clue.

[Swamp Rat]

148. Your statements in this thread are reasonable.

I, a citizen of the United States of America, deem it self-evident that a crime was committed by members of the Bush Administration, and therefore support Patrick Fitzgerald in a full investigation. :)

The time is nigh for public outcry - Bush and his entire cabinet must submit to an open hearing under oath.

We must not overlook the main conspiracy, (RICO might come in handy) which is the creation and maintenance of a permanent war. Where in the U.S. Constitution does it give Bush the power to start a war, let alone a pre-emptive one?

[H2O Man]

150. Thank you !

I thought it was worth putting a little background information on, because there may be DUers who are not familiar with the case. I think that the majority of Americans familiar with the case recognize that it represents one of the worst crimes committed by an administration in the past century.

[seventythree]

151. It seems to me to be peculiar

if only the government operative could get in trouble for outing a CIA agent because without the press (in most instances) it would never be known except to the person receiving the information -- which could risk lives, of course, depending on who the information was given to privately. I can understand that it is not up to a reporter to keep the government's secrets, however.

[seventythree]

153. I think this may be definitive

sec. 421(c) says:

Whoever, in the course of a pattern of activities intended to identify and expose covert agents and with reason to believe that such activities would impair or impede the foreign intelligence activities of the United States, discloses any information that identifies an individual as a covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such individual and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such individual's classified intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

I say Novak can get three years, but he has probably rolled already on the WH perp. Miller and ? are probably make weight, some how.

[Dookus]

158. I don't think you can

show that Novak has engaged in a pattern of activity intended to identify and expose covert agents.

In fact, I don't think it can be shown he's engaged in an activity intended to identify ONE agent, unless answering the phone counts.

Somebody in the government broke the law. That's who should be punished.

It just baffles me that democrats are arguing that journalists should be responsible for keeping the government's secrets.

[Me.]

168. I Don't Know That I Can Agree With That

For if it is true that after Plame's identity was leaked to him and he then, as has been reported, called contacts at the CIA to confirm her identity, and after being asked not to print the info, he did so anyway, that speaks, to me, of intent.

I'm not sure that dems want the journalists punished, though I will admit that Vakula, Rove's bat boy. is so unpopular that a lot of people would like to see him go him go down in flames, and Miller with her advocacy and helping to fake a case for war has some type of Karma waiting, but I can't see what the benefit there would be to punish them willy nilly for our dislike. I think the matter is one of absolutes, and do journalists have an absolute right to confidentiality with sources? The courts have said, no. And in the article above it is stated that Abrams defense is seen as weak because he is arguing for absolutes. Ultimately, IMHO, no one should be completely above the law, as it can lead to the type of transgressions we have in the Plame case.

I also wonder, though it has been stated at least a thousand times, that intent must be proven in this case, why ignorance of the law is no defense? I'm willing to bet if it was just you or me (general) that would somehow get us into trouble.

[seventythree]

169. I think the case can be made.,

He went beyond answering the phone (receiving the information is one thing, passing it on is another) and from what I am reading, the use of her name Plame, rather than Wilson, was something particular to her role as an agent. From what I read in finding that statute link, if there is a high national security interest, all privilege falls. I am also hearing from the E&P guy on CNN, that they had a responsibility to immediately "out" the government person who leaked this, because it is a crime, and that giving credence to it, as Rove did, is a crime. Don't really know about this, but the government could do all kinds of things if all it had to do was leak and then get a government operative,(without any culpability),to confirm to give it "legs." I agree that this is sticky, but first you argued the statute wouldn't cover Novak when the sub paragraph indicates it potentially will.

[ultraist]

165. communication from gov officials to reporters

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/16/national/16leak.html?adxnnl=1&pagewanted=2&adxnnlx=1108540859-qWcNtuHz8dTw7zcsnP7COg

"The crime, if there was one, was the communication from government officials to the reporters, Judge Tatel said. "It thus makes no difference," he continued, "how these reporters responded to the information they received."

[linazelle]

154. Nice but they'll just appeal the ruling to the Supreme Court ...

it'll never happen.

[codswallop]

160. Far out

Good news, indeed!

[FreeTheUSA]

161. Even if they do lie, nothing will happen.

All just a gimmick.

[ultraist]

162. Jailing of reporters in CIA Leak Case Upheld: NYT

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/16/national/16leak.html

Jailing of Reporters in C.I.A. Leak Case Is Upheld by Judges
By ADAM LIPTAK
Published: February 16, 2005

Two reporters who have refused to name their sources to a grand jury investigating the disclosure of the identity of a covert C.I.A. officer should be jailed for contempt, a unanimous three-judge panel of the federal appeals court in Washington ruled yesterday. The panel held that the reporters, Judith Miller of The New York Times and Matthew Cooper of Time magazine, may have witnessed a federal crime - the disclosure by government officials of the officer's identity. The First Amendment, the panel ruled, does not give reporters the right to refuse to cooperate with grand juries investigating such crimes.

The panel cited a 1972 Supreme Court decision, Branzburg v. Hayes, in which a reporter was ordered to testify about witnessing the production of illegal drugs. In yesterday's opinion, the panel said the Supreme Court's "transparent and forceful" reasoning applied to the two reporters before the appeals court. "In language as relevant to the alleged illegal disclosure of the identity of covert agents as it was to the alleged illegal processing of hashish," Judge David B. Sentelle wrote for the panel, "the Court stated that it could not 'seriously entertain the notion that the First Amendment protects the 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.' "

But the judges disagreed about whether evolving legal standards reflected in lower court decisions and state statutes might provide a separate, nonconstitutional basis for protection to reporters in some circumstances, under a so-called common law privilege. That dispute, however, was of no immediate help to Ms. Miller and Mr. Cooper, as all three judges agreed that the special prosecutor in the case, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, had demonstrated a need for the information that would overcome whatever protection was available. The reporters will ask the full appeals court, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, to hear the case, their lawyers said. Should that fail, they will ask the Supreme Court to review it. Those steps could take weeks or months, said Catherine J. Mathis, a spokeswoman for The New York Times Company.

Unless the appeals court alters its usual procedures, the reporters will remain free at least until it rules on their request for a rehearing. The case has its roots in an opinion article published in The Times on July 6, 2003. In it, Joseph C. Wilson IV, a former diplomat, criticized a statement made by President Bush in that year's State of the Union address about Iraq's efforts to buy nuclear weapons material in Africa. Mr. Wilson based his criticism on a trip he had taken to Africa for the Central Intelligence Agency the previous year.

CON'T