Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

marmar

(76,982 posts)
Thu May 8, 2014, 07:37 AM May 2014

Pulitzer Prize-winner James Risen threatened with jail time re: confidential sources


from The Progressive:


by Matthew Rothschild


James Risen, a Pulitzer Prize-winner at the New York Times, may face jail time on a federal contempt of court charge if he doesn’t release the identity of one of his confidential sources.

The Bush Administration’s Justice Department tried to pry the information out of him, but ultimately relented.

Now President Obama, who vowed to restore our civil liberties when he ran for the White House in 2000, is letting his Justice Department pursue Risen even more aggressively than Bush did.

The information concerns a source for a chapter in Risen’s terrific 2006 book, “State of War: The Secret History of the CIA and the Bush Administration.” That chapter dealt with a scheme to give the Iranians faulty blueprints for a nuclear weapon. ............(more)

The complete piece is at: http://progressive.org/news/2014/05/187681/obama-threatens-pulitzer-prize-winner



90 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Pulitzer Prize-winner James Risen threatened with jail time re: confidential sources (Original Post) marmar May 2014 OP
du rec. xchrom May 2014 #1
Not the change I hoped for. More from the article .... Scuba May 2014 #2
+1 xchrom May 2014 #3
So tell us why Judith Miller shouldn't have gone to jail? We should be consistent on DU. nt msanthrope May 2014 #4
Why should Judith Miller and James Risen not be compelled to testify against criminals? nt msanthrope May 2014 #5
From the article ... Scuba May 2014 #6
That was Miller's argument, trying to shield Scooter Libby...and doesn't answer my msanthrope May 2014 #7
It's not about shielding the criminal it's about protecting the free press's ability to investigate. Scuba May 2014 #8
1st, you are arguing for a 1stA right that doesn't exist. 2nd, you are arguing against the 6thA msanthrope May 2014 #9
I didn't argue either of the things you claimed I did. Take your strawman elsewhere. Scuba May 2014 #12
Actually, that is precisely the point of the cite you used. Risen is arguing msanthrope May 2014 #14
Your strawman is on fire. Scuba May 2014 #16
It's basic criminal procedure....when you carve out a privilege, it generally fetters the rights of msanthrope May 2014 #18
This message was self-deleted by its author Donald Ian Rankin May 2014 #62
I noticed that, too brentspeak May 2014 #35
... Scuba May 2014 #58
So, your argument in defense of reporter's privilege is not based on the 1st amendment? malthaussen May 2014 #61
Where did I say that? Scuba May 2014 #69
When you accused me of a strawman, as opposed to agreeing that I had correctly msanthrope May 2014 #71
Your strawman is not my argument. Scuba May 2014 #72
Is your argument the first amendment? If it is, then I didn't raise a strawman, but correctly msanthrope May 2014 #73
I have no clue why you think the "anti-confrontation clause" would have any relavence. Anything ... Scuba May 2014 #77
Well, I grant that you may be unfamiliar with the interplay of rights and privileges with regard to msanthrope May 2014 #87
Come on, Scuba, let's not play games. malthaussen May 2014 #75
Yes, ergo my last post to you on this topic. Scuba May 2014 #79
Thought that was to msanthrope.:) malthaussen May 2014 #90
Oh, I don't think the 6th amendment applies. malthaussen May 2014 #13
What? How does the 6th amendment not apply in the criminal case against Sterling? nt msanthrope May 2014 #15
I don't think the 6th amendment applies to the shield law. malthaussen May 2014 #17
There is no shield law. The extant case is a criminal one, US v. Sterling in which Mr. Risen msanthrope May 2014 #20
I use shield "law" colloquially, of course. malthaussen May 2014 #22
As an attorney, I don't use laws that don't exist at all. msanthrope May 2014 #24
Gocha. malthaussen May 2014 #33
My alternative is to leave the law as it is, as I take a dim view on privilege. Yeah--I'm satisfied msanthrope May 2014 #39
Thanks for the discussion. malthaussen May 2014 #54
I don't worry about this one, because although we don't have it, it doesn't stop the flow msanthrope May 2014 #56
"I think it is utter abrogation of progressive principles" brentspeak May 2014 #41
Indeed--it's an interesting day when the "true" progressives are backing a Fox reporter who wishes msanthrope May 2014 #52
I love the smell of 'Change' in the morning!!!! truebrit71 May 2014 #10
War on Truth. Octafish May 2014 #11
War on pesky embarrassing whistle blowers. L0oniX May 2014 #19
How is Jeffrey Sterling a whistleblower? He didn't reveal any abuse of power, or anything else. msanthrope May 2014 #25
Sad when the reporters become Enemies of the State, too. Octafish May 2014 #64
Another attack on journalists and whistle blowers. And why would this democratic administration sabrina 1 May 2014 #21
Jeffrey Sterling is not a whistleblower. In fact, here's his indictment--tell us all what msanthrope May 2014 #26
“News is what somebody somewhere wants to suppress; all the rest is advertising.” Lord Northcliff Tierra_y_Libertad May 2014 #23
This is what we get for backing a smooth-talking, glass-ceiling-breaking, guy-who-can-win FiveGoodMen May 2014 #27
Kindly read Mr. Sterling's indictment, and tell us all why he should not be prosecuted. msanthrope May 2014 #29
Yet another manufactrovery from Matthew Rothschild... SidDithers May 2014 #28
I'm still waiting for someone to read Sterling's indictment and tell me the whistleblowing activity. msanthrope May 2014 #31
Message auto-removed Name removed May 2014 #30
but does she listen to what they say? uppityperson May 2014 #32
Message auto-removed Name removed May 2014 #34
Sadly I do not. Don't you have some kale to attend to? Thank you for calling my an angel though uppityperson May 2014 #37
Nope. greatauntoftriplets May 2014 #36
Since she talked to me, does that mean I am an angel? Maybe you'll get a chance to be talked to to. uppityperson May 2014 #38
I think that you must be! greatauntoftriplets May 2014 #40
Aw dang, sent back to heaven again. So sad. uppityperson May 2014 #45
She'll be back... greatauntoftriplets May 2014 #47
Cleanup in aisle three! nt msanthrope May 2014 #42
Done...and done. cyberswede May 2014 #43
Thanks! greatauntoftriplets May 2014 #46
yes...like a recurring rash cyberswede May 2014 #49
... greatauntoftriplets May 2014 #51
Message auto-removed Name removed May 2014 #76
Yes...just like that. cyberswede May 2014 #78
You are a pig!!! hrmjustin May 2014 #81
I think she gets off on upsetting you but I do agree uppityperson May 2014 #84
Not really. I expect it from her. hrmjustin May 2014 #85
back to talking to the angels again, ms vermin (to copy/paste from your deleted post) uppityperson May 2014 #82
Thank you, good job and good job and uppityperson May 2014 #48
LOL! nt cyberswede May 2014 #50
Looks like someone did it while we were smarting off! greatauntoftriplets May 2014 #44
I am enjoying being able to welcome newbies, being just a general DUer again. uppityperson May 2014 #53
And that was certainly a warm welcome you gave to that member! greatauntoftriplets May 2014 #55
it is annoying when that happens uppityperson May 2014 #57
And frustrating! greatauntoftriplets May 2014 #59
But, but, but...we are the freest country in the world nadinbrzezinski May 2014 #60
This message was self-deleted by its author Donald Ian Rankin May 2014 #63
The arrogance and blindness of Risen are striking. Donald Ian Rankin May 2014 #65
do you think he helped with a crime? serious question, as i have not followed this case. dionysus May 2014 #67
He defintely helped Sterling commit crime. What he did not do, however was commit a crime for msanthrope May 2014 #74
So it's an ego thing, then. randome May 2014 #80
Given the hatchet job he did against Wen Ho Lee, and his subsequent employment at Fox, he's pretty msanthrope May 2014 #88
It's the Judith Miller defense--redux. nt msanthrope May 2014 #70
I think you missed the details of this. KoKo May 2014 #83
The point is he did read the details...and some of us remember the hatchet job this Fox reporter msanthrope May 2014 #89
bad move, DOJ dionysus May 2014 #66
It's the only move consistent with the law. The Bush DOJ kicked the can down the road, and msanthrope May 2014 #68
thanks. i am not familiar with this case. dionysus May 2014 #86
 

Scuba

(53,475 posts)
2. Not the change I hoped for. More from the article ....
Thu May 8, 2014, 08:14 AM
May 2014
In January Risen, appealed that decision to the Supreme Court. In his petition for a writ of certiorari, Risen wrote:

“If I am forced to testify, it will immediately and substantially harm my ability to gather newsworthy information” and “to secure the trust of sources in the future.”

He elaborated on how dangerous to all journalists this precedent would be: “Compelling journalists to testify about their conversations with confidential sources will inevitably hinder future attempts to obtain cooperation from those or other confidential sources. It creates the inevitable appearance that journalists either are or can be readily converted into an investigative arm of the government. This would seriously compromise journalists’ integrity and independence.”

He said the Obama Administration’s effort to go after him is part of its policy of “aggressively investigating whistleblowers and reporters in a way that will have a chilling effect on the freedom of the press in the United States.”



Our "most transparent Presidency" is an embarrassment to the Democratic Party.
 

Scuba

(53,475 posts)
6. From the article ...
Thu May 8, 2014, 09:35 AM
May 2014

“Compelling journalists to testify about their conversations with confidential sources will inevitably hinder future attempts to obtain cooperation from those or other confidential sources. It creates the inevitable appearance that journalists either are or can be readily converted into an investigative arm of the government. This would seriously compromise journalists’ integrity and independence.”

 

msanthrope

(37,549 posts)
7. That was Miller's argument, trying to shield Scooter Libby...and doesn't answer my
Thu May 8, 2014, 09:45 AM
May 2014

question....why shouldn't Miller, and Risen be compelled to testify in court as you or I would have to in a criminal proceeding?

 

Scuba

(53,475 posts)
8. It's not about shielding the criminal it's about protecting the free press's ability to investigate.
Thu May 8, 2014, 09:50 AM
May 2014

If law enforcement wants to investigate and testify, they're free to do so. If the press is compelled to testify, they will no longer have any sources.

This shouldn't be too difficult a concept.

 

msanthrope

(37,549 posts)
9. 1st, you are arguing for a 1stA right that doesn't exist. 2nd, you are arguing against the 6thA
Thu May 8, 2014, 09:56 AM
May 2014

right of confrontation.

That second sentence is not something any progressive should support.

 

msanthrope

(37,549 posts)
14. Actually, that is precisely the point of the cite you used. Risen is arguing
Thu May 8, 2014, 10:36 AM
May 2014

that he be granted a new right.....evasion of a subpoena in a criminal matter. He is claiming a whole, new, First Amendment privilege that has never been granted before (that's why Miller went to jail.)

Further, you are making an anti-confrontation clause argument when you argue that the accused has no right to this testimony, because the 1st A right of the reporter is paramount. That is unconscionable.

Think about it this way...what if Sterling isn't the source, but Risen refuses to tell us who is? You are arguing that Sterling would have no right to compel this exculpatory testimony from Risen, based on a privilege that does not currently exist. Think beyond merely this case as to what the implications are.

 

msanthrope

(37,549 posts)
18. It's basic criminal procedure....when you carve out a privilege, it generally fetters the rights of
Thu May 8, 2014, 11:06 AM
May 2014

Last edited Thu May 8, 2014, 11:56 AM - Edit history (1)

someone else--in this case, the accused.

I respect that there are privileges accorded to certain persons with regard to testimony.

You seem to be arguing for a new privilege for reporters, but have not offered a reason why the First Amendment privilege sought should constrain the 6th amendment right of the accused. I suggest that this is because you have not considered the case beyond its connection to the Administration.

Although--here's Sterling's indictment.

http://cryptome.org/0003/sterling/sterling-001.pdf

Kindly make a case as to why he should not be prosecuted, based on his activity?

Response to msanthrope (Reply #14)

brentspeak

(18,290 posts)
35. I noticed that, too
Thu May 8, 2014, 12:00 PM
May 2014

You didn't say a peep about the First Amendment, but "msanthrope" made it out as if you did.

malthaussen

(17,066 posts)
61. So, your argument in defense of reporter's privilege is not based on the 1st amendment?
Thu May 8, 2014, 12:31 PM
May 2014

On what grounds do you base it, then?

-- Mal

 

msanthrope

(37,549 posts)
71. When you accused me of a strawman, as opposed to agreeing that I had correctly
Thu May 8, 2014, 12:58 PM
May 2014

identified your argument.

 

msanthrope

(37,549 posts)
73. Is your argument the first amendment? If it is, then I didn't raise a strawman, but correctly
Thu May 8, 2014, 01:06 PM
May 2014

identified your argument.

What seems to have discomfited you is the fact that I

1) Got your argument correctly; and

2) Noted the anti-confrontation clause argument that is inherent in all privilege claims.

I note that you still haven't been able to answer the latter point.

 

Scuba

(53,475 posts)
77. I have no clue why you think the "anti-confrontation clause" would have any relavence. Anything ...
Thu May 8, 2014, 01:10 PM
May 2014

... Risen would testify to would be hearsay.

Your other argument seems to be that the 1st Amendment doesn't apply here. I won't entertain that.

 

msanthrope

(37,549 posts)
87. Well, I grant that you may be unfamiliar with the interplay of rights and privileges with regard to
Thu May 8, 2014, 01:27 PM
May 2014

competing amendments....so let me see if I can break it down for you.

When you put strictures on testimony, this almost always comes at the expense of the accused, who has a right to confront the evidence against him and to compel witnesses. (6th amendment) The accused also has the right to all exculpatory evidence. This is also a due process right.

Further, the state has the right to compel all lawful evidence from its citizens, and present evidence, even if it is prejudicial. (As long as it is not unduly so, and does not violate the 5th amendment privilege of the witness.)

When you 'privilege' testimony, you ask that the court effectively bar testimony from being presented and confronted. In this particular example, you are asking a court to recognize that Risen's privilege to not testify, stemming from the 1st, is greater than the need for any 4th, 5th, or 6th amendment right the defendant may have, OR, would be greater than any need the government may have to pursue justice. And I don't think that either you or Risen have made a credible argument.

As for your claim that anything Risen would testify to would be "hearsay" I think you've inadvertently conceded the point--hearsay is raised with Risen on the stand--testifying.

malthaussen

(17,066 posts)
75. Come on, Scuba, let's not play games.
Thu May 8, 2014, 01:08 PM
May 2014

Do you or don't you base your argument in favor of reporter's privilege on the 1st amendment?

-- Mal

malthaussen

(17,066 posts)
90. Thought that was to msanthrope.:)
Thu May 8, 2014, 01:38 PM
May 2014

You won't entertain that the 1st amendment doesn't apply, but the argument is over lawyer's privilege, which is not a law. Msanthrope's point, which I believe has merit, is that the 6th amendment applies because the accused could, under lawyer's privilege, be denied the right to subpoena witnesses in his favor. Even if the shield "law" were in fact a law, if you argue shield law over right to be confronted, you're opposing the 1st to the 6th amendment and making the claim that the 1st trumps the 6th. That does follow logically, and is not a straw man as you maintain.

As I mention elsewhere in the thread, I'm not real happy about privilege, but worry that weakening lawyer's privilege may discourage whistleblowers exposing abuses of power. Under existing law, however, the 1st doesn't apply because lawyer's privilege is not guaranteed by the 1st; however the 6th does apply because the accused shall not be denied the right to summon witnesses.

The case under consideration, of course, does not have this problem: it is the prosecution calling for the subpoena, not the defendant. So we have a confusion of a principle and an application. Unfortunately, it is rather difficult to hash out a law which would allow a defendant to subpoena witnesses in his favor, while denying the prosecution the same right. But if, under a true shield "law," a defendant could be denied his 6th amendment rights, then what happens to the defendant? Screwed over by the justice system again?

-- Mal

malthaussen

(17,066 posts)
13. Oh, I don't think the 6th amendment applies.
Thu May 8, 2014, 10:34 AM
May 2014

Reportage is not the same as testimony. And why would one call a journalist to testify in a criminal case of which he had no certain knowledge?

-- Mal

malthaussen

(17,066 posts)
17. I don't think the 6th amendment applies to the shield law.
Thu May 8, 2014, 11:06 AM
May 2014

Although one could make the case, as you do in another response, that the defendant in a criminal trial could demand that the journalist reveal his source if such revelation would exculpate the defendant, in accordance with the "compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor" clause. But since it is the prosecution making the demand in this case, that doesn't fly.

Mind you, I don't like the idea that an innocent "source" can be found guilty because the journalist won't reveal that he is not his source. That's bugged me for a very long time. But what's the alternative? One might think that a simple "no he is not my source" should be sufficient, but if you establish that principle and the defendant is the source, then the refusal to say "no" is tantamount to saying "yes." And that defeats the purpose of the shield law.

So that leaves us in the unsatisfactory position that, in order to ensure confidentiality, sometimes an innocent gets screwed. But that problem applies to more than the shield law, innocents are screwed by our legal system every day. So we have to decide whether the value of journalistic confidentiality (without which many abuses of authority would go unexposed) is worth more than the potential unfortunate consequences to an individual.

-- Mal

 

msanthrope

(37,549 posts)
20. There is no shield law. The extant case is a criminal one, US v. Sterling in which Mr. Risen
Thu May 8, 2014, 11:11 AM
May 2014

has raised a collateral issue, and is now being looked at for contempt.

Sorry, but I think it is utter abrogation of progressive principles to argue that the criminal defendant's rights at trial are somehow mitigated by a witnesses' First Amendment ones. I think that's indefensible, which is probably why it is not the law.

DUers who support Risen seem to be arguing for a criminal system that punishes people they disagree with (Miller) but protects people they think are heroes (Risen.) That's a shitty way of dispensing Justice.

malthaussen

(17,066 posts)
22. I use shield "law" colloquially, of course.
Thu May 8, 2014, 11:28 AM
May 2014

I'm not sure why you are "sorry" about your opinion. Perhaps you were using that word colloquially, too.

I don't think it comes down to individual rights, however. Well, in exercise, obviously it does. But the question of confidentiality is more about encouraging potential informants to feel relatively secure in exposing abuses of authority. How much personal courage do you insist on, in the cases of a journalist willingly facing contempt charges, or a potential whistleblower facing exposure? Those who abuse authority will surely abuse it to harm those who expose them. Still, one might reasonably wish that, in the hypothetical you discuss elsewhere, there were some mechanism to relieve the accused. But that doesn't apply to the case under discussion.

As for the consistency question, I wasn't around DU at the time of the Miller controversy, but it seems to me the same principles apply.

-- Mal

 

msanthrope

(37,549 posts)
24. As an attorney, I don't use laws that don't exist at all.
Thu May 8, 2014, 11:39 AM
May 2014

Mr. Sterling had a whistleblower procedure that he could have followed if he wished to expose abuse of authority.

He didn't follow that procedure, nor did he reveal anything that remotely was an abuse of authority: he released classified information in retaliation for losing his job in 2001, after he failed to sue the CIA for racial discrimination.

The reveal of Operation Merlin wasn't about abuse--it was about a guy who was pissed, really pissed that he got shit-canned, so he revealed classified info about our nuclear interdiction in Iran. Guess what? That's a crime.

Here's his indictment---read paragraphs 22, 23, 24.....

http://cryptome.org/0003/sterling/sterling-001.pdf

malthaussen

(17,066 posts)
33. Gocha.
Thu May 8, 2014, 11:59 AM
May 2014

But again, the general position is what's under discussion. Without confidentiality, we make it harder to keep a rudimentary check on official abuses. It's really annoying, because undeserving people can hide under the protection. And let's not even talk about the individual egos and marketability of the journalists involved.

Still, one question should be answered: what's your alternative? Are you satisfied with the law that the journalist who tries to shield his source can be found in contempt? Do you consider that this does not make it considerably more of a burden on both the journalist and the whistleblower? Or do you consider that a shield law will not only violate the defendant's rights, as discussed, but also tend to produce more frivolous accusations?

-- Mal

 

msanthrope

(37,549 posts)
39. My alternative is to leave the law as it is, as I take a dim view on privilege. Yeah--I'm satisfied
Thu May 8, 2014, 12:03 PM
May 2014

with the law that made Judith Miller cough up Scooter Libby. And as for whistleblowers (which Mr. Sterling is definitely not one!) there are legal protections for them in place.

I don't support a shield law.

malthaussen

(17,066 posts)
54. Thanks for the discussion.
Thu May 8, 2014, 12:14 PM
May 2014

I don't much love privilege myself, but I worry about this one. Although "freedom of the Press" is becoming more and more a daily joke in our society. Or maybe because "freedom of the Press" is becoming a joke.

-- Mal

 

msanthrope

(37,549 posts)
56. I don't worry about this one, because although we don't have it, it doesn't stop the flow
Thu May 8, 2014, 12:17 PM
May 2014

of information to reporters (seemingly), AND it doesn't stop legitimate whistleblowing (which generally isn't made to reporters, anyway.)

I think the right of the accused are more important, here.

brentspeak

(18,290 posts)
41. "I think it is utter abrogation of progressive principles"
Thu May 8, 2014, 12:04 PM
May 2014

Oh, man, here we go again with RWers using the word "progressive" to try to promote themselves as something they clearly are not.

 

msanthrope

(37,549 posts)
52. Indeed--it's an interesting day when the "true" progressives are backing a Fox reporter who wishes
Thu May 8, 2014, 12:09 PM
May 2014

to avoid testifying in court on behalf of a former CIA agent who revealed a classified operation in retaliation for being fired.

And the "RWers" are making an argument for the rights of the accused to confront all evidence!!!

Maybe your labels are wrong.

 

truebrit71

(20,805 posts)
10. I love the smell of 'Change' in the morning!!!!
Thu May 8, 2014, 10:04 AM
May 2014

...except this is not what I had 'hoped' for....

So that means, in this provable instance at least, that Obama is WORSE than Bush....Mmmmm Yes We Can!!!

 

msanthrope

(37,549 posts)
25. How is Jeffrey Sterling a whistleblower? He didn't reveal any abuse of power, or anything else.
Thu May 8, 2014, 11:41 AM
May 2014

He was a disgruntled employee who was fired, and then decided to retaliate by revealing Operation Merlin.

Here's his indictment--kindly show us where the "whistleblowing" took place?

http://cryptome.org/0003/sterling/sterling-001.pdf

Octafish

(55,745 posts)
64. Sad when the reporters become Enemies of the State, too.
Thu May 8, 2014, 12:38 PM
May 2014

The nation looks less and less like the thing described in the history books every day.

sabrina 1

(62,325 posts)
21. Another attack on journalists and whistle blowers. And why would this democratic administration
Thu May 8, 2014, 11:11 AM
May 2014

be protecting the War Criminals AGAIN, in the Bush adminstration?

 

msanthrope

(37,549 posts)
26. Jeffrey Sterling is not a whistleblower. In fact, here's his indictment--tell us all what
Thu May 8, 2014, 11:48 AM
May 2014

was the whistleblowing activity here--the attempt to publish his memoirs? The attempt to get the CIA to pay his tuition?

http://cryptome.org/0003/sterling/sterling-001.pdf

Go ahead and tell us what reportage of abuse of authority makes Mr. Sterling a "whistleblower." You might find paragraphs 22, 23, and 24 particularly interesting.

FiveGoodMen

(20,018 posts)
27. This is what we get for backing a smooth-talking, glass-ceiling-breaking, guy-who-can-win
Thu May 8, 2014, 11:51 AM
May 2014

rather than someone who shares our values and will fight for them.

Please think about it before getting behind Hillary.

 

msanthrope

(37,549 posts)
31. I'm still waiting for someone to read Sterling's indictment and tell me the whistleblowing activity.
Thu May 8, 2014, 11:55 AM
May 2014

http://cryptome.org/0003/sterling/sterling-001.pdf

The shakedown described in Paragraphs 22, 23, and 24 is priceless.

Response to marmar (Original post)

Response to uppityperson (Reply #32)

Response to cyberswede (Reply #49)

Response to marmar (Original post)

Donald Ian Rankin

(13,598 posts)
65. The arrogance and blindness of Risen are striking.
Thu May 8, 2014, 12:39 PM
May 2014

His argument appears to be "if I am forced to reveal who the criminal who talked to me was, it will hamper my ability to help with similar crimes in future".

And he seems to think that this is a reason he should *not* be subject to the law.

 

msanthrope

(37,549 posts)
74. He defintely helped Sterling commit crime. What he did not do, however was commit a crime for
Thu May 8, 2014, 01:08 PM
May 2014

which I think he could, or should be prosecuted.

But he doesn't get to evade a subpoena to testify.

 

randome

(34,845 posts)
80. So it's an ego thing, then.
Thu May 8, 2014, 01:11 PM
May 2014

He doesn't want to have his reputation sullied.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"If you're bored then you're boring." -Harvey Danger[/center][/font][hr]

 

msanthrope

(37,549 posts)
89. The point is he did read the details...and some of us remember the hatchet job this Fox reporter
Thu May 8, 2014, 01:33 PM
May 2014

did on Wen Ho Lee when he was still working for the Times...

http://www.nytimes.com/2000/09/26/nyregion/the-times-and-wen-ho-lee.html?ref=wen_ho_lee


You might want to read Sterling's indictment, posted on this thread for other details.

 

msanthrope

(37,549 posts)
68. It's the only move consistent with the law. The Bush DOJ kicked the can down the road, and
Thu May 8, 2014, 12:55 PM
May 2014

should have gotten it done.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Pulitzer Prize-winner Jam...