Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

The Eight Blacked out Pages

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
mzteris Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 10:29 PM
Original message
The Eight Blacked out Pages
Rove-Plame scandal leading to deeper White House horrors?
By Bernard Weiner
Online Journal Guest Writer

. . .

The Eight Blacked Out Pages

One of the ruling judges on the case of the two reporters who refused to divulge their Plame-outing source was about to go easy on them when he read Fitzgerald's new informationeight pages of which were redacted from the publicand said that the national security seriousness of what he read changed his mind.

The court then ordered Time's Matthew Cooper and The New York Times' Judith Miller to testify or else; Cooper finally did, and Miller is in jail for contempt of court.

We don't know what is in those eight blacked-out pagesand, if they really do involve national security matters, we may never be permitted to know precisely. But apparently they provide the locus around which Fitzgerald is building a case that could result in perjury indictments, at the least, for a number of administration officials and perhaps journalists as well.

(Another judge said that the prosecutor's classified filingthose missing eight pages"decides the case." In other words, to quote Lawrence O'Donnell: "All the judges who have seen the prosecutor's secret evidence firmly believe he is pursuing a very serious crime, and they have done everything they can to help him get an indictment.") . . .

- more -

http://www.onlinejournal.com/Commentary/072105Weiner/07...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Mnemosyne Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 10:32 PM
Response to Original message
1. I imagine they are even better than Nixon's...
18 1/2 minutes!

I love this post! Thank you mzteris!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mzteris Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 10:36 PM
Response to Reply #1
4. I love
just thinking what names might be in those pages.......

CHENEY's at the top of my list.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mnemosyne Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 10:48 PM
Response to Reply #4
17. Is there a way to "unblackout" those pages?
I pray, I pray, I pray!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mzteris Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 10:52 PM
Response to Reply #17
19. maybe there's
a LEAKER who can get them for us!!!!!! :rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mnemosyne Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 11:17 PM
Response to Reply #19
25. As long as they
don't get them wet! :rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hang a left Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 11:41 PM
Response to Reply #17
31. I wonder if defense attorneys are privvy to those pages? eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Justice Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 11:55 PM
Response to Reply #31
33. I read no, that only the prosecutorjudges received the secret evidence.
Note my post #30 below - pages are the judge's decision.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mnemosyne Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-21-05 09:17 AM
Response to Reply #31
35. Let's hope hang a left, let's hope! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mzteris Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-21-05 12:51 PM
Response to Reply #31
46. NO.
I just read that they weren't allowed to see them either. Which is KIND of troubling to me.......

I wonder if the Patriot Act is being invoked here? Be pretty darn funny if bush et al are hoisted on their own petard....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bunny planet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-21-05 12:51 AM
Response to Reply #17
34. I don't need to know what's on those pages as long as the judge and grand
jury do, and they lead to indictments of all the major players in the most crooked and criminal political machine in the history of America. They deserve nothing less. Traitors, every one.

Oops, I'm sorry, I'm prejudging aren't I.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mnemosyne Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-21-05 09:19 AM
Response to Reply #34
36. Logic is NOT prejudgment, is it? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenPartyVoter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 11:19 PM
Response to Reply #4
27. Will we ever really know what was said in those pages?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 10:33 PM
Response to Original message
2. True.
There may be reason to keep the word espionage in mind.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
thinkingwoman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 10:36 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. oooo that's a new one
That's a new word you're introducing to the discussion H20 Man. You have my attention now. Care to elaborate?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mzteris Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 10:39 PM
Response to Reply #3
6. Who was it
that is being investigated for passing secrets to AIPAC (or something like that) - he worked with Feith, I think.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 11:06 PM
Response to Reply #6
23. There you go.
There is reason to believe that in the process of the grand jury hearings, Fitzgerald came upon something larger than the original focus. A federal grand jury can adopt an "open approach." This allows the prosecutor to head in areas that were not originally anticipated.

About six weeks ago, I mentioned that Plame, the neocon spy scandal, and the yellow cake forgeries were three leaves on the same clover. Of course, such a clover requires a driven man named Patrick, in order to bring a hidden message to the public.

That clover is known as espionage.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mzteris Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 10:38 PM
Response to Reply #2
5. Maybe that's why
they're pushing for a QUICK appointment.... the grand jury is up in October, too, isn't it?

They want Roberts on there to ensure some type of neocon legacy before they're all shipped off to Leavenworth!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TahitiNut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 10:39 PM
Response to Reply #2
8. Isn't that a French word?
:evilgrin:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DURHAM D Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 10:59 PM
Response to Reply #2
22. Have you noticed that the British tabloid press refers to this as a
"spy scandal" ? I have just seen the headlines - have not read any of the articles but it seems strange. What do they know that we don't?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wli Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 10:39 PM
Response to Original message
7. the publicly available information already looks really bad
It's possible that something there looks even worse, but I doubt it would do much more than confirm already-disseminated rumors.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mzteris Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 10:46 PM
Response to Reply #7
15. don't know if you read this
part....

. . . "from what Fitzgerald has suggested, he and the grand jury long ago determined who the leakers were. That's not what is at issue now. The investigation is all tied in with the national security matters talked about on those blacked out eight pages.

And, a reasonable guess is that those pages deal in some fashion with the actionslegal or illegal, overt or covert, actual or covered-upof the members of an inner council of administration heavies called the White House Iraq Group. . ."

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RoyGBiv Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 10:40 PM
Response to Original message
9. Curioser and curiouser ...
Edited on Wed Jul-20-05 10:44 PM by RoyGBiv
Broadly considering the circumstances of the Plame outing -- the whole thing involving Bush's justification for war -- and some things that have happened since, I wonder if Chalabi's name shows up in this at some point.

OnEdit: I remember an article from around November (can't remember if it was before or after the election, but I think before) that noted we'd all just to have patience on the Plame story. Naturally a lot of people wanted it out right then and there, but the caution explained that this was a very deep case involving so many tangents and individuals that to break it on any one element would endanger the entirety of it. Fitgerald at that time was described as an attack dog that wouldn't let go once he hit flesh, but he wouldn't break his cover until he knew he could get a good hold.

I've always kept that in mind, half-thinking it was just wishful thinking, but the more I witness recent events, the more this article seems true. I wish I could find it again, or even remember who wrote it.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mzteris Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 10:42 PM
Response to Reply #9
11. Chalabi's name
After all, aren't he and Judith good friends?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blue agave Donating Member (372 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-21-05 11:23 AM
Response to Reply #11
41. good friends ?
Edited on Thu Jul-21-05 11:27 AM by blue agave
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
electron_blue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 10:41 PM
Response to Original message
10. Wow! What a great link
The last paragraph bears copying & pasting here about how Rove will probably act if cornered and sincerely afraid for his future:

"If and when the above scenarios start to unfold, it's not outside the realm of possibility that Rove would get desperate enough to try to question the motives and character of the special counsel himself, as BuzzFlash puts it, "to try to sink the investigation through an ad hominem attack. This is Rove's pathological gutter tactic. He doesn't know how NOT to use it when backed into a corner." Or Rove/Bush conceivably could do a Nixon and order Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to fire Fitzgerald."




Anybody here read the Art of War????
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mzteris Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 10:43 PM
Response to Reply #10
12. Fitzgerald should hope
that that's all those desperate ones do is an ad hominem. I'm more afraid for his health.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
electron_blue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 10:44 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. Yeah, I wondered that too
I hope someone's guarding those judges who were "all in agreement" as well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtTheEndOfTheDay Donating Member (454 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-21-05 12:06 PM
Response to Reply #13
44. Those anthrax terrorists might suddenly strike.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Toots Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-21-05 10:02 AM
Response to Reply #12
39. Fitzgerald is not acting alone
He has a sizable staff and many co-prosecuters involved in this. Taking him out would not halt the investigation at this stage. He may be the guy in charge but many would be able to step into his shoes on a moments notice.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RoyGBiv Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 10:50 PM
Response to Reply #10
18. That would be beautiful ...

Please, PLEASE try to fire Fitzgerald. It wouldn't work, in the first place, and in the second place, the precedent of the Nixon strategy automatically paints the whole bunch of them guilty as charged of at least the crimes we know about. People that aren't even paying attention right now would notice that.

No, I don't really want them to try this because I want to see this come to a conclusion at some point based on the facts and not the drama, and I don't think they're stupid enough to do it. But, it's something to fantasize about. The Pubs haven't made that enormous a political blunder in at least a decade.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zulchzulu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 10:44 PM
Response to Original message
14. Whoops...looks like the shoe that dropped that we need
The truth always prevails.

In this case, how utterly stupid on the Bush Administration's part. They thought they could be so secretive and leak-proof that no one and nothing could stop them.

Guess what...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mzteris Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 10:47 PM
Response to Reply #14
16. arrogance
will be their undoing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dave502d Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 10:53 PM
Response to Original message
20. Love to see Cheney in jail.n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AuntiBush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 10:54 PM
Response to Original message
21. Those Words Give Hope
"the prosecutor's secret evidence firmly believe he is pursuing a very serious crime, and they have done everything they can to help him get an indictment..."

It's all that's left... hope w/Grand Jury.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
understandinglife Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 11:08 PM
Response to Original message
24. Some additional perspective provided by L O'Donnell. Here's a ...
.... current DU thread on the topic:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

and the original Huffington Post link:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/theblog/archive/lawrence-...

The judges have known for several months how serious the national security breach(es), crime(s) Mr Fitzgerald has presented to them.




Peace.

www.missionnotaccomplished.us - How ever long it takes, the day must come when tens of millions of caring individuals peacefully but persistently defy the dictator, deny the corporatists their cash flow, and halt the evil being done in Iraq and in all the other places the Bu$h neoconster regime is destroying civilization and the environment in the name of "America."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Goblyn Donating Member (36 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 11:21 PM
Response to Reply #24
28. Why is this White House transcript missing?
<http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph... >

You can read the briefing (press gaggle?) on a link provded in the baove thread.

BUt it appears to be Ari talking about wilson forged documents etc..

Now missing from whitehouse archive..

similar to the list of BUsh's "coalition of the willing" troop numbers and countries that disappeared as well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
understandinglife Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 11:27 PM
Response to Reply #28
29. Good question. Don't have the answer. But, welcome to DU, Goblyn!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hang a left Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 11:50 PM
Response to Reply #28
32. It was disappeared a while back.....
I remember over a year ago some DUers had it saved on their hard drive and were trying to get it to Fitzgerald.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Justice Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 11:19 PM
Response to Original message
26. The Eight Page Reference in this Article is Not Accurate -


The eight pages are not eight pages of information that Fitzgerald gave to the Judge. The eight pages are pages from the Judge's concurring opinion in the case. Big difference.

I've read that Fitzgerald provided the judges with BINDERS full of classified information to make their analysis. It was from these BINDERS that the concurring judge did his analysis and wrote the opinion.

Very very important distinction - eight pages of the decision - many many more pages of evidence that Fitzgerald provided.

O'Donnell article gets it right - Judge Tatel wrote a 41 page decision - 8 pages are redacted - in those 8 pages Tatel discusses the materials Fitzgerald presented.


I must say some reporters are hacks. They keep getting the facts wrong - I swear just to create controversy.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Goblyn Donating Member (36 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 11:28 PM
Response to Reply #26
30. thank you for the welcome
And thank you DU for saving me from pulling out my hair on daily.
heh

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mzteris Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-21-05 12:49 PM
Response to Reply #26
45. I'm not sure I agree
- though I admit the stories are a bit contradictory from what I've read - and I did go in search of many more sources (which, you're right, I should have done prior to posting.)

The thing is - quite a number of people are saying the "eight pages" ARE part of the evidence that Fitzgerald submitted and that Tatel then included those eight pages in his opinion - which he had redacted because of the "secret nature" of those pages.

Did you know that Cooper/Miller & atty's - also were not allowed to see the "eight pages"? Hmmmmmmmmmm - maybe that Patriot Act is going to bite bushco in the butt after all. That would be poetic justice.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skidmore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-21-05 09:23 AM
Response to Original message
37. I wonder how they line up with the redacted pages
that * Inc. turned over to the 911 Commission regarding the Saudis. I think this stuff is the flip side of the coin. No yellow cake, no Osama, and no idea who those hijackers really were. And now the Saudi ambassador, Bandar Bush, suddenly resigns? There is a whole pile of stink under all this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-21-05 09:34 AM
Response to Original message
38. We have a slimy slimy WH
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
drm604 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-21-05 11:22 AM
Response to Reply #38
40. Does anyone have a link to the publicly released portion of this decision?
Is it even available online? I can't find it anywhere.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cyn2 Donating Member (438 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-21-05 11:59 AM
Response to Reply #40
42. Here's Tatel's opinion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cyn2 Donating Member (438 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-21-05 12:04 PM
Response to Reply #42
43. Interesting
In sum, based on an exhaustive investigation, the special
counsel has established the need for Millers and Coopers
testimony. Thus, considering the gravity of the suspected crime
and the low value of the leaked information, no privilege bars
the subpoenas.

from the tatel opinion...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Supersedeas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-21-05 01:39 PM
Response to Reply #42
48. thanks for the link cyn
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mzteris Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-21-05 01:18 PM
Response to Reply #40
47. Is this what you're looking for?
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
No. 04-3138 Consolidated with 04-3139, 04-3140
397 F.3d 964, 2005.CDC.0000038
February 15, 2005
IN RE: GRAND JURY SUBPOENA, JUDITH MILLER

---scroll down-------

TATEL, Circuit Judge, concurring in the judgment:

". . . we declared, "Good faith investigation interests always override a journalist's interest in protecting his source." Id. at 1049 (emphasis added). Echoing this broad view, we have also described Branzburg as "squarely reject" a claim to "general immunity, qualified or otherwise, from grand jury questioning." See In re Possible Violations of 18 U.S.C. 371, 641, 1503, 564 F.2d 567, 571 (D.C. Cir. 1977). In this circuit, then, absent any indication of bad faith, I see no grounds for a First Amendment challenge to the subpoenas at issue here.

Second, although Branzburg involved militants and drug dealers rather than government leakers, the factual parallels between that case and this one preclude us from quashing the subpoenas on constitutional grounds. See majority op. at 10. If, as Branzburg concludes, the First Amendment permits compulsion of reporters' testimony about individuals manufacturing drugs or plotting against the government, see 408 U.S. at 667-69, 675-77, all information the government could have obtained from an undercover investigation of its own, the case for a constitutional privilege appears weak indeed with respect to leaks, which in all likelihood will be extremely difficult to prove without the reporter's aid.

. . .

As to the scope of the privilege, however, I agree with the special counsel that protection for source identities cannot be absolute. Leaks similar to the crime suspected here (exposure of a covert agent) apparently caused the deaths of several CIA operatives in the late 1970s and early 1980s, including the agency's Athens station chief. See Haig v. Agee, 453 U.S. 280, 284-85 & n.7 (1981). Other leaks -- the design for a top secret nuclear weapon, for example, or plans for an imminent military strike -- could be even more damaging, causing harm far in excess of their news value. In such cases, the reporter privilege must give way. Just as attorney-client communications "made for the purpose of getting advice for the commission of a fraud or crime" serve no public interest and receive no privilege, see United States v. Zolin, 491 U.S. 554, 563 (1989) (internal quotation marks omitted), neither should courts protect sources whose leaks harm national security while providing minimal benefit to public debate.

. . .

When prosecuting crimes other than leaks (murder or embezzlement, say) the government, at least theoretically, can learn what reporters know by replicating their investigative efforts, e.g., speaking to the same witnesses and examining the same documents. Accordingly, if a truly exhaustive investigation has failed to prove a crime that the government reasonably believes has occurred, compelled disclosure of a reporter's source may be justified notwithstanding the attendant burdens on newsgathering. As the special counsel acknowledged at oral argument, however, when the government seeks to punish a leak, a test focused on need and exhaustion will almost always be satisfied, leaving the reporter's source unprotected regardless of the information's importance to the public. The reason for this is obvious: Insofar as the confidential exchange of information leaves neither paper trail nor smoking gun, the great majority of leaks will likely be unprovable without evidence from either leaker or leakee. Of course, in some cases, circumstantial evidence such as telephone records may point towards the source, but for the party with the burden of proof, particularly the government in a criminal case, such evidence will often be inadequate.

In leak cases, then, courts applying the privilege must consider not only the government's need for the information and exhaustion of alternative sources, but also the two competing public interests lying at the heart of the balancing test. Specifically, the court must weigh the public interest in compelling disclosure, measured by the harm the leak caused, against the public interest in newsgathering, measured by the leaked information's value. That framework allows authorities seeking to punish a leak to access key evidence when the leaked information does more harm than good,

. . .

Moreover, in addition to these principles applicable to the judicial role in any evidentiary dispute, the dynamics of leak inquiries afford a particularly compelling reason for judicial scrutiny of prosecutorial judgments regarding a leak's harm and news value. Because leak cases typically require the government to investigate itself, if leaks reveal mistakes that high-level officials would have preferred to keep secret, the administration may pursue the source with excessive zeal, regardless of the leaked information's public value. Of course, in this case a special counsel was appointed to exercise independent judgment. Yet independent prosecutors, too, may skew their assessments of the public interests implicated when a reporter is subpoenaed. After all, special prosecutors, immune to political control and lacking a docket of other cases, face pressure to justify their appointments by bagging their prey. Cf. Morrison v. Olson, 487 U.S. 654, 727-28 (1988) (Scalia, J., dissenting) (noting "the vast power and the immense discretion that are placed in the hands of a prosecutor with respect to the objects of his investigation" and observing that "the primary check against prosecutorial abuse is a political one"). To be clear: I do not impugn the motives of this special counsel. Indeed, as I conclude below, his pursuit of the reporters' testimony appears reasonable. Nevertheless, these considerations -- the special counsel's political independence, his lack of a docket, and the concomitant risk of over-zealousness -- weigh against his claim to deference in balancing harm against news value.

. . .

Next, the special counsel argues that waivers signed by suspected sources represent an "additional factor" favoring compulsion of the reporters' testimony. Appellee's Br. at 46. As the reporters point out, however, numerous cases (including persuasive district court decisions from this circuit) indicate that only reporters, not sources, may waive the privilege.

. . .

In short, the question in this case is whether Miller's and Cooper's sources released information more harmful than newsworthy. If so, then the public interest in punishing the wrongdoers -- and deterring future leaks -- outweighs any burden on newsgathering, and no privilege covers the communication (provided, of course, that the special counsel demonstrates necessity and exhaustion of alternative evidentiary sources).

. . .

Applying this standard to the facts of this case, and considering first only the public record, I have no doubt that the leak at issue was a serious matter. Authorized "to investigate and prosecute violations of any federal criminal laws related to the underlying alleged unauthorized disclosure, as well as federal crimes committed in the course of, and with intent to interfere with, investigation, such as perjury, obstruction of justice, destruction of evidence, and intimidation of witnesses," see Letter from James B. Comey, Acting Attorney General, to Patrick J. Fitzgerald, United States Attorney, Northern District of Illinois (Feb. 6, 2004), the special counsel is attempting to discover the origins of press reports describing Valerie Plame as a CIA operative monitoring weapons of mass destruction.

. . .

The leak of Plame's apparent employment, moreover, had marginal news value. To be sure, insofar as Plame's CIA relationship may have helped explain her husband's selection for the Niger trip, that information could bear on her husband's credibility and thus contribute to public debate over the president's "sixteen words." Compared to the damage of undermining covert intelligence-gathering, however, this slight news value cannot, in my view, justify privileging the leaker's identity.

. . .

Turning now to the classified material, I agree with the special counsel that ex parte review presents no due process difficulty. To be sure, grand jury secrecy is not absolute . . .

That said, without benefit of the adversarial process, we must take care to ensure that the special counsel has met his burden of demonstrating that the information is both critical and unobtainable from any other source. Having carefully scrutinized his voluminous classified filings, I believe that he has.

With respect to Miller, * * * * * REDACTED * * * * *

Regarding Cooper, * * * * * REDACTED * * * * *


In sum, based on an exhaustive investigation, the special counsel has established the need for Miller's and Cooper's testimony. Thus, considering the gravity of the suspected crime and the low value of the leaked information, no privilege bars the subpoenas.

One last point. In concluding that no privilege applies in this case, I have assigned no importance to the fact that neither Cooper nor Miller, perhaps recognizing the irresponsible (and quite possibly illegal) nature of the leaks at issue, revealed Plame's employment, though Cooper wrote about it after Novak's column appeared. Contrary to the reporters' view, this apparent self-restraint spares Miller and Cooper no obligation to testify. Narrowly drawn limitations on the public's right to evidence, testimonial privileges apply "only where necessary to achieve purpose," . . . In all such cases, because the communication is unworthy of protection, recipients' reactions are irrelevant to whether their testimony may be compelled in an investigation of the source.

Indeed, Cooper's own Time.com article illustrates this point. True, his story revealed a suspicious confluence of leaks, contributing to the outcry that led to this investigation. Yet the article had that effect precisely because the leaked information -- Plame's covert status -- lacked significant news value. In essence, seeking protection for sources whose nefariousness he himself exposed, Cooper asks us to protect criminal leaks so that he can write about the crime. The greater public interest lies in preventing the leak to begin with. Had Cooper based his report on leaks about the leaks -- say, from a whistleblower who revealed the plot against Wilson -- the situation would be different. Because in that case the source would not have revealed the name of a covert agent, but instead revealed the fact that others had done so, the balance of news value and harm would shift in favor of protecting the whistleblower. Yet it appears Cooper relied on the Plame leaks themselves, drawing the inference of sinister motive on his own. Accordingly, his story itself makes the case for punishing the leakers. While requiring Cooper to testify may discourage future leaks, discouraging leaks of this kind is precisely what the public interest requires.




http://jaffee-redmond.org/cases/miller.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Nov 27th 2014, 08:51 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC