Judge Upholds Media Subpoenas in CIA Leak Case

[Caution]

Judge Upholds Media Subpoenas in CIA Leak Case


WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A federal judge on Monday upheld subpoenas to compel testimony of journalists at NBC News and Time magazine in a special prosecutor's probe into whether Bush administration officials illegally leaked a covert CIA (news - web sites) officer's name to the news media.

U.S. District Chief Judge Thomas Hogan rejected requests to quash subpoenas issued to Tim Russert of NBC's "Meet the Press" and Matthew Cooper of Time magazine on the grounds they violate the reporters' privilege under the Constitution's First Amendment.

The subpoenas were issued by special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald and seek to require Russert and Cooper to appear before a federal grand jury to testify about conversations they had with an unidentified government official.

"To be clear, this court holds that Cooper and Russert have no privilege, qualified or otherwise, excusing them from testifying before the grand jury in this matter," Hogan ruled in the 11-page opinion.

<snip>

[sniffa]

1. hmmm no novak?

otherwise... WOOT!! :D

[KoKo]

2. Wasn't there a link here to NBC saying Russert already HAD testified?

Just last week, I thought I read that here. This seems odd. :eyes: Anyone remember that post?

[HereSince1628]

3. I read it I didn't search to find it...

Late last week, saturday, maybe? I thought I read that Russert had already testified, but reserved the right to not talk about anything shared confidentially.

So is this the same story, or an attempt to push Russert to testify about those things he didn't want to speak of on the first go round?

[KoKo]

5. I did a search and here's a snip of transcript from NBC News Saturday

with a link to the DU thread where it was reported NBC saying Russert had testified. So this is a little odd. Maybe your correct and it's to put more pressure, but Russert testifying before the Court ordered him to? Interesting. :shrug:

dirtgirl (2 posts) Sun Aug-08-04 07:27 AM
Response to Reply #36
42. this was on TV
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x2178077#2178221


there is no link that I know of. I saw it during the nightly news.

the best I can offer is the rough transcript I was able to catch thanks to pausing the tivo several times:

NBC Nightly News, Aug 7 - John Siegenthaler reporting:

"More tonight on the investigation into the leak of a CIA agent, Valerie Plame. Prosecutors had subpoenaed NBC's News' Tim Russert, and NBC had gone to court to block the subpoena.

As reported previously, Russert was not a recipient of the leak.

Today, Russert was interviewed under oath by the Special Prosecutor, and was not asked any questions that would require him to disclose information provided in confidence.

The questioning focused on what Russert said when Lewis "Scooter" Libby, VP's Chief of Staff, phoned him last summer. Russert testified that at the time of the conversation, Russert didn't know Plame's name or that she was a CIA operative, and he didn't provide that information to Libby. He said that the first time he learned the information was when he later read a column by Robert Novak.

[KoKo]

8. Scooter Libby was the one who called Russert from the above snip.

Is that the first time it's been revealed? We've suspected it here on DU, but the Siegenthaler snip from NBC says it! So, Cheney was probably involved...Will Libby fall on his sword for his master? Or, has Fitzgerald already gone beyond Cheney.

I didn't realize that Libby was mentioned by NBC, obviously covering Russert's and their butts...but leaking Libby is very interesting.

Especially since Shrub and Powell were interviewed by Fitzgerald. Hmmmm....:think:

[johnfunk]

6. Looks like Russert agreed to testify after he was threatened with being...

... held in contempt according to this article.

Sources close to the investigation said they believe Russert was not held in contempt Aug. 6 because he agreed to answer the questions after Hogan's July 20 ruling.

My money is the source being nowhere near the investigators and in fact either a press buddy of Fat Tim and/or a crony of one of the investigatees.

[KoKo]

9. Look at this paragraph from the article though!

Hogan wrote in his just-unsealed order that the information requested from Cooper and Russert is "very limited" and that "all available alternative means of obtaining the information have been exhausted." He added that "the testimony sought is expected to constitute direct evidence of innocence or guilt."

What about Bob Novak? The snip above says "all available alternative means....have been exhausted." Novak's column reported Plame's name, so why is he off the hook and Russert and Cooper are the last alternative? So, Bush, Cheney, Powell and all the White House staff said "we don know nuttin'" and it comes down to Russert and Cooper? :wtf:

This gets stranger and stranger.

[spotbird]

10. If Novak really hasn't been called,

it could be he is a target. He has to have broken some law.

But there were reports earlier this year that he had been subpoenaed. So maybe he just went in, testified, and kept it quiet. We aren't talking about Profiles in Courage here.

[KoKo]

15. It's very odd that Novak wasn't mentioned but Russert and Cooper were

considered "last resorts" for who the leaker was. I mean it's not like Fitzgerald had to rush this case to get it finished or that he didn't get access to everyone he needed like Cheney, Powell and Chimp. :eyes:

I'm not having high hopes for this, right now. But then, the media reports could just be more disinformation. I guess we will have to wait and see how it plays out.

[spotbird]

17. I have a theory that may make this good news,

at least there is still room for hope. Russert's testimony was only on the issue of what Russert told Scooter.

The court required Russert's testimony on a narrow issue that couldn't be established elsewhere and that would aid in the determination of the guilt or innocence of Libby. (The court didn't mention Libby, but NBC told us it was Libby.) Russert agreed to stop fighting the subpoena because he was not violating a confidence by refusing to testify, his silence was giving Libby an excuse to avoid criminal responsibility for the leak.

Here's how. For Libby's leak to be criminal he would have had to obtained the classified information as part of his clearance and leaked it knowing it was classified. Since he knew he wasn't going to avoid responsibility by denying the leak, too many people knew to keep that secret, he chose to claim that he didn't know Plame's status was classified. That lack of knowledge would exonerate him, if he could prove it. To establish that he learned of Plame's job innocently he claimed he heard it from an outsider, Russert.

Scooter counted on Russert to keep quiet to pull this off. Russert tried, but there is no journalistic obligation to a source to back up their alibi, if it's false. So Russert spilled the beans.

I posted this theory on another thread, so far there hasn't been any feed back so I decided to try again.

[KoKo]

18. Spotbird, your theory is interesting...and may be the truth of it. There's

something there that's odd that I keep saying is odd. I'm a big mystery fan/reader so am always looking for clues to what isn't obvious. On this one I was stumped. Have had such high hopes for Plame Case bringing down Bush, yet so far it seems to be stalled, that I can't think clearly about it anymore or be objective about the "twists and turns."

There's something about "Russert & Cooper." Your thought about Russert spilling the beans because what he was asked was narrow enough that he could do this might be it. But, there's still Novak. He was the one who leaked it in an article and the other 6 didn't. So maybe it's finding out if all of the 7 journalists leaked to...were leaked the same info..or maybe different versions? Did Novak ask more questions and the others said "No Way I'm going to run this" and it was left to Novak who has big connections to try and get away with it? :shrug:

[TacticalPeek]

20. There's a newer NYT article with more info.

but still no answer:

Reporter From Time Is Held in Contempt in C.I.A. Leak Case
By ADAM LIPTAK

Published: August 10, 2004

A federal judge in Washington held a reporter for Time magazine in contempt of court yesterday and ordered him jailed for refusing to name the government officials who disclosed the identity of an undercover C.I.A. officer to him. The magazine was also held in contempt and ordered to pay a fine of $1,000 a day.

snip

It is not known whether Mr. Novak has received a subpoena or, if he did, how he responded. His lawyer, James Hamilton, declined to comment yesterday.

snip

A second Post reporter, Walter Pincus, said he received a subpoena yesterday. He referred questions about whether The Post would challenge the subpoena to the paper's lawyers. Neither The Post's in-house lawyers nor its outside lawyer, Seth P. Waxman, responded to messages seeking comment.

Legal experts, including some sympathetic to the arguments by Mr. Cooper and Time, said the appeals court was unlikely to reverse Judge Hogan's decision.

"I think we're going to have a head-on confrontation here," said Lucy Dalglish, executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. "I think Matt Cooper is going to jail."

more
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/10/politics/10leak.html

also, http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x738579#739416

[stickdog]

22. Libby said, "Don't remember where I heard it, but it was some reporter."

That's what's going on here.



BUSTED.

Is Time protecting Libby without really having to reveal a confidential source?

[snippy]

16. Each time Plame's identity was leaked would be a separate crime.

So one person could leak to Novak and commit a crime. The same person, or a different person could leak to Cooper and commit a new crime. There could be more than one person indicted on more than one count.

I think the "all available alternative means....have been exhausted" language could be somewhat encouraging unless it means that Fitzgerald does not have enough evidence for any indictments without the journalists' testimony. However, I am discouraged that this will be appealed since that can drag out beyond the election.

[City Lights]

13. He "squealed" on Friday. Found this at Atrios:

Russert Squeals

Depending on what Russert actually knew, I actually thinking squealing is the right thing to do here, and doing so is not a violation of any reasonable journalistic code of ethics.

But, here we have what appears to be a case of Russert standing on what he perceived as principle -- until faced with the possibility of jail time. If so -- coward.
A reporter is being held in contempt of court and faces possible jail time, and another was earlier threatened by a federal judge with the same fate, after they refused to answer questions from a special prosecutor investigating whether administration officials illegally disclosed the name of a covert CIA officer last year.

Newly-released court orders show U.S. District Court Chief Judge Thomas F. Hogan two weeks ago ordered Matt Cooper of Time magazine and Tim Russert of NBC to appear before a grand jury and tell whether they knew that White House sources provided the identity of CIA officer Valerie Plame to the media.The Justice Department probe is trying to determine whether this information was provided knowingly, in violation of the law. Hogan's orders show that special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald believes Cooper and Russert know the answer.

Cooper still refused to answer questions after Hogan's July 20 order, and on Aug. 6 Hogan held him in contempt of court and ordered that he go to jail. Cooper has been released on bond pending his emergency appeal to a federal appeals court. Hogan has ordered that Time pay a $1,000 fine for each day Cooper does not appear before the grand jury.

Sources close to the investigation said they believe Russert was not held in contempt Aug. 6 because he agreed to answer the questions after Hogan's July 20 ruling.


Of course, it goes without saying that once Russert became a part of an investigation of the highest officials in government he should have been put on leave until it was resolved.

http://atrios.blogspot.com/

[FreakinDJ]

4. Yea Baby......let the Frog March Begin

[johnfunk]

7. We need some appropriate Frog march music...

[Buck Turgidson]

11. Frog music

One of my favorites.

[0007]

19. The frogs are night croakers -

[slojim240]

12. Remember: "9/11 changed everything." That's what they use to support

Bush and the Patriot Act so it should apply as well to the journalists. Nothing is the same as it used to be. If the Constitution doesn't work for us, it doesn't work for jounalists either.

[Dhalgren]

21. If a journalist knows the source of a felony against the People,

there should be no right to privilege. If I tell a journalist that I am the serial killer that the police are currently looking for, that journalist has an obligation to report that to the authorities. We aren't talking about a "whistleblower" case, here, we are talking about a federal crime that has damaged the nation's "treasured" security! These fucking criminals have to either put up or shut up! If the "security" of the nation is a reason to violate all of the citizens' constitutional rights, then these lacky, lick-spital "journalist" can step up to the bar and send their pimps to prison where they belong!
Man, that felt good!

[Dover]

14. And what's really remarkable is the White House just outed ANOTHER

covert operative in Pakistan! These people need to be locked up with their mouths taped shut.

[symbolman]

23. Any lawyers out there want to go after NOVAK?

We and a pal filed ASSAULT charges against him in New Hampshire.. if a lawyer wanted to pursue that and DEPOSE NOVAK maybe we could ask him some other questions while UNDER OATH?

We can get the police report and go after Novak if someone wants to do the legal work..

I'm dead serious.. this would be like the Clinton Treatment and I think it would work.

contact me, PM if you want, I'll give you names and witnesses..

http://www.takebackthemedia.com