Plame case: indictment against Libby seems certain

[JackRiddler]

Tim Russert held in contempt? Geez now this is being blacked out at home!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-4404321,00.html

Russert Held in Contempt in CIA Leak Case

Monday August 9, 2004 10:16 PM

By CURT ANDERSON

Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - A federal judge held a reporter for Time magazine in contempt of court Monday for refusing to testify before a grand jury investigating the leak of the identity of a covert CIA officer.

In an order issued July 20 but not made public until Monday, U.S. District Judge Thomas F. Hogan ruled that Time's Matthew Cooper and ``Meet the Press'' host Tim Russert were required to testify ``regarding alleged conversations they had with a specified executive branch official.''

NBC News issued a statement saying that Russert already had been interviewed under oath by prosecutors on Saturday under an agreement to avoid a protracted court fight. The interview concerned a July 2003 phone conversation he had with Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, Lewis ``Scooter'' Libby.

Time and Cooper, however, did not agree to be interviewed and intend to appeal the judge's ruling, said Managing Editor Jim Kelly. If Time loses those appeals, Cooper could be jailed under Hogan's order until he agrees to appear and the magazine could be fined $1,000 a day.

[Jo March]

1. Tim will wet the bed

if he has to serve time in a real jail. He'll sing like a canary!

[JackRiddler]

4. I beg to differ

He should fight it, of course. They're obviously on to Libby and more power to them on nabbing him but forcing journalists to reveal sources is a basic violation.

[1monster]

7. I'm not sure I agree... In this case, the person who committed a crime,

the outing of a deep cover agent, involved the correspondents in the crime. These people are, more or less, receivers of stolen goods or accessories to the crime itself. They have to testify.

While I believe in protecting press sources, I don't believe that it is anywhere near as cut and dried as say a Priest in a Confessional. Press souce confidentiality has some very fuzzy lines on both ends and is only well defined in the middle.

[Jo March]

8. Fight what? The urge to wet the bed?

;)

[ozymandius]

11. Respectfully, I disagree.

This is not like the Woodward-Bernstein days of Watergate. They were totally justified in keeping their sources hidden. In the Plame matter, the relationship between the reporters, who were directly contacted by a White House official, are an accessory to the crime. Their refusal to reveal the name of the person who committed this felony is to compound their status as an accessory to the felony. Not only are they material witnesses. They are also complicit in the crime because they willfully concealed the perpetration of said crime: revealing the identity of a CIA operative. I believe this is defined by the terms of "misprision of a felony". Lives may have been lost. The cause of interdicting materials essential to making weapons of mass destruction has been comprimised. The full extent of revealing Valerie Plame's identity has not been fully assessed.

What we do know: Plame's name and "brass plate" association were leaked to the general public. This could not have been achieved without the complicity of the press.

[BlueEyedSon]

2. INDICT NOVAK

[indigobusiness]

9. Novak is toast...

How long do you think he will last stewing in contempt cell?

Not long.

Someone on the news tonight commented that the way this is headed, Novak is jail bound. I didn't catch the man's name , but he was concerned about breach confidentiality in a case like this.

[lancdem]

3. This headline is wrong

Russert testifed to avoid being held in contempt.

[JackRiddler]

5. Oops you're right

I read it clearly that Russert put in an interview but still thought contempt just due to the headline. Herd animalism at work. The TIME guy is being held in contempt.

[Ganja Ninja]

6. I hold him in contempt just the same. n/t

[Pallas180]

10. This is a matter of Treason, not just criminality. Freedom of the press

should not be protected in matters of Treason. or murder.

It's as simple as that.

Even priests go to the police when they know of a murderer,
just not when they nknow of pedaphiles....I'd laugh - but it
isn;t funny.

:shrug:

[indigobusiness]

12. That is the kicker that makes this special...

and why we will likely see this completely unfold.

We might see a genuine reckoning. Wouldn't that be sweet? Would

give America a shot of legitimacy that it sorely needs.
========================
=====
Didn't realize that about priests. Can't confide in anyone anymore.
But, I wouldn't be able to live with myself if I murdered somebody, anyway.