Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reporter Ordered to Testify a Part of CIA Leak Inquiry

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 » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
cal04 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-16-04 03:46 PM
Original message
Reporter Ordered to Testify a Part of CIA Leak Inquiry
A federal judge has ruled that a New York Times reporter must testify before a grand jury as part of an investigation into the disclosure of an undercover CIA operative's name. In a decision made public Thursday, U.S. District Judge Thomas F. Hogan rejected Judith Miller's claim that as a reporter she should not be compelled to testify about confidential sources. Federal prosecutors are trying to find out who in the Bush administration leaked the identity of Valerie Plame, whose name was published by syndicated columnist Robert Novak on July 14, 2003. Novak cited two "senior administration officials" as his sources.

It can be a felony to leak the name of an undercover officer.
The Novak column came after Plame's husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, was critical in a newspaper opinion piece of President Bush's claim in his 2003 State of the Union address that Iraq sought to obtain uranium in Niger. The CIA had sent Wilson to Niger to investigate that claim, which he concluded was unfounded.
Wilson claims his wife was identified as retribution for his article.

After Novak's column, Miller considered writing a follow-up about Wilson and spoke to one or more sources. However, she never did a story. In his ruling, Hogan said Miller's testimony "is necessary for completion of this investigation ... and is expected to constitute direct evidence of innocence or guilt." The decision was not a surprise because Hogan had already rejected claims that the First Amendment protected other journalists from subpoenas. Meanwhile, a Bush administration official who was a confidential source for a Washington Post story about Plame and Wilson has come forward to speak with investigators.

As a result, Post reporter Walter Pincus, who had refused to reveal his source's name to prosecutors, provided a deposition in the case on Wednesday. Pincus did not, however, name the administration official.
Two days before the Novak piece ran, Pincus said he spoke with a person he has identified only as "an administration official" who told him that Wilson was sent to Niger at the request of his wife. Pincus wrote about the conversation last October, without naming the administration official. In his deposition, Pincus said he agreed to be questioned by prosecutors only with the source's approval.

http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGBHRX0D7ZD.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
lancdem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-16-04 04:00 PM
Response to Original message
1. Wow, this day is just filled with great news!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
napi21 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-16-04 04:01 PM
Response to Original message
2. If Miller is forced to reveal name, why not Novak?
I'm torn on the issue whether a reporter should reveal a source, but if Judith Miller is being forced to reveal her source, then why's Novak being given a pass?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lancdem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-16-04 04:07 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. He's not
I think he's been subpoenaed, too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KansDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-16-04 04:10 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. I know what you mean...
I've wondered that too. However, isn't what Novak did a crime? I mean, isn't he part of the crime?

If a reporter writes about a crime, then his/her sources are confidential, but, if what the reporter writes abets a crime in progress, then isn't that part of the crime???

I don't know...:shrug:

I'll let DUers more knowledgeable than I address this...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KoKo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-16-04 08:48 PM
Response to Reply #2
8. Maybe it was Chalabi who released the name. He was Miller's source
for all her "Invade Iraq...it's a good thing" stories. Or a PNACER?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PeaceProgProsp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-17-04 08:38 AM
Response to Reply #2
12. She's being compelled to testify.
She's not being compelled to name the source.

If she doesn't, she could be held in contempt, however.

So I guess that's pretty compelling.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bear425 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-16-04 04:10 PM
Response to Original message
5. completion of investigation?
In his ruling, Hogan said Miller's testimony "is necessary for completion of this investigation ... and is expected to constitute direct evidence of innocence or guilt."

Does this sound like the investigation is wrapping up? I hope...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mistertrickster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-16-04 04:15 PM
Response to Original message
6. Judith Miller--OF COURSE, the source would go to Judith Miller, who
never met a WMD claim that she didn't love. This is a woman who spoke of doubters with a voice oozing pity and scorn.

That she can still write for ANY paper, let alone the Times, shows that there is no justice in this life . . .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Catfight Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-16-04 04:20 PM
Response to Original message
7. It's ROVE, I would bet this is Rove and without Rove, the puppet
falls apart.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lancdem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-16-04 08:50 PM
Response to Original message
9. More subpoenas also have been issued to Time and Matt Cooper
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yardwork Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-16-04 08:57 PM
Response to Original message
10. kick for the wheels of justice
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
htuttle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-17-04 08:21 AM
Response to Original message
11. Sounds like Fitzgerald has the malice motive tied up
Here's the administration copping to it in the Washington Post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A27180-2004Sep16?language=printer
"Senior White House officials have acknowledged they were trying to raise concerns with reporters at that time about Wilson."

They admit flat out that they were trying to smear Wilson by exposing his wife's identity. That should nullify any 'inadvertant action' defense right there.

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 Wed May 08th 2024, 01:32 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News 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