CIA Leak case: Cooper charged w/contempt & Russert loses in court

[kerry-is-my-prez]

http://www.maconareaonline.com/news.asp?id=7923
Judge Upholds Media Subpoenas in CIA Leak Case
By: James Vicini

Mon Aug 9, 2004 02:47 PM ET

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 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.

[clydefrand]

1. Again, I ask, what about Novak? Has he been called?

[w13rd0]

3. They are going to just charge Novak...

...with contempt and treason, since its a foregone conclusion he'd lie under oath.

[Beam Me Up]

2. allllll rightttt!!

:kick:

[medeak]

4. cooper charged with contempt?

didn't read that in link?

[kerry-is-my-prez]

7. Here's one about how he is being held in contempt of court/could be jailed

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A52148-2004Aug9.html
Court Holds Reporter in Contempt in Leak Case
Time Magazine's Cooper Threatened with Jail for Not Revealing Source

By Carol D. Leonnig
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, August 9, 2004; 3:06 PM

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.

-snip-

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.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

5. Cooper could end up in jail for contempt. Russert probably won't......

n/t

[Cocoa]

6. that's the second time you've asserted that

where are you getting the contempt charge?

[kerry-is-my-prez]

8. Read post #7

n/t

[Cocoa]

12. thanks

:-)

[DoYouEverWonder]

10. Actually, Cooper is out on bond

The judge already sentenced him to jail and he's out on bond, pending his appeal.

Why wasn't this a major story two weeks ago, when it happened? Seems the press doesn't want to cover the story when it's about themselves?

[flpoljunkie]

15. More from Atrios blog on this..."Russert squealed!"

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2004_08_08_atrios_archive.html#109208026410102493

Monday, August 09, 2004


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.

more...

[girl gone mad]

16. The story would only make them look bad to the American people.

They have been force feeding us the "9/11 changed everything" line for years now, using fear to sell more advertisements and cover up their complacency. How do you think the audience that believes we should give up rights in the interest of National Security will feel abuot the press protecting a treasonous official? The story makes the media and the administration look like the hypocrites they are.

[atreides1]

18. He's Out On Bond

But the judge has ordered that TIME pay $1000.00 per day, for every day that Mr. Cooper refuses to appear before the Grand Jury. And even with it's deep pockets that could get a little costly for TIME.

[k in IA]

14. On MSNBC, Pete Williams said that

there was an earlier legal action of some sort by Time Mag so when this is dismissed, Cooper would need to comply and testify or be jailed, but the Judge suspended jail pending the appeal of his ruling.

[Warpy]

9. Mr. Potato Head in the can for contempt?

I love it. He's really between a rock and a hard place. He did have the integrity not to run that story, but he's in the position of protecting the man who shopped it around. Either he sits in jail, or he incurs the wrath of the Bush team. If he hadn't been such a presstitute all these years, I might feel sorry for him.

Since this whole thing is illegal to the point of treason, he's not going to get a whole lot of sympathy for protecting his source. It's just a crying shame they're not leaning on Nofacts, who actually did lack the integrity to cancel that story and went ahead and ran it.

They're trying desperately to run out the clock before the elections. I'm not altogether sure how much that will help them, since the more they stall, the guiltier they look.

Now if we could only get the whore news on TV to run the story...

[DoYouEverWonder]

11. Nofacks hasn't been call to testify

because they are going to file criminal charges against him. He's not a witness because he's going to be a defendent.

[DeepModem Mom]

17. Might we at least see Novak frog-marched out of CNN's studios?

Do we think CNN might finally fire the treasonous SOB then?

[Eloriel]

13. All RIGHT!

Hooray. I'm normally one who strongly upholds journalists' rights to keep their sources protected, but NOT in this case, NOT when treason at the highest level of govt is the reason.

[DeepModem Mom]

20. The judge's view is apparently the same as yours... nt

[Rebellious Republican]

19. Patriot Act them, lets see how they like a double edge sword!

It works both ways, the media has promoted this Administration and kept quite about the erosions of our freedoms. Its time to reap what they have sewn, they have no constitutional protections, they gave them away.

[peacetalksforall]

21. The wording of this release makes me think they are not asking

who, they are asking whether these two people knew that they could not reveal a covert operator. It could imply only that they know who revealed the identity and are only trying to determine which of those called by the leaker(s) knew her outing her was unlawful because she was a covert. Or they may be trying to determine whether the leaker(s) advised these two guys that she was an operative. Right wing supporters and defenders of Novak still claim that she wasn't covert.

That would explain why one reporter would cooperate and another wouldn't. The lawyers for the one may have drawn a no question/no answer line in the sand. And NBC lawyers have allowed some questions/some answers. No?

[DeepModem Mom]

22. kick