Plastic Ono Plame

[H2O Man]

The recent rulings in the Plame case have resulted in a healthy discussion of the rights of a "free press" vs the federal laws regarding grand jury investigations. An interesting article can be found at:

http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/newssentinel/news/editorial/9391801.htm

[BlueEyedSon]

1. Everything changed since 9/11

The identity of our spooks is now more important than politically motivated revenge.

/sarcasm off

[Birthmark]

2. When a reporter participates in or facilitates a crime...

...I see no reason why they should be protected. I don't think that anyone would object to arresting a reporter who drove a robber to a bank. In that case, the reporter isn't and shouldn't be protected.

[H2O Man]

3. I agree.....

If the reporter honestly didn't know they were participating in a bank robbery, it seems they would cooperate in the investigation. If they refused to cooperate in the investigation of a federal offense, it speaks for itself.

"A conspiracy of silence speaks louder than words." - John Lennon

[BlueEyedSon]

4. Experts check in: Watergate, Pentagon Papers

Were these revealed by Journalists? Were the "leaks" illegal in any way? Was the greater good of democracy, law and transparency served?

[Birthmark]

5. What has that to do with the law?

Honestly? Okay, I broke the law for a good reason. I still broke the law. The good that came of it can be taken into account at several steps in the process: the prosecutor can decline to charge me, the judge or jury can acquit me, if none of that happens then I might be sentenced to probation or even get a suspended sentence. I don't see a real problem.

For the record: I am most definitely NOT an expert.

[BlueEyedSon]

7. The problem I see, which is SPECIFIC to this administration

is that they could shut up (or at least intimidate) journalists (or citizen whistleblowers) just by changing the laws. Think "PATRIOT ACT"....

[Birthmark]

8. That's true of any administration...

...and always has been, so far as I know. There's no stopping crooks. All we can do is hold them accountable after they commit their crimes.

[BlueEyedSon]

11. This admin is the most secretive, least transparent

and most brazen in its flouting of Constitutional rights. So it's MORE TRUE of this one.

[Birthmark]

12. Yup.

I wish I could say something more comforting, but I can't.

[H2O Man]

10. Two questions:

(1) Why do you think this reflects a change in the law? Or apply it to the Patriot Act? It's been the federal law for a long time.

(2) If you want to put it in terms of the Pentagon Papers -- which I think is an curious comparison -- I'd be curious how you connect the two? Are you familiar with the Pentagon Papers? Tell me about their author's chronology for 11-22-63 through 11-23-63?

[H2O Man]

32. Well, if the human

who made repeated reference doesn't know about the Pentagon papers, does anyone else here know about what they show for 11-22-63 and 11-24-63?

[H2O Man]

42. Okay, if no one else will,

here goes:

22 November 1963: Lodge confers with the President. Having flown to Washington the day after the conference, Lodge meets with the President .....

23 November 1963 NSAM #273: Drawing together the results of the Honolula Conference, and Lodge's meeting with the President, NSAM #273 reaffirms the U.S. commitment to defeat the VC in South America.

Thus, the Pentagon Papers seem to overlook an incident from 11-22-63.

[Nevernose]

22. Believe there's a whistleblower provision

in Branzburg vs. Hayes, the applicable law under which these guys are being questioned/held in contempt.

[PATRICK]

13. Facilitates in effect

a betrayal of sources and confidence. The nature of the protected crime in which the reporter carries out the exposure of an even worse national betrayal would seem(to a rational jury) to undermine their noble professional code and its render its rationale hypocritical.

[NewJeffCT]

6. Unfortunately

While they expect the U.S. Supreme Court to agree with the lower court ruling as consistent with the SC decision from the 70s, I'm not so sure. If this is as big as you, Pallas, Robert Paulson, et al, are saying, we could get a Supreme Court divided along partisan lines again in favor of keeping sources confidential to protect Bush & Cheney.

[H2O Man]

9. Yes, you're right.....

we know from the Supreme Court's "Florida" decision that political interests outweigh legal precedent for 5 of the 9 justices. And we know from justice Scalia's Jan 2002 speech to the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life that he believesthat "the reactions of people of faith to this tendency of democracy to obscure the divine authority behind government should not be resignation to it but resolution to combat it as effectively as possible." (Infallible Justice; The Nation; 10-7-02; page 9) Safe to say Scalia will find Mr. Novak to be a noble soldier for the Lord.

[H2O Man]

14. There's another good site:

http://forums.ibsys.com/viewmessages.cfm?sitekey=la&forum=79&topic=9137&startmsg=11

it has 49 pages of discussion on the Plame case. In my subjective opinion, the Plame Threads on DU are superior, but these NBC4.TV threads are of some interest, too.

[Beam Me Up]

15. "Press freedom under attack" is BOGUS

This editorial is absurd. What is under attack is not the freedom of the press to withhold the name of a source who is, for example, revealing information about government or other official wrong doing. No one is pressuring the press to reveal a confidential source of this nature.

What IS under attack is our National Security. When high level government officials leak to the press the names of covert agents engaged in highly sensitive operations such as the tracking of weapons of mass destruction components, this illegal, arguably treasonous activity is a dangerous breach of our National Security. Those responsible should not be allowed to hide their identities behind bogus claims of First Amendment rights.

BMU

[H2O Man]

16. Interesting.....

The Corporate Crime Reporter came out today with its list of the top "white collar crime" prosecutors in the United States. According to this report, the Plame case will be solved, and the guilty will be prosecuted. This report is compiled by a survey of the major prosecutions in the past 12 months. See:

http://wwwcorporatecrimereporter.com/toptenprosecutors081304.htm

[H2O Man]

17. A related article:

which discusses the 1972 US Supreme Court case (Branzburg v Hayes) which allows federal grand juries to put journalists on the stand. As most DUers know, there are no state laws in the US that compromise the journalists' "shield;" however, federal courts can force journalists to testify about specific crimes under certain conditions.

Time and other publications are referring to this as a First Ammendment issue. That may be worthy of open debate. The grand jury proceedings do not stop any reporter from reporting a story; rather, it simply means they are not entitled to be considered in the same light as doctors and lawyers regarding confidentiality.

New York Times publisher Arthur Sulzberger, Jr, in response to the grand jury calling on Judith Miller to testify in the Plame case, said, "journalists should not have to face the prospect of imprisonment for doing nothing more than aggressively seeking to report on the government's actions."

That seems to be a tortured interpretation of, say, what Robert Novak did last summer. If Noval reported that two White House officials were lobbying with him and others, in an under-handed attempt to get him to expose a CIA operative, and that he (Novak) was concerned about the felonious nature of their actions ..... that WOULD be a reporter "aggressively seeking to report on the government's actions."

But it is not what Novak did.

Likewise, next week there is a federal court hearing, in a separate case, in which nuclear weapons scientist Wen Ho Lee is charging the US government attacked him, in which 5 journalists may be forced to testify about what government officials told them about Lee's case. This is similar to the Plame case.

It is important for people to be able to distinguish between a real "freedom of the press" case, and reporters co-conspirators in a criminal action. See:

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/wire/sns-ap-media-in-contempt,0,5049101.story?coll=sns-ap-nation-headline

[Snazzy]

20. Here's the actual case

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=408&invol=665

You may want top watch Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press' coverage here:

http://www.rcfp.org/

And Editor and Publisher too:

http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/index.jsp

But your distinction is right on. There isn't an absolute shield. It is balancing a continuum: ethics and public interest and the serious crime/corruption involved (to the level of treason, really, and I don't believe I'm abusing that term. There is also the actual crime of just communicating an agent's name--the communication itself is criminal per Congress, that is a key distinction in this case).

Like justice, nobody said this had to be simple.

Also note that the contempt is for as long as the grand jury may sit. If this is a delay for election purposes, may well fail. With expedited appeals (which are planned to take a month or so in DC, then maybe the Supremes) still likely to be resolved well before Nov.

[Tight_rope]

25. This is an interesting insert from the first link you posted: READ BELOW.

"Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be ". 18 U.S.C. 4. 36 <408 U.S. 665, 697>"

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=408&invol=665

[sundancekid]

18. link does not work, and even placing the missing dot after "w"

I get a 404

clarifying: this is in regard to the corporate crime reporter link

[H2O Man]

19. hmmmm .... sorry

it isn't working for me, either ..... I went to news at google, punch in "Plame," and it comes up as the 4th story ..... and it has that "address," (with the period after "w" that I carelessly forgot!). I hope you try it from the news at google.

[lancdem]

21. Try this

http://www.corporatecrimereporter.com/toptenprosecutors081304.htm

[Snazzy]

23. Excellent points kick--plus some Snazzy commentary

We need to re-frame the first amend. direction that the media would have you believe is happening here and is the real story, or so they say.

It is not. That is not the story.

We need to point out, to our own at least, the fine but important distinction that we cannot allow the usually contentious privileges we citizens vest in the press--what we so often fight for against the right--WILL NOT be used here to cover up a serious national crime. At the highest levels in the WH, those same criminals, will, predictably, deflect and put off discussion of this treason for purposes of election year politics.

We (yep, why not say it, 'We the People') expect that the fourth estate champion the public interest. That's not what was happening here, and, for the most part, they don't do that anymore anyway. But that is the basis of this shield us citizens have or would confer upon the press.

The Constitution and how we interpret it for our times is not simple. The question here is do our notions of press freedom, granted under the auspices of the public service that is supposed to imply, extend to treason?

Largely, press freedom, special privileges by the press, exist to hold the government in check, it is not to protect the guilty. The freedom is there exactly for the purpose of exposing the guilty in government (or expressing any idea in general, of course, no matter how unpopular).

Ha. Having now deleted several paragraphs I realize I could go on for several pages just trying to explain this view. That's the point I guess, it's not black and white. And it's not simple. And isn't that exactly the problem with the media and with politics these days, trying to frame everything as simple, the 'evil-doer'. Either not even bothering to present a valid opposition view-point, or the reverse sin of doing so when none is required. (Idiotic vs. nuanced, where I hear that?)

So, it's not simple, though it would be nice if someone could distill this down; concise argument for us, soundbite everybody for else.

Maybe the way to frame it is to borrow from the projectile vomit of RW talking points: "the Constitution is not a suicide pact." Betcha heard that two million times by now. but same deal for the first amendment. This is treason, exposing our CIA NOC on WMDs. (If you're scoring this at home, that's clearly too many TLAs for a law not to have been broken.)

I wish I could make this point more simple. I think some in this thread were getting at that.

[Tight_rope]

24. I say fuck the US press..Most of the press has been contaminated by Bush!

I'm sorry but these last 3+ years the American people have been highly manipulated by most of the US press.

I don't truly believe that anyone will be killed (they may be shunned by their peers and have to wear a Scarlet letter)for revealing who told them to out Plame, but definitely not killed. Not revealing the source only proves that your loyalty belongs to BUSHCO.

[H2O Man]

26. I think that there are

a number of important questions involved. And I think it is healthy, even essential, that we discuss them. For example: what exactly does the Bill of Rights say? And what might that imply?

Are the giant "media" corporations actually "the press"? Or are they a branch of the government? Think of the definition of fascism: when business runs the government, with a rabid right-wing nationalism? So .... are entities like Fox and CNN actually "the press"? Or are they the mouth-piece for a fascist state?

What would Jefferson say? Of course, this is speculation .... but is Robert Novak doing what the Constitution intended? Think about it in terms of the era of 1776 ..... and the dictator King George is trying to put down -- harshly -- anyone who is questioning his rule by promoting democracy. And Robert Novak writes an article with information supplied to him from some of King George's assistants. The goal of the article is to punish some of the supporters of the rebel leaders, men like Jefferson, Adams, and Franklin, who are not only advocating for freedom, they are actively involved in the struggle for democracy.

If Novak had written an article saying that the White House was trying to expose Plame to punish Wilson, to intimidate other people from publicly disagreeing with King George W. Bush, and perhaps to derail any investigation Plame was involved in .... then he falls into the category covered by the Constitution.

But Novak didn't. He's a Benedict Arnold piece of shit. And we know how the Founding Fathers felt about Mr. Arnold.

[suegeo]

51. I've been wondering myself: Novak is a journalist?

Novak gets special privledges because he's a journalist? He doesn't need to reveal his sources because he calls himself "a journalist?"

That's funny because I see the man as a republican hack, a propagandist for the GOP. I don't define Novak as a journalist.

Why does he get the special title "journalist" and therefore special protections? Who knighted Novak as a journalist, thereby giving him special protections?

Novak isn't a journalist. He's a right-wing operative for a fascist group that is hell bent on destroying what's left of the republic.

In my humble opinion...

[H2O Man]

27. Here's something good:

The editorial in today's Houston Chronicle says that the responsibility to identify the "leakers" of the Plame scandal falls squarely on the shoulders of President Bush! They are not advocating that he do a "cover up," at all! They are placing the blame on George W. for allowing this to become a potentially divisive Supreme Court case! This is great! See:

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/editorial/2735225

[bear425]

28. bad link n/t

[bear425]

29. try this...

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/editorial/2735225

[H2O Man]

30. Of Interest

<../../../home.html> <../../../home.html>
PROTECTING SOURCES
August 11, 2004

A federal judge held Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper in contempt of court on Monday for refusing to testify before a grand jury investigating whether White House sources illegally revealed the identity of CIA officer Valerie Plame. Terence Smith and guests discuss a prosecutor's right to subpoena reporters in criminal grand jury investigations and a journalist's privilege to protect the identities of confidential sources. The NewsHour Media Unit is funded by a grant from the Pew Charitable Trusts

TERENCE SMITH: The investigation of the alleged leak of the identity of Valerie Plame, an undercover CIA operative, is reaching deeper into the Washington Press Corps. Plame is the wife of former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who was sent by the CIA In 2002 to investigate intelligence claims that Iraq had sought to buy nuclear material from the West African nation of Niger. He found the reports groundless, and advised the CIA.
Despite Wilson's warning, the president pointed to the alleged uranium purchase in last year's state of the union address as evidence that Iraq sought banned weapons. Wilson went public with his protest in a July 6, 2003, op-ed in the New York Times. Eight days later, syndicated columnist Robert Novak exposed Plame as a CIA operative and cited two "senior administration officials" who said Plame recommended her husband for the Niger mission. Wilson alleges that the White House revealed his wife's name in an effort to intimidate him and others who disagree with White House policy.
Special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, the U.S. Attorney in Chicago, has been investigating Plame's exposure. The president and the secretary of state, among many senior administration officials, have been questioned.
This week, Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper was held in contempt by a federal judge for refusing to appear before the grand jury impaneled by Fitzgerald. Cooper faces the possibility of jail time, and the magazine, a $1,000-per-day fine. The contempt citation is stayed on appeal.
Tim Russert of NBC News was subpoenaed along with Cooper in May. Russert reached a compromise by agreeing to answer limited questioning from prosecutors this past weekend. NBC News said Russert did so without betraying any pledges of confidentiality. Veteran Washington Post national security reporter Walter Pincus has also been subpoenaed in the probe. The Post is fighting the action. Another Post reporter, Glenn Kessler, agreed to answer limited questions earlier this summer. Robert Novak has not indicated whether or not he has been subpoenaed.

TERENCE SMITH: Joining me to discuss this case are Joseph diGenova, a former U.S. Attorney during the Reagan administration, and an independent counsel in the early 1990s; and Floyd Abrams, a First Amendment attorney who is currently representing Matthew Cooper and Time Magazine in the Plame investigation. Welcome to you both.
The heart of this matter is the so-called reporter's privilege on one side versus the prosecutor's obligation to prosecute a possible crime. Floyd Abrams, why is your client Matt Cooper, declining to go before the grand jury?

FLOYD ABRAMS: Well, let me say first he didn't decline to go before the grand jury. He declined to answer questions about confidential sources that he had promised that he would not disclose. And the reason that he would not do that is that it would be really impossible for him and impossible for other journalists around the country to gather news, particularly about the government, particularly about the government in Washington, but elsewhere in the country, too, if you once have to give up the opportunity to get information from people who won't give it to you unless you promise to protect them.
That's the way Washington works. A lot of people in the government are unwilling to speak except on the promise of confidentiality. And so Matt Cooper could not, consistent with his promises and consistent with journalistic ethics, provide that information

TERENCE SMITH: So you're suggesting he might go before the grand jury but not disclose confidential sources, is that correct?

FLOYD ABRAMS: Basically we agreed with the special counsel that there was no need for him to go in front of the grand jury since he had agreed to answer all questions about non-confidential matters, but he would not answer questions about confidential matters.
And I spoke to Mr. Fitzgerald, the special counsel, and we agreed that in that case, there was really no reason to bring him in to appear in front of the grand jury because Mr. Fitzgerald didn't want to ask him questions or limit his questions to matters which were not confidential. So in order to protect the confidential material, we really had to take the position that he wouldn't answer those questions.

TERENCE SMITH: Joseph diGenova, is it legitimate for a federal prosecutor to subpoena a reporter in a case like this?

JOSEPH diGENOVA: Absolutely. The law is very clear that reporters do not have an absolute or even a qualified privilege to resist grand jury subpoenas in criminal investigations.
The Branford case in 1972 of the United States Supreme Court held that journalists must appear and must testify in grand juries when subpoenaed and that there is no abridgment of the First Amendment in either freedom of speech or news gathering by requiring them to do so.
By the way, if I were a reporter I would want Mr. Abrams to be the one representing me because he is not only a great lawyer but he's a gentleman. And I think courts will listen to him in his arguments with great interest. But it is clear that a prosecutor who is doing his or her duty must subpoena reporters if that is the only other source of the information available to them.

TERENCE SMITH: Although there are some Justice Department guidelines, are there not, --

JOSEPH diGENOVA: Yes.

TERENCE SMITH: -- as to when he should do that and what he should do first?

JOSEPH diGENOVA: Yes. Absolutely. The Justice Department, of course like anybody else in Washington, is not interested in a big fight with people who have lots of ink and lots of paper: newspapers, networks, et cetera. And so they have set up a series of guidelines to inform prosecutors all over the United States that before they subpoena a reporter, they must exhaust all other avenues to obtain the information.
There must be reasonable grounds to believe that a crime has actually been committed. They shouldn't be using the grand jury as a fishing expedition to find out things from reporters and that they have to go through those hoops and then get the permission from the attorney general before they can actually issue the subpoena. So the Department is aware of that and tries to balance some of those interests.
In this case, apparently, based on published reports, those avenues have been exhausted and Mr. Fitzgerald had no other choice but to issue these subpoenas.

TERENCE SMITH: If it's true, Floyd Abrams, that there is no protection in a federal case, criminal case before a grand jury, what is the basis of your appeal?

FLOYD ABRAMS: Well, if it's true, then there's no basis. The question is: is it true? Our position in court is that it is by no means clear that there is no protection for the press at all and for journalists at all with respect to their confidential sources; that case that was correctly referred to is one in which it was a five to four decision with the fifth vote, Justice Powell, writing a separate opinion which many judges in many cases around the country have concluded does provide some significant protection for the press, and indeed that the protection is pretty much the same sort of thing that the attorney general's guidelines do; that is to say, you can't go to the press unless you absolutely need the information and you can't get it any place elsewhere. One of the problems here....

TERENCE SMITH: Do you know that to be the case, Floyd Abrams?

FLOYD ABRAMS: I don't know it to be the case because I haven't been able to see any of the materials submitted by Mr. Fitzgerald to the court. Everything is secret; everything is submitted without letting me see it because it is grand jury material. There is no reference in court at all in any of the hearings to whatever it is that leads special counsel to argue that he really needs the information or that he has exhausted all other sources.
So all we can do is to argue in court, please, Judge, either (a): Let me see the materials and then argue on the basis of it, or at least you please read it and read it keeping in mind that it's only when it's really necessary and only when you can't get the information anywhere else that you should enter an order like this. And I hope on appeal, that we might have a more successful effort in persuading the court of appeals that on one or the other of those grounds that we really ought to prevail.

TERENCE SMITH: All right. Let me ask you both, beginning with you, Joe diGenova, why doesn't a prosecutor in a case like this go directly to the source? The person who wrote the article, Robert Novak, the columnist, subpoena him and ask him who his sources are? Obviously he knows.

JOSEPH diGENOVA: Well, because prosecutors are worried that if they go directly to somebody like that right out of the bat, they're going to run afoul of those guidelines, which we talked about, the Department of Justice guidelines, and they want to exhaust all other avenues before they get to the person who actually published the information and has that information because if they go to surrounding reporters or other sources of information who were not involved in publication and don't have confidential relationships, they may be able to develop enough information that they can find out who the source is, confront that source directly without having to go to Mr. Novak and then raise this huge issue of forcing a reporter to reveal the confidential source. So the last person they want to go to, to avoid a constitutional conflict is Mr. Novak.

TERENCE SMITH: Do you see it that way as well, Floyd Abrams?

FLOYD ABRAMS: Well, I don't view Mr. Novak in this respect different than other journalists. My client, after all, Matt Cooper wrote an article. The article was based in part on confidential information provided to him by confidential sources. He may be an extra in this play as seen through the eyes of people focusing on Mr. Novak, but he has his own sources. And so, so far as he's concerned, so far as Time is concerned, so far as other publications are concerned, to go to them to ease the burden of going to Mr. Novak is not exactly a great First Amendment triumph.

JOSEPH diGENOVA: I don't disagree with Mr. Abrams about that. I think he is absolutely right. If you are the person being subpoenaed, believe me, you do not think that this is a lesser alternative in these things.
But nonetheless, if you're the prosecutor and you're looking at the Novak leak as the key leak, the naming of the agent, and allegedly theoretically a crime being committed by the person who leaked it to him, although it's not clear that a crime was committed by anyone who did that, then you want to wait. You want to take your time before you close that loop because you may not have to ask Mr. Novak that question. You may be able to find it out other ways.

TERENCE SMITH: But quickly, what is the higher obligation of the journalist here? Is it to be first a citizen who comes forward to assist a prosecution of a possible crime, or is it he or she who protects his or her sources?

JOSEPH diGENOVA: Well, as a prosecutor, I would say that the journalist's greater duty is to respond to the grand jury subpoena. But I must say I understand the position of the journalists here. And as someone who has worked with journalists over the years and talked to them and given them information, I certainly am not going to talk to journalists who aren't going to go to jail for me. I'll tell you that right now.

FLOYD ABRAMS: But the problem with a rule of law that requires journalists to go to jail is that it's a bizarre and self-defeating rule. If journalists have to choose between either not promising confidentiality and therefore missing out on you, or going to jail, you know, I mean a few of them would go to jail for you but not everyone. And then the public will lose the benefit of all of your wisdom.

JOSEPH diGENOVA: Absolutely. Absolutely.

TERENCE SMITH: Okay, Floyd Abrams, Joseph diGenova, thank you both very much.

[TacticalPeek]

31. Kick.

:kick:

[H2O Man]

33. "Sunday Pops" in this morning's Pittsburgh

Tribune-Review expresses the opinion that the Plame grand jury, by forcing reporters to testify, will cause the "consitutionally mandated free press (to) no longer ... be free." The opinion ends with, "The resulting darkness only serves those whose intentions are not honorable."

Investigating a federal crime is not honorable? Protecting Robert Novak, Scooter Libby, and Dick Cheney is honorable?

I'm having trouble finding he editorials from the Tribune-Review demanding that President Bush clean his own house. Perhaps DUers would be interested in sending letters to the editor?

[Norquist Nemesis]

34. Reporters need to protect their sources

No doubt about it. However, when the "source" is the perpetrator, that's another matter in my book and what goes to the heart of the matter in this case. The "source" wasn't contacted by the reporter initially. The "source" made first contact. The "source" didn't relay information about knowledge of someone else leaking the name. The "source" leaked it and thus committed the crime.

[H2O Man]

35. The idea that we should review

the federal law regarding this, which is based largely on the 1972 Supreme Court case, is a wonderful idea. However, that is something the houses of congress, with the participation of the public, should be doing.

Right now we have a law. The reporters should follow the law, or be willing to accept the full consequences for breaking it.

Two distinct issues. It doesn't help to blur them.

[H2O Man]

36. Seattle Post-Intelligencer/ Editorial

Another editorial in a large newspaper. It notes that, "Novak was either a dupe or an agent provocateur in propagating the Plame leak, who -- like Bush officials -- hasn't fingered his White House accomplice."

When papers put in a Sunday editorial, it begs for letters in response. This is an opportunity for DU members who are in the Seattle area, or the Pittsburgh area (see last post per that editorial).

[H2O Man]

37. Buffalo News: Editorial

by Mary Sullivan. See:

http://www.buffalonews.com/editorial/20040815/1006105.asp

It is interesting to note that the editorials in newspapers across the country are beginning to look like form letters. Paragraph for paragraph, they say almost the exact same thing.

[H2O Man]

38. Washington Post "media notes"

by Howard Kurtz: "In Matt Cooper Case, Chilling Implications"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A4038-2004Aug15.html

This article is a little different than the others.

[H2O Man]

39. Plame Media

A search of the news on Valerie Plame at google shows that over the weekend, more than 51 large newspapers, in cities across the country, ran articles/editorials about the 1st ammendment issues involved in the Plame grand jury.

The similarity is due to many city papers running slight variations of an article by Jennifer Kerr of AP. Several papers who do not credit Kerr clearly use her article as their outline.

The papers include those listed above, as well as the Anchorage Daily News; Tacoma News Tribune; Knoxville News Sentinel; the Provo Daily Herald,UT; Miami Herald; Atlanta Journal Constitution; Kansas City Star; and the San Jose Mercury News, among many others.

Thus, people across the nation are getting some news on the Plame grand jury, which is a good thing. However, they are only getting a small piece of the news, which is by its nature slanted towards protecting reporters' sources. And that is not necessarily accurate or good.

I continue to urge people to write letters to the editor of the papers which have ran editorials regarding the Plame grand jury.

[mountebank]

40. Hadn't seen this Novak quote before....

Novak said on CNN last year that the CIA "asked me not to use her name, but never indicated it would endanger her or anybody else."

Question: if the leak came from the White House, why was the CIA asking him not to use her name? And then why did he?

I apologize if this has been mulled over ad nauseum.....

[H2O Man]

41. Easy answer:

The information was "leaked" to Novak from the White House, as he noted. He called CI for confirmation. They asked him not to mention Plame. Novak then called Wilson, who also requested he not mention Plame. Noval then wrote his article about Plame.

[H2O Man]

43. News updates:

Every day, on the news@google:Plame, there are numerous stories concerning the Plame case. Most are somewhat repetitious. However, they show that the news media is paying attention to the case now, because of the grand jury calling reporters, not because the White House is crooked.

As always: letters to the editor are needed.

[TacticalPeek]

44. A new, additional subpoena for Judith Miller, and one for the NYT.

'NY Times' Gets 2 More Subpoenas in Plame Case

By Joe Strupp

Published: August 17, 2004 10:24 AM EST

NEW YORK The New York Times has received two more subpoenas from prosecutors investigating who leaked the identity of former CIA officer Valerie Plame to the press, E&P has learned.

The subpoenas, one for reporter Judith Miller and one for the Times, seek documents and other records related to the paper's reporting on Plame. Miller received a previous subpoena on Aug. 11 compelling her to testify before a federal grand jury investigating the case. The two latest subpoenas arrived over the weekend.

"We now have a total of three subpoenas," Times spokeswoman Catherine Mathis said today. "We will either have to comply or file a motion to quash by Aug. 20. The Times will move to quash."

more
http://209.11.49.220/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000613371

[Tellurian]

45. The NYT and Miller are stalling..

If the newspaper is filing a motion to QUASH...they are buying time until Goss's inevitable appointment. Once Goss is in, the Plame investigation will be just another delusional interlude we've had seeking Justice.

This is not good atall!

[H2O Man]

46. Early on we asked

how far they would go ..... we're getting the picture now. They're pulling out all the stops. They are an ugly, immoral group. It's a shame that people don't get the connection between Goss and this case .... but how can they, when all the newspapers are whining about "freedom of the press"???

[Tellurian]

60. agreed...

The addition of Goss to the corruptness equation of the Justice Dept will solidify the domination of the Third Branch of the government.

[H2O Man]

61. And will help to

incapacitate Congress. For an example of how impotent congress will be, the potential Goss confirmation, without a serios discussion of why he should not be the DCI, shows how weak they have become.

[Stephanie]

47. What does Goss have to do with it?

This is in the hands of the Justice Dept.

[H2O Man]

48. Just one example:

Suppose the Grand Jury hands down indictments. And suppose that investigator wants to go to trial. Goss could make a significant amount of related material that could show involvement of others unavailable, do to "national security." Goss has spoken out about his belief that the Plame case should be dropped. An administration official quoted in earlier articles (and Wilson's book) says that the White House has used "earth movers" to cover up the case. Goss would seem likely to do everything he could to keep it from growing beyond Libby and Abrams.

[lancdem]

49. If that happens

that could blow up in the WH's face, because their efforts at obstruction would be so obvious (not that they wouldn't try). Plus, Fitzgerald will not back down.

Also, wouldn't he already have the material he needs from the CIA?

[Stephanie]

50. That was my understanding

From Josh Marshall, last February:

According to the letter the CIA first contacted Justice by phone on July 24th, 2003. They followed up on July 30th, 2003 with a letter advising them of a possible violation of criminal law and informing them that they had opened their own investigation.

The folks at the CIA seem not to have gotten an altogether satisfactory response to the July 30th letter because they again sent the letter, by fax, on September 5th, 2003.

Then on September 16, 2003 they contacted Justice yet again to inform them that they (i.e., CIA) had completed their investigation. They provided a memo summarizing their findings and requested that the FBI begin a criminal investigation of the matter.

Finally on September 29th, Justice notified the CIA that they had in fact begun an investigation.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_02_01.php#002527

[Stephanie]

52. What related material?

If you mean the extent of Plame's network and her mission, then yes. But if you mean the involvement of others in the crime of outting Plame, isn't all of that info with Justice already?

[H2O Man]

56. The Plame network .....

You are correct that the original complaint came from CI to the Justice Dept.

[merh]

64. The crime is the outing of a covert agent.

If information from the CIA is "suddenly" found that she was not covert then there is no crime. :shrug: it could happen!

[merh]

63. If Goss is CIA - he can easily find as the head of the department

that "national security" concerns do not afford his department or the agents to further assist the prosecutor. How sticky does it become when agents are not allowed to testify.

National security concerns over the 1st amendment and all other provisions of law. He would be able to shut down the investigation and prosecution with no trouble. "In the best interests of national security."

imho

[merh]

53. August 20, 2004 issue of Executive Intelligence Review article

on Goss - for your thread. We need to get the dems to stop this appointment!


This article appears in the August 20, 2004 issue of Executive Intelligence Review.

Senate Must Not Capitulate
To Blackmail on Goss Nomination
by Edward Spannaus

Were the Senate to go along with the Administration's provocative nomination of Rep. Porter Goss (R-Fla.) for CIA Director, it would mark a cowardly capituation to the stonewalling of any investigation of the crimes of Vice President Dick Cheney and his cronies in the Bush Administration. The Administration's obstruction has been aided greatly by the Republican leadership of key Congressional oversight committees, and in this, no one has exceeded the role played by Porter Goss, as chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

Goss has blocked any investigation of three critical subject-areas clearly falling within his jurisdiction:

* The fabrication of intelligence on Iraq's weapons programs, under pressure from Cheney and other Administration officials, in order to justify the invasion of Iraq;

* The illegal disclosure by White House officials, of the identity of CIA covert operative Valerie Plame, in an effort to discredit her husband, former Ambassador Joe Wilson, who had debunked the fable that Saddam Hussein was trying to buy uranium "yellowcake" ore from Niger; and

(snip)

http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2004/3133goss_cia.html

=======================
This article goes on to express the desire that the Dems not give in and agree to the nomination of Goss. It refers to several retired CIA agents that feel that Goss is the wrong man for the job.

"The reaction to Goss's nomination has been especially strong among a number of retired CIA officials. Retired Adm. Stansfield Turner, who was DCI in the late 1970s, called the nomination "a bad day for the CIA," and charged that Goss was chosen simply "to help George Bush win votes in Florida." "This is the worst appointment that's ever been made to the office of Director of Central Intelligence, because that's an office that needs to be kept above partisan politics," Turner said."

[H2O Man]

54. Thanks.

I think it is an urgent issue.

[H2O Man]

55. Thanks. (***again)

* on edit: sorry - duplicate - though it never hurts to say thanks twice.

Everyone should be lobbying with their elected officials to stop the appointment of Goss. Bush is bluffing that he wants a fight on this issue. It isn't the democrats who are politicizing the process. Goss is one of the last people on earth who should be considered for CI.

[merh]

58. This is where the letters and grass roots effort have to come

into play. The dems cannot let Goss slither into this post. I don't care if it is only for 5 months, he will do everything in his power to derail all investigations of this admins crimes.

Thanks for the double thanks and you are welcome, of course! ;-)

[merh]

65. Draft of possible letter opposing Goss:

Dear _____________:

I write this letter as a concerned citizen of the United States of America. Our president has named a man to be director of the CIA who, by his own admission, is not qualified to hold the post. "I couldn't get a job with CIA today. I am not qualified...". Mr. Goss made this admission when interviewed and the link to the video of this recorded interview is http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/goss.php.

How disconcerting it is to have the president nominate a man that is lacking technical skills that are necessary to perform his duties and to administer his office and the agency. We live in a technical society and it has been reported that the terrorists that threaten our nation are technically savvy. They use the internet and their various computer skills to communicate and plot against our nation, yet the man nominated to the post of CIA, in his own words, lacks the skills necessary to function as an agent of the CIA. “And I certainly don't have the technical skills, uh, as my children remind me every day: ‘Dad you got to get better on your computer.”

This is preposterous. Mr. Goss has been in the Senate long enough to have learned how to effectively operate a computer, but instead he basks in his ignorance and apparently allows others to perform for him. If he were to submit an application to the CIA for the position as an agent or an officer worker he would not be interviewed for the position because he lacks the necessary computer skills, yet this is the man our president wants to head the CIA? How does a man who is happy to remain ignorant of technology "lead the agency through the challenges and threats of the dangerous new century"?

The Acting Director of the CIA, John E. McLaughlin, is more than competent to continue as the director of the CIA. The failure to affirm Mr. Goss' appointment will not result in our nation being left with an unqualified person overseeing the post. As Deputy Director of Central Intelligence, Mr. McLaughlin assisted Director George J. Tenet in overseeing the operational, analytic, scientific, and technical activities of the Intelligence Community. He is not technically challenged and he is more qualified than Goss to serve the nation, which after all, is the ultimate goal of the position.

Senator Pat Roberts, chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, has publicly opined that Goss was not right for the job (prior to the appointment). Senator Roberts specifically advised "My only message to the White House is if they do this, make it an extraordinary person that will get bipartisan support." He added, “We do not want a partisan fight right before the election.” The appointment of Goss is partisan. Mr. Goss objected to the 9/11 commission investigation; has said that he does not believe the investigation into the outing of a covert CIA agent is necessary or legitimate; has publicly opposed the investigation into the prison tortures in Iraq (and elsewhere); and, has openly opposed any investigation into the claims of Ms. Edmund. How can he be the director of our intelligence community when he has no concerns relative to the safety and behavior of our intelligence agents, let alone the nations security and the abuses of power that weaken our reputation and render us vulnerable?

In closing, I simply wish to remind you that it was Mr. Goss that said he lacked the necessary skills and experience to be a CIA agent, let alone the director of the CIA. To quote Mr. Goss, “Uh, so, the things that you need to have, I don't have."

With the greatest of concern and sincerity, I am,

__________________
Name



**********************************************************************
For your reference please see the list of quotes from others that oppose the Peter Goss nomination.

"This is the worst appointment that's ever been made to the office of Director of Central Intelligence, because that's an office that needs to be kept above partisan politics."
Retired Admiral Stansfield Turner

"There's one thing Goss really didn't do for the past several years—he didn't chair the House Intelligence Committee, in spite of what his resumé claims. Instead, he did the dead man's float."
Former CIA analyst Larry Johnson

"Goss has never been very distinguished, but he's protected. He's a Bush loyalist and has been in the forefront of those who have tried to place the major blame for the 9-11 attacks on the Agency." Former CIA counter-terrorism chief Vincent Cannistraro

"This whole appointment is a cheap political trick,"
"One of the recommendations of the <9-11> Commission is that no political appointee be made Director. But this is so clearly political. If Goss isn't a political appointee, than I don't know what is." "This will do nothing but cause more disarray at Langley," Judith Yaphe, former CIA analyst

"I strongly urge the President to look for an individual with unimpeachable, nonpartisan national-security credentials and the stature and independence to bring about much-needed reform of our intelligence agencies." Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W. Va), ranking member of the Senate Intelligence Committee

[H2O Man]

66. very impressive!!!

Good job! I hope that we can change the direction the Goss nomination is taking. This letter is great start. Let's get letters going!

[kohodog]

80. Great letter Merh. Lets post our activities everyone!

Please post the number of letters you send. Lets inspire each other and others to get involved.

thanks Merh for a letter we can start from!

[H2O Man]

57. For those interested:

I posted a paper on 9-11, "Sometime in NYC: Bush, bin Laden, & 9-11" elsewhere on General Discussion.

I wrote it to try to end a wasted effort to "solve" 9-11 and "prove" the Bush Administration participated in the attack. My paper is not intended in any way to show the administration as anything less than criminal.

Anyhow, I'm more interested in people continueing to write to the media and elected officials on the Plame grand jury, and the Goss controversy.

[H2O Man]

59. 8-18 update

the New York Times has an article by Jacques Steinburg concerning attacks on the 1st Ammendment. It's an interesting article, but it implies the administration is involved in an attempt to limit the free press -- which is true -- which includes the Plame grand jury investigation. The Bush administration is hardly the moving force behind the attempt to identify the White House officials who exposed Plame. This is the type of "disinformation" that demands a response.
See article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/18/national/18press.html

[yodermon]

62. My one line response to any supposed 1st amendment issues:

The leak WAS the Crime!

It even has a nice chantable cadence to it. :)

my comments here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=2228623#2229129

[Me.]

68. Exactly!

But typically with this admin black is white and vice versa. As I understand it the Whistle blower Law was put in place to protect those who had government wronging to reveal but were afraid to because of reprisals. So now it is being used to protect the government and their journalistic co-conspirators. When I think of the lives that may have been lost by Novak's willy nilly reveal I lament the state of surreal world we are living in. Do any of you think he has a clue of the damage he has done or is his a world of sublime ignorance?

[coeur_de_lion]

69. Oh, he has a clue, believe me

But he most likely does not give a damn. H2O has said that Novak has no credibility in journalistic circles anymore because of what he did. He is hated and avoided. Does that phase him? Not likely. The kind of person that can endanger someone's life and ruin her career (as well as the lives and careers of scores of other agents) does not have the kind of conscience that you and I have.

He has no real sense of right and wrong, only a sense that the Republicans must stay in power. Whatever it takes to accomplish this is all he cares about. It was an act of desperation. Victor Hugo said,

"There exists, at the bottom of all abasement and misfortune, a last extreme which rebels and joins battle with the forces of law and respectability in a desperate struggle, waged partly by cunning and partly by violence, at once sick and ferocious, in which it attacks the prevailing social order with the pin-pricks of vice and the hammer-blows of crime."

That is what we witnessed when Novak published Valerie Plame's name in the newspaper. What else might they do in their desperate attempt to stay in power? Why, just about anything. Count on it.

[Me.]

71. What A Fabulous Quote!

Who or where is it from?

As for Novak I suspect that his criteria for loyalty is his pocketbook and taxes. Whoever lets him keep every craven penny and keeps it out of the hands of those dreadful needy, are all right by him and will have his undying loyalty.

[coeur_de_lion]

73. Victor Hugo, "Les Misérables" pt. 4, bk. 7, ch. 1

[TacticalPeek]

77. Were he to fall into a ditch the ditch would spit him out again in disgust

Were he to fall into a ditch, the ditch would spit him out again, in disgust.

James Wolcott, on Robert Novak, from his Attack Poodles and Other Media Mutants : The Looting of the News in a Time of Terror, quoted just now at Eschaton.

:evilgrin:

[coeur_de_lion]

78. I Love it! n/t

[coeur_de_lion]

67. Goss must mend frayed CIA-White House relationship

<<snip>>

Seldom have relations between the US intelligence community and the government it serves been so fraught. In successive reports, America's spies have been portrayed as bumbling and inept, failing to spot clues that led to the September 11 2001 terrorist plot while seeing all manner of threats where, apparently, there was none.

At the same time, many in the 15 agencies of the US “intelligence community” have been angry at how their information was used by the Bush administration to push its case for war. To add insult to injury, they say, the White House has now left them to take the blame for the embarrassing failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Can Porter Goss, President George W. Bush's choice for director of central intelligence and himself a former spy, help repair frayed relations? On the face of it, Mr Goss is ideal: he spent most of the 1960s at the CIA as an undercover operative in Europe and Latin America. As a Republican congressman and chairman of the House intelligence oversight committee since 1997, he also understands government.

In Mr Goss, Mr Bush has sought someone to bridge the gulf between the government and the intelligence community. After all, a disgruntled intelligence community is the last thing he needs in the run-up to the presidential election.

George Tenet, the former intelligence chief, resigned in June, citing personal reasons. However, many in the intelligence community felt that he and the CIA had been made scapegoats for the government's perceived errors in Iraq.
<<snip>>

<<snip>>
But there are signs that the spies will not meekly accept the blame. Last month a book came out by a serving CIA officer, writing anonymously, which was sharply critical of the White House. In Imperial Hubris, the 22-year intelligence veteran warned the war on terror was going so badly that he fully expected his grandchildren still to be fighting it. The analyst, who spent several years tracking Osama bin Laden, wrote that the US “remains bin Laden's only indispensable ally” because of its actions in Iraq and elsewhere in the Muslim world. Comparing it to the 1846 invasion of Mexico, the author called the war in Iraq an “avaricious, premeditated, unprovoked war against a foe who posed no immediate threat but whose defeat did offer economic advantages”.
<<snip>>

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/9168b60a-efb2-11d8-b4ef-00000e2511c8.html

[H2O Man]

70. interesting info...

Secret agents
From Washington to Providence, reporters face jail for not giving up their sources. But what, exactly, does the government hope to accomplish?
BY DAN KENNEDY

IN WASHINGTON, DC, Time magazine’s Matthew Cooper has refused to identify his confidential sources to Patrick Fitzgerald, the special prosecutor trying to find out who exposed undercover CIA operative Valerie Plame. The upshot: Cooper faces jail, and his employer a hefty fine. The New York Times and the Washington Post have been dragged into this as well.
In Providence, Rhode Island, WJAR-TV (Channel 10) investigative reporter Jim Taricani has also been threatened with jail. Taricani’s offense: not telling government officials the name of the person who gave him a surveillance tape showing a top aide to then–Providence mayor Vincent "Buddy" Cianci taking a bribe from an informant. The station began paying a $1000-a-day fine last week.
At press time, six reporters — two from the New York Times, and one each from the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, the Associated Press, and CNN — were waiting to learn whether they would be held in contempt of court for refusing to name sources in their coverage of Wen Ho Lee, a former Los Alamos scientist once suspected of spying for China. Lawyers for Lee claim the information is needed so they can pursue a violation-of-privacy lawsuit against the federal government.
The question of whether reporters have a legal right to protect their confidential sources has been with us for at least a generation. By one estimate, some 18 reporters have spent time behind bars during the past dozen years for refusing to name sources or provide information they had obtained in confidence. Rarely, though, has the issue been as prominent as it is right now. Altogether, according to the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, at least 10 face jail or heavy fines in these three cases. "The number of journalists facing jail in the United States to protect their sources is unprecedented," the organization says.
For those who might have assumed that the issue had long since been settled in favor of the press, these cases demonstrate otherwise. In fact, the matter of whether journalists can protect their confidential sources is one of the great unknowns in media law. For the most part, the answer is no: reporters have the same requirement to testify before a grand jury and divulge what they know about a crime that’s under investigation as any other citizen does. Yet because relying on anonymous sources is sometimes a necessary part of journalism, the courts — and many state legislatures — have carved out certain limited protections for the news media. No reporter, though, enjoys absolute, blanket protection.
The Matthew Cooper case has received the most attention nationally because the Valerie Plame investigation itself has received so much coverage. In 2002, the CIA sent Plame’s husband, former ambassador Joseph Wilson, to Niger in order to investigate claims that Iraq had tried to obtain yellowcake uranium, an ingredient used in the manufacture of nuclear weapons. Wilson reported that there was nothing to the story — and then, in July 2003, wrote an op-ed piece for the New York Times in which he accused the White House of ignoring his findings. Within days, syndicated columnist Robert Novak reported that "wo senior administration officials" had told him Wilson had received the Niger assignment on the recommendation of his wife — "Valerie Plame, ... an agency operative on weapons of mass destruction."
Wilson denied — and continues to deny — that his wife was responsible for his Nigerien adventure. Recently, though, the bipartisan report of the Senate Intelligence Committee strongly suggested that Plame did indeed suggest her husband for the assignment. The report also found that Wilson, contrary to his assertions in the Times, came across evidence that an agent of Saddam Hussein may have sought to buy yellowcake from the Nigerien government. But though the report has cast aspersions on Wilson’s credibility, it also suggests a motive for whoever leaked Plame’s name, CIA status, and relationship to Wilson. What better way to belittle him than to cast him as an over-the-hill diplomat who depends on his wife for occasional work?
What has brought Matt Cooper to the brink of jail is a federal law — the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982 — that makes it a crime for a government official to reveal the identity of a covert government employee such as Plame. Reportedly, the officials who whispered Plame’s name in Novak’s ear ratted her out to about a half-dozen journalists in total, although only Novak — an ultraconservative inside player known in political and media circles as "the Prince of Darkness" — was willing to rush it into print. (In a piece for Time.com that appeared only after Novak’s column had already been published, Cooper and two fellow reporters wrote that "some government officials" were shopping her name to the media.) Also fighting subpoenas in the Plame matter are Washington Post reporter Walter Pincus and New York Times reporter Judith Miller. (Actually, Miller has received two subpoenas in the Plame case, and the Times as a separate party has received one as well.) Apparently Fitzgerald’s office has some reason to believe that they, too, know who was behind the Plame leak. (In a twist that is either ironic or simply evidence of how hard the guy works, Pincus is also one of those named in the Wen Ho Lee case.)
On July 20, US District Court judge Thomas Hogan ruled against a motion filed by Cooper and NBC News Washington-bureau chief Tim Russert to quash subpoenas seeking their testimony. Hogan’s ruling was made public last week, at which time it was also reported that Russert had already testified, but without naming any confidential sources. (Last spring, the Washington Post’s Glenn Kessler testified under similar circumstances.) Cooper, though, faces jail unless he agrees to reveal the identity of "some government officials" before Fitzgerald’s grand jury. His magazine faces a fine of $1000 a day. Both sanctions have been postponed pending the outcome of Cooper’s and Time’s appeal. Presumably Miller, Pincus, and their newspapers, who were not dragged into the case until more recently, could receive the same punishment.


IN AN APPEARANCE last week on CNN’s NewsNight, Cooper’s lawyer, the noted First Amendment specialist Floyd Abrams, said that "under the First Amendment of the Constitution, reporters have a right not to reveal their sources, because that’s a part of newsgathering, without which it would be impossible to find the news which they present to the public." Under prodding from host Aaron Brown, though, Abrams allowed that his position was "unsettled law."
Indeed. In 1972 the Supreme Court heard four cases that to this day define — or fail to define — whether and under what circumstances a reporter can protect his or her sources. Two of the cases involved a reporter for the Louisville Courier-Journal named Paul Branzburg, whose articles about unnamed young men turning marijuana into hashish and selling illegal drugs had excited the imaginations of local prosecutors. In addition, reporters for a New Bedford, Massachusetts, television station and the New York Times had separately reported stories involving anonymous sources about possible illegal activities on the part of the Black Panthers. The court’s decision, known as Branzburg v. Hayes, is ambiguous enough that, 32 years later, it continues to be cited to support any and all positions.
In a five-to-four decision, the court ruled against the journalists, finding that they had no First Amendment right to protect their sources, and that they would have to testify before the grand jury just as any other citizen would. Justice Byron White wrote, "From the beginning of our country the press has operated without constitutional protection for press informants, and the press has flourished." In fact, from turn-of-the-century muckrakers such as Ida Tarbell and Upton Sinclair to Vietnam War correspondents such as David Halberstam and Seymour Hersh, investigative journalists somehow managed to do important work without claiming a constitutional right to protect their sources. In the 1970s, though, such matters as the Pentagon Papers and Watergate brought new attention to governmental whistle-blowers, and to news media’s need to protect their identities.
White’s opinion, at least, had the virtue of being unambiguous. But one of the five justices who voted with him in the majority, Lewis Powell, wrote a concurring opinion stating that "a proper balance" must be struck "between freedom of the press and the obligation of all citizens to give relevant testimony with respect to criminal conduct." That balance, Powell added, must be evaluated on "a case-by-case basis." The four dissenting justices were already of the view that journalists should enjoy at least some limited privilege in protecting confidential sources, and Powell’s concurring opinion seemed to suggest that he agreed with them on principle.
The practical effect of the Branzburg decision was that many states and the federal government developed guidelines that must be followed before a prosecutor can demand that a journalist give up his or her confidential sources. Those guidelines generally involve demonstrating that the information being sought is vital to an ongoing criminal investigation, and that other means of obtaining that information have been tried and have failed. About three dozen states have so-called shield laws aimed at protecting reporters, but none of those laws is absolute. Massachusetts does not have such a law. Rhode Island does, but it’s never been tested, and in any case does not offer any protection to Jim Taricani, since the leak of the surveillance tape is being investigated by federal rather than state authorities. Though shield laws sound good in theory, they rarely offer a journalist — or, for that matter, a source — much more protection than the guidelines that most prosecutors follow already. And since the Sixth Amendment guarantees that someone accused of a crime may compel witnesses to testify, a shield law offering absolute protection would probably be unconstitutional.
Taricani, when contacted last week, declined to comment on his case, referring me to WJAR spokeswoman Clare Eckert, who said the station began paying a $1000-a-day fine last Thursday. In a prepared statement, she said, "We are disappointed by the ruling of the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit against our position. We continue to believe if the courts can compel reporters to disclose the identity of a confidential source, many sources will withhold newsworthy information that is important to share with the public. Mr. Taricani respectfully declines to identify his confidential source."
Taricani’s lawyer, Jonathan Albano, of the Boston firm Bingham McCutchen, declined to discuss the specifics of the Taricani case. But he offered some pointed words on the matter of why confidential sources can be important — and why journalists should be able to protect their identities.
"If you talk honestly to elected officials and, for that matter, judges, I don’t think anybody would dispute that they have said things off the record that they would never say if those statements were going to be attributed to them," Albano says. "There are many instances in which people just aren’t willing to pay the price. It’s not really about reporters trying to say, ‘We’re a special breed, we’re above the law.’ It’s really about what’s the most fair way that people feel willing to speak about government issues."
As for Matthew Cooper, Albano says, "I wish him luck. It’s a very tough position to be in."
PERHAPS THE most peculiar aspect of the Valerie Plame probe is that Patrick Fitzgerald, the special prosecutor, appears to be going after everyone except the one person who unquestionably knows which "wo senior administration officials" outed her to Robert Novak. That would be — drum roll, please — Robert Novak. Presumably Novak does not face criminal charges; it’s the White House that’s being investigated for exposing Plame’s identity, not Novak for sticking it in his column. (Novak, through a spokeswoman, declined to comment, as did his Washington, DC–based lawyer, James Hamilton, when I contacted them last week.)
Although no one knows the explanation for sure, one well-educated guess — offered by Jonathan Albano, among others — is that Novak, at least so far, is benefiting from the very guidelines that grew out of the Branzburg decision. That is, investigators do not want to ask a judge to compel Novak’s testimony until they can show that they’ve exhausted all other potential sources of information. The irony in this case, of course, is that those other potential sources are all fellow journalists.
Perhaps Novak’s day is coming. At the moment, though, it’s galling to see someone like Matt Cooper, basically an innocent bystander, facing jail while the Prince of Darkness continues to glower at viewers from his perch on CNN and to service sources and settle scores in his syndicated column. The Nation’s Washington editor, David Corn, the first journalist to report that the outing of Plame was evidence of a possible crime, says Novak should have handled the leak in an entirely different manner, although he supports Novak’s right not to identify his sources. Corn says Novak could have written that "these guys are willing to blow a national-security secret" in order to impeach Joseph Wilson’s credibility. "You could say, ‘It’s not derogatory information about Joe Wilson, but it is national-security information, and I’m not going to play with them,’" Corn adds. Clearly, though, Novak was more interested in tormenting Wilson and Plame than he was in biting the hands of his well-connected benefactors.
In agreement with Corn is Alex Jones, director of the Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics, and Public Policy, at Harvard’s Kennedy School. "I do regard releasing Valerie Plame’s identity as a CIA agent, outing her, a genuine secret that was disclosed. This is not about politics," Jones says. "It seems to me that it’s pretty fundamental that when you’re given the name of a covert CIA agent, you might say, ‘Wow, what a great story,’ but as a citizen you would say, ‘Wait a minute, I can’t do this.’"
Of course, the journalists-behaving-badly angle is hardly a new story line. And to the public, already wary of the news media’s over-reliance on anonymous sources and overweening arrogance, the claim put forth by the likes of Matt Cooper and Jim Taricani — that what they do is so important that they should be exempt from the obligations of ordinary citizens — might ring pretty hollow. After all, the First Amendment is for all of us, not just for those who work for major news organizations. Justice White, in Branzburg, noted that carving out any sort of special privilege for reporters would necessarily involve defining who is and who is not a journalist — "a questionable procedure in light of the traditional doctrine that liberty of the press is the right of the lonely pamphleteer who uses carbon paper or a mimeograph just as much as of the large metropolitan publisher who utilizes the latest photocomposition methods."
To put it in a 21st-century context, the anchor of a major television news network should enjoy nothing more in the way of First Amendment protections than does a lonely blogger posting to the Internet in the attic of her parents’ house.
Lucy Dalglish, executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, has thought about that very subject. Dalglish forthrightly argues that reporters should receive special privileges, because "the press is the only entity mentioned in the Constitution. And the whole idea behind that is to make sure that there is a free flow of information to the public." But Dalglish would define who is entitled to those special privileges not by who they are, or whom they work for, but by what they do.
It’s a crucial difference. Several years ago, a Houston-area woman named Vanessa Leggett was jailed for a mind-boggling 168 days for refusing to turn over tapes and notes she had compiled in the course of interviews conducted for a book she hoped to write about a 1997 murder. Leggett’s situation was made infinitely more difficult because of questions about whether she was a "real" journalist, worthy of the same protections as, say, a reporter for the Houston Chronicle. She was finally released in early 2002 after the grand jury investigating the murder was dissolved.
Dalglish’s answer to Leggett’s dilemma is that protections should be extended to anyone engaged in journalism — as Leggett surely was. "Her intention all along was to publish a book for public consumption," Dalglish says. Or as Leggett herself has been quoted as saying, "It’s not the institution of journalism that needs to be protected, it’s the act of journalism."
EVEN THOUGH it’s been more than 19 years since she nearly went to jail for refusing to name a confidential source, Susan Wornick’s memory of that time remains vivid. "I was an hour away from going to MCI-Framingham," says Wornick, an anchor and reporter for Boston’s WCVB-TV (Channel 5). She calls the experience "terrifying," explaining, "I knew there was nothing that was going to happen to me while I was in jail. But what I was scared to death of was losing my freedom."
Wornick got lucky. At the last minute, her source — a man who’d told her in an interview, with his back to the camera, that he’d seen six police officers stealing from a Revere drugstore — came forward to spare Wornick a three-month prison sentence. But any sense Wornick might have had that her battle had struck a blow for press freedom has long since dissipated. "It’s truly unbelievable to me that here it is 2004, and we’re still talking about these contempt-of-court charges against reporters in America," she says.
Wornick handles sources differently since her near-jailing. "I would never in a million years, based on what happened to me, pass on a great story, an important story," she says. "What I do that is different now, in every case, I still promise anonymity. However, what you need to know as my source is the potential of what can happen. This can become a big news story, this can become a big issue, and how are you going to feel personally? I’ll go to jail. Will you let me go to jail? That’s what it comes down to."
Perhaps that, more than anything, gets at what is wrong about all this. Depending on how a particular judge at a particular time in a particular place interprets Branzburg, reporters may very well be required to disclose the identity of their sources. But guess what? They’re not going to. No one wants to go to jail. But for a reporter, doing time on a matter of principle is a great career move. More to the point, any reporter who would give up a source in order to avoid jail is quickly going to become an ex-reporter.
Last week Joseph diGenova, a former US attorney, appeared on The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer to argue against the notion that reporters have even a qualified privilege to withhold their sources’ identity. "But I must say I understand the position of the journalists here," diGenova added. "And as someone who has worked with journalists over the years and talked to them and given them information, I certainly am not going to talk to journalists who aren’t going to go to jail for me. I’ll tell you that right now." No kidding. And that, really, underscores the absurdity of this entire mess. Matt Cooper’s not going to give up his sources. Nor is Jim Taricani. Nor would Susan Wornick have.
The worst thing that you can say about a law is that it doesn’t work — that no one will obey it and that, in fact, defying it only adds to one’s prestige and reputation. One suspects that Judge Hogan knew Matt Cooper wouldn’t comply with his order even as he was affixing his signature to it. Hogan’s reasoning may have been correct. But it’s hard to see how it moved the Plame investigation along, advanced the cause of justice, or did anything other than provide a little cover for a probe that seems to be going nowhere.
Lucy Dalglish’s fear is that "the only people who end up in jail as a result of this whole thing are the reporters." For George W. Bush, it would be the perfect outcome to an embarrassing episode. This may be a small-minded wish, but if Matt Cooper serves any time in prison, I hope Bob Novak has to serve one day more.

[kohodog]

72. It's not that we are in danger of living in a fascist state, WE ARE

living in a fascist state. And if Bush wins our strategy will need to change. If the election is stolen (which is the only way I see them winning), our letters will no longer be of significant. We must all take action NOW, while we have a hope of making a difference.

If Bush gets the Judicial branch under his twisted agenda we all have much to fear.

[coeur_de_lion]

74. That is very true, Kohodog, we have a lot of work yet to do

writing letters to our representatives to oppose the Goss confirmation, and to the media keep the Plame investigation at the forefront of the news.

As you can see by the fabulous article H2O just posted, because of the First Ammendment angle this story is being kept alive somewhat. But the media can do better and we have to keep after them to do it.

Maybe we should start up the letter writing campaign with renewed vigor, and report back to the board about our activities.

[kohodog]

79. I agree Arbustochua, action is the key, not discussion (although it may

instigate action). And this election is a main key to reinstating democracy. Kerry isn't my favorite, but I am behind him 100% because the alternative is unthinkable with all the ramifications another four years would bring. Our letters may or may not bring them to justice, but we need to keep the pressure on and we need to help get out the vote.

We all need to think about what we can do personally to effect change. As much as I enjoy DU, the Plame threads and others, they should not take away time from our efforts to make sure Bush is sent to Texas or Mars if he chooses.

[coeur_de_lion]

81. Kerry is not my personal favorite either . . .

But he is the nominee, and does seem to have a lot going for him.

Steviet, on the other "Plame thread" made the point that the Plame investigation is "our best bet of landing a KO punch to the reeling goop before Nov. 2."

I agree with him. We can't letup on the letter writing campaign now.

[H2O Man]

101. I agree....

let's move on it .....

[coeur_de_lion]

75. very interesting article, H2O. Where did you find it? n/t

[Stephanie]

76. link?

Thanks H20 Man, but I have to ask, why are you posting the whole thing? I know you know not to. Please edit.

[H2O Man]

82. I get the "news" on here from

news at google (Plame).... I tend to read it every day. I think the entire article is important, because it shows what context the Plame business is being presented in.

[coeur_de_lion]

83. I have a Yahoo news alert about Plame and this is what they sent

me today:

Judge's Ruling May Chill Newsgathering
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040819/ap_on_go_ot/wen_ho_lee_reporters_27

<<snip>>
WASHINGTON - A judge's decision to punish five reporters for refusing to identify their sources for stories about nuclear scientist Wen Ho Lee (news - web sites) threatens to chill vital newsgathering at a time of increased government secrecy, advocates say.

U.S. District Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson on Wednesday held the reporters in contempt and fined each of them $500 a day until they reveal their source. He said the information was needed for Lee, a former nuclear weapons scientist once suspected of spying, to litigate his privacy lawsuit against government officials.

Jackson said the fines would be suspended pending appeals. Attorneys for the journalists said they would appeal.

It is the second time in two weeks that a federal judge in Washington has found journalists in contempt of court after they declined to disclose sources. Last week, a Time magazine reporter was held in contempt as part of a grand jury probe into the leak of an undercover CIA (news - web sites) officer's identity.

"The threat to First Amendment rights that's going on this summer is unprecedented," Lucy Dalglish, executive director of the Reporters Committee for the Freedom of the Press, said. "We have reporters being subpoenaed. We have judges issuing illegal prior restraints on the media.
<<snip>>

[Me.]

89. I Saw This Over at Capitol Hill Blue Too

And here's a thought on the Porter Goss matter. I've heard and read that the Dems don't want to oppose him because if there's an attack before the election they would be blamed for not putting a new head of the CIA in. And all this talk about attacks is supposedly coming from chatter. Well after watching Sibel Edmonds last night I wonder who is providing this info as apparently we don't have any translators of any real competency. So where is the info coming from, and maybe the Dems should stop being scared of their own shadows?

As to this newest Plame article, it reinforces the necessity to send letters out to all the places that keep screaming this is a 1st amendment issue. What has happened to our media that they aren't capable of any nuanced thought and separating reality from spin? I know about the whole corporate fascism thing but what about the individuals? Are they all selling their souls for a few pieces or is this one of those go along to get along things?

[coeur_de_lion]

90. if you read the other two articles I posted below you'll see

That not ALL journalists are up in arms because their first amendment rights are questioned. Some of them know that the person responsible for bringing this down on their heads is Novak, and they are mighty p.o.'d at him.

There is an interim CIA director -- John McLaughlin -- and I'm sure he can more than handle whatever comes up. And you know what? I'm not at all worried about a terrorist attack right now. It's just the fear factor that the * administration is shoving down our throats.

I mean, come on. First we are under attack. Then President * tells us we're safer thanks to him. Then there is another terrorist warning. Then he says he'll make us safe. Then we are under attack again.

They've got people thinking that Osama Bin Laden is under the bed. He's not -- I checked.

[Me.]

93. Interesting!

I'm not worried about an attack either and I'm a New Yorker.

What I am concerned about is the idea of having another blackout. Though I would see it as divine justice if one happened during the rethug conven.

[coeur_de_lion]

94. yeah that would be great -- they'd be in the dark

but then they are always in the dark anyway. They're used to it!

[merh]

91. The reason why I included the language about McLauglin

in my proposed letter is to give the dems something to stand on if they oppose Goss.

Goss, by his own admission is not qualified. What better way to challenge and/or oppose him than to point out he admits to not being qualified. Use his words to impeach his credibilty and qualifications.

McLaughlin has been successful in diffusing terrorist alerts and he is qualified, both in experience and education, to continue as director. The post is not vacant and will not be vacant if Goss' nomination is not affirmed.

This needs to be repeated over and over again to the dems and they need to find their backbones. This is not for the party, but for the nation.

[coeur_de_lion]

92. merh, I hear you. I'm a little surprised at the

acquiescence of the Democrats over stuff like this. They roll over and take it. We have to help them develop their spines.

Someone told me last night, if Goss is confirmed we may as well forget about the Plame Indictments. I don't know if that is true. I don't see the investigation grinding to a halt, but I'm sure he can do some kind of damage.

H2O, care to comment?

[H2O Man]

97. Yes.

I agree with you two .... I think McLaughlin is the obvious choice to continue to run CI untilat VERY LEAST the election. He is competent. It's simply playing politics to appoint anyone now that is not truly a nonpartison choice.

I just posted a new thread(perhaps!) called Letter From a Region of My Mind regarding the need to put past differences behind us, and move foreward on progressive actions. It can be done. There have been times that merh and I disagreed, for example, but yet I whole-heartedly support her idea to begin lobbying congress with an anti-Goss message. I think merh's letter is great. I am focusing on that which we have in common .... and I'm sure we'll get more done that way.

[coeur_de_lion]

84. And now, for a little journalistic heresy

So sorry, I'm breaking a rule here -- but you have to have a login name for the Chicago Tribune to read the article. So I've posted the whole thing. Forgive me.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/chi-0408190233aug19,1,2353476.column?coll=chi-news-col

Published August 19, 2004 by Don Wycliff

I have been trying to work myself into high dudgeon over the predicament of those news people in Washington who have been subpoenaed to testify in the investigation of the leak, allegedly by someone in the Bush administration, that Valerie Plame, the wife of controversial former ambassador Joseph Wilson, was an undercover CIA operative.

I've been trying for high dudgeon, but the best I can manage is deep ambivalence.

I am a newsman, have been for more than 30 years. So I have no desire to see this work made harder or more dangerous. More to the point at this stage of my career, I work every day with journalists who do tough, exacting, sometimes dangerous work and more often than not do it very well. I have no desire to see their jobs made tougher and the hazards they face made greater.

But then I come up against what for me is the central question for a journalist in the Plame case: Was "outing" Valerie Plame--in violation of federal law and at real potential risk to her life and health and that of any of those she worked with--such an important public interest that I would have promised some White House political shark to go to jail if necessary for the privilege?

It's not even a close call. I don't think anyone can reasonably argue that the American public is better off for knowing of Plame's CIA connection. (But that never was the point for the alleged leaker in the Bush administration anyway, was it?)

So here we in the journalism industry are, rushing--walking?--to the barricades to defend colleagues under siege for a bargain that was dubious at best. And we do so because we know how hard it was to win the access we enjoy to much public information.

We know that any confession of doubt about a specific case will be spun by the keepers of secrets into an argument against the need for any disclosure.

We know that it's the rare politician who will pass up the opportunity to argue for secrecy in the interest of his little child or the security of the American people when, in fact, it's his personal embarrassment that he's worried about.

We know these things--and yet we also know that sometimes these causes we champion just don't feel quite compelling.

I suspect I'm far off the reservation here. But since I've already got one foot in my mouth, I might as well go for both.

I've always been made uneasy by terms and concepts like "reporter's privilege" and "shield law." I think many of us who practice this trade have been seduced by a false conception of the 1st Amendment. You can hear it in the occasional observation that our business/trade/occupation is the only one explicitly protected in the Constitution. ("Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom ... of the press ...")

But the glory of the 1st Amendment is that it applies to every citizen and secures those fundamental rights--to freedom of religion and free exercise; speech; press; assembly and petition--for all. When I talk to community groups and others about what we in the news business do, I tell them that we work at being full-time citizens, monitoring the activities of our government agencies, public officials and other power centers and sharing what we learn with our communities.

Being able to do that for a living is the real reporter's privilege. To the extent that we use language and employ concepts that seem to make distinctions between us in the journalistic priesthood and the rest of the citizenry, we do so at our peril.

To the extent that we argue we should be exempt from the normal obligations of citizens--to testify in a case like the Valerie Plame outing, for example--we invite the anger of our fellow citizens and encourage their contempt for the shroud in which we wrap ourselves, the 1st Amendment.

That's not to say that there aren't cases that would justify a promise to go to jail to protect a confidence, and would merit every dime a newspaper or other journalistic entity could spend defending that promise.

The Wen Ho Lee case, in which a judge Wednesday held five reporters in contempt of court, may be one of those. But I suspect that if we were more discriminating about such cases up front, we would find ourselves at the barricades less often afterward.
-------------
Don Wycliff is the Tribune's public editor. He listens to readers' concerns and questions about the paper's coverage and writes weekly about current issues in journalism. His e-mail address is [e-mail]. The views expressed are his own.

[Moderator]

86. arbustochupa

As you are aware, DU copyright regulations require you to limit posting from a copyrighted source to four paragraphs.

Thanks for your cooperation.
DU Mod

[coeur_de_lion]

88. okay. point taken.

[Me.]

95. Just Saw This Over at DU

G_j (1000+ posts) Thu Aug-19-04 07:08 PM
Original message
FAIR Calls for Revealing Sources in Plame, Lee Cases



FAIR-L
Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting
Media analysis, critiques and activism

http://www.fair.org/press-releases/plame-lee.html

MEDIA ADVISORY:
FAIR Calls for Revealing Sources in Plame, Lee Cases
Courts should respect anonymity of genuine whistle-blowers

August 19, 2004

FAIR, the national media watch group, encourages the reporters and news
outlets who have been asked to reveal their sources in the Valerie Plame
and Wen Ho Lee cases to cooperate with investigators. Protecting the
identities of confidential sources is a journalistic right that should be
recognized by the courts, but only when it protects genuine
whistle-blowers, not when it shields government wrongdoing.
cont....

<snip>

The reporters who revealed protected information about Wen Ho Lee were not
exposing government secrets, but violating an individual's privacy. And
the journalists who are protecting the identity of the officials who outed
Valerie Plame are actually participating in a cover-up of official
wrongdoing.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x2237861

[coeur_de_lion]

96. that's the difference

One is a crime, the other is a violation of privacy. They are trying to spin the Plame subpoenas like they are the same as the Wen Ho Le case. They are not the same at all.

[coeur_de_lion]

85. Saving his rear, not his source

by Sidney Zion, New York Daily News
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ideas_opinions/story/223398p-191959c.html

<<snip>>
How come nobody seems to be grilling Robert Novak over the leak that exposed a covert CIA agent? It was Novak's column that caused the scandal resulting in the appointment of a special prosecutor. And so far, all that we know has happened is that a Time magazine reporter was sentenced to jail last week for refusing to name and discuss confidential sources.

In the face of what happened to this reporter - and surely more reporters to come - Novak is silent. And is given the silent treatment by the media and, for all we know, by Patrick Fitzgerald, the special prosecutor, who steadfastly refuses to say anything about anybody.

You would think that Novak, who, of course, knows his sources, would be outraged by Fitzgerald's attempt to jail fellow journalists, that he would at least say so in his column and better yet in court.

"Don't jail them, Your Honor, jail me; I'm the guy who really knows." You'd think he would say that. But you'd think wrong.
<<snip>>

[merh]

87. Great articles....

These are wonderful. Thank you for your imput and your determination and concern.

[H2O Man]

100. Good articles.....

thanks for posting them.

[coeur_de_lion]

98. Link to H2O's "Letter from a Region of my Mind"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x2238085

[H2O Man]

99. Link to Plastic Ono Plame

you are here

[kohodog]

102. keep it up everyone! n/t

[coeur_de_lion]

111. YES

[coeur_de_lion]

103. 'Time' reporter being unfairly punished in debacle over CIA leak

Hype & Glory
Walter Shapiro
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/columnist/shapiro/2004-08-19-hype_x.htm
<<snip>
When George W. Bush and Dick Cheney stand arm-in-arm on the stage of Madison Square Garden in 13 days basking in the thunderous cheers from the Republican convention, a prominent White House correspondent may reluctantly be missing the festivities. Time magazine's Matt Cooper could spend the GOP convention and perhaps the entire fall campaign in federal detention.

This case is a dramatic manifestation of the continuing legal struggle over the rights of journalists not to reveal their sources in court. On Wednesday, a federal judge in a different case found five reporters in contempt for not testifying about who supplied them with information besmirching Los Alamos scientist Wen Ho Lee. But Cooper's situation has a direct bearing on both the presidential race and the war in Iraq.

Cooper, a close friend of mine, was found in contempt of federal district court last week and ordered jailed, a sentence that has been postponed awaiting a ruling from the appeals court. His legal predicament stems from his refusal to testify before the grand jury investigating who leaked the name of a clandestine CIA operative in an apparent effort to discredit her husband, former ambassador Joseph Wilson.

Punitive leaks have been a constant of Washington life, regardless of which party is in power. But what adds a sad irony to this story is that Cooper was not the journalist who unmasked Valerie Plame's undercover career. That role was obligingly played by conservative columnist Robert Novak, who in July 2003 reported that Wilson had been sent by the CIA to Niger on Plame's recommendation to investigate purported Iraqi efforts to purchase uranium.
<<snip>>

[coeur_de_lion]

104. MEDIA ADVISORY: FAIR Calls for Revealing Sources in Plame, Lee Cases

Courts should respect anonymity of genuine whistle-blowers
August 19, 2004
http://www.fair.org/press-releases/plame-lee.html
<<snip>>
FAIR, the national media watch group, encourages the reporters and news outlets who have been asked to reveal their sources in the Valerie Plame and Wen Ho Lee cases to cooperate with investigators. Protecting the identities of confidential sources is a journalistic right that should be recognized by the courts, but only when it protects genuine whistle-blowers, not when it shields government wrongdoing.

Plame is the covert CIA officer whose identity was apparently leaked after her husband, former ambassador Joseph Wilson, charged the Bush administration with misuse of intelligence. Lee was a scientist falsely charged by the Clinton administration with being a Chinese spy, and officials seem to have leaked selective information about him in an effort to discredit him in the press.

Reporters in both cases are being told by investigators to reveal the specific members of the government who transmitted information. FAIR believes that prosecutors' attempts to discover these sources is legitimate, and the ethical journalistic choice is to assist their efforts.

The ability to protect confidential sources who reveal government wrongdoing is an important journalistic protection that deserves judicial respect. In both the Plame and Lee cases, however, the journalist's sources were not revealing government wrongdoing, but committing government wrongdoing.
<<snip>>

[H2O Man]

107. Lots of media attention to Plame case

(1) "Should reporters go to jail for protecting sources from Valerie Plame Grand Jury?" is an interesting article in a legal journal site, which features a "what do you think?" message board.

The article asks if exposing Plame was "a vicious act of political revenge via the media?"

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/hilden/20040820.html


(2) The Grand Rapids Press article "The press as citizens:Reporters ought to testify in leak of CIA employee's name" is great. See

http://www.mlive.com/news/grpress/index.ssf?/base/news-1/1093013303121690.xml


(3)A comparison of FAIR and ASNE's take on the plame case at:

http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000615829

this article is by Joe Strupp, and is very interesting.

All of these are found at news at google/ plame.

[coeur_de_lion]

108. hey, you evil political operative, you! I already posted the

Hilden article. You are plotting against me, I just know it. I'm going to start a DU email campaign against you, you little Dickens.

te-heeheehee
}(

[Name removed]

112. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[coeur_de_lion]

114. Curses! Foiled again. My evil plan has failed.

You've caught me. I'm going to have to resort to an email attack now. (Shaking fist in the air) Dammit Tellurian! You're wrecking my grand scheme to take over the world! I mean the thread!

:evilgrin:

[H2O Man]

115. as if I need help

discrediting my own posts! Give me some discredit!

Now that we've agreed on that, let's get back to thinking of creative ways to campaign against the Goss confirmation.

[coeur_de_lion]

116. YES

I'm going to have a closer look at Merh's letter, do some thinking, and write one of my own. Back to you with that a bit later. AND, while I'm thinking about it, I can post the media and legislative contact list I have, maybe folks can add to it.

[Tellurian]

118. Good, Arby..

I shall be off line after tomorrow until Tuesday...

everyone, please, give the PlameGate a kick...

so she doesn't get lost in the forest of archives...

I'll be back later tonight...with a few frosty ones and shrimp cocktail..

[Tellurian]

117. I'm as quiet as a mouse, as soon as I speak out...bedlam!

this does not compute!

Explain yourself, Arby...NOW!

<if you feel like>:P

[coeur_de_lion]

119. not bedlam Tellurian, just a little tongue-in-cheek silliness!

We were only kidding. Unless there are some posts somewhere that I'm missing -- I assume you were talking about my silly one.

Sometimes you just have to laugh at people who try to make trouble for you.

That is all I was doing. Silly me.

on edit -- I was mocking someone else dear Tellurian, not your good self.:*

[coeur_de_lion]

105. Reporters Without Borders warns of increasing attacks on protection of jou

United States19 August 2004
Reporters Without Borders warns of increasing attacks on protection of journalistic sources
http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=11195
<<snip>>
Reporters Without Borders protested today at a federal judge's decision holding five journalists in contempt for refusing to reveal their sources and warned that such rulings "seriously undermined" the media's role as a countervailing force in society.

"This is the second ruling of this kind in less than two weeks," the worldwide press freedom organisation said. "Protecting sources is more and more an issue between the US media and courts, who have to understand that if sources are not allowed to be confidential, nobody will dare reveal sensitive information to journalists."

On 18 August, US District Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson, in Washington, fined the journalists $500 for each day they continued to conceal their sources for their stories about a former nuclear weapons scientist, Wen Ho Lee, who was once suspected of spying. He ruled that their refusal to obey his order of 14 October last year to reveal them to the scientist's lawyer was contempt. Application of the fine was suspended pending appeals.

The journalists were questioned by the judge between 18 December last year and 8 January this year and gave him all the information they could without revealing their sources, claiming protection under the first amendment to the national constitution
<<snip>>

[coeur_de_lion]

106. Should Reporters Go to Jail for Protecting Sources from the Valerie Plame

Should Reporters Go to Jail for Protecting Sources from the Valerie Plame Grand Jury?:
The Unfolding Scandal over Who Revealed the CIA Agent's Identity Raises First Amendment Issues
By JULIE HILDEN
Friday, Aug. 20, 2004
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/hilden/20040820.html
<<snip>>
Lately, the scandal over the government leak that revealed the identity of CIA operative Valerie Plame to the media has only grown. Meanwhile, its legal ramifications have grown, too.

The leak itself violated federal criminal laws - as John Dean discussed in an earlier column for this site. Now, the investigation of that leak is testing the Constitution itself - in particular, the First Amendment.

Recently, two journalists, Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper and NBC Washington Bureau Chief Tim Russert Earlier, made headlines when they challenged subpoenas issued to them by a special grand jury investigating the leak. But Chief Judge Thomas Hogan of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled against them, based on Supreme Court precedent. And he did so even though, according to his opinion, the grand jury may "delve into alleged conversations each reporter had with a confidential source."

Russert decided to testify, with NBC issuing a statement that his limited testimony did not reveal any information "learned in confidence." But Cooper is still holding out, has been held in contempt of court, and is facing jail time - pending an appeal.
<<snip>>

[Me.]

109. More....

I'm posting more of the same article because Julie Hilden makes the very point that we think has been overlooked and is most important.

<<snip>>

"Second, let's look at the First Amendment interest here. The confidential sources were likely willful perpetrators committing a federal felony - not morally-compelled whistleblowers who violated government secrecy rules along the way. And that's a very important distinction.

We need whistleblowers for the press to function. Deep Throat, depending on who he or she was, might have broken some laws, or violated attorney-client privilege, to talk to Woodward and Bernstein. But if so, it was to serve the greater social good - revealing corruption at the highest levels.

What we don't need is willful perpetrators like those who seem to have been behind the Plame leak. What social purpose was served by outing a CIA agent? Here, the sources seem to have served not the social good or the functioning of democracy, but a personal vendetta - punishing former Ambassador Wilson by putting his wife in danger. And it's not just Valerie Plame who was placed in jeopardy: It's all those whom she protected in her service as a CIA agent.

The sources' disclosure was the crime here, and that is exactly what is being investigated. The sources didn't report a crime by speaking out - they committed one by talking to reporters. So protecting the disclosure, protects the crime.

Meanwhile, it's worth noting, too, that the journalists who published Plame's CIA agent identity may well have committed the same crime as their sources (unless there is a First Amendment exception to the criminal law). Their choice to publish the information also arguably aided and abetted their sources' crimes (again, possibly subject to a First Amendment exception).

With all this criminal activity either marring or virtually replacing the reporter-source relationship, where's the First Amendment value in all this?

Another, reason the First Amendment interest here is relatively weak is that instead of confiding in a few trusted reporters - Deep Throat-style - the confidential sources themselves apparently did little to protect their own confidentiality. Indeed, they bandied about their information to what appears to have been at least six separate journalists in their campaign to ruin Plame and her husband.

That's not a confidential source-reporter relationship; it's a broad-scale attack campaign."

[coeur_de_lion]

110. too funny! That was such a great article that 3 of us posted it!!!

Yes, it is getting interesting. :hi:

[H2O Man]

113. Hello, back there!

A discussion on another thread about the name "Plamegate" got me thinking about the old Watergate days. How many people remember Martha Mitchell? She had been married and divorced, then met attorney John Mitchell. When the manure hit the fan, she started making lots of late night calls, including to Woodward and Bernstein. At first, she was providing some interesting information, by all accounts. But her ability to handle pressure was not good. She started drinking way too much. She discredited herself, and eventually her husband left her, and she drank herself to death. More on Martha at:

http://www.sc.essortment.com/watergatescande_rays.htm

I found this site through yahoo.

It's interesting to look back at the odd characters from that time. One can always hope that the wife of a Scooter Libby or a Karl Rove starts calling a reporter, as the grand jury tightens the screws.

[kohodog]

125. I'll be happy to buy them each

a bottle of Scotch! And maybe some pretzels.

[coeur_de_lion]

120. question -- I want to post some legislative contacts but I'm not sure

which categories to post. I have a long list and I don't want to put the whole thing on here.

Any suggestions? Who is the audience for our letters to representatives? Who do we want to write to?

[coeur_de_lion]

121. MEDIA CONTACT LIST:

“MEET THE PRESS”: [e-mail]

MSNBC-Phone: [phone]

Opinions: mailto:[e-mail]

News: mailto:[e-mail]

Letters to the Editor: mailto:[e-mail]

MSNBC on the Internet
One Microsoft Way
Redmond, WA 98052
________________________________________________________________

CNN- (404) 827 – 1500
Comment line: (404) 827 - 0234
CNN NEWS CHIEF Eason Jordan. 404.827.5111. fax: [phone]. [e-mail]
CNN NEWS DIRECTOR Kim Bondy. 404 827 1500. fax. [phone]
CNN NEWSROOM 404.827.1500 . 404.827.1500. [e-mail]

CNN TV: http://www.cnn.com/feedback/cnntv

CNN.com: http://www.cnn.com/feedback/dotcom

[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

Atlanta:
404-827-1500
Washington:
202-898-7900

MORE CNN:
You can communicate your thoughts to Kelli Arena personally at: [e-mail]
You can now send your emails to Eason Jordan at [e-mail] . He's CNN's chief news executive.
_________________________
[e-mail] , [e-mail] , [e-mail] , [e-mail] , [e-mail] , [e-mail] , [e-mail] , [e-mail] , [e-mail] , [e-mail] , [e-mail] , [e-mail] , miles.o'[e-mail] , [e-mail] , [e-mail] , [e-mail] , [e-mail] , [e-mail] , [e-mail] , [e-mail] , [e-mail] , [e-mail] , [e-mail] , [e-mail] , [e-mail] , [e-mail] , [e-mail],

MORE:
<[e-mail] > Newsweek
<[e-mail] > Keith Olbermann
<mailto:[e-mail] > Washington Post
<[e-mail] > MSNBC Main
<[e-mail] > Chris Matthews

And don’t forget the lovely and charming Brit Hume at the FAUX Network…

[e-mail]

888-369-4762

NOW with Bill Moyers Contacts:
Rick Byrne
Diane Domondon
Ph: 212.560.8406 Ph: 212.560.8300
Email: [e-mail] Email: [e-mail]

SOURCE NOW with Bill Moyers
Web Site: http://www.pbs.org/now


Al Franken, [e-mail] ,

Larry Flynt, [e-mail]

Michael Moore, [e-mail]

Los Angeles Times:
[e-mail]

Los Angeles Times
202 W. 1st St.
Los Angeles, CA 90012
[phone]

The Times Orange County
1375 Sunflower Avenue
Costa Mesa, CA 92626-1697
[phone]

Los Angeles Times
Valley Edition
20000 Prairie Street
Chatsworth, CA 91311
[phone]

Los Angeles Times
Ventura County Edition
93 S. Chestnut Street
Ventura, CA 93001
[phone]
_________________________________________________________________

New York Times:

PAUL KRUGMAN [e-mail]

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
E-mail to [e-mail] .

OP-ED/EDITORIAL
For information on Op-Ed submissions, call [phone] or send article to [e-mail] .
To write to the editorial page editor, send to [e-mail] .

NEWS DEPARTMENT
To send comments and suggestions (about news coverage only) or to report errors that call for correction, e-mail [e-mail] or leave a message at 1-888-NYT-NEWS.
The Editors
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

The Newsroom
[e-mail] ; [e-mail]
[e-mail] ; [e-mail]
[e-mail] ; [e-mail]
[e-mail] ; [e-mail]

PUBLIC EDITOR
To reach Daniel Okrent, who represents the readers, e-mail [e-mail] or call [phone]. from Eric J in MN

TO WRITE THE PUBLISHER OR PRESIDENT

Arthur Sulzberger Jr., Chairman & Publisher:
[e-mail] .

Janet L. Robinson, President & General Manager:
[e-mail] .
_________________________________________________________________

USA Today:

USA TODAY / USATODAY.com
7950 Jones Branch Drive
McLean, VA 22108-0605
_________________________________________________________________

Washington Post:
1150 15th Street Northwest
Washington, DC 20071
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]

Ombudsman’s office phone: (202) 334 - 7582 Monday through Friday 7a - 6p

(CBS) 60 Minutes:

ADDRESS:
60 Minutes
524 West 57th St.
New York, NY 10019

PHONE: [phone]

TRANSCRIPTS: 1-800-777-TEXT

VIDEOTAPES: 1-800-848-3256

CBS “60 Minutes” email info:
http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/60minutes/main3415.shtml
Scroll all the way down to the bottom of the page, click on “Contact us” and fill out the online form.

CBS – THE EARLY SHOW (Hannah Storm territory)
The Early Show
524 West 57th St.
New York, NY 10019

E-MAIL: [e-mail] .

PHONE: [phone]

[coeur_de_lion]

122. dupe

[coeur_de_lion]

123. MORE MEDIA & EDITORS CONTACT LIST:

EDITORS & MEDIA LIST

Air America Radio: 1 -866-303-2270
TOLL FREE Capitol Hill Switchboard - 1 (800) 839 - 5276
They'll transfer you to anybody's office in the House and/or Senate, just for the asking!

ABC News - John Cochran, Chief Washington Correspondent [e-mail] Phone: [phone]; Fax: [phone]; Address: 1717 DeSales St NW, Washington, DC 20036

ABC News (and ABC Radio News) - Ann Compton, White House Correspondent [e-mail] Phone: [phone]; Fax: [phone]; Address: 1717 DeSales St NW, Washington, DC 20036

ABC News - Sam Donaldson, Senior Washington Correspondent [e-mail] Phone: [phone]; Fax: [phone]; Address: 1717 DeSales St NW, Washington, DC 22036-4407

ABC News - John Donvan, Washington Correspondent [e-mail]
Phone: [phone]; Fax: [phone]; Address: 1717 DeSales St NW, Washington, DC 20036

ABC News - Tamala Edwards, Washington Correspondent (no e-mail given) Phone: [phone]; Fax: [phone]; Address: 1717 DeSales St NW, Washington, DC 20036

ABC News - Terry Moran, White House Correspondent [e-mail]
Phone: [phone]; Fax: [phone]; Address: 1717 DeSales St NW, Washington, DC 20036

ABC News - Carole Simpson, Senior Washington Correspondent [e-mail] Phone: [phone]; Fax: [phone]; Address: 1717 DeSales St NW, Washington, DC 20036

ABC News - Katy Textor, 27 [e-mail]

AP - Ron Fournier, White House Correspondent [e-mail] Phone: [phone]; Fax: [phone]; Address: 2021 K St NW, Washington, DC 20006

AP - Jennifer Loven, White House Correspondent [e-mail] Phone: [phone]; Fax: [phone]; Address: 2021 K St NW, Washington, DC 20006

Bloomberg News - Richard Keil (aka "Stretch"), White House Correspondent [e-mail] Phone: [phone]; Fax: [phone]; Address: 1399 New York Ave NW, Washington, DC 20005

Bloomberg News - Heidi Przybyla, White House Correspondent [e-mail] Phone: [phone]; Fax: [phone]; Address: 1399 New York Ave NW, Washington, DC 20005

Bloomberg News - Holly Rosenkrantz, White House Correspondent [e-mail] Phone: [phone]; Fax: [phone]; Address: 1399 New York Ave NW, Washington, DC 200

Business Week - Richard S. Dunham, White House Correspondent [e-mail] Phone: [phone]; Fax: [phone]; Address: 1200 G St NW, Washington, DC 20005-3802

Business Week - Alexandra Starr, Washington Correspondent [e-mail] (attn to Alexandra Starr) Phone: [phone]; Fax: [phone]; Address: 1200 G St NW, Washington, DC 20005-3802

Catholic News Service - Patricia Zapor, Washington Correspondent [e-mail] Phone: [phone]; Fax: [phone]; Address: 3211 4th St NE, Washington, DC 20017-1100

CBN (Christian Broadcasting Network) - Melissa Charbonneau, White House Correspondent [e-mail] Phone: [phone]; Fax: [phone]; Address: 1111 19th St NW, Washington, DC 20036

CBN (Christian Broadcasting Network) - Paul Strand, Washington Correspondent (no e-mail given) Phone: [phone]; Fax: [phone]; Address: 1111 19th St NW, Washington, DC 20036

CBS News - Rita Braver, Washington Correspondent [e-mail]
Phone: [phone]; Fax: [phone]; Address: 2020 M St NW, Washington, DC 20036

CBS News - Joie Chen, Washington Correspondent (no e-mail given) Phone: [phone]; Fax: [phone]; Address: 2020 M St NW, Washington, DC 20036

CBS News (and CBS Radio News) - Mark Knoller, White House Correspondent [e-mail] Phone: [phone]; Address: 2020 M St NW, Washington, DC 20036

CBS Radio News - Peter Maer, White House Correspondent [e-mail]
Phone: [phone]; Address: 2020 M St NW, Washington, DC 20036

CBS News - John Roberts, Senior White House Correspondent [e-mail] (attn John Roberts) Phone: [phone]; Fax: [phone]; Address: 524 W 57th St, New York, NY 10019-2902

CBS News - Bill Plante, White House Correspondent [e-mail]
Phone: [phone]; Fax: [phone]; Address: 2020 M St NW, Washington, DC 20036

CBS News - John Schieffer, Chief Washington Correspondent [e-mail] (attn Bob Schieffer) Phone: [phone]; Fax: [phone]; Address: 2020 M St NW, Washington, DC 20036

CBS News - Susan Spencer, Washington Correspondent [e-mail] (attn Susan Spencer) Phone: [phone]; Fax: [phone]; Address: 524 W 57th St, New York, NY 10019

Christian Science Monitor - Linda Feldmann, White House Reporter [e-mail] Phone: [phone]; Fax: [phone]; Address: 910 16th St NW, Washington, DC 20006

Christian Science Monitor - Abraham McLaughlin, Washington Correspondent [e-mail] Phone: [phone]; Fax: [phone]; Address: 910 16th St NW, Washington, DC 20006

CNBC - Hampton Pearson, Washington Correspondent [e-mail] Phone: [phone]; Fax: [phone]; Address: 1025 Connecticut Ave NW, Washington, DC 20036

Common Dreams - Russell Mokhiber [e-mail] Website: http://www.commondreams.org /

Copley News Service - George Condon, White House Correspondent [e-mail] Phone: [phone]; Address: 1100 National Press Bldg, Washington, DC 20045 (see San Diego below)

Copley News Service - Finlay Lewis, White House Correspondent [e-mail] Phone: [phone]; Address: 1100 National Press Bldg, Washington, DC 20045 (see San Diego below)

Cox Newspapers - Bob Deans, White House Correspondent [e-mail] Phone: [phone]; Fax: [phone]; Address: Washington Bureau, Washington, DC 20001 (Pres. of White House Correspondents Assn.)

Cox Newspapers - George Edmondson [e-mail] Phone: [phone]; Fax: [phone]; Address: 400 N Capitol St NW, Washington, DC 20001 (see Atlanta Journal-Constitution below)

Cox Newspapers - Melanie Eversley [e-mail] Phone: [phone]; Fax: [phone]; Address: 400 N Capitol St NW, Washington, DC 20001 (see Atlanta Journal-Constitution below)

Cox Newspapers - Mei-Ling Hopgood, Washington Correspondent [e-mail] Phone: [phone]; Fax: [phone]; Address: Washington Bureau, Washington, DC 20001 (see Dayton Daily News below)

Cox Newspapers - Chuck Lindell, Washington Correspondent [e-mail] Phone: [phone]; Fax: [phone]; Address: 400 N Capitol St NW, Washington, DC 20001 (see Austin American-Statesman below)

Cox Newspapers - Larry Lipman, Washington Correspondent [e-mail] Phone: [phone]; Fax: [phone]; Address: 400 N Capitol St NW, Washington, DC 20001 (see Palm Beach Post below)

CNN News - Charles Bierbauer, Senior Washington Correspondent [e-mail] Phone: [phone]; Fax: [phone]; Address: 820 1st St NE, Washington, DC 20002

CNN News - John King, Senior White House Correspondent (no e-mail given) Phone: [phone]; Fax: [phone]; Address: 820 1st St NE, Washington, DC 20002

CNN News - Suzanne Malveaux, White House Correspondent (no e-mail given) Phone: [phone]; Fax: [phone]; Address: 820 1st St NE, Washington, DC 20002

CNN Radio - Dick Uliano, Washington Correspondent [e-mail] Phone: [phone]; Address: 820 1st St NE, Washington, DC 20002

Dow Jones News Service - Alex Keto, White House Reporter [e-mail] Phone: [phone]; Fax: [phone]; Address: 1025 Connecticut Ave NW, Washington, DC 20036

Fox News - Jim Angle, Senior White House Correspondent [e-mail] Phone: [phone]; Fax: [phone]; Address: 400 N Capitol St NW, Washington, DC 20001

Fox News - Major Garrett, Washington Correspondent [e-mail] Phone: [phone]; Fax: [phone]; Address: 400 N Capitol St NW, Washington, DC 20001

Fox News - Wendell Goler, White House Correspondent [e-mail] Phone: [phone]; Fax: [phone]; Address: 400 N Capitol St NW, Washington, DC 20001

Fox News - Molly Henneberg, Washington Correspondent [e-mail] Phone: [phone]; Fax: [phone]; Address: 400 N Capitol St NW, Washington, DC 20001

Fox News - Brit Hume, Chief Washington Correspondent [e-mail] Phone: [phone]; Fax: [phone]; Address: 400 N Capitol St NW, Washington, DC 20001

Fox News - James Rosen, White House Correspondent [e-mail] Phone: [phone]; Fax: [phone]; Address: 400 N Capitol St NW, Washington, DC 20001

Fox News - Collins Spencer, Washington Correspondent [e-mail] Phone: [phone]; Fax: [phone]; Address: 400 N Capitol St NW, Washington, DC 20001

Fox News - Brian Wilson, Washington Correspondent [e-mail] Phone: [phone]; Fax: [phone]; Address: 400 N Capitol St NW, Washington, DC 20001

Gannett News Service - Doug Abrahms, Washington Correspondent [e-mail] Phone: [phone]; Fax: [phone]; Address: 1100 New York Ave NW, Washington, DC 20005-3934 (see Reno Gazette-Journal below)

Gannett News Service - Larry Bivins, Washington Correspondent [e-mail] Phone: [phone]; Fax: [phone]; Address: 1100 New York Ave NW, Washington, DC 20005-3934 (see Nashville Tennessean below)

Gannett News Service - Faith Bremner, Washington Correspondent [e-mail] Phone: [phone]; Fax: [phone]; Address: 1100 New York Ave NW, Washington, DC 20005-3934 (see Boise Idahoan Statesman below)

Gannett News Service - Pam Brogan, Washington Correspondent [e-mail] Phone: [phone]; Fax: [phone]; Address: 1100 New York Ave NW, Washington, DC 20005-3934

Gannett News Service - James Carroll, Washington Correspondent [e-mail] Phone: [phone]; Fax: [phone]; Address: 1100 New York Ave NW, Washington, DC 20005-3934 (see Louisville Courier-Journal below)

Gannett News Service - Raju Chebium, Washington Correspondent [e-mail] Phone: [phone]; Fax: [phone]; Address: 1100 New York Ave NW, Washington, DC 20005-3934 (see Greenville News below)

Gannett News Service - Dick DePledge, Washington Correspondent [e-mail] Phone: [phone]; Fax: [phone]; Address: 1100 New York Ave NW, Washington, DC 20005-3934 (see Honolulu Advertiser below)

Gannett News Service - Jon Frandsen, White House Correspondent [e-mail] Phone: [phone]; Fax: [phone]; Address: 1100 New York Ave NW, Washington, DC 20005-3934

Gannett News Service - Maureen Groppe, Washington Correspondent [e-mail] Phone: [phone]; Fax: [phone]; Address: 1100 New York Ave NW, Washington, DC 20005-3934 (see Indianapolis Star below)

Gannett News Service - John Hanchette, White House Correspondent [e-mail] Phone: [phone]; Fax: [phone]; Address: 1100 New York Ave NW, Washington, DC 20005-3934

Gannett News Service - Billy House, Washington Correspondent [e-mail] Phone: [phone]; Fax: [phone]; Address: 1100 New York Ave NW, Washington, DC 20005-3934 (see Phoenix Arizona Republic below)

Gannett News Service - Erin Kelly, Washington Correspondent [e-mail] Phone: [phone]; Fax: [phone]; Address: 1100 New York Ave NW, Washington, DC 20005-3934 (see Burlington Free Press below)

Gannett News Service - Mike Madden, Washington Correspondent [e-mail] Phone: [phone]; Fax: [phone]; Address: 1100 New York Ave NW, Washington, DC 20005-3934 (see Sioux Falls Argus Leader below)

Gannett News Service - Deborah Mathis, White House Correspondent (no e-mail given) Phone: [phone]; Fax: [phone]; Address: 1100 New York Ave NW, Washington, DC 20005-3934

Gannett News Service - Jane Norman, Washington Correspondent [e-mail] Phone: [phone]; Fax: [phone]; Address: 1100 New York Ave NW, Washington, DC 20005-3934 (see Des Moines Register below)

Gannett News Service - Ana Radelat, Washington Correspondent [e-mail] Phone: [phone]; Fax: [phone]; Address: 1100 New York Ave NW, Washington, DC 20005-3934 (see Jackson Clarion-Ledger below)

Gannett News Service - Susan Roth, Washington Correspondent [e-mail] Phone: [phone]; Fax: [phone]; Address: 1100 New York Ave NW, Washington, DC 20005-3934

Gannett News Service - Katherine Scott, Washington Correspondent [e-mail] Phone: [phone]; Fax: [phone]; Address: 1100 New York Ave NW, Washington, DC 20005-3934 (see Lansing State Journal and Norwich Bulletin below)

Gannett News Service - Brian Tumulty, Washington Correspondent (no e-mail given) Phone: [phone]; Fax: [phone]; Address: 1100 New York Ave NW, Washington, DC 20005-3934

Gannett News Service - Carl Weiser, Washington Correspondent [e-mail] Phone: [phone]; Fax: [phone]; Address: 1100 New York Ave NW, Washington, DC 20005-3934 (see Cincinnati Enquirer below)

Hearst News Service - Gary Martin, Washington Correspondent (no e-mail given) Phone: [phone]; Fax: [phone]; Address: 1701 Pennsylvania Ave NW, Washington, DC 20006 (see San Antonio below)

Hearst News Service - Charles Pope, Washington Correspondent [e-mail] Phone: [phone]; Fax: [phone]; Address: 1701 Pennsylvania Ave NW, Washington, DC 20006 (see Seattle below)

Hearst News Service - Stewart Powell, White House Correspondent [e-mail] Phone: [phone]; Fax: [phone]; Address: 1701 Pennsylvania Ave NW, Washington, DC 20006

Hearst News Service - Helen Thomas, 82, White House Correspondent : [e-mail] Phone: [phone]; Fax: [phone]; Address: 1701 Pennsylvania Ave NW, Washington, DC 20006

al-Jazeera - Hafez al-Mirazi

Jewish Telegraphic Agency - Sharon Samber, White House Correspondent [e-mail] Phone: [phone]; Fax: [phone]; Address: 1025 Vermont Ave NW, Washington, DC 20005

Koenig's International News - Bill Koenig [e-mail] ("Christian News")

Knight-Ridder Newspapers - Ruby Bailey, Washington Correspondent [e-mail] Phone: [phone]; Fax: [phone]; Address: 700 National Press Bldg, Washington, DC 20045 (see Detroit Free Press below)

Knight-Ridder Newspapers - Alan Bjerga, Washington Correspondent [e-mail] Phone: [phone]; Fax: [phone]; Address: 700 National Press Bldg, Washington, DC 20045 (see Wichita Eagle below)

Knight-Ridder Newspapers - Frank Davies, Washington Correspondent [e-mail] Phone: [phone]; Fax: [phone]; Address: 700 National Press Bldg, Washington, DC 20045 (see Miami Herald below)

Knight-Ridder Newspapers - David Goldstein, Washington Correspondent [e-mail] Phone: [phone]; Fax: [phone]; Address: 700 National Press Bldg, Washington, DC 20045 (see Kansas City Star below) also [e-mail]

Knight-Ridder Newspapers - Steve Goldstein, Washington Correspondent [e-mail] Phone: [phone]; Fax: [phone]; Address: 700 National Press Bldg, Washington, DC 20045

Knight-Ridder Newspapers - Charles Hurt, Washington Correspondent [e-mail] Phone: [phone]; Fax: [phone]; Address: 700 National Press Bldg, Washington, DC 20045 (see Charlotte Observer below)

Knight-Ridder Newspapers - Ron Hutcheson, White House Correspondent [e-mail] Phone: [phone]; Fax: [phone]; Address: Washington Bureau, Washington, DC 20045

Knight-Ridder Newspapers - Tim Johnson, Washington Correspondent [e-mail] Phone: [phone]; Fax: [phone]; Address: 700 National Press Bldg, Washington, DC 20045 (see Miami Herald below)

Knight-Ridder Newspapers - Lauren Markoe, Washington Correspondent : [e-mail] Phone: [phone]; Fax: [phone]; Address: 700 National Press Bldg, Washington, DC 20045

Knight-Ridder Newspapers - Chris Mondics, Washington Correspondent (no e-mail given) Phone: [phone]; Fax: [phone]; Address: 700 National Press Bldg, Washington, DC 20045 (see Philadelphia Inquirer below)

Knight-Ridder Newspapers - Peter Nicholas, Washington Correspondent [e-mail] Phone: [phone]; Fax: [phone]; Address: 700 National Press Bldg, Washington, DC 20045 (see Philadelphia Inquirer below)

Knight-Ridder Newspapers - Jim Puzzanghera, Washington Correspondent [e-mail] Phone: [phone]; Fax: [phone]; Address: 700 National Press Bldg, Washington, DC 20045 (see San Jose below)

Knight-Ridder Newspapers - Maria Recio, Washington Correspondent [e-mail] Phone: [phone]; Fax: [phone]; Address: 700 National Press Bldg, Washington, DC 20045 (see Fort Worth Star-Telegram below)

Knight-Ridder Newspapers - Matt Stearns, Washington Correspondent [e-mail] Phone: [phone]; Fax: [phone]; Address: 700 National Press Bldg, Washington, DC 20045 (see Kansas City Star below)

Knight-Ridder Newspapers - Tom Webb, Washington Correspondent [e-mail] Phone: [phone]; Fax: [phone]; Address: 700 National Press Bldg, Washington, DC 20045 (see Saint Paul Pioneer Press below)

McClatchy Newspapers - Kevin Diaz, Washington Correspondent [e-mail] Phone: [phone]; Fax: [phone]; Address: 420 National Press Bldg, Washington, DC 20045 (see Minneapolis Star-Tribune below)

McClatchy Newspapers - Greg Gordon, Washington Correspondent [e-mail] Phone: [phone]; Fax: [phone]; Address: 420 National Press Bldg, Washington, DC 20045 (see Minneapolis Star-Tribune below)

McClatchy Newspapers - Rob Hotakainen, Washington Correspondent [e-mail] Phone: [phone]; Fax: [phone]; Address: 420 National Press Bldg, Washington, DC 20045 (see Minneapolis Star-Tribune below)

McClatchy Newspapers - Liz Ruskin, Washington Correspondent [e-mail] Phone: [phone]; Fax: [phone]; Address: 420 National Press Bldg, Washington, DC 20045 (see Anchorage Daily News below)

McClatchy Newspapers - John Wagner, Washington Correspondent [e-mail] Phone: [phone]; Fax: [phone]; Address: 420 National Press Bldg, Washington, DC 20045 (see Raleigh News & Observer below)

Media General News Service - Kevin Begos, Washington Correspondent [e-mail] Phone: [phone]; Fax: [phone]; Address: 1214 National Press Bldg, Washington, DC 20045 (see Winston-Salem Journal below)

Media General News Service - Keith Epstein, Washington Correspondent [e-mail] Phone: [phone]; Fax: [phone]; Address: 1214 National Press Bldg, Washington, DC 20045 (see Tampa Tribune below)

Media General News Service - John Hall, Senior Washington Correspondent [e-mail] Phone: [phone]; Fax: [phone]; Address: 1214 National Press Bldg, Washington, DC 20045

Media General News Service - Peter Hardin, Washington Correspondent : [e-mail] Phone: [phone]; Fax: [phone]; Address: 1214 National Press Bldg, Washington, DC 20045 (see Richmond Times-Dispatch below)

Media General News Service - Kirsten Mitchell, Washington Correspondent [e-mail] Phone: [phone]; Fax: [phone]; Address: 1214 National Press Bldg, Washington, DC 20045

Medill News Service - Samantha Santa Maria, Washington Correspondent (no e-mail given) Phone: [phone]; Fax: [phone]; Address: 1325 G St NW, Washington, DC 20005 (see Gulfport Sun Herald below)

Nation Magazine - John Nichols, Washington Correspondent (fantastic guy - why can't John be at the Press conferences?!?!) [e-mail] (attn John Nichols) Phone: [phone]; Fax: [phone]; Address: 110 Maryland Ave NE, Washington, DC 20002

NBC News - Campbell Brown, White House Correspondent [e-mail] Phone: [phone]; Fax: [phone]; Address: 4001 Nebraska Ave NW, Washington, DC 20016

NBC News - David Gregory, White House Correspondent [e-mail] Phone: [phone]; Fax: [phone]; Address: 4001 Nebraska Ave NW, Washington, DC 20016

Newhouse News Service - Bruce Alpert, Washington Correspondent [e-mail] Phone: [phone]; Fax: [phone]; Address: 1101 Connecticut Ave NW, Washington, DC 20036 (see New Orleans below)

Newhouse News Service - Jim Barnett, Washington Correspondent [e-mail] Phone: [phone]; Fax: [phone]; Address: 1101 Connecticut Ave NW, Washington, DC 20036 (see Portland Oregonian below)

Newhouse News Service - Robert Cohen, Washington Correspondent [e-mail] Phone: [phone]; Fax: [phone]; Address: 1101 Connecticut Ave NW, Washington, DC 20036 (see Newark Star-Ledger below)

Newhouse News Service - Terence Kivlan, Washington Correspondent [e-mail] Phone: [phone]; Fax: [phone]; Address: 1101 Connecticut Ave NW, Washington, DC 20036

Newhouse News Service - Mark Libbon, Washington Correspondent : [e-mail] Phone: [phone]; Fax: [phone]; Address: 1101 Connecticut Ave NW, Washington, DC 20036 (see Syracuse Post-Standard below)

Newhouse News Service - Brett Lieberman, Washington Correspondent [e-mail] Phone: [phone]; Fax: [phone]; Address: 1101 Connecticut Ave NW, Washington, DC 20036 (see Harrisburg Patriot-News below)

Newhouse News Service - Mary Orndorff, Washington Correspondent [e-mail] Phone: [phone]; Fax: [phone]; Address: 1101 Connecticut Ave NW, Washington, DC 20036

Newhouse News Service - Scott Orr, Washington Correspondent [e-mail] Phone: [phone]; Fax: [phone]; Address: 1101 Connecticut Ave NW, Washington, DC 20036 (see Newark Star-Ledger below)

Newhouse News Service - Sean Reilly, Washington Correspondent [e-mail] Phone: [phone]; Fax: [phone]; Address: 1101 Connecticut Ave NW, Washington, DC 20036 (see Mobile Register below)

Newhouse News Service - Bill Walsh, Washington Correspondent [e-mail] Phone: [phone]; Fax: [phone]; Address: 1101 Connecticut Ave NW, Washington, DC 20036 (see New Orleans Times-Picayune below)

Newsday - Deborah Barfield Berry, Washington Correspondent [e-mail] Phone: [phone]; Fax: [phone]; Address: 1730 Pennsylvania Ave NW, Washington, DC 20006

Newsday - Kenneth Fireman, White House Correspondent [e-mail] Phone: [phone]; Fax: [phone]; Address: 1730 Pennsylvania Ave NW, Washington, DC 20006

Newsweek Magazine - Martha Brant (aka "Martita"), White House Correspondent [e-mail] (attn Martha Brant) Phone: [phone]; Fax: [phone]; Address: 1750 Pennsylvania Ave NW, Washington, DC 20006 http://stacks.msnbc.com/news/834704.asp

New Yorker Magazine - Seymour Hersch, Washington Correspondent [e-mail] (attn Seymour Hersch) Phone: [phone]; Fax: [phone]; Address: 4 Times Sq, New York, NY 10036

New Yorker Magazine - Joe Klein, Washington Correspondent [e-mail] Phone: [phone]; Fax: [phone]; Address: 4 Times Sq, New York, NY 10036

New Yorker Magazine - Nicholas Lemann, Washington Correspondent [e-mail] Phone: [phone]; Fax: [phone]; Address: 4 Times Sq, New York, NY 10036

New Yorker Magazine - Jane Mayer, Washington Correspondent [e-mail] Phone: [phone]; Fax: [phone]; Address: 4 Times Sq, New York, NY 10036

NPR - Mary Ann Akers, Washington Reporter [e-mail] Phone: [phone]; Fax: [phone]; Address: 635 Massachusetts Ave NW, Washington, DC 20001-3753

NPR - Pam Fessler, Washington Correspondent [e-mail] Phone: [phone]; Fax: [phone]; Address: 635 Massachusetts Ave NW, Washington, DC 20001-3753

NPR - Don Gonyea, White House Correspondent [e-mail] Phone: [phone]; Fax: [phone] Address: 635 Massachusetts Ave NW, Washington, DC 20001-3753 Secrecy at the White House http://www.npr.org/ramfiles/atc/20030102.atc.13.ram

NPR - Jennifer Ludden, Washington Correspondent [e-mail]
Phone: [phone]; Fax: [phone]; Address: 635 Massachusetts Ave NW, Washington, DC 20001-3753

Reuters America - Steve Holland, 46, White House Correspondent [e-mail] Phone: [phone]; Fax: [phone]; Address: 1333 H St NW, Washington, DC 20005

Reuters America - Lawrence McQuillan, White House Correspondent [e-mail] (attn Lawrence McQuillan) Phone: [phone]; Fax: [phone]; Address: 1333 H St NW, Washington, DC 20005 (see USA Today)

Reuters America - Randall Mikkelsen, White House Correspondent [e-mail] Phone: [phone]; Fax: [phone]; Address: 1333 H St NW, Washington, DC 20005

Reuters America - Arshad Mohammed, White House Correspondent [e-mail] Phone: [phone]; Fax: [phone]; Address: 1333 H St NW, Washington, DC 20005

Reuters America - David Wiellser, Senior Washington Correspondent [e-mail] (attn David Wiellser) Phone: [phone]; Fax: [phone]; Address: 1333 H St NW, Washington, DC 20005

Reuters America - Patricia Wilson, White House Correspondent : [e-mail] Phone: [phone]; Fax: [phone]; Address: 1333 H St NW, Washington, DC 20005

Salon - Jake Tapper, Washington Correspondent [e-mail]
Phone: [phone]; Fax: [phone]; Address: 1642 R St NW, Washington, DC 20009

Scripps-Howard News Service - Tom Hargrove, Washington Correspondent [e-mail] Phone: [phone]; Fax: [phone]; Address: 1090 Vermont Ave NW, Washington, DC 20005 (see Albuquerque Tribune and Birmingham Post-Herald below)

Scripps-Howard News Service - Jennifer Sergent, Washington Correspondent [e-mail] Phone: [phone]; Fax: [phone]; Address: 1090 Vermont Ave NW, Washington, DC 20005 (see Vero Beach Press Journal below)

Scripps-Howard News Service - Bill Straub, White House Reporter [e-mail] Phone: [phone]; Fax: [phone]; Address: 1090 Vermont Ave NW, Washington, DC 20005

Stephens Media Group - Tony Batt, Washington Correspondent [e-mail] Phone: [phone]; Fax: [phone]; Address: 666 11th St NW, Washington, DC 20001 (see Las Vegas Review-Journal)

Stephens Media Group - Samantha Young, Washington Correspondent [e-mail] Phone: [phone]; Fax: [phone]; Address: 666 11th St NW, Washington, DC 20001 (see Asheboro Courier-Tribune below)

Syndicated News International - Elizabeth Rabin, Washington Correspondent [e-mail] Phone: [phone]; Fax: [phone]; Address: 2809 Bird Ave, Miami, FL 33133

Talk Radio News Service - Ellen Ratner, White House Correspondent [e-mail] (attn Ellen Ratner) Phone: [phone]; Fax: [phone]; Address: 1030 15th St NW, Washington, DC 20005

Talk Radio News Service - Gareth Schweltzer, White House Correspondent [e-mail] (attn Gareth Schweltzer) Phone: [phone]; Fax: [phone]; Address: 2541 Mill Rd NW, Washington, DC 20007

Talk Radio News Service - Adam Sharon, White House Correspondent : [e-mail] (attn Adam Sharon) Phone: [phone]; Fax: [phone]; Address: 2541 Mill Rd NW, Washington, DC 20007

Time Magazine - Jay Carney, White House Correspondent [e-mail] (attn to Jay Carney) Phone: [phone]; Fax: [phone]; Address: 555 12th St NW, Washington, DC 20004

Time Magazine - John Dickerson, White House Correspondent [e-mail] (attn to John Dickerson) Phone: [phone]; Fax: [phone]; Address: 555 12th St NW, Washington, DC 20004

Univision - Lourdes Meluza, Washington Correspondent (no e-mail given) Phone: [phone]; Fax: [phone]; Address: 444 N Capitol St NW, Washington, DC 20001

UPI - Kathy Gambrell, White House Correspondent [e-mail]
Phone: [phone]; Fax: [phone]; Address: World Headquarters, 1510 H Street, Washington, DC 20005

UPI - Nicholas M. Horrock, White House Editor [e-mail]
Phone: [phone]; Fax: [phone]; Address: World Headquarters, 1510 H Street, Washington, DC 20005

USA Radio Network - Connie Lawn, White House Correspondent [e-mail] Phone: [phone]; Fax: [phone]; Address: 2290 Springlake Rd, Dallas, TX 75234

USA Today - Mimi Hall, White House Reporter [e-mail] Phone: [phone]; Fax: [phone]; Address: 1100 New York Ave NW, Washington, DC 20005

USA Today - Laurence McQuillan, White House Reporter [e-mail] Phone: [phone]; Fax: [phone]; Address: 1100 New York Ave NW, Washington, DC 20005 (see Reuters)

U.S. News & World Report - Kenneth Walsh, Chief White House Correspondent [e-mail] Phone: [phone]; Fax: [phone]; Address: 1050 Thomas Jefferson St, Washington, DC 20007

Village Voice - James Ridgeway, Washington Correspondent [e-mail] Phone: [phone]; Address: 1312 18th St NW, Washington, DC 20036

Wall Street Journal - Jeanne Cummings, White House Correspondent [e-mail] Phone: [phone]; Fax: [phone]; Address: 1025 Connecticut Ave NW, Washington, DC 20036

Wall Street Journal - Greg Hitt, White House Correspondent [e-mail] Phone: [phone]; Fax: [phone]; Address: 1025 Connecticut Ave NW, Washington, DC 20036

WorldNet Daily - Les Kinsolving [e-mail]

(ALL of the above from DUer anarchy1999 - 4/2004)

---------------------------------------------------------------------

(FROM DUer bigtree – 3/2004) Use the responses to strike back at the attacks, here and elsewhere.

“MEET THE PRESS”: [e-mail] (from Mari333)

MSNBC-Phone: [phone]

Opinions: mailto:[e-mail]

News: mailto:[e-mail]

Letters to the Editor: mailto:[e-mail]

MSNBC on the Internet
One Microsoft Way
Redmond, WA 98052
________________________________________________________________

CNN: (404) 827 – 1500

CNN TV: http://www.cnn.com/feedback/cnntv /

CNN.com: http://www.cnn.com/feedback/dotcom /

(Thanks to xultar for these

[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
_________________________________________________________________

MORE:
<[e-mail] > Newsweek
<[e-mail] > Keith Olbermann
<mailto:[e-mail] > Washington Post
<[e-mail] > MSNBC Main
<[e-mail] > Chris Matthews

And don’t forget the lovely and charming Brit Hume at the Pox Network…

[e-mail]

888-369-4762

NOW with Bill Moyers Contacts:
Rick Byrne Diane Domondon
NOW with Bill Moyers NOW with Bill Moyers
Ph: 212.560.8406 Ph: 212.560.8300
Email: [e-mail] Email: [e-mail]" target="_blank">[e-mail] " target="_blank">[e-mail]" target="_blank">[e-mail]


SOURCE NOW with Bill Moyers
Web Site: http://www.pbs.org/now


Al Franken, [e-mail],

Larry Flynt, [e-mail]

Michael Moore, [e-mail]

John Kerry, [e-mail]


[e-mail]

Readers' Representative Office: http://www.latimes.com/services/site/la-comment-readers ...

Los Angeles Times
202 W. 1st St.
Los Angeles, CA 90012
[phone]

The Times Orange County
1375 Sunflower Avenue
Costa Mesa, CA 92626-1697
[phone]

Los Angeles Times
Valley Edition
20000 Prairie Street
Chatsworth, CA 91311
[phone]
Los Angeles Times
Ventura County Edition
93 S. Chestnut Street
Ventura, CA 93001
[phone]
_________________________________________________________________

New York Times:

PAUL KRUGMAN! [e-mail]

To Write The Publisher or President: http://www.nytimes.com/ref/membercenter/help/infoservdi ...

Letters to the Editor: http://www.nytimes.com/ref/membercenter/help/infoservdi ...

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
E-mail to [e-mail] .

OP-ED/EDITORIAL
For information on Op-Ed submissions, call [phone] or send article to [e-mail] " target="_blank">[e-mail] " target="_blank">[e-mail]" target="_blank">[e-mail] . To write to the editorial page editor, send to [e-mail] .

NEWS DEPARTMENT
To send comments and suggestions (about news coverage only) or to report errors that call for correction, e-mail [e-mail] or leave a message at 1-888-NYT-NEWS.
The Editors
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

The Newsroom
[e-mail] ; [e-mail]
[e-mail] ; [e-mail]
[e-mail] ; [e-mail]
[e-mail] ; [e-mail]

PUBLIC EDITOR
To reach Daniel Okrent, who represents the readers, e-mail [e-mail] or call [phone].

TO WRITE THE PUBLISHER OR PRESIDENT

Arthur Sulzberger Jr., Chairman & Publisher:
[e-mail] .

Janet L. Robinson, President & General Manager:
[e-mail] .
_________________________________________________________________

USA Today:

Letters to the Editor: http://www.usatoday.com/marketing/feedback/feedback-onl ... ...

USA TODAY / USATODAY.com
7950 Jones Branch Drive
McLean, VA 22108-0605
_________________________________________________________________

The Washington Post
1150 15th Street Northwest
Washington, DC 20071
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]
More:

National Newspapers: http://newslink.org/--news.html

Television by state: http://newslink.org/stattele.html

Radio by State: http://newslink.org/statradi.html

Networks-

Radio: http://newslink.org/netr.html

Television: http://newslink.org/nett.html

(CBS) 60 Minutes:

ADDRESS:
60 Minutes
524 West 57th St.
New York, NY 10019

PHONE: [phone]

TRANSCRIPTS: 1-800-777-TEXT

VIDEOTAPES: 1-800-848-3256

[coeur_de_lion]

124. LEGISLATIVE CONTACTS:

LEGISLATIVE CONTACTS:

WRITE YOUR REPRESENTATIVE:
CONGRESS:
Find your Senator (by state) on this page:
http://www.senate.gov

Alphabetical list of senators with email addresses:
http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES:
Type in your zip code and find your rep:
http://www.house.gov/writerep/

Congressional Black Caucus:
email links:
http://www.house.gov/cummings/cbc/cbcmember.htm
Snail mail link:
http://www.house.gov/cummings/cbc/cbc108.pdf

SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE:
Orrin G. Hatch (R) UT -- Chairman
Email:
Washington DC Office
104 Hart Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
http://hatch.senate.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=Offices.Contact

Democratic members of the Senate Judiciary Committee:

Patrick J. Leahy (D) VT
Ranking Democratic member
433 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
[phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]

Edward M. Kennedy (D) MA
317 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
[phone]
Web Form: kennedy.senate.gov/contact.html

Joseph R. Biden (D) DE
201 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
[phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]

Herbert Kohl (D) WI
330 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
[phone]
Web Form: kohl.senate.gov/gen_contact.html

Dianne Feinstein (D) CA
331 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
[phone]
Web Form: feinstein.senate.gov/email.html

Russell D. Feingold (D) WI
506 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
[phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]

Charles E. Schumer (D) NY
313 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
[phone]
Web Form: schumer.senate.gov/webform.html

Richard J. Durbin (D) IL
332 DIRKSEN SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
[phone]
Web Form: durbin.senate.gov/sitepages/contact.htm

John Edwards (D) NC
225 DIRKSEN SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
[phone]
Web Form: edwards.senate.gov/contact.html

SENATE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE:

JOHN D. (JAY) ROCKEFELLER IV (D-WV)
[e-mail]
531 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
202.224.6472

SENATOR CARL LEVIN (D-MI)
no email address available
WASHINGTON
269 Russell Office Building
U.S. Senate
Washington, DC 20510-2202
Phone [phone]
Fax [phone]

Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA)
http://feinstein.senate.gov/email.html
Senator Dianne Feinstein
United States Senate
331 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510

SENATOR RON WYDEN (D-OR)
http://wyden.senate.gov/contact/
516 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
202-224-5244

SENATOR DICK DURBIN (D-IL)
http://durbin.senate.gov/sitepages/contact.htm
Washington, DC
332 Dirksen Senate
Office Bldg.
Washington, DC 20510
[phone]
[phone] - fax

SENATOR EVAN BAYH (D-IN)
http://bayh.senate.gov/LegForm.htm
463 Russell Building
United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510
202) 224-5623

SENATOR JOHN EDWARDS (D-NC)
http://edwards.senate.gov/mailform.html
225 Dirksen Office Bldg.
Washington, DC 20510
[phone]
fax [phone]

SENATOR BARBARA MIKULSKI (D-MD)
http://mikulski.senate.gov/SenatorMikulski/mailform.html
Suite 709
Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
[phone]

The 9/11 COMMISSION:
New York Office
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]

Family Liaison Office
Tel: [phone]
Toll-Free: 1-888-862-0556
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]

Email addresses for 9/11 Commission members
James Thompson [e-mail]
Tim Roemer [e-mail]
John F. Lehman [e-mail] (not certain on this one)
Bob Kerry [e-mail]
Slade Gorton [e-mail]
Jamie Gorelick [e-mail]
Fred Fielding [e-mail]
Richard Ben-Veniste [e-mail]
Lee Hamilton – vice-chair [e-mail]
Thomas Kean – Chair [e-mail]


DNC
http://www.democrats.org/contact /

Pelosi's email and phone numbers
http://www.house.gov/pelosi /

Daschle's email and phone numbers
http://daschle.senate.gov/write.htm

House Energy Committee
http://www.house.gov/commerce_democrats/feedback.shtml

Senate Energy Committee Ranking Member Bingaman
[e-mail]

Contact your member of congress
http://www.house.gov/writerep /
http://www.vote-smart.org
It not only provides a directory of legislators (contact info) but provides extensive coverage of votes, speeches, etc...
A couple of other cool ones:

The MOST INCREDIBLY HONORABLE HENRY WAXMAN: http://www.henrywaxman.house.gov
In Washington, D.C.
2204 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
[phone] (phone)
[phone] (fax)
In Los Angeles
8436 West Third Street, Suite 600
Los Angeles, CA 90048
[phone] (phone)
[phone] (phone)
[phone] (phone)
[phone] (fax)

Office of NYS Attorney General Eliot Spitzer
Here's Eliot Spitzer's: http://www.oag.state.ny.us/contact.html

CONGRESSMAN CHARLES B. RANGEL (D-NY)
(no direct email address)
Washington D.C. Office
2354 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
[phone]
Fax at [phone]

TO CALL YOUR REPS, TOLL FREE!!!
1 (800) 839 - 5276 - TOLL FREE Capitol Hill Switchboard number!
OR, TRY (877) – 762 – 8762. It’ll get you there, too!
OR, there’s also 1-888-508-2974. This, too, gets you to the Capitol Hill Switchboard TOLL FREE. But sometimes it gets tied up.

[H2O Man]

126. good job

thanks

[coeur_de_lion]

127. 8-10-04 Jay Rockefeller statement about Porter Goss nomination

STATEMENT BY INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE VICE CHAIRMAN JOHN D. (JAY) ROCKEFELLER IV (D-WV) ON THE NOMINATION OF REP. PORTER GOSS TO HEAD THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY AND CIA
http://rockefeller.senate.gov/news/2004/pr081004.html

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- “When George Tenet announced his retirement I made it clear that I thought his replacement should be someone of unquestioned capability and independence who could restore the credibility of America’s intelligence community. I urged the President to look for an individual with unimpeachable, non-partisan national security credentials and I wrote him asking that he consult with Congress prior to making any appointment. I said then and I still believe that the selection of a politician, -- any politician, from either party -- is a mistake.

“Having independent, objective intelligence going to the President and the Congress is fundamental to America’s national security. The Intelligence Committee’s findings in our investigation of prewar intelligence made that abundantly clear.

“I am concerned with the President’s choice, but will work with Chairman Roberts to move the process forward. Porter Goss will need to answer tough questions about his record and his position on reform, including questions on the independence of the leader of the intelligence community.

“But I must say that our top priority and one of the nation’s top priorities is the ongoing effort to craft and implement meaningful intelligence reform. We must consider this nomination within the context of the larger reform debate which is the overriding intelligence issue facing our country.”

[H2O Man]

128. He is clearly

someone we should be sending letters to.

[coeur_de_lion]

129. He's on the list!

[H2O Man]

130. I hope that

the local DAR chapter doesn't kidnap you for posting that. They are masters of disguise and mistresses of disgust. Be careful, very, very careful. Especially be careful of being careful. If "they" (re: the DAR) find out you know that they know that you have broken the secret code, I feel the DAR will kidnap you. They fear you will find the face in the tree of last week's Weekly Reader.

[coeur_de_lion]

131. sheesh, okay!! I will exercise the utmost of caution

Hey, I don't want the DAR on my a**. Those ladies can brew a mean cup of tea. I heard once that they served *scones* at one of their gatherings (shudder).

That's enough to scare the bejeezus out of ME, I don't know about you.

[H2O Man]

132. I think you are in grave danger!

Be careful of food poisoning, especially from pork ..... listen to the Rishi Kesh Song from the Lennon Collection:

"All you got to do
is say the little word
I know it sounds absurb
but it's true
There's magic in the mantra
we'll give you all the answers
so swollow this
That's all you got to do..."

Say this five times a day for safety. It may be the only way!

[coeur_de_lion]

133. You loony bird. I'm going to avoid windows and not open my door

for anyone. If I see men out there in suits I'll demand to speak to the special agent in charge.

[H2O Man]

134. The weekend

provides the perfect time to write a couple letters to your congressional leaders in the House and Senate, to protest the nomination of Mr. Goss for DCI.

Also, please consider writing a short letter to the editor of your local newspaper regarding the Plame grand jury.

Thank you.

[coeur_de_lion]

135. Q&A on Goss's Confirmation Hearing for CIA

Tuesday, August 10, 2004
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A54557-2004Aug10.html
<<snip>>
How does the Senate confirmation process begin?

The committee that oversees the hearing, in this case the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, will schedule a confirmation hearing for Goss.

Who will chair the hearing?

The chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee is Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.). He will conduct Rep. Goss's committee confirmation hearing. The committee's vice chairman is Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.). The other Republican committee members include: Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (Utah), Sen. Mike Dewine (Ohio), Sen. Christopher S. Bond (Mo.), Sen. Trent Lott (Miss.), Sen. Olympia J. Snowe (Maine), Sen. Chuck Hagel (Neb.), Sen. Saxby Chambliss (Ga.) and Sen. John W. Warner (Va.). Democratic committee members include: Sen. Carl Levin (Mich.), Sen. Dianne Feinstein (Calif.), Sen. Ron Wyden (Ore.), Sen. Richard J. Durbin (Ill.), Sen. Evan Bayh (Ind.), Sen. John Edwards (N.C.) and Sen. Barbara A. Mikulski (Md.).

When will the confirmation hearing begin?

At this point, timing of the confirmation hearing is uncertain. Sen. Roberts's press officer, Sarah Ross, said that the Intelligence Committee chairman wants to schedule a confirmation hearing "as soon as possible" and is not ruling out an August hearing. The Senate currently stands in recess until Sept. 7, but committee hearings do not require the full Senate to be in session. Ross said phone calls were being made to committee members to see if a hearing could be held on an earlier date.

Would the hearing be open to the public?

Some hearings are not open to the public, particularly those held by the Intelligence Committee when secrecy is required for national security issues; however, Sen. Roberts's office indicates the Goss hearing will be open.
<<snip>>

[coeur_de_lion]

136. Just sent an email letter to all of the democratic members of the

Senate Intelligence Committee, asking them to oppose the Goss confirmation. Easy, and fast to do. I recommend that we all do the same. Took me less than 10 minutes.

[Me.]

137. Sent letters to

Clinton, Schumer, Nadler & Rangel. Sent email to Michael Moore.

[H2O Man]

138. Cal Thomas, the conservative journalist

is on Fox News Watch, saying that the Plame grand jury conflict is not really a 1st Ammendment issue, because the journalists are NOT protecting a whistle-blower, but are helping the White House in a cover-up. He calls on the administration to "end the problem immediately" by naming the leakers.

Amazing. When the conservatives on Fox are calling on the Bush Administration to be honest, it seems likely we are close to seeing some results in the investigation.

[H2O Man]

139. "The Raw Story" (the liberal alternative to drudge)

has an article by Dara Purvis on "Matt Cooper: First Amendment Martyr." See:

http://rawstory.com/exclusives/dara/matt_cooper_first_amendment_821.htm

[Me.]

140. It is an interesting article...

It is also interesting that most journalists still cite the reason for the betrayal of VP as retaliation against Ambassador Wilson.

Also, if there was an individual within the white house who wanted to whistle blow on treason, I would agree that the 1st amendment protection should stand. However, when journalists allow themselves to become co-conspirators, some gleefully, then I think their day pass gets taken away. To me, most journalists no longer command the respect they once did. They are all so eager to be on the inside and the access that grants that many don't mind exchanging their integrity to do so. The fact that Americans haven't seen more than a grain of truth from the media and journalists going back to the Reagan years, stands against them. And while I understand the lure of a good paying job, a nice home and college for you kids, you can't always have it both ways, not these days, not in these times.

[H2O Man]

141. news on Plame

all from news at google (Plame)

(1)an editorial from the Binghamton, NY Press & Sun-Bulletin
http://www.pressconnects.com/today/opinion/stories/op082204s111686.shtml

(2) a work of fiction that states "what is still unclear is whether Plame was in fact a covert agent ..." See:

http:www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/editirial/outlook/27521223

(3) and one on the long hot summer for the 1st amendment. See:

http://www.kentucky.com/mld/heraldleader/news/state/9464698.htm

[Me.]

142. Well the Public May be Getting

what the journalists aren't. On Reliable Sources they showed a couple of letters in response to a story about Plame/Wen Ho Lee. Both the writers understood that this isn't a matter of protecting a whistle blower. One wrote that journalists should be reporting real news rather than acting as conduits for leaks from within White House.

[Me.]

143. Wohoo!

From over at DU;

rmpalmer Donating member (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 Mon Aug-23-04 09:12 PM
Original message
Daily Kos - Plame - Rumor Scooter Libby is going down
Edited on Mon Aug-23-04 09:15 PM by rmpalmer

http://www.dailykos.com /

I've received some unsubstantiated rumors that Fitzgerald's office is nearing the end of its investigation, and that it will issue three indictments including Scooter Libby. According to these rumors, John Hannah, a Libby deputy, has been "turned" by the investigators and is singing like a canary. Hannah has already been linked to the case. If indeed he has turned state's witness, it would present a major breakthrough in the case.

As for timing, while the investigators hoped to wrap up the investigation within the next four to six weeks, that timeline is now in doubt and may, in fact, be put off until after the election.

Those are the rumors. Take them with a grain of salt.

On * lawyering up as Sipowicz says.

On this subject, I spoke with an experienced former federal prosecutor who works in Washington, specializing in white collar criminal defense (but who does not know Sharp). That attorney told me that he is baffled by Bush's move - unless Bush has knowledge of the leak. "It would not seem that the President needs to consult personal counsel, thereby preserving the attorney-client privilege, if he has no knowledge about the leak," he told me.

And Cheney them - bet they do hold till after election - typical Repugs - will * on his way out be pardoning Libby, Rove, etc?


Alert | Hide Thread

[H2O Man]

144. Hannah and David Wurmser

were mentioned in Wilson's book as two of the suspects from the VP's office. Wurmser works as an assistant to ultra-conservative John Bolton, the under secretary for arms control at State. Duers from the Plame threads may recognize Bolton as the neoconservative mole from State that first slipped the Niger yellow cake reference in to the president's early lies about WMDs in Iraq.

Bolton also made the assinine statement from London that the lies about WMDs "isn't really the issue." (Wilson; pg 374) Bolton runs a wing of the VP's private intell agency, and had run the secretive Office of Special Plans from State.

Although Wurmser had more juice than John Hannah, neither had the ability to leak Plame to Novak without specific direction. Note that both are under the VP.

Hannah has been considered one of the people that turned. He is not the only one. The grand jury's forcing reporters is part of a larger strategy -- one can agree with it or not -- that is not "desperate" at all .... it's going to help put pressure on the least favorite "journalist" on the PlameGate/Plastic Ono Plame Threads. If we consider the significance of the prosecutor having "no other means" it becomes a little clearer.

[coeur_de_lion]

146. Me, you rascal! You beat me to it n/t

[coeur_de_lion]

145. Plame rumors . . . from Dailykos

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/8/23/16503/6468
<<snip>>
by kos
Mon Aug 23rd, 2004 at 20:50:02 GMT

I've received some unsubstantiated rumors that Fitzgerald's office is nearing the end of its investigation, and that it will issue three indictments including Scooter Libby. According to these rumors, John Hannah, a Libby deputy, has been "turned" by the investigators and is singing like a canary. Hannah has already been linked to the case. If indeed he has turned state's witness, it would present a major breakthrough in the case.
As for timing, while the investigators hoped to wrap up the investigation within the next four to six weeks, that timeline is now in doubt and may, in fact, be put off until after the election.

Those are the rumors. Take them with a grain of salt.

What are the verifyable facts?

The investigators are going after reporters. According to well-established Supreme Court guidelines, investigators are allowed to compel journalist testimony only as a last resort. That reporters are being dragged into the grand jury indicates that the investigation is nearing its last legs.

We know that various administration officials, including Cheney and Bush, have gotten lawyered up. Cheney has retained Terrence O'Donnell, a senior partner in the Washington law firm of Williams & Connelly, while Bush has Jim Sharp, a trial lawer (who does a great deal of criminal defense work) and former assistant U.S. attorney. Why would Bush need to seek outside legal counsel? As John Dean wrote a few months ago:
<<snip>>

[H2O Man]

147. Those who have invested in the Plame case

by writing letters, etc, will take a special pride in what is happening in the grand jury. The articles you quote from are but a "fall preview." And the fall's gonna happen in the fall months, too!

[Me.]

148. It Looks Like Fitzgerald ...

is doing everything to insure indictments followed by convictions. When I first read that it might not happen until after the elections I felt a thud of disappoinment. Later. it occurred to me that actually this could be a win/win. If the indictments are before the election the thought has always been it could bring down the *ush admin. Which is true. But say some godforsaken freak of fortune happens and *ush gets re-elected. Indictments could be the antidote to four more years. Also, if it happens after the election and Kerry has won, it strikes me as being all that much easier to slame Cheney's butt into jail.


LOL" Dick Cavett, on Hardball, just called Novak a immoral thug.

[H2O Man]

149. I saw Cavett....

that was a great use of Pat Buchanan to set-up the Novak slam.

Fitzgerald's work, of course, is on its own schedule. The first round of indictments may well come before the election. Once they occure, we will very likely see others trying to make a deal. Then the real fun starts.

[redstateblues]

160. President Hastert?

[Me.]

161. I'm Thinking Not...

Once the lies and secrets start coming out I don't think any of them will be safe. As Paul Krugman says, referring to Bush, in his recent article,

"Yet his inner circle cannot afford to see him lose: if he does, the shroud of secrecy will be lifted, and the public will learn the truth about cooked intelligence, profiteering, politicization of homeland security and more." Can Hastert and Delay be far behind?

Fingers crossed, anyway.

[kohodog]

150. September starts next week!

That's fall in my book. I hope this info is right, and yes, there is satisfaction in doing something like the letter writing campaign, especially when there are results.

Who knows, it may all be a small part of an awakening of the collective conciousness. And people do seem to be waking up. Maybe the drum beat of the right wing media has gotten loud and disturbing enough to wake people up to what's going on.

[coeur_de_lion]

152. I noticed the same thing in the media

In the past few weeks it seems to me that this case is suddenly getting a lot of attention. That may be because of the reporters' subpoenas and the first amendment issue, I don't know.

All I know is suddenly the name "Plame" seems to be everywhere, not just in DU. Makes me happy.

I don't know if we can conclude that our little effort had anything to do with it. But I'm happy all the same.

[AgadorSparticus]

151. I've saved my 1,000th post for the goss letter. not really. but good

timing. :) Here is my letter. Please let me know what you think of it and if I should correct anything. Thanks everyone.

August 23, 2004

To Whom It May Concern:

I find the recent nomination of Congressman Porter Goss to succeed George Tenet as Director of the CIA most disconcerting. What is troubling is that he has already come out and shown us his partisan colors without any regard to national security or countless lives that have been threatened. In regards to the Plame Leaks, Mr. Goss states:

“I would say there's a much larger dose of partisan politics going on right now than there is worry about national security," said Goss, R-Sanibel. "But I would never take lightly a serious allegation backed up by evidence that there was a willful -- and I emphasize willful, inadvertent is something else -- willful disclosure, and I haven't seen any evidence."
Goss said he would act if he did have evidence of that sort.
"Somebody sends me a blue dress and some DNA, I'll have an investigation," Goss said.
http://www.heraldtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2003310030460

So, Mr. Goss wants evidence. And how does Mr. Goss propose to get this evidence without a full investigation? Mr. Goss needs to be fully reminded that a CRIME has been committed. We know Valerie Plame is an outed agent. Whether it was willful or inadvertent, it is still a crime that warrants an investigation.

Perhaps Mr. Goss should investigate and uphold the responsibilities of the position of CIA director before he so quickly engages in making premature and partisan conclusions. We still have an outed agent, countless lives threatened, and a breach of national security that need to be reconciled. And if he needs to be reminded of this, then this man is, without question, NOT qualified to be Director of the CIA.

The VERY LEAST a director of an intelligence agency can do in ANY leak of information that breaches national security is to investigate.

To not do so, is sheer negligence. To think it is not necessary is sheer incompetence.

If Mr. Goss is already this PASSIVE towards finding the criminal(s) involved in a crime that has already been committed, how effective can he be once in office? And where does his allegiance lie if he does not want to pursue the criminals that breached the security of his country?

I find Mr. Goss’s position on the Plame Investigation a direct threat to the very institution he proclaims to defend: national security.

The intelligence community has sustained serious blows to its credibility in the past couple of years. The nomination of Mr. Goss will be nothing more than another big stumble backwards for an agency already pummeled by ineptitude.

Please do not support the nomination of Congressman Porter Goss for the position of CIA director.

Sincerely,

[coeur_de_lion]

153. Good going, Bebe. Nicely worded!

[coeur_de_lion]

157. Don't forget Calilmary's advice about snail mail and legislators

She said not to use an envelope, but to fold up the letter, tape it closed, and put the address on the taped-closed letter.

That way they don't have to worry about anthrax or anything. It is the same as sending a postcard, only much longer.

When I was gathering up addresses to post on here, I noticed that Charles Rangel was suggesting on his site that people fax rather than use snail mail.

That might not be a bad idea either -- for those folks we have fax numbers for.

[AgadorSparticus]

159. i usually just fax. it's faster, easier and cheaper.

in risk of sounding stupid, i have a question: are you sending out your letters to senators and congressmans that are not from your state? Don't out of state correspondence get trashed?

[coeur_de_lion]

162. yes, Bebe, I'm sending it to senators who are not from my state

and I'm also sending it to senators who are in my state. Some of the senators only accept email from their constituents. But most accept it from anyone.

I sure hope it doesn't get trashed. But what can I do if it does?

[Me.]

154. All It Needs

is a stamp (if you're going snail).

[H2O Man]

155. That's a great letter!

I hope you send it in the mail. Good job!

[Me.]

164. Would You Mind Spelling Out

Exactly what is going on with Plame at this moment? We know Rove was turned, now rumors say John Hannah. He's (Fitzgerald) still going after journalists (with the exception of Novak). What do you assess his strategy to be at this moment? And if indictments do come after election how do you see that playing out, or do you think they will come before?

[H2O Man]

167. please see post 144

I think that covered those issues. I'll add more this evening! Thanks.

[kohodog]

156. Thanks Progressivebebe

Ok if I use it too? I always personalize them because the copy thing is so rw talking points! But I'd love to use it as an outline!

[AgadorSparticus]

158. thanks everyone! of course you can use it. :) it's for everyone.

what do you mean by personalizing it? you mean addressing it to each person? as in... dear so and so? if so, how do you do it quickly? write it in pencil? i used a generic To WHom It May Concern because I thought it would look more professional without handwriting. Then all I have to do is write in the name on the fax cover page in pencil. This way, I don't have to print out 20 copies for 20 different people. There are a lot of fax numbers on Calimary's list. Last time I faxed out Plame's letter and the postponing the election letter, it took me almost all morning. I am open to suggestions.

[coeur_de_lion]

163. that is why email is easy -- you can copy & paste, then just hit send

but your way is probably better. I think a lot of the emails would be deleted automatically, but I hope not. I have access to a fax machine at work but I would never use it for this kind of thing. I work in Republican Land. They would be awfully mad at me if I used their fax for political letters.

[coeur_de_lion]

165. Contempt order lifted in CIA leak case

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/apwashington_story.asp?category=1155&slug=CIA%20Leak
<<snip>>
WASHINGTON -- Contempt of court orders against Time magazine and one of its reporters were dismissed after the journalist agreed to give a statement to prosecutors probing the Bush administration leak of a covert CIA officer's identity.

In a statement Tuesday, Time said reporter Matthew Cooper agreed to give a deposition after Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, personally released Cooper from a promise of confidentiality about a conversation the two had last year.

Time and Cooper had been held in contempt earlier this month by U.S. District Judge Thomas F. Hogan for refusing to testify in the leak probe. Hogan rejected their claims, as well as those of "Meet The Press" host Tim Russert, that the First Amendment protected them from having to testify.

Cooper had faced up to 18 months in jail and the magazine could have been forced to pay $1,000 a day under the contempt order, which has now been vacated. Russert avoided the contempt citation by agreeing to an interview with prosecutors earlier this month, again after Libby released him from a confidentiality promise.
<<snip>>

[Me.]

166. And this...

"Cooper gave his deposition Monday to the special prosecutor appointed in the case, U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald of Chicago, in the Washington office of his lawyer, Floyd Abrams, the magazine statement said. The deposition focused on a single July 2003 conversation about the leak between Cooper and Libby, the statement said.

Glenn Kessler, a Washington Post reporter, also agreed to an interview in June after Libby agreed to release him from a similar promise."

http://www.mlive.com/newsflash/topstories/index.ssf?/base/politics-1/1093362844179800.xml&storylist=

So...has Libby turned? Why else would he be releasing everyone? Shouldn't he be protecting his *ss?

[H2O Man]

168. My understanding of this is:

(and Tellurian may have heard different; if so, I'd be curious) that Libby is signing a "limited release" .... these allow, as mentioned, some reporters to discuss specific conversations (same per Russert).

Now, remember the federal statute allows the grand jury to force testimony where there is "no other means" to secure it. Think of the noose as tightening around our grizzle little nazi, NoFacts Novak. Fitzgerald is in no hurry; rather than risk losing information, he's going slow and extremely thorough. He will soon be in a position to force Novak to testify to get the "no other means" information.

I hope someone will find the release by a top ACLU attorney who said the journalists need to cooperate with the grand jury.

I think the first round of indictments will occure before the election. Of course, trials will not .... the defense attorneys will not let that happen. But look for the Rove/Bush office to put ALL blame on the Libby/Bolton/Wurmser group. And Bolton leads to Libby and I think implicates Cheney.

[coeur_de_lion]

169. FROM H2O:'Chicago Trib' Editorial: Reporters Should Testify in Plame Case

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/search/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000616664
By E&P Staff

Published: August 23, 2004

NEW YORK Is the media now of two minds on press freedoms tested by the current Valerie Plame probe? The Chicago Tribune, in an editorial, argued today that certain reporters in the Plame case should be compelled to reveal confidential sources. The editorial also mentions that a leading First Amendment authority, and an advisory board member of the American Civil Liberties Union, feels the same way.

Special prosecutor, U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald of Chicago, has issued subpoenas to several journalists, including Matt Cooper of Time magazine, who co-wrote an article reporting that "some government officials" had revealed Plame's CIA identity to the magazine. "If so, that would make the recipient of the leak -- Cooper, a veteran Washington journalist -- a witness to a serious federal crime," the Tribune editorial declared. "When Cooper refused to appear before a grand jury to answer questions about the identity of his sources, a judge held him in contempt. Time was ordered to pay a fine of $1,000 a day and Cooper was ordered to jail, although these sanctions have been suspended pending an appeal of the judge's ruling.

"News organizations invariably resist subpoenas to name confidential sources, and with good reason," the Tribune editorial continued. But the piece concluded: "It would be hard to find a stronger case than Cooper's for demanding that a reporter identify a confidential source than when he has been an actual witness to a serious crime. University of Chicago law professor Geoffrey Stone, a member of the advisory board of the American Civil Liberties Union and a renowned First Amendment scholar, says Fitzgerald had every reason to subpoena Cooper, and that Cooper should testify.

"Should he refuse, it's only appropriate that he face the same consequences as any other citizen. If someone in the federal government knowingly outed Valerie Plame despite the danger it might create for her, that person deserves to feel the full force of the law. If any ordinary citizen had valuable information about the crime, he or she would have a duty to turn it over. In this instance, it's hard to see why Matt Cooper or any reporter should be excused from that duty."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
E&P Staff

[H2O Man]

170. I looked all over for that.

Thanks! All I could find was some research on Martha Mitchell and her hysterionic personality disorder. It was kind of interesting.

[coeur_de_lion]

171. scoundrel. rascal. rapscallion. rogue.

You are a smart Alec, have I told you that yet today?

I read a little bit about Martha myself. Seems that every once in awhile there was a grain of truth in what she said. Problem was that she spouted so much nonsense in between the nuggets of truth -- no one ever believed her.

She was also a gifted psychic and astrologer. No many people know this.

[H2O Man]

172. Martha

was very tall for her heighth. A pudgey dame who took no blame, she. Martha thought that the Nixon Administration was blaming the entire Watergate crime on her second husband, the infamous attorney. Martha had a habit of drinking a lot, and calling reporters and other victims evenings and late into the night. Within months, people found her to be pretty paranoid, and she had a nasty personality disorder.

I've been hoping that someone like Libby or another White House official will have a Martha at home. My dad always said the Lord saved women like her for special men in need of divine punishment. Woodward and Bernstein tired of her fairly soon. She died a sad and lonely death. Watergate played out on its own, and her role was really more entertaining than anything else.

She had a disease .... the name escapes me .... but it caused her to have periods where she just stopped ....bugs me when I can't think of it. But, like Martha, it's a faded footnote.

[coeur_de_lion]

174. poor Martha. I hope she at least died a peaceful death.

So sad.

What disease are you thinking of? What do you mean just stopped? You mean like stopped moving? Stopped talking? Stopped breathing?

[wishlist]

173. Prosecutor may be trying to confirm/debunk Libby's defense of leak

Libby may have leaked Plame's identity only to Novak, but in order to complicate matters and make the leak and his motives difficult to prove, he may have said that what he told Novak was common knowledge that Libby had already discussed with other journalists who had mentioned Plame's identity to Libby first. He may have originally led Novak to believe that he had also discussed Plame's identity with several other journalists (when they really didn't know until Novak leaked it). Libby would have correctly assumed that the other journalists would never publicly mention their discussions with him and since he didn't leak it to anyone but Novak anyway, they couldn't finger him and he knew that Novak being a RWinger wouldn't finger him unless forced to by subpoena. Libby may not have expected that the prosecutor would ever go so far as to subpoena all of the journalists mentioned but would have known that by involving other journalists in his defense, the investigation could be derailed or delayed.

"Yes, I told Novak that she was a CIA agent, but I never considered that I was leaking secret intelligence information because her identity was already widely known and other journalists had already mentioned to me that they had heard about her being CIA." "What other journalists? Well, I believe I talked to Tim Russert,etc,etc. who were already aware of her identity"

Russert reportedly said that he never told Libby about Plame and Libby never mentioned Plame to him either and that Russert only heard about Plame's identity from Novak's column. I would not be surprised if this is the same thing other journalists are testifying about.

It will be great news if indictments come out soon.

[H2O Man]

175. Well thought out post.......

there has been an effort on the part of the repblicans to show that "everyone knew Plame was a CI operative." Clearly not true: her family didn't; her friends didn't; and her neighbors didn't. Novak didn't say that this was something he knew .... in fact, he called CI and Wilson for confirmation.

The only ones who knew were the planning group from the March meeting in VP Cheney's office.

The conversations being reported in the media about Russert etc are fascinating. Some of the White House weasles are far better criminals than others. The error in method was simply letting too many people know.

The editor of the Binghamton Press & Sun-Bulletin said in an editorial that he hopes Novak turns on the White House. I'm curious what he'll do. Though he is obnoxious, he has been something of a lightening rod in all this. I think Fitzgerald is going for the officials who committed the federal offense.

[merh]

176. The prosecutors is using what Libby has told them and back

tracking, asking the other journalists if they had told Libby that Plame was CIA or had he told them. Like Russett, the others will probably say that they did not know Plame was CIA until Novak's column or until Libby told them.

Thus, if Libby told the prosecution that the other reporters told him that Plame was CIA, they have Scooter violating 18 USC 1001 (telling a falsehood to a federal agent - that's what they got Martha on) so now they have him in the lie and they can use this violation against him. It becomes their trump card, cooperate or do time. Martha's sentence was light under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, Scooter won't be so lucky since his lies directly impact national security. The will just stack the charges outing the agent, telling falsehoods to the investigators, et ceter, et cetera!


Things are getting very interesting indeed.

[wishlist]

180. Russert and Kessler from WPost both say they didn't discuss Plame

with Libby. If Cooper only found out from WH sources and others didn't find out about Plame until Novak's column, then prosecutors may have a great case of conspiracy, perjury and obstruction of justice in addition to leaking CIA agent's identity. I am intrigued by the subpoening of Air Force One records and the possibility that several people have been caught lying about their knowledge.

[H2O Man]

182. Who knew?

When did they know?

The Air Force One record seems to be why the president got an outside attorney. As much as we want this to be what it appears to be, it isn't entirely clear .... the investigation's intrusion on the president's territory leads me to believe that they will have to sacrifice the vp's staff to try to save George.

[merh]

183. The Air Force One subpoena is intriguing...

It does appear that scooter is in hot water! (heehee)

[H2O Man]

184. Yes, it does.

It looks like both offices are feeling the heat .... Scooter serves the VP .... I'd be satisfied to see Cheney connected directly to the Libby actions. But if it really reaches Bush, even better.

[kohodog]

186. There will need to be indisputable, direct evidence

to get to Bush or Cheney, I think.

Even if Scooter or others turn, it may not be enough for conviction. But maybe more than enough for impeachment. Frankly, the first issue is to get them out of power any way that works. We have time to deal with the war crimes so long as he isn't in power.

[coeur_de_lion]

187. I agree with kohodog - I would love if if Fitzgerald tied * & Cheney

directly to the leak but have doubts that this will really happen.

The Plame case is probably the only thong that can bring down the * administration. But these guys are real good at making someone else the fall guy for their misdeeds.

Maybe if we all kept our fingers crossed . . .

[H2O Man]

188. I think the #1 issue

is to remove Bush & Cheney from office. I do not think John Kerry offers the answer to our every prayer, but putting in a democratic administration offers our country the potential to change directions.

The Plame case involves federal offenses, and certainly must be prosecuted vigorously. And that will connect VP Cheney to the conspiracy to expose her identity. It may connect the president with the efforts to cover it up.

[coeur_de_lion]

189. I hope you're right

I think that the dark stain of corruption will become more evident to the general public because of the Plame case, but will it still fail to bring down this administration. That's my personal opinion and I could be very wrong.

The cool thing about being a political novice is, if I'm wrong I can say "well I'm new to politics." If I'm right it will be amazing that a novice such as myself managed to call it early on.

[Me.]

178. And You Get The Gold Star...

I too looked for it and couldn't find

[coeur_de_lion]

179. confession: H2O sent it to me. Then teased me-mercilessly about it

[Me.]

181. A Good Reporter Does Not

Reveal Her Sources (unless it's to Fitzgerald)

[H2O Man]

185. Martha boke the case.....

by listening to "I am the Walrus" backwords.

[Me.]

177. Perfect!

That is exactly what I wanted to know.

[TacticalPeek]

190. Judith Miller and Matt Cooper

But the Times has never published any articles saying it ever received information about Plame's identity. A well-placed source within the paper tells me that Miller had not told her editors the leaker's name or Plame's identity, even though (in the opinion of the source) she seemed to have knowledge of both.

Miller, in any case, did not expose Plame in the way that Novak did in his syndicated column, which ran in The Washington Post. Yet Sulzberger referred to her "confidential sources" and said "journalists should not have to face the prospect of imprisonment for doing nothing more than aggressively seeking to report on the government's actions."

If Miller had Plame's name and identity, who was her source? If she didn't, why would she have been implicated in the current case?

more
http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/columns/shoptalk_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000617707

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x774829

---

And

It is not known why the special prosecutor was so interested in questioning Mr. Cooper about Mr. Libby. Mr. Kelly, Time's managing editor, characterized the deposition on Monday as having been "all about Matt's conversations with Mr. Libby.'' But Mr. Kelly declined to answer any other questions about what Mr. Cooper had been asked, and Mr. Cooper also declined to comment.

more
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/25/politics/25press.html

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x774829


So, why will Cooper not comment, nor Kelly answer other questions? Are they working up a big exclusive report, or quaking in fear of bushco retribution?

[coeur_de_lion]

191. rumors, rumors

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x2261638

[Me.]

192. More Info to Speculate On...

Air Force One phone records are being subpoenaed as a grand jury probes the disclosure of a covert CIA officer’s name. (Getty Images File Photo) <<snip>>>>

>>>snip>>> And the subpoenas asked for a transcript of a White House spokesman's press briefing in Nigeria, a list of those attending a birthday reception for a former president, and, casting a much wider net than previously reported, records of White House contacts with more than two dozen journalists and news media outlets.
The three subpoenas were issued to the White House on Jan. 22, three weeks after Patrick Fitzgerald, the U.S. attorney in Chicago, was appointed special counsel in the probe and during the first wave of appearances by White House staffers before the grand jury.


<<<snip>>>> The subpoena with the first production deadline sought three sets of documents.
It requested records of telephone calls to and from Air Force One from July 7 to 12, while Bush was visting several nations in Africa. The White House declined Thursday to release a list of those on the trip.
That subpoena also sought a complete transcript of a July 12 press "gaggle," or informal briefing, by then-White House press secretary Ari Fleischer while at the National Hospital in Abuja, Nigeria.
That transcript is missing from the White House Web site containing transcripts of other press briefings. In a transcript the White House released at the time to Federal News Service, Fleischer discusses Wilson and his CIA report.
Finally, the subpoena requested a list of those in attendance at the White House reception on July 16 for former President Gerald Ford's 90th birthday.

<<<snip>>>
The subpoena with the second production deadline sought all documents from July 6 to July 30 of the White House Iraq Group. In August, the Washington Post published the only account of the group's existence.
It met weekly in the Situation Room, the Post said, and its regular participants included senior political adviser Karl Rove; communication strategists Karen Hughes, Mary Matalin and James R. Wilkinson; legislative liaison Nicholas E. Calio; policy advisers led by National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice and her deputy Stephen J. Hadley; and I. Lewis Libby, chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney.



http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0305-02.htm

[H2O Man]

193. Please go to: Instant Karma on GD

for more information and activities. Thanks!