NYT's Seems to suggest Ted Olson cut a deal releasing Cooper from Jailtime

[KoKo]

(DU rules don't allow me to get all the relevant parts into this snip...but it seems that NYT's is sniping at Cooper in some way in this interesting article about all the behind the scenes goings on. They replaced Floyd Abrams with Ted Olson AFTER the Sumpremes refused to hear the case and seem to be suggesting that Olson might have made a deal that Abrams couldn't or wouldn't. They also mention Cooper's wife Mandy Grunwald as a Democratic Campaign Strategist and say that "Time Mag." unlike the NYT's was held in "contempt" (first time I've heard that) :eyes:
-------------------------------------------------------------------

For Time Inc. Reporter, a Frenzied Decision to Testify


The widely divergent outcomes of Mr. Cooper's case and Ms. Miller's case reflected an evolving split in their legal strategies. At first the two reporters shared a legal team, led by Floyd Abrams, a noted First Amendment lawyer.

But after a federal appeals court refused to block Mr. Fitzgerald's subpoenas, Time and Mr. Cooper replaced Mr. Abrams with a team led by Theodore B. Olson, a former United States solicitor general in the Bush administration who is now with Gibson Dunn & Crutcher.

In an interview on Friday, Norman Pearlstine, the editor in chief of Time Inc., which is owned by Time Warner, said he hired new lawyers to bring a fresh perspective and complementary talents, not to seek a deal.

George Freeman, an assistant general counsel of The New York Times Company, said the organizations' lawyers worked well together in the months before the Supreme Court's refusal of their appeals.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/11/politics/11time.html?pagewanted=2

[newswolf56]

1. Given the presence of deal-maker Olson in this equation...

...the unknown is no longer merely the question of what Miller is withholding versus what Cooper promised to reveal. The question NYT ever-so-vaguely hints at but dares not articulate is how the Cooper deal protects the Bush Administration (thereby rewarding Cooper by absolving him from the male-specific horrors of prison) versus how Miller's silence jeopardizes the administration (thereby condemning her to prison for at least four months).

That said, I think we should stop treating Miller as some enemy of the people and begin regarding her as what she truly is: a martyr to the First Amendment regardless of her reporting on the war. (But then I am a journalist myself, and so admittedly bring my own bias to this matter.)

[KoKo]

3. Thanks for your perspective on this. The article reveals tidbits that

need further analysis. I'm still wonder what it meant that "Time" was in "contempt" but NYT's wasn't. The sentence made no sense. It didn't say in "contempt of court, or investigation" just that "Time was in contempt." I don't remember reading about that distinction and I hope one of our bloggers like Digby or Josh Marshall or even David Corn will pick up on that little bit as well as some others.

My worry is what kind of deal Olson cut. Because we know there are two Administration Officials involved..maybe more, but two are the focus from Novak's article. Which two? Seems Cooper was more focused on Libby from the NYT's article. Perhaps Miller has a deeper Rove connection. I hope that more unraveling occurs before Olsen makes his bigger deal which maybe is a way for Rove to get out of this gracefully with some reputation intact. Perhaps a fall guy will be put forward that will give Miller protection.
:shrug:

[Me.]

2. Time Was Held In Contempt

and facing stiff fines because the company had copies of the e-mails. The NYT, it appears, did not (or supposedly did not) have notes or anything from JM, thus not held in contempt.

Also I believe the switch in lawyers came before the Supremes, and that Abrams was going to argue absolutism while Olson was not.

[KoKo]

4. Why would the NYT's not have any information from Miller, though?

Your explanation puts the "contempt" in perspective that I was questioning but surely Miller had to have some correspondence with her editors, even though she's been described as a control freak and has been given alot of freedom because she has a "friend high up" like Sulzberger and even Kellor. Perhaps they were unwilling to release to Fitzgerald that they had anything and Miller then could become a martyr OR she's covering her butt for the Chalabi reporting which may tie into all of this with the Niger WMD false report. :shrug:

[Me.]

5. Hmmmm

This is just supposition on my part, but if the NYT had the info, and I can't believe Fitz, being as thorough as he is, wouldn't have asked, they would have had to turn them over or be in contempt as Time was. If they lied it would be obstruction and given their ethical troubles over the last few years I don't think they'd do that. What I think happened, and again this is supposition on my part is this: Miller did write a story, it is little reported but she did, and then she ran it by the lawyers who said no way. Because of that, perhaps, because it wasn't going to be run, I think she kept the info and didn't turn it over to the paper. I think, also, that your "control freak" may explain her having such latitude.

[lovuian]

6. Time caved in after Hogan refused the appeals

then they released the emails and phone records

and Time was placed in the same position which they released Judith Millers phone records and emails also!!!

Fitzgerald hit the Mother Lode!!!

The NYT is really bobbing and weaving her and I think they have the Cheney goodies in their emails!!!