home

Why the Support for Only One Reporter?

By Jeralyn, Section Valerie Plame Leak Case
Posted on Mon Jun 27, 2005 at 06:16:51 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

I'm going to weigh in here with Roxanne and Begging to Differ over the strange Washington Monthly post supporting Time Reporter Matthew Cooper and not mentioning Judith Miller.

The Washington Monthly could have, but didn't, distinguish between Cooper and Miller's cases. There is a factual difference between the two: This was Cooper's second subpoena and he complied with the first one. Also, Miller never actually wrote an article about Valerie Plame. She may have just been researching the story. Or, maybe, as I posited here, she wasn't really researching or working on a story, and just got the info gratis as gossip.

Even though it was a losing argument legally, it could be a reason to suggest that only Cooper doesn't deserve to go to jail. But the Washington Monthly doesn't say anything to distinguish the cases to justify its support for only one reporter.

Also, the Washington Monthly says,

There is a total absence of criminal intent on his part. He should not be put in jail.

He isn't going to jail for committing a crime. He's going to jail because he disobeyed a court order...it's a contempt of court order, not a crime. His criminal intent is irrelevant.

It seems like the Washington Monthly is saying "Don't send Matthew to jail because he's a good guy and our friend, while we don't like Judith Miller so do what you want with her."

If you are going to say there should be a reporter's privilege to withhold information from a criminal grand jury, then it should apply equally to Miller and Cooper.

Once again, the comment in the Robert Novak column that sparked this whole thing (NYTimes, Cirumspect Columnist, 12/31/04):

''Wilson never worked for the C.I.A., but his wife, Valerie Plame, is an agency operative on weapons of mass destruction. Two senior administration officials told me his wife suggested sending Wilson to Niger.''

One other note not often mentioned any more: Tim Russert gave up his source in the investigation.

And what ever happened to Robert Novak? Isn't he still the best source of the information? It seems he got a pass.

  • Did Novak get a subpoena? Did he take the 5th? Was he immunized and did he sing? Or, has special prosecutor Fitzgerald been dragging his feet in seeking an immunity order for Novak while he exhausts all other avenues? Who does Fitzgerald have in his cross-hairs besides Libby, who has waived all confidentiality privileges?
  • If Novak took the 5th, for what crime did he take it? Most people agree his publicizing Plame's identity was not a crime. The law prohibits disclosure by those with authorized access to classified information and the like, not to journalists, unless they habitually make such disclosures. Was there a cover-up attempted - did Novak initially agree to one?

I suspect the pressure will be on Cooper's source to allow Cooper to reveal the name of the senior White House official to the Government so Cooper can avoid jail. If the guy (or woman) is so high up he or she won't allow it, who do you think it might be? I have my suspicions.

Update: The Washington Post has a few succinct points on the reporters' cases:

First: a description of the issue involved

[Does]a prosecutor's search for the truth in a criminal investigation outweighs a reporter's need to protect anonymous sources.

Second: Each side's position:

[Miller and Cooper] argued that they could not do their jobs if they broke their promise of anonymity to sources who provided a look inside an increasingly secretive government. Special prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald argued that he could not investigate crimes if reporters had a special right to hide information that other citizens did not.

Third: Cooper's current position (via Time and the Post)

Time magazine released a statement saying that Hogan should reconsider jail time because Fitzgerald's investigation has "changed substantially." It appears that the prosecutor has concluded that the crime he was originally investigating did not occur, Time contended, because government officials did not realize they were revealing the name of an undercover agent. To commit a crime, an official must knowingly disclose an undercover agent's identity.

Now, Time said, Fitzgerald appears to be investigating whether an official lied during his investigation. "Such an investigation of obstruction of justice or perjury may not rise to the level that justifies disclosure of information from or about a reporter's confidential sources under federal common law," Time's statement said.

Update: Kudos to Kevin Drum for having the guts to disagree with the Washington Monthly, when his blog is hosted by them.

No, I don't agree with Charlie (or, apparently, the entire rest of the Monthly staff). I've never met either Matt Cooper or Judith Miller, but I don't think their personal likability should be an issue one way or the other in this case.

Despite that, I agree 100% with Garance Franke-Ruta and Armando that liberal blog readers ought to change their tune on this issue posthaste. You either support the right of reporters to shield their sources or you don't, and your opinion shouldn't vary based on whether (a) you dislike the reporters in question or (b) you'd like the information they're hiding to become public because you think it would be embarrassing to George Bush.

< White House Drug Plan Excludes Anxiety Drugs | Say Hello >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Why the Support for Only One Reporter? | 12 comments (12 topical)
    Re: Why the Support for Only One Reporter? (none / 0) (#1)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:37 PM EST
    Well, I don't agree with Washington Monthly on the substantive issue at all, but I don't think it's weird that they ask for mercy for Cooper and not Miller. After all, Copper has an ongoing relationship with the magazine. There's an analogy to criminal sentencing, in which it's common to assemble character testimonials and pleas for mercy from the defendant's family. You don't wonder why they don't put in a good word for the co-defendant, who's a relative stranger, at the same time, do you?

    Re: Why the Support for Only One Reporter? (none / 0) (#2)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:37 PM EST
    Uhmmm, I don't know about the Washington Monthly report, but TL, didn't you raise the fact that they had different defences? "The only hesitancy I have is that Matthew Cooper is raising different issues and has a different factual history."

    Re: Why the Support for Only One Reporter? (none / 0) (#3)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:37 PM EST
    Ooops! Nevermind [/Latela] Note to self; read the post before following the lnks. REPEAT: read the #$%^! post before following the links!

    Re: Why the Support for Only One Reporter? (none / 0) (#4)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:37 PM EST
    Blaghdaddy admits to his confusion regarding this whole kerfuffle, and without sarcasm, wishes that someone much brighter than himself could explain why this is all such a big deal... Here are Blagh's observations and comments, very shortly... 1. The First Amendment protects "Free Speech," and says nothing about the right "Not to Speak," dig? In other words, how does making a reporter give up their dirt supress speech? 2. Is this not a criminal investigation? This is not the courts asking a priest what the confessor confessed to...this is the court asking "Who violated the law in giving you such and such information?" Where is the law that says a reporter can with-hold information from a criminal investigation through "privelege?" Isn't this "privelege" actually just an unspoken agreement that the court has now declared invalid? How can you violate a reporter's legal right to remain silent when there is no f$cking law granting them this right? If there is, which law is it, exactly? 3. Nowhere in case law has Blaghdaddy seen any reference to a legal right held by a journalist that ordinary citizens are not bound to. Sorry, Blagh doesn't see why he can be dragged into court and threatened with jail for withholding information when a reporter seated beside him with the same information would walk...this is not rational...to Blagh.... 4. The First Amendment does not protect someone yelling "Fire!" in a crowded restaurant...are we to accept now that, if one had told a reporter in confidence about the plan to do so, and the resultant stampede killed fifty people, that the reporter could claim some f$cking privelege and not reveal the plotter's identity? Is Blaghdaddy the only one who finds this all bizarre? Since when has the 1st Amendment protected reporters from telling the police who illegally passed them information? Isn't the reporter shield designed to protect sources from being punished? Well, when the actual leak is a violation of the law, who the f$ck ordained that the reporter could sit on such information? You're supposed to protect your "sources," not rats who violate law and endanger intelligence operatives out of political motivation... If Deepthroat had violated laws in sacking Nixon, and Woodward had remained mum, why the f$ck shouldn't he have been nailed for keeping the identity secret? What Blaghdaddy wants to know is, Who Wrote the Law Putting Journalists Above the Law, and Please Show it to Him, 'Cause He's Never Seen It... These reporters are gand-standing...someone broke the law revealing Valerie Plame, American Society has an interest in catching traitors like this, and no reporter is or should hold themselvs above the law as part of some high-minded fraternity that also chases "Natalee" stories through Aruba and who salaciously hung on every sexual innuendo in Ken Star's Crusade... Come on, journalists are no f$cking special breed... If they are, show Blagh where it says so... Otherwise, they sing or get caged...like the rest of us...

    Re: Why the Support for Only One Reporter? (none / 0) (#5)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:37 PM EST
    It's not an issue of free speech, it's an issue of freedom of the press. Case law has established a certain privilege for reporters to be able to protect their sources. The press privilege of confidentiality is much lighter than the privilege of attorney or priest. The press privilege serves us all by allowing sensitive sources to be able to confide in their press contacts and get a story out. The press have to be wary of their sources even as they cultivate them because it is possible to be used by a source instead of the other way around. This current administration certainly used Novak in outing Plame. Novak should have been more of a journalist and less of a partisan and he would have seen through the confidences for what they were - attempts to strike at Joe Wilson without regard for the damage to the CIA assets involved. The press privilege has always been under attack on the basis that in many cases the leaking of information to a press contact may be a crime. That is the case in this instance. I might be willing to stand by and wring my hands if Novak is seized and transported to Egypt or Uzbekistan for a little interrogation. Better men than he have gone that way under the Bush administration.

    Re: Why the Support for Only One Reporter? (none / 0) (#6)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:38 PM EST
    stupid statement-who are these better men you are so sympathetic with? Wilson made his own bed, as did the Press. Plame then put herself in Vanity Fair-is that what a covert operative does? the press wanted this investigation and screamed to the high heavens because it thought it smelled Bush blood in the water. it got what it wanted-I guess you should be careful what you wish for.

    Re: Why the Support for Only One Reporter? (none / 0) (#7)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:38 PM EST
    Blag writes:
    In other words, how does making a reporter give up their dirt supress speech?
    It is argued that this provides a chilling effect on people reporting malfeasance by government, and other, persons. CA writes:
    This current administration certainly used Novak in outing Plame
    Can you explain to us why the administration wanted to bother her? Motive? And can you explain why the Vanity Fair article? Tempest meet teapot. et al - Should Woodward and Bernstien been made to give up their source?

    Re: Why the Support for Only One Reporter? (none / 0) (#8)
    by Dadler on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:38 PM EST
    PPJ, How did Woodward and Bernstein's source lead to the fasle justification for a war that has cost tens of thousand of lives, with more death to come? There is a distinct and wide gap between exposing Watergate and the identifying of Valerie Plame as a CIA operative. The former was done in the service of justice, the latter as retribution for Joe Wilson's failure to be a lackey and company man. Each case on its own merits, period. Precedent is dandy, until it keeps us from the difficult job of deciding for ourselves based on the unique facts and context of each situation.

    Re: Why the Support for Only One Reporter? (none / 0) (#9)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:38 PM EST
    a true believer still clinging to the fantasy of Joe Wilson/Valerie Plame as heroes. did you suffer from a news blackout-Wilson is and was a fraud and his wife did suggest him for a job he had no qualifications to handle. Was the reason self aggrandizement-take a look at the Vanity Fair articles for the covert operative posing for photos.

    Re: Why the Support for Only One Reporter? (none / 0) (#10)
    by Dadler on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:39 PM EST
    Ed, So Joe Wilson and his wife plotted to concoct a false report? Why? His wife was a CIA operative, he was a respected diplomat. WHY??? You spew crap without the slightest bit of logic behind it. Wilson went to Niger, did his job, the administration didn't like his findings, or his refusal to back down, and they outed his wife. This is such a simple progression of events, your refusal to accept it borders on delusional.

    Re: Why the Support for Only One Reporter? (none / 0) (#11)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:40 PM EST
    dadler writes
    The former was done in the service of justice, the latter as retribution for Joe Wilson's failure to be a lackey and company man.
    You do know we have judges and juries for things like this, don't you? Matter of fact, to do otherwisen leads to lynching, and other bad things. Very hypocroitical of you.

    Re: Why the Support for Only One Reporter? (none / 0) (#12)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:40 PM EST
    Actually, we have secret courts that decide these things ... that is until politicians make deep cover operatives public domain. Whoever in the WH is responsible for outing plame should have the cell next to pollard. Actually, the cell way, way under pollard. All he did was betray america to israel. The WH outer of Plame betrayed american interests in reducing and discovering WMDs around the world. ed can never provide links, his only purpose is to cast sabots into the machinery. Please don't feed the trolls.

    Why the Support for Only One Reporter? | 12 comments (12 topical)