Court Upholds Journalist's Contempt Citations - Miller and Cooper

[seemslikeadream]

By John Eggerton -- Broadcasting & Cable, 6/29/2005 11:29:00 AM

Abstract: A D.C. Federal Appeals Court has refused to vacate the contempt orders against four of five journalists who refused to reveal their sources.
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA622298.html?display=Breaking+News

[THX1138]

1. Now it gets interesting

Will Time Inc. spill the beans? There were rumours yesterday they might if this decision went against them.

[BlueEyedSon]

2. Why are they beating up journalists. Can't they just arrest all of Cheneys

staff?

[samdogmom]

3. "Journalists"?

Don't you mean cheerleaders for the Bush Administration?

[Media_Lies_Daily]

36. Why are you protecting people who committed a felony by revealing....

...the identity of an intelligence operative who was working undercover?

You do understand that in addition to the exposure of Plame, her entire global network was also compromised and their lives put at risk, don't you?

They broke the law. Period.

[BlueEyedSon]

54. Who gives a shit about them, they are not the leakers!!!!

Maybe Novack

[Career Prole]

85. Nah. He's got diplomatic immunity.

Novak is the White House's ambassador to CNN.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

113. They knew that a felony had been committed and they didn't report it....

...and that's also a felony.

Additionally, a 1972 Supreme Court case stated that journalists had no protections if they had knowledge of the commission of a felony.

Who gives a shit about them? I do. They're one step closer to getting to the people at the top.

[seemslikeadream]

4. Will Time Inc. Hand Over Documents and Keep Cooper Out of Jail?

Will Time Inc. Hand Over Documents and Keep Cooper Out of Jail?

By Joe Strupp

Published: June 28, 2005 4:00 PM ET

NEW YORK When Matthew Cooper of Time magazine and Judith Miller of The New York Times return late Wednesday afternoon to face the federal judge who ordered them to jail last fall for refusing to reveal confidential sources, two different outcomes may emerge.

While New York Times officials have maintained that Miller will not reveal the source who leaked to her the identity of CIA agent Valerie Plame, a source close to Time Inc. told E&P that the company is considering handing over documents that would reveal the source.

more

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000969854

[seemslikeadream]

5. Matt Cooper is declining to testify CNN

no news if Time will release documents. Cooper says it is Time's decision to release the documents, I would prefer that they didn't.

Deadline for Cooper is Friday.

[Goldmund]

6. Who would prefer they didn't?

You or Cooper?

[seemslikeadream]

8. Cooper

[Goldmund]

9. Cool, thx

[montanacowboy]

7. So when do Cooper and Judy

go to the can?

[sui generis]

14. not soon enough.

Breaking a news story on who diddled whom based on an interview with someone's maid or butler; yeah sure. Whistleblowers, absolutely.

But matters of national security where you put the life of an agent at risk by being played in a White House vendetta? They should have voluntarily stepped up a long time ago with every disclaimer and apology possible instead of entrenching themselves.

It's just a crying shame that Novak isn't going with them to be their hairy bug-eating manbitch in the klink.

[redwitch]

15. it is unbelievable that Novak isn't first to go

rotten s.o.b.

[OzarkDem]

28. He's already answered

their questions. Problem is, he's probably lied in his testimony to them and they need Miller and Cooper to testify to make the case against Novak.

[POAS]

29. Perhaps he isn't first because

he is considered a suspect rather than a witness.

As a suspect you couldn't very well jail him to force his testimony against himself.

[geek tragedy]

10. Cuff'em, Danno. eom

[OldLeftieLawyer]

11. Pray for Matt Cooper,

pray for Judith Miller.

Pray for you.

Pray for me.

Because now they're going after our free press, and if that's not the beginning of the end, I don't know what is.

[seemslikeadream]

12. No they're going after criminals

and witnesses to High Crimes

BIG FISH

.....

Fitzgerald needs the testimony of Cooper and Miller not as direct evidence against the leaker himself, but as the final link in proof of a larger coverup of the crime. (For recent overviews see here and here.)

Bush Administration
A number of journalists at this point have testified as to the administration officials that spread the Plame leak to them, including the Washington Post's Walter Pincus. But at this point, the number of administration officials involved in the case would appear to extend far beyond that of the original Novak leaker or leakers. (In addition, Novak himself has changed his story multiple times -- first citing a CIA source in his conversation with Wilson, then citing two "senior administration officials" in his subsequent column -- as well as changing his story as to how and why he was given the information by those officials. In short, Novak has probably given testimony to Fitzgerald, but that testimony is probably deeply suspect.) If the testimony of other interviewed reporters and administration officials conflicts, there would certainly be a solid basis for a more encompassing obstruction investigation -- and that appears to be what is taking place.

One of the most credible working theories is that a midlevel administration official involved with the Niger uranium claims was the one who "broke" Plame's undercover status, after a retaliatory investigation of her husband. That official then shopped the leak widely inside the White House as personal retaliation against Wilson, distributing the information to more senior individuals that may or may not have had clearance for such highly classified information, but who in any event would have had little credible "need to know" justification. Those multiple figures, including apparently senior administration officials, then moved the information to reporters via the usual press contacts -- perhaps knowing the leak itself was a crime, or (dubiously) not. Certainly, reporting indicates, Fitzgerald has been able to confirm the involvement of multiple White House personnel in a coordinated effort to push the story to reporters -- and yet, incredulously, none of these administration officials have been able to tell Fitzgerald where they themselves obtained this classified information -- or, if they have, Fitzgerald has obtained significant evidence suggesting investigators should not believe them.

If this is indeed the case, and as commonly reported the Special Counsel has moved from the original crime into a investigation of a wider after-the-fact administration coverup, Fitzgerald likely needs Cooper and Miller to narrowly testify towards establishing that the particular administration officials they spoke too did indeed speak to Plame's covert status before it was widely known -- classified information relegated to a narrow set of people, and presumably not something they would ordinarily have clearance towards, and presumably something they only could have received from someone with access to that information. Presuming Fitzgerald indeed has contradictory testimony from the players in question, which is a very safe bet, this in turn would fundamentally prove that these officials had lied to investigators about where they obtained the information from, in an effort to protect the original (criminal) leaker. And that coverup would be an indictable offense.

It would be an offense remarkably similar to the original Watergate coverup, in fact. And, intriguingly, may involve some of the same players.

www.dailykos.com/story/2005/6/27/16318/8942


A New Chapter In The Valerie Plame Case:
Insights Gained From The New Edition of The Book by Former Ambassador Joseph Wilson
By JOHN W. DEAN
----
Friday, May. 20, 2005

The grand jury investigation into the illegal leak of Valerie Plame's covert CIA identity still has not led to the public revelation of any suspect who might be responsible for the leak. Yet according to columnist Robert Novak, who published the leaked information, the suspects are two "senior" Bush Administration sources - who may be high-profile.

A number of reporters have already voluntarily testified before the grand jury. But New York Times reporter Judith Miller and Time magazine reporter Mathew Cooper are not among them. In a recent column, I explained why the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia did not protect Miller and Cooper's ability to hide their sources - and why I believe the U.S. Supreme Court is very unlikely to step in. Someday soon, then, the grand jury is very likely to hear from Miller and Cooper - or else Miller and Cooper will opt for jail.



But beneath these legal issues, lies a mystery: Why has the investigation's focus fallen on them, in particular? Miller never wrote about the leak of Plame's identity; Cooper wrote about it well after Novak had included the leaked information in his column.

So these two would seem peripheral - but plainly, they are central. Why?

U.S. District Court Judge Thomas Hogan's opinion in the case gives one clue. In discussing the sealed affidavit filed by Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, Judge Hogan noted that "the government's focus has shifted as it has acquired additional information during the course of the investigation" and "now needs to pursue different avenues in order to complete its investigation." Though vague, these references are also significant.

The newly released paperback edition of the book by Plame's husband - former Ambassador Joseph Wilson - entitled The Politics of Truth: Inside the Lies that Put the White House on Trial and Betrayed My Wife's CIA Identity, helps explain what Judge Hogan may have been getting at, and what that sealed affidavit may say.

The World Of Fog Facts: Interpreting the Public Information on the Plame Leak

more
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20050520.html
Joe Wilson Responds to Supreme Court Decision
by SusanG
Mon Jun 27th, 2005 at 08:46:53 PDT
In response to the Supreme Court's decision today to decline to hear the appeals of Judith Miller and Matt Cooper in regards to who in the Bush administration leaked Valerie Wilson's name to reporters, Ambassador Joseph Wilson responds:


That two reporters may now have to go to jail is a direct consequence of President Bush's refusal to hold his administration accountable for the compromise of the identity of a CIA officer, Valerie Wilson.

Had he enforced his edict that all members of his administration cooperate fully with the Justice Department investigation, we would not be where we are today.

Equally, some senior administration officials who spoke to Matt Cooper and Judy Miller today cravenly stand by while the two journalists face jail time because of a conversation they had with them. It is an act of extraordinary cowardice that those officials not step forward to accept responsibility for their actions.

www.dailykos.com/story/2005/6/27/114653/692


Each time the White House officials
told a journalist about Plame, it is a criminal offense. They told six or seven journalists; there are therefore six or seven potential counts.

[sattahipdeep]

111. Novak first citing a CIA source....

Free Forever.... Krongard.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x1332757

[BillZBubb]

13. What free press is that you are talking about?

Judith Miller wasn't a member of any free press. She was a neocon, warmongering propagandist. I hope she rots in the hole.

Our corporate media isn't a free press by any stretch.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

17. Don't look at the individuals

Look at the higher principles at stake here.

This is deadly serious, and deadly dangerous to all of us.

I agree with you about the corporate media, but the rights established in the First Amendment must be protected, especially when they're protecting people and practices we find repugnant.

Look at the long picture. This is George W. Bush's final stage of his wet dream.

[americanstranger]

89. Confidentiality only goes so far.

If you were a doctor and you saw evidence of child abuse, would you keep quiet about it out of fear that if you reported the abuse to police, people wouldn't go to see doctors any more?

A lawyer would be disbarred if he witnessed a crime and used privelege to cover it up, wouldn't he?

This isn't about confidentiality. This is a cover-up of a felony.

-as

[OldLeftieLawyer]

92. You're citing privilege

That's very different from the First Amendment.

This is NOT "a cover-up of a felony."

There is nothing you can point to indicating that any felony was committed.

[izzybeans]

107. Isn't it more dangerous that our "free press" is "free" to protect

political operatives involved in vendetta "outings/killings"? The sources they are protecting are such people. It's not like they are protecting a middleman or a whistle blower. They are protecting the criminals who attacked the whistle blower. That's not a free press their appendages of anti-democratic propaganda.

Fuck them and their principles, if they do have any. The story, no doubt are the names of the leakers. These two reporters are censoring the free press with their silence. If they had principles they wouldn't have ran the story that they did, well at least Judith Miller had the conscience enough to halt the composition in mid stream, maybe she figured out that she had become a pawn. But why protect the people that used her? On principle? Nope. Their principles had been compromised long ago. If they had any, then they would have known the real story was not that Ambassador Wilson's wife was an undercover agent in a highly sensitive area of national security; it would have been that the white house was trying to cover up their lies by discrediting the testimony Wilson had come back with after his fact finding mission. These two operatives being one subplot in a larger narrative.

If we want to protect principles, this case just isn't it. The precedent has already been set anyway. This isn't a landmark case. Social scientists, subject to the same discloser laws, are legally obligated to give up confidential material when it becomes known they have something relevant to a court case (edited to add: as subject to subpoena). Some of them go to jail, some of them don't. Some of them leave their research materials locked in bank vaults overseas. In this case, however, a conviction might restore some principles and integrity to journalism. That is, if this case actually has an impact on the journalistic world at all. If we keep spinning it in favor of the neo-con propaganda mill then we have lost before we began. Bury these assholes and get on with it so the rest of the press can move forward "freely"... to report the story that is being censored by these two pseudo-journalists (Novak's not included here because he's beyond reproach).

But then again we'll be regaled with stories about these poor martyrs sacrificed in a battle lost years ago, whenever they had it in their power to do the right thing and not censor the story. The press will most probably chase its own tail and censor itself once the real story comes to light.

In short, this case is GW's wet dream, you are right. But invert the lens and then you will see just what it is that he times his strokes to. He'll love it if they go to jail and Time Warner violates a court order. He'll get off on it.

Without reading the rest of this thread I'm sure this is probably rehashing old ground.

[Gelliebeans]

112. I agree with you here

I don't care about the people but can you imagine the repercussions of this.

What will happen to confidential sources in the long term?

[Occulus]

16. That is NOT what this is about

This is about reprters using their position as reporters to facilitate high crimes. They knowingly covered for a person they knew was commiting a crime of the most sinister nature. As a result of their reporting, an entire covert operation the results of which would have undermined the reasons for going to war in Iraq was uncovered and ended.

What a very convienient result for the Bush admin. My opinion: the reporters involved know exactly what their role was.

This isn't about freedom of the press; this is about a covert agent who would have unmasked the false pretenses of the Iraq war, and reporters bought by the Bush admin to protect it.

Throw them in jail. It's fairly obvious by now that they knew exactly what they were doing, who they were harming, and who they were protecting.

clarification: in nearly every other case I would be agreeing with your asessment, but in this case, it was far too important that what they uncovered remain concealed. Ms. Plame's investigation may well have prevented or ended the Iraq war, had it been allowed to conclude.

It's fairly obvious why she was outed. We need to make it clear that this is NOT acceptable.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

18. It's all political, and it stinks

They're throwing away expendable fish to get what they want.

If that were the case, as you posit it, where in this equation is Bob Novak?

There are higher principles at risk here than uncovering a source. Of course they knew what they were doing, but, again, I ask, what about Novak?

Isolating Miller and Cooper is unfair on its face.

[OzarkDem]

24. Novak is probably

one of the criminals who they are going after. From what we've heard on this forum and others, Novak may have perjured himself to the grand jury in trying to help cover up the WH crimes and Cooper and Miller have information to help them make the case against Novak.

Journalists who have information about the criminal activities of Novak and others in the WH do no one any favors by protecting them and in fact do an injustice to the public.

Who are they protecting?

[OldLeftieLawyer]

26. Criminals?

Who's been convicted of a crime? That's what "criminals" are.

Don't, in your desire to see justice done (something we share), ever give up the cherished tradition of "innocent until proven guilty." If you do, you're as bad as freepers.

Journalists have responsibilities to their sources, to the First Amendment, and to the principles of a free press, all of which are far more important that the Plame case.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

37. More important than committing felonies? Interesting.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

43. Show me the felony

Tell me about the felony that's been charged, and who's been charged with that felony.

It doesn't exist, my friend. Don't rush to judgment because an investigation is taking place.

Innocent until proven guilty is interesting, yes, I agree. And vital.

[OzarkDem]

64. If they had the proof

they wouldn't have to subpoena the journalists. They're the only witnesses, recall?

[OldLeftieLawyer]

69. Huh?

Where do you think "proof" (I trust you mean "evidence") comes from?

But, what felony are you talking about? There is no felony. Show me the felony that's been charged. Show me the defendants charged.

You're not paying attention, honey.

Keep this in mind, and pretend you're a defendant (it could happen much more easily than you think): "Innocent until proven guilty."

That's real important.

[OzarkDem]

81. Keep in mind

the defendents aren't the reporters. They're not being asked to give testimony harmful to themselves.

As mentioned previously - they would not be able to subpoena witnesses unless they had some strong evidence.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

84. You know what?

That line: "they would not be able to subpoena witnesses unless they had some strong evidence" tells me that you don't have the first notion of what a grand jury is, how the criminal justice system works, or what's going on with this matter.

I'm sure you've heard prosecutors make that old boast about the grand jury - "On any given day, I can get a ham sandwich indicted."

Yeah, "some strong evidence."

You better go read up on the Constitution, because your views are far more suited to freerepublic.com.

[CityDem]

59. Throw Novaks ass in jail

Hey Bob, I'd like to introduce you Rocko. He is your new roommate.

[ProfessorGAC]

83. But, Leftie. What If Novak Talked?

If he lied and Fitz knows it, he can turn up the heat by getting information to make it perjury.

If Novak told the truth, corroboration is all that stands between Fitz and an indictment.

Miller and Cooper are putting their own personal career interests ahead of the public good by refusing to drop dime on the people who very well may have committed a felony.

It may, technically, not be a crime until the conviction, but SOMEBODY outed an undercover agent for political purposes. Somebody did something unethical, at best, and very likely illegal, at worst.

These two have facilitated a political vendetta that likely violated more than one federal felony statute and they are not cooperating with an investigation that seeks to find the perpetrators of a violation of the public trust.

The principle involved here is more fundamental than even the one you describe. It's about the principle that people in positions of power will NOT violate their oath of office and get away with it.

What's more fundamental than that?
The Professor

[OldLeftieLawyer]

103. That's a huge supposition

"What if Novak talked?"

Do you have it on insider knowledge that he was even called before the Grand Jury?

Do you know what he said?

In fact, keep in mind that Plame's status is still questionable. There's some dispute as to how deep undercover she was, since there were so many people who knew she worked for the CIA, so that also makes it an issue: has a law really been broken?

I don't know who "facilitated a political vendetta," nor do I know that there really has been a violation of a law, or of a public trust.

What's more fundamental than anything?

Preserving the right afforded us by the First Amendment, and, if necessary, standing up to the authorities to do it. I am aghast at the notion that I'd end up finding Miller and Cooper as heroes, but it looks like that's just possibly what might happen.

[ProfessorGAC]

104. Nice Dodge!

Real lawyerly and all, but not very admirable since your basic thesis requires a huge assumption as well.

Nice try, but no cigar. I recognize avoidance when i see it.

And you DON'T find making sure the bad guys don't get away with it the most fundamental principle? That's a shame.

The Professor

[OldLeftieLawyer]

105. Nice Chrysler!

And you haven't a clue.

[Olney Blue]

100. Hey Old Lefty- where is your krazy kat?!

:shrug:

[OldLeftieLawyer]

106. Annual vacation

At the beach - which he regards as the largest litterbox in the world - with the wife and kittens, taking the long Fourth of July weekend as well.

He'll be back when they run out of saltwater taffy, but thanks for asking.

[Demit]

38. I agree w/Old LeftieLawyer about this. I shed no tears for Miller, but

it strikes me that if they get these journalists to capitulate, it's the thin edge of the wedge--getting reporters to reveal their sources. I don't know if, in future, reporters would be able to argue the fine distinction between revealing a source that possibly committed a crime, and revealing a source who was trying to do a good thing, a whistleblower. It's a toughie, but I've got to side with reporters zealously maintaining their future ability to protect sources. That's a big part of what makes the press an effective watchdog against government--perhaps they're not doing that well now, but there will come a time when they'll be that way again.

[OzarkDem]

20. First amendment doesn't include

the right of the news media to protect the identity of criminals.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

22. What criminals?

I don't know who they are, as no one's been convicted of a crime in this matter, to my knowledge.

And, yes, the First Amendment does protect exactly that. That's what it's for.

[OzarkDem]

31. Not exactly

This isn't a case of the media protecting some whistle-blower who is exposing government corruption. Its a case of protecting the identities of the people who perpetrated the crime.

The Plame case is unique in that it involves a crime that was directly linked to the news media. In a sense, the WH was using the news media as an accessory to the crime.

I don't think the Miller and Cooper are the ones the investigators are going after, they want information about who they spoke with and what was said to make a perjury case against Novak and a criminal case against Bushco.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

33. Be careful

So far, there's really no crime. Be very clear on that. No indictments, no charges, no arraignments, nothing. Just an investigation.

Be very careful. The information isn't there for you to state with any validity that there was "a crime that was directly linked to the news media." You do not know that. No one does.

Suspicions are not facts.

[OzarkDem]

35. Then whats the harm

in them testifying to help establish facts?

If it were you or I who had witnessed criminal activity, we'd be called to testify immediately. Why do these folks think they can hide? What special right do they have? Who do they need to protect in this situation?

Facts won't come out UNTIL they testify. Not doing so is obstructing justice.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

45. You're putting the cart before the horse

or some such hoary adage.

You have to consider the principles at stake. If you're willing to give up a protected right, as you see it, in order to satisfy the demands of a judge who might or might not be getting it right, well, if I were your lawyer, I'd certainly counsel you to consider the damage you'd be doing to yourself, to your profession, the the principles of free speech and a free press.

If you or I witnessed criminal activity, it would not be up to us to decide what's "criminal." We'd be asked about what we saw. The "criminal" conclusion is made by someone other than witnesses.

I would urge you to read up on obstruction of justice vis a vis free speech. There's a lot out there on that very subject.

[OzarkDem]

68. Confidential source protections

are not guaranteed by the First Amendment. They are allowed for the news media, when it is acting in the role of a "watch dog" for the government, protecting the rights of citizens.

It does not guarantee protection for the rights of those who may have information about those suspected of a crime. There is no "watchdog" role for the news media in this situation.

The news media should be protecting the interests of the citizens and the Constitution, not those of high ranking administration officials.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

71. And that's bad law

Cooper and Miller apparently think so, and so do I.

Bad laws are to be changed. That's how Roe v. Wade came into being, that's how Prohibition was ended and women given the right to vote.

Laws, keep in mind, are living, fluid things.

Nice cut and paste, by the way. You really should attribute your source, though, when you do something like that.

[OzarkDem]

80. Then change it

but until you do, you have to obey it.

Good luck, I don't anticipate a great deal of support for protecting criminals.

The independent counsel has the authority to subpoena witnesses for questioning in front of the grand jury. He's not convicting them of anything. He would not be able to subpoena them unless he had substantial evidence indicating the reporters had information about the people who leaked the information, or, who may have participated in a cover-up.

For the millionth time, the law protects reporters in protecting information in the context of acting as a "watchdog", not in obstructing an investigation into criminal behavior. The reporters are not being asked to testify against themselves.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

87. Please

Go read about grand juries. You don't even know what a "criminal" is, as evidenced by your posts.

I do wish you luck, though, in your legal career................. :hi:

[OzarkDem]

91. The Supremes disagree

Watchdog role only is protected.

[mikelgb]

90. i haven't followed this story real close

so i may be sticking my foot in my mouth but I thought Miller and Cooper et al. have said that their "confidential" source illegally gave them the name of a covert CIA agent. So they have already admitted a crime took place but are refusing to name the perp. or perps.

[tsuki]

53. And leaks from the secret grand jury are not necessarily facts.

[sendero]

21. "They"?

You think the Bush administration is happy about this? Who are these "they" you speak of?

[OldLeftieLawyer]

23. I think they're thrilled

It's all diversion.

Without Novak, no one will ever make a case. He seems to be Teflon-coated, and so, while all this dithering goes on about Miller and Cooper (both of whom will get nice book deals when it's all over), no one notices that Robert Novak is standing there, laughing at all of us.

Believe me, they're thrilled.

[sendero]

32. What does...

... "without Novak" mean? Do you know for a fact what his testimony was or was not? Do you know for a fact that he is free and clear of this whole thing?

Where's your evidence of that?

[OldLeftieLawyer]

34. Where's his

threatened incarceration?

[sendero]

46. What if he...

... sang?

[OldLeftieLawyer]

47. If he did,

why pursue Miller and Cooper?

[tsuki]

55. My point exactly.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

57. Bingo

Can you say "diversionary fishing expedition"?

[tsuki]

63. Not without stumbling like DeLay.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

66. All the King's horses,

all the King's men,

all the Quaaludes in the world

can't make that Bugger articulate.

[sendero]

60. More than one..

... leaker, corroborating evidence?

[OldLeftieLawyer]

72. How about

diversionary fishing expedition?

[Media_Lies_Daily]

25. Sorry, but to what "free press" are you referring? Have you ever read....

...this site on Operation Mockingbird?:

<http://www.prisonplanet.com/analysis_louise_01_03_03_mockingbird.html>

QUOTE:

Under the guise of 'American' objectives and lack of congressional oversight, the CIA accomplish their exploits by using every trick in the book (and they know quite a few) that they actually teach in the notorious "School of the Americas", nicknamed the "School of Dictators" and "School of Assassins" by critics. The Association for Responsible Dissent estimates that 6 million people had died by 1987 as a result of CIA covert operations, called an "American Holocaust" by former State Department official William Blum. In 1948, the CIA recreated its covert action wing called the Office of Policy Coordination with Wall Street lawyer Frank Wisner as its first director. Another early elitist who served as Director of the CIA from 1953 to 1961 was Allen Dulles, a senior partner at the Wall Street firm of Sullivan and Cromwell, which represented the Rockefeller empire and other trusts, corporations, and cartels.

Starting in the early days of the Cold War (late 40's), the CIA began a secret project called Operation Mockingbird, with the intent of buying influence behind the scenes at major media outlets and putting reporters on the CIA payroll, which has proven to be a stunning ongoing success. The CIA effort to recruit American news organizations and journalists to become spies and disseminators of propaganda, was headed up by Frank Wisner, Allen Dulles, Richard Helms, and Philip Graham (publisher of The Washington Post). Wisner had taken Graham under his wing to direct the program code-named Operation Mockingbird and both have presumably committed suicide.

Media assets will eventually include ABC, NBC, CBS, Time, Newsweek, Associated Press, United Press International (UPI), Reuters, Hearst Newspapers, Scripps-Howard, Copley News Service, etc. and 400 journalists, who have secretly carried out assignments according to documents on file at CIA headquarters, from intelligence-gathering to serving as go-betweens. The CIA had infiltrated the nation's businesses, media, and universities with tens of thousands of on-call operatives by the 1950's. CIA Director Dulles had staffed the CIA almost exclusively with Ivy League graduates, especially from Yale with figures like George Herbert Walker Bush from the "Skull and Crossbones" Society.

Many Americans still insist or persist in believing that we have a free press, while getting most of their news from state-controlled television, under the misconception that reporters are meant to serve the public. Reporters are paid employees and serve the media owners, who usually cower when challenged by advertisers or major government figures. Robert Parry reported the first breaking stories about Iran-Contra for Associated Press that were largely ignored by the press and congress, then moving to Newsweek he witnessed a retraction of a true story for political reasons. In 'Fooling America: A Talk by Robert Parry' he said, "The people who succeeded and did well were those who didn't stand up, who didn't write the big stories, who looked the other way when history was happening in front of them, and went along either consciously or just by cowardice with the deception of the American people."

Additionally, Miller and Cooper committed a FELONY when they reported what they were told by Novak which resulted in the public compromise of an intelligence operative working in the field and her entire global network. That's a LOT different from using information from a source that exposes wrong-doing within the government or a major corporation, and protecting THAT source.

[seemslikeadream]

30. PENTAGON IN CNN NEWSROOM!!

Operation Mockingbird on steroids

http://www.fair.org/activism/osi-propaganda.html

Pentagon Propaganda Plan Is Undemocratic, Possibly Illegal
February 19, 2002


The New York Times reported today that the Pentagon’s Office of Strategic Influence is “developing plans to provide news items, possibly even false ones, to foreign media organizations” in an effort “to influence public sentiment and policy makers in both friendly and unfriendly countries.”
The OSI was created shortly after September 11 to publicize the U.S. government’s perspective in Islamic countries and to generate support for the U.S.’s “war on terror.” This latest announcement raises grave concerns that far from being an honest effort to explain U.S. policy, the OSI may be a profoundly undemocratic program devoted to spreading disinformation and misleading the public, both at home and abroad. At the same time, involving reporters in Pentagon disinformation puts the lives of working journalists at risk. .......

snip
According to the New York Times, “one of the military units assigned to carry out the policies of the Office of Strategic Influence” is the U.S. Army’s Psychological Operations Command (PSYOPS). The Times doesn’t mention, however, that PSYOPS has been accused of operating domestically as recently as the Kosovo war.

In February 2000, reports in Dutch and French newspapers revealed that several officers from the 4th PSYOPS Group had worked in the news division at CNN's Atlanta headquarters as part of an “internship” program starting in the final days of the Kosovo War. Coverage of this disturbing story was scarce (see FAIR’s “Why Were Government Propaganda Experts Working on News at CNN? <http://www.fair.org/activism/cnn-psyops.html >” 3/27/00), but after FAIR issued an Action Alert on the story, CNN stated that it had already terminated the program and acknowledged that it was “inappropriate.”
Even if the PSYOPS officers working in the newsroom did not directly influence news reporting, the question remains of whether CNN may have allowed the military to conduct an intelligence-gathering mission against the network itself. The idea isn’t far-fetched-- according to Intelligence Newsletter (2/17/00), a rear admiral from the Special Operations Command told a PSYOPS conference that the military needed to find ways to "gain control" over commercial news satellites to help bring down an "informational cone of silence" over regions where special operations were taking place. One of CNN’s PSYOPS “interns” worked in the network’s satellite division. (During the Afghanistan war the Pentagon found a very direct way to “gain control”-- it simply bought up all commercial satellite images of Afghanistan, in order to prevent media from accessing them.)
It’s worth noting that the 4th PSYOPS group is the same group that staffed the National Security Council's now notorious Office of Public Diplomacy (OPD), which planted stories in the U.S. media supporting the Reagan Administration's Central America policies during the 1980s. Described by a senior U.S. official as a "vast psychological warfare operation of the kind the military conducts to influence a population in enemy territory" (Miami Herald, 7/19/87), the OPD was shut down after the Iran-Contra investigations, but not before influencing coverage in major outlets including the Wall Street Journal, New York Times and Washington Post (Extra!, 9-10/01).
The OPD may be gone, but the Bush administration’s recent recess appointment of former OPD head Otto Reich as assistant secretary of state for Western Hemisphere affairs is not reassuring. It suggests, at best, a troubling indifference to Reich’s role in orchestrating the OPD’s deception of the American people.
Indeed, as the Federation of American Scientists points out, “the Bush Administration’s insistent efforts to expand the scope of official secrecy have now been widely noted as a defining characteristic of the Bush presidency” (Secrecy News, 2/18/02). The administration’s refusal to disclose Enron-related information to the General Accounting Office is perhaps the most publicized of these efforts; another is Attorney General John Ashcroft’s October 12 memo urging federal agencies to resist Freedom Of Information Act requests. ......



Kissing up to KissingerThe reporters who loved Henry and what they said.
By Jack Shafer
Posted Monday, Oct. 4, 2004, at 5:23 PM PT



Henry Kissinger

During his years as national security adviser and secretary of state, Henry Kissinger wooed the Washington press corps with the flowers and chocolate of flattery and access. As Walter Isaacson writes in his 1992 biography, Kissinger, opinion columnists and the reporters who covered the State Department or the White House grew especially captivated by his charms.

Journalists took priority over matters of state for Kissinger, or at least that's how it looked to his colleagues. CIA Director Richard Helms tells Isaacson of the time Kissinger made him wait as he sorted though his message slips, placed reporters' messages at the top of the pile, and returned their calls. Kissinger speechwriter John Andrews remembers that when they were working on a speech together and a high-status columnist like Joseph Kraft or Joseph Alsop telephoned, Kissinger would pause their labors "and do an incredible snow job with me listening in. He'd pour syrup all over the guy." John Ehrlichman tells Isaacson a similar story about Kissinger stroking reporters over the phone. "I could not help hearing Henry's blandishments and his self-congratulation," Ehrlichman says.

....

The most devoted members of the Kissinger press cult, based on the phone transcripts, were CBS News Chief Diplomatic Correspondent Marvin Kalb, former New York Times Washington editor and columnist James "Scotty" Reston, and Time magazine's Hugh Sidey. But other figures tossed kisses to Kissinger from afar, including political columnist Stewart Alsop, former Los Angeles Times Publisher Otis Chandler, William Randolph Hearst Jr., and former Washington Star owner—and soon to be ex-Riggs Bank proprietor—Joseph L. Albritton.

Kalb sends an FTD-sized bouquet down the line to Kissinger on the evening of Sept. 22, 1973, the day he became secretary of state.

... I did wish you well from the bottom of my heart, the wisdom and the grace and the tolerance that are going to be so necessary to success because I very much have the feeling in the long sweep of history perhaps that your tenure is going to prove to be larger than simply something that has to do with diplomacy. There's a human and a psychological component here which has to be vindicated in a major way and I feel that very strongly and I wish you towering good luck.

more
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=2706627

[robertpaulsen]

39. One more time: SCOTUS SET THE PRECEDENT IN 1972!!!

I've posted this multiple times on several threads. I'm going to keep posting this until DUers get the message.

This is from John Dean:

Finally, if the confidential information relates to criminal activity, the U.S. Supreme Court said in 1972 (in Branzburg vs. Hayes) that should a grand jury investigating the crime need the information, the journalist must turn it over — despite the freedom of the press guaranteed under the 1st Amendment.

No reporter can enter into an agreement that violates that law. Rather, an agreement of confidentiality is subject to it. The so-called news person's privilege, just like the attorney-client privilege or a president's executive privilege, is a qualified privilege. When a judge holds a reporter in contempt for violating the law, that judge is merely upholding the law of the land.

more...

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/sunday/commentary/la-op-sources6feb06,0,6080347.story?coll=la-sunday-commentary

Hope that clarifies what this is really about. Miller and Cooper are breaking the law. They should go to jail!

[OldLeftieLawyer]

40. Civil disobedience

You don't obey the law when you believe the law is unfair.

Jim Crow laws got put away like that, remember?

[robertpaulsen]

48. That's a particularly odious comparison.

Judith Miller=Martin Luther King? :puke:

Technically, you are correct, it is civil disobedience when you don't obey a law you think is unfair. But all technicalities aside, how can you compare Jim Crow laws with showing contempt for a grand jury investigating criminal activity in a case concerning the compromise of national security? As an OldLeftieLawyer, what do you have against Branzburg vs. Hayes?

[OldLeftieLawyer]

50. Well, no

Jim Crow laws were tackled by lots of people, not just MLK, Jr. Your limited characterization is rather slight.

I don't deal in "technicalities." That's a phrase non-lawyers use to refer to laws that go against what they don't like.

How can I compare a reporter refusing to obey a law he or she thinks is unjust with Jim Crow laws, you ask?

I just did. It's called "civil disobedience," and, your contemptuous and misguided comparison aside, it's a hallowed tradition. Even in America.

[robertpaulsen]

62. You're a lawyer. You deal with "technicalities" every day.

Refusing to dissect the difference in my initial query is just evasive bullshit. You twisted my original question and completely ignored the second one. I already stated that you were right, it would be civil disobedience, so why reiterate the point? Sure Jim Crow laws were tackled by lots of people besides MLK. How many did so by protecting sources accused of breaching national security like Judith Miller? Don't you see the difference?

Sorry if I'm coming off as disrespectful, I'd love to have you represent me in a court of law, but I'm not asking you what the laws are. I'm asking:

1. All technicalities aside, how can you compare Jim Crow laws with showing contempt for a grand jury investigating criminal activity in a case concerning the compromise of national security?

That's compared to your "misguided" variation: How can I compare a reporter refusing to obey a law he or she thinks is unjust with Jim Crow laws, you ask? I'm sorry if you object to the word "technicalities", but everyone deals with technicalities whether you want to admit it or not.

2. As an OldLeftieLawyer, what do you have against Branzburg vs. Hayes?

[OldLeftieLawyer]

65. I don't give legal opinions on message boards

And I never give legal opinions without a big, fat, obscenely, outrageously, unspeakably, and unforgivingly huge retainer check that's already cleared.

Nothing personal, but it's only a message board - not my classroom, not my office. My opinions are only my opinions as a poster on DU, not as anyone's resource.

[robertpaulsen]

75. Fair enough.

If I only had the money, I'd let my curiosity get the best of me. Since I don't, I respect your position.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

77. Thanks

It's been fun.

:yourock:

[tsuki]

56. Is the grand jury investigating criminal activity? How do you know?

It's a secret. Or it is supposed to be. And why are the leaks of the grand jury not being investigated?

[seemslikeadream]

41. Thanks

:hi:

[robertpaulsen]

49. You're welcome!

Wow, this is exciting isn't it? I was wondering if the truth would ever come out in Plamegate. I'm still wondering, but now I'm more hopeful.

[seemslikeadream]

51. John Bolton, Downing Street, Mohamed ElBaradei, and Valerie Plame

Yes very interesting, the closer to Plame the closer to Bolton!

Sun Jun 19th, 2005 at 17:46:17 PDT
One of the nagging questions of the Valerie Plame case has always been who in the White House would have even known who Valerie Plame, covert CIA operative, actually was. The identity of covert agents is strictly compartmentalized information; even in high-level briefings on the actions or intelligence gathered by those agents, the agents themselves are identified by alias or code, not by name. The reasons for this practice are obvious.

And, in the case of the White House, there was hardly a pressing need to know the identity of one Ms. Valerie Plame. It is middlingly possible that members of the Bush Administration knew Mrs. Valerie Wilson as wife of Ambassador Joseph Wilson. It is less possible that more than a tight handful of persons -- if that -- would have known Valerie Plame, covert CIA operative. The highest crime in the Wilson/Plame case likely does not revolve principally around who, precisely, shopped the information about Plame's covert status to Novak and other D.C. journalists: instead, it rests with who told that political operative -- the one with a full rolodex and the skill to select presumed-friendly leak points -- that Plame was a CIA operative in the first place, and worthy of attack. Among the White House political staff, there was precisely zero need to know this information -- and if classified intelligence procedures were being followed, no opportunities to find out.

It is undisputed among all parties that Plame's covert work involved principally the gathering of intelligence related to weapons of mass destruction, which put her at an important nexus of operations in the runup to the Iraq War. At another nexus point across town, during the same period, was John Bolton.

post #51
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=3976740&mesg_id=3977321

[emad]

110. John Bolton was Poppy's envoy in early '98 to the UK and EU

sent to lobby for former UK Defence Secretary George Robertson to be made Secretary General of NATO.

Many UK journos criticised this vociferously when it was shown on UK TV saying this was weird of the Clinton Administration to allow such interference from a hardened old Repuke.

The Observer ran a piece citing Sir Richard Dearlove, then head of MI6, as saying that this was a questionable move and would taint the NATO appointment. And the MI6 spook who eventually got busted - Tomlinson - said that Bolton was up to his ass in meddling with military matters 'way beyond his capabilities and comprehension'.

Maybe that's why Dumbo likes him s much...

[tsuki]

52. I agree with you. Of the two political grand juries that I helped

investigate, they were rotten. I see many similarities in this one. The journalists will be the only ones to see jail time.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

58. I think most people don't know

what grand juries are or how they work or how terribly powerful and dangerous they are.

But I'm certain Torquemada would be very, very pleased to know his methods are still in use.

[tsuki]

61. No, they don't. The Freeportgate Grand Jury was convened

after 2 years, and 144 FDLE reports that concluded that the entire investigation was a political fight between factions. Between the "picking" of the grand jury (family members are the people that were "suppose to be" investigated, the leaks, the lies, the distortions, and the publishing of the sealed presentment, the only decent person in the entire situation was ruined financially and personally, his good name and health. He was indicted. It was dismissed three times, the last with prejudice. (You should read what Judge Brace had to say the last time.) That took years. The appellate court and the Florida Supreme Court (twice) upheld Judge Brace's decision. In all, it took eight years.

I have no faith in the grand jury system.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

67. Dismissed with prejudice

That's a really bad sign.

I did all sorts of things to keep clients from appearing before Grand Juries, and they all ::: whew ::: worked out. But, that was part of the reason I got out of criminal law.

More lives have been ruined by Grand Juries and the unscrupulous prosecutors who exploit the system. You're absolutely right not to have any faith in it. There are so many other ways of garnering evidence for an indictment.

[tsuki]

95. When the prosecutor brought the case before the court the third time,

it was dismissed again (with prejudice.) The prosecutor demanded that Judge Brace explain himself, and the Judge did. The sixteen points he outlined were killer, but was never reported in the press. And almost all of them address the grand jury process, obliquely of course.

The prosecutor of the case reminds me so of Nancy Grace that I can not watch Fancy Nancy Graceless.

[tsuki]

96. Oh, and if Grace had of had her way, the runaway bride would have

been before a grand jury, and the fiance indicted before they found her in Albuquerque.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

97. What are the chances

of a link to those sixteen points? Are they anywhere I might be able to access them?

Nancy Grace - yeah - she's got a record that really qualifies her to comment on the acts of others - sure she does: http://tinyurl.com/aztb4

I've been at this for thirty years, but a few years ago, I ran into an assistant Commonwealth's attorney in Virginia, a young woman who was so belligerent and badly mannered, not to mention borderline competent, that I actually heard myself saying to her "You know, I went to law school back when women weren't welcome, and my girlfriends there and I busted down all the walls that kept women out. I'm the reason you got to be a lawyer, and, for the first time, I'm starting to think I made a mistake."

Me. I said that. I couldn't believe it.

And I meant every word of it.

[tsuki]

101. I'll dig through my papers. Remember, this was over ten years ago.

The FDLE could not wait to shred the reports. It was a Walton County Florida Case, but the Judge was in Okaloosa. Walton County shared judges.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

102. Don't sweat it

My curiosity will get by just fine without you exerting yourself.

Thanks for all of it.

[Massacure]

19. If they go to jail, can they spill the beans and get out just as easily?

[OldLeftieLawyer]

27. Yep

The old canard is that they hold the key to their cell.

[Disturbed]

42. Sorry Leftie Lawyer.

I usually agree with you but my view on this one is: Obstructing Justice.

John Dean:

Finally, if the confidential information relates to criminal activity, the U.S. Supreme Court said in 1972 (in Branzburg vs. Hayes) that should a grand jury investigating the crime need the information, the journalist must turn it over — despite the freedom of the press guaranteed under the 1st Amendment.

No reporter can enter into an agreement that violates that law. Rather, an agreement of confidentiality is subject to it. The so-called news person's privilege, just like the attorney-client privilege or a president's executive privilege, is a qualified privilege. When a judge holds a reporter in contempt for violating the law, that judge is merely upholding the law of the land.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

44. Right

And when a journalist refuses to obey that order, finding it repugnant (as I think it is, too), then the journalist goes off on a contempt ruling.

But the "key to his own jail cell" canard still holds. You must remember that from law school.

(By the way, John Dean as an authoritative source? Really?)

[kohodog]

73. To me, this is a tough call.

On the one hand, I don't think journalists should be able to conceal knowledge of a crime of this nature. In a perfect world they should be required to testify. But if this case becomes a precident or in any way puts a chill on what's left of investigative journalism we are in much bigger trouble. I would love to believe that this case will bring some top neocons down, but if in so doing we inhibit freedom of the press we will in the long run be worse off.

I am not a lawyer, and I think the WH may be spinning this to keep the case from coming to a resoultion that may be devistating to them.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

76. BingBing,BINGO!!!!

Thank you for stating it so much better than I ever could.

Who doesn't want this bunch drawn and quartered?

But, there are far more important principles and liberties at stake here.

I am certain that the White House is absolutely playing this "investigation."

[robertpaulsen]

86. Hi kohodog!

:hi:

How've you been? It's been a while since the Plame threads, hasn't it?

You should read my post 39 on this thread. This case can't become a precedent, the precedent was set in 1972.

[kohodog]

93. Hi RP, great to see you!

Deja vu all over again (sort of)!

I want to believe this won't become a precedent, and in the real world it wouldn't have a chance. But these are Orwellian times and SCOTUS hangs in the balance. If Bush gets two SC appointments all bets are off and the press could well be squelched in paret due to this.

On thre other hand, if Time gives up the info...they have the article that was written but never published, Cooper will be off the hook and it will be like the Fascists eating their own. Fitzgerald will get his evidence, reporters will still have their confidential sources (Time may not), and journalism will go on. The nCorporate media is becoming less relevant anyway and the internet is doing the investigative work.

Am I missing something?

[kohodog]

94. Thanks for pointing me to your thread

I still miss the Plame threads! Guess this may become a reunion of sorts.

[joeunderdog]

98. "Investigative journalism" implies a constructive outcome.

Where's the benefit in exposing this knowledge? It's just the opposite. It's a felony. Outing CIA agents and destroying operations is treasonous and not enlightenment.

[kohodog]

99. Agreed

I have spent countless hours here on DU discussing the Plame case, and nothing would make me happier that to see Karl Rove or Scooter Libby frog marched out of the White House. And I firmly believe that there should be no protection for covering up a crime.

That being said, these are not normal times and what's left of journalism should not be stifled. I worry that this will set a precedent under this bunch of crooks and liars, especially if they gain the upper hand on SCOTUS. I'm hoping it's just the new foil hat I got, but it won't come off tonight.

[OzarkDem]

70. Exactly

The reporters are protecting criminal information in this situation. They're either complicit, extremely sympathetic to Bushco or fairly ignorant of the law.

Apparently the other reporters in this mess didn't have a problem discussing the criminal activity they witnessed.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

74. How do you know that?

You're privy to the fact that "criminal information" exists?

WOW!!!!!

You're on the Grand Jury? You're one of the investigators? You're a prosecutor?

WOW!!!!!!!!!

You're under arrest, then.

[OzarkDem]

78. Using your standard

No one would ever be convicted of a crime unless they confessed, correct?

[OldLeftieLawyer]

79. My "standard"????

My "standard" is following the law and the Constitution. That's my "standard."

I'm not sure how much you understand about how our criminal justice system works, so I'll just let it go here, and wish you well.

[OzarkDem]

82. Apparently neither do you.

Its senseless to argue with you. You don't seem to have the ability to be objective about this point of law, nor are you able to adequately defend your position.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

88. True, true

Who am I to debate the fine points of grand jury law with someone like you?

Shame on me.

But, you are right about one thing: I am fucking NEVER objective when the subject of Constitutionally protected rights comes up.

And you shouldn't be, either.

Oh, and I had no defending to do. You still haven't articulated the "crime."

[Hepburn]

109. Different issue, IMO:

You are speaking to the underlying possible criminal conduct and that is not at issue in the instant matter. The reason that Miller and Cooper would go to jail now is because of the disobedience of the court order compelling testimony. That is a contempt which is comprised of the following elements:

1. A valid court order
2. Actual knowledge of the order
3. Ability to comply
4. Willful disobedience

That is why they would go to jail right now. However, it appears that the judge has given them an opporunity to "purge" themselves of the contempt and if they do so, then they would not face jail time on the wilful disobedience of his order.

What else they may have done in connection with the leak of Plame's name is entirely separate from the issue of the contempt.

[Hepburn]

108. I agree...

...I am an Old Leftie Lawyer as well.

Miller and Cooper have been given time to purge themselves of the contempt. Since it appears that if they do not do so, they will be given a set sentence, then the purpose of the jail time is to punish their disobedience of the court order compelling them to testify. This is in contrast to the Susan McDougal situation where the jail time was indefinite and was done to coerce her testimony.

[progressivebydesign]

114. Time just announced they are handing over the notes...

I just saw a link to it on Yahoo. So.. does this mean we're going to find out who did it??? ?