Time reporter in contempt second time

[seemslikeadream]

Washington, United States, Oct. 14 (UPI) -- A Washington judge has held Time reporter Matthew Cooper in contempt a second time for refusing to name his sources for a story that identified a CIA agent.

Last week, New York Times reporter Judith Miller was found in contempt of court in the same investigation, and filed an immediate appeal. Cooper and Time will join her appeal, the Washington Post said.

In Wednesday's ruling, Chief U.S. District Judge Thomas Hogan ordered Cooper jailed for as long as 18 months, but stayed the order until after the appeal is heard. Hogan also found Time magazine in civil contempt for failing to produce documents and imposed a $1,000-a-day fine on the publication, also suspended until after the appeal.

...

In a July 17, 2003, story, Cooper wrote unidentified "government officials" told Time and syndicated columnist Robert Novak Valerie Plame, the wife of a former U.S. ambassador, is a CIA agent.

more
http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20041014-091317-8530r.htm

[lightbulb]

1. Woo! Tighten the vice

a little harder...

[merh]

2. Glad to hear Fitz is still working on this ...

With all of the scandals in the admin, it is hard to keep up with them all. IMHO, this is the most important investigation into the most evil crime of this admin.

[KansDem]

3. So how many times can you be "in contempt?"

Is it like a "three times, you're out" rule?

[Salviati]

4. one question: Why isn't novak in prison?

[camero]

5. Okay

SO WHY ISN'T NOVAK IN JAIL?

[Dookus]

7. because he broke no law

I don't know why people can't understand that. It is not illegal to publish the truth, nor should it be. Somebody in the government likely broke the law, not Novak.

[camero]

10. Pointing out the hypocracy here

They site this reporter with contempt for refusing to name sources yet Novak doesn't have to answer the same question. It's selective justice.

[seemslikeadream]

6. exhausted all other means to obtain the information

Patrick Fitzgerald, the special prosecutor investigating leaks of Plame's identity, called Cooper before the grand jury again, seeking the names of other sources. As before, Cooper refused.

But in issuing the contempt citation, he said the government had exhausted all other means to obtain the information. He effectively agreed with arguments by Jim Fleissner, a federal prosecutor from Chicago, who said a Supreme Court case from 1972, Branzburg v. Hayes, set precedent in such cases, requiring reporters to answer questions from grand juries about their sources.

more
http://www.iht.com/articles/2004/10/14/news/leak.html

[Mandate My Ass]

8. Grrrr "protecting confidential sources"

If they're invoking the shield law I think they're on shaky ground. AFAIK, that law was enacted so that journalists, pursuing a story of some public benefit such as exposing wrongdoing, could protect a source from disclosure and repercussions.

These journalists were not pursuing a story...they were contacted by the WH. The story was the phone call and the disclosure did not benefit the public in any way. Exposing a covert WMD operative put many people in danger. It's only benefit was to the leaker who was breaking the law and using the journalists as accessories to commit a crime.

[MasonJar]

9. Nice ploy by the lot of them, including Fitzgerald, to keep every-

thing under wraps until after the election.