Daily Kos

PLAME AFFAIR: NYT reports subpoenas

by Marisacat

Sat May 22, 2004 at 07:21:48 PM PDT

The New York Times is reporting that subpoenas have been by a federal grand jury to "at least" two journalists.

Named in the Times piece, online tonight and in the print edition tomorrow, are Tim Russert of NBC and Matthew Cooper of TIME.

A federal grand jury has subpoenaed at least two journalists, Tim Russert of NBC's "Meet the Press" and Matthew Cooper of Time magazine, to testify about whether the Bush White House leaked the identity of an undercover C.I.A. officer to the news media.

Lawyers for NBC and Time said they would fight the subpoenas. NBC said its subpoena could have a "chilling effect" on its ability to report the news.
...
Subpoenas to the news media are rare, and many courts have acknowledged significant legal protections for the press. But the leading Supreme Court case, decided in 1972, rejected the argument that the First Amendment protected reporters from grand jury subpoenas seeking information about crimes they have witnessed.

In the Plame investigation, the journalists could be in a similar position. Not all leaks are crimes, but there is a law that specifically prohibits the disclosure of the identities of undercover intelligence operatives.
...
Devereux Chatillon, an expert in First Amendment law at Sonnenschein, Nath & Rosenthal, a New York law firm, said the subpoenas in the Plame matter were surprising and troubling.

"Subpoenas to the press at all, much less for confidential sources, are extremely unusual, certainly from the federal government," Ms. Chatillon said. "Without protection for confidential sources, the press cannot report effectively on things like the Abu Ghraib scandal," she said, in reference to the abuse of Iraqi prisoners by American soldiers.

Along the way in the article it mentions that the DoJ dislclosed in '01 that it had issuef 88 subpoenas to the press in the previous decade.

Long hot summer coming.... If we can just escape the Rapture Up! effect.

Tags: (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 48 comments

  •  about time.... (4.00 / 2)

    Man, is this gonna get interesting...

    If all legal maneuvers are at some time exhausted, would Russert sit in jail to protect a corrupt administration?

    Say Tim, what would Big Russ tell ya to do??

    Darcy's gonna getcha Dave!

    by Jsea on Sat May 22, 2004 at 07:10:49 PM PDT

    •  What About Bob? (none / 0)

      Blogged this earlier. It seems conspicuous whose subpoenea is missing here.

      The Thorn Papers
      Y'all come by now.

      by mitch2k2 on Sat May 22, 2004 at 07:25:02 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Bob "Douchebag for Liberty" Novak (none / 1)

        Yes, indeed. I was wondering the same thing. How about a subpoena for the motherfucker who outed Plame in the first place???

        -9.63, -7.03 Rage, rage against the Lying of the Right

        by Maryscott OConnor on Sat May 22, 2004 at 07:26:59 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  maybe he's a target (none / 0)

          http://dumpjoe.com/

          by ctkeith on Sat May 22, 2004 at 07:31:56 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  They're not subpoenaing the 6 (4.00 / 2)

            Not just Bob, but all the 6 people who were first leaked to (as far as I know, which after a few glasses of wine, isn't that far) are not being subpoenaed.

            That leads me to believe they're trying to use a different strategy.

            Rather than sub-p-ing those who can finger the actual criminal (who told Bobbie No-facts about Plame), they're using journalists in a corroborating capacity, but in such a way that it doesn't hurt their sourcing.

            Here's what I mean. Pincus and another WaPo reporter were the first to be sub-p-naed in this round. But, as I said then, I think their reporting on this was limited to the September leak--ostensibly Collin Powell telling them that some fool tried to out Plame for political gain. So why subpoena them? Because 1) it corroborates Powell as actually knowing what he claimed to know, and 2) it doesn't threaten the basic concepts of sourcing that we hold dear. It is a halfway measure to get evidence for a tough and high profile case.

            When we learn that Andrea Mitchell has been subpoenaed, I'll revise that. But until then, I'll assume they're sub-p-ing journalists who learned things secondarily and therefore can provide corroborating evidence.

            This is the way democracy ends Not with a bomb But with a gavel -Max Baucus

            by emptywheel on Sat May 22, 2004 at 08:56:34 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  ..."at least" two... it says. (none / 1)

        Perhaps by tomorrow we have other names as well.

        by Marisacat on Sat May 22, 2004 at 07:30:24 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  drumming fingers on table... (none / 0)

        yes, what about Bob?  Maybe they're hoping these two will help them get Novak?

        Bush's Vietnam

        by raincat100 on Sat May 22, 2004 at 07:35:29 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Now that I think about it (none / 0)

          It seems likely to me that Bob would be a target in this investigation, not just a witness.  He seems to have persisted in publishing classified information after he knew he shouldn't have outed Valerie Plame.

          Then again, he is a wingnut, and hence a bit of a coward.  Perhaps he folded early, agreed to turn state's evidence and has already given a sworn affidavit.

          by Jonathan on Sat May 22, 2004 at 07:44:55 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Perhaps... (none / 0)

        ...they're saving the best for last?  I have a feeling that we're just getting started, and this is the direction the evidence has taken of late.  

        Then again, maybe they're trying to shake people up.

        by Jonathan on Sat May 22, 2004 at 07:38:32 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Thinking over how slobbery (none / 0)

      Tim has been for weeks over Big Russ (fine, love Dad, but damn) and forever over everything else... it occurs to me the sick kick coming is Russert spins this as First Amendment grand martyr.
      I'll be ill.

      CNN reporting it now... They only mention Russert and Cooper.

      by Marisacat on Sat May 22, 2004 at 07:44:08 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Location in the Times (none / 0)

      I actually read this article in my physical copy of the Times, but despite nearly reading the paper cover to cover, I almost missed it. It was literally buried on the third to last page of the front page section.

      Just goes to show that even though y'all and I are attuned to this, it has still yet to seriously penetrate Joe Public. Either that, the Times is intentionally trying to bury it's own newsmaking.

      by Loudocracy on Sun May 23, 2004 at 07:55:11 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  More pots on the fire (none / 1)

    Blair is building a caudron to boil Bush and Rumsfeld alive.

    How 'bout this, Marisacat...The British have delivered a 6-page diplomatic note to Bush. You and I know this is huge. It got leaked to the Sunday Times (UK). There just a few sentences over at Le Monde

    "The moral authority of the Coalition has been tainted... The heavy-handed US methods used in Falluja and Najaf several weeks ago have reinforced the Sunni opposition to the Coalition as well as that of the Shi'ites; these actions have caused us to lose much support within Iraq....The scandal of the treatment of prisoners in Abu Gharib has sapped the moral authority of the coaltion both inside Iraq and internationally....We find it necessary to redouble our efforts to ensure sensible and reasonable efforts by the America in its military operations.

    Note the superbly worded Anglo put-down: We find it necessary....  Yeouch!

    by paper tigress on Sat May 22, 2004 at 07:17:02 PM PDT

    •  Oh my... (none / 1)

      Clearly the "special relationship" is being reconsidered... which the Guardian has said for weeks had to be done.
      Oh to be a butterly in the WH garden...or at Crawford.

      by Marisacat on Sat May 22, 2004 at 07:22:57 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Miss Translation (none / 1)

        Dang I'm sorry...I mistranslated...it's not a diplomatic note...it's a confidential memo from the foreign office which has been leaked to embarrass blair. Bad but not a Level One. Sorry.

        by paper tigress on Sat May 22, 2004 at 07:32:50 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  It comes down to this: (none / 0)

        for Blair to remain as PM [and Labour MPs are talking w/Gordon Brown] he has to cut the tie that binds with Bush, severally and NOW...

        An unexamined life is not worth living - Socrates

        by crone on Sat May 22, 2004 at 08:08:15 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Sa-weet (none / 0)

          I was on the phone with my father in law tonight--he's Irish. And not long into the converation he basically said we're at odds politically. I said, "huh?", father-in-law being much closer to me politically than his son my husband is.

          It was Abu Ghraib.

          And he wasn't blaming me. But the only way he could express his horror was to pit me against him.

          A very uncomfortable moment, let me tell you. "I didn't do it!!" I said, knowing that it was done in my name.

          Blair, like me, needs to sever those ties, PDQ.

          This is the way democracy ends Not with a bomb But with a gavel -Max Baucus

          by emptywheel on Sat May 22, 2004 at 09:01:13 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  As of now, Scotsman has most info (none / 0)

      At this time, the newspaper Scotsman seems to be publishing the most info about this (other than the (UK) Times which you have to pay to get access to, and I don't.)

      by MonkeyBoy on Sat May 22, 2004 at 10:00:55 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  all the subpoeas listed employment of those (none / 0)

    involved as propagandists not jounalists.I guess that takes care of that. lol

    http://dumpjoe.com/

    by ctkeith on Sat May 22, 2004 at 07:29:26 PM PDT

  •  Anyone else thinking what I'm thinking? (none / 0)

    Wilson's story is that WH agents shopped the story around to at least 6 journalists (Novak bit).  Obviously these two are part of the 6.  

    Anyone else thinking, aha, I knew Russert was in with Bush!

    McCain: Less jobs, more war.

    by Unstable Isotope on Sat May 22, 2004 at 07:35:57 PM PDT

  •  Matthews and Campbell Brown (none / 1)

    were also subpoened, according to articles on Friday.

    I'm not sure, but the "this is rare" argument is being used as a basis to quash the subpoenas.

    But 88 in 120 months, during the 90s.  That's two every three months.  That seems like alot to me.  I can name any media person who was subpoened during the 90s.

    Evans and Novak's The Big Question:  Will they let Timmy do MTP from his prison cell??

    And why won't that fat turkey have Seymour Hersh on as a guest??  He's everywhere else.

    McCain: He's Constipated and Ready to GO

    by Al Rodgers on Sat May 22, 2004 at 07:37:30 PM PDT

  •  Tweety(Chris Mathews) (none / 0)

    Already signed a sworn statement implicating Rove I believe.

    http://dumpjoe.com/

    by ctkeith on Sat May 22, 2004 at 07:44:19 PM PDT

  •  On the other hand . . . (none / 1)

    this might be a desperation move, that they have exhausted other lines of information and are resorting to this to get some information.  It may not be a good sign.  I am sure Novak has already refused to cough up the names (there  are two WH sources, I think), and I would be surprised if the other journalists name names, either.  If the prosecuter had the info he wanted, I do not think he would be going for the journalists.

    by tomcat on Sat May 22, 2004 at 07:46:17 PM PDT

    •  sometimes (none / 0)

      it takes a lot of interviews to get enough cross-references to connect the dots.  They had a long subpoena list published in Salon in March(If I am reading the date right).

      The ...Bushies... don't make policies to deal with problems. ...It's all about how can we spin what's happening out there to do what we want to do. Krugman

      by mikepridmore on Sat May 22, 2004 at 08:10:25 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Moreover (none / 1)

      I suspect a number of journalists would like to spill their guts--with cover of subpoena. So it might be just a way to add evidentiary logs to the fire.

      This is the way democracy ends Not with a bomb But with a gavel -Max Baucus

      by emptywheel on Sat May 22, 2004 at 09:05:37 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  FYI (none / 0)

        http://www.rcfp.org/behindthehomefront/

        "Sources close to the case see the requests as a signal that the leak investigation is winding up and as a precursor to issuing subpoenas to the journalists, according to the Times . Justice Department guidelines require prosecutors to exhaust all alternatives before turning to reporters and to negotiate with reporters before issuing subpoenas."

        An unexamined life is not worth living - Socrates

        by crone on Sat May 22, 2004 at 09:22:05 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I've seen that (none / 0)

          But it really doesn't address motivation.

          If you're a journalist, you've got to protect your ability to maintain sources. But you also (often) have your own private biases. A lot of the journalists involved here would like to give credit to the profession by clearing up who outed whom.

          They can't do that verbatim.

          But they can, with minimal amounts of guilt/loss of credibility if they've been subp.d. So subpoena them, it's easy, cheap, and a good way to corroborate evidence.

          This is the way democracy ends Not with a bomb But with a gavel -Max Baucus

          by emptywheel on Sat May 22, 2004 at 10:19:24 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Not a good sign (none / 0)

      this might be a desperation move, that they have exhausted other lines of information and are resorting to this to get some information.  It may not be a good sign.

      Yeah, it's my understanding that subpoenaing journalists usually represents a last-ditch effort. Grand juries merely review evidence to see if it justifies an indictment -- they don't have to assert "beyond a reasonable doubt" -- and if they had enough evidence, they'd just start issuing indictments.

      OTOH, maybe Fitzgerald is simply being thorough.

      by sakitume on Sun May 23, 2004 at 09:38:36 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Chilling effect (4.00 / 4)

    Lawyers for NBC and Time said they would fight the subpoenas. NBC said its subpoena could have a "chilling effect" on its ability to report the news.

    Yes, it would have a chilling effect on anonymous flacks disclosing the names of undercover agents. That would totally suck. </sarcasm>

    by ploeg on Sat May 22, 2004 at 07:48:38 PM PDT

    •  Chilling effect II (none / 0)

      When I read this:

      NBC said its subpoena could have a "chilling effect" on its ability to report the news.

      my first thought was, "yeah, and how long has it been since they actually reported the news?  Would we even notice if they were chilled?

      Words can sometimes, in moments of grace, attain the quality of deeds. --Elie Wiesel

      by a gilas girl on Sun May 23, 2004 at 06:24:00 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Pumpkin head take down (none / 0)

    Mick Lemann has a nice take down of the Russert's book in this week's New Yorker.

    by ftm on Sat May 22, 2004 at 07:56:50 PM PDT

    •  Nick Lemann that is (none / 0)

      by ftm on Sat May 22, 2004 at 08:01:19 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Thanks for posting that (none / 0)

        ... god it ws despressing.  Like lots of people, I've watched MTP since childhood and the transition coming finally to rest on Russert, well, it is emblematic of the enormous "big crash" we are in, ushered in by the "believers" as I call them.  Ugh.  

        The recollection of the Cheney interview following 9/11 and Big Russ's admonition prior to it, well the yogourt in my stomach simply turned to acid.

        by Marisacat on Sat May 22, 2004 at 08:47:41 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Leeman really captures the shallowness of Russert (none / 1)

          With entertainment values so controlling these "news" shows, personalities like Russert  -- who spends a good portion of each program replenishing his own status by either pandering to powerful guest or trashing the out of power guests -- seem in an irreversible ascendancy. At least, if Bush and the rethugs are finally on the way out, Russert et al. will now have to go through some contortions to worship the new set of political masters.  

          by ftm on Sat May 22, 2004 at 09:41:20 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  March subpoena list for Plame case: (4.00 / 2)

    http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2004/03/08/plame/

    The subpoena list includes: Robert Novak, "Crossfire," "Capital Gang" and the Chicago Sun-Times; Knut Royce and Timothy M. Phelps, Newsday; Walter Pincus, Richard Leiby, Mike Allen, Dana Priest and Glenn Kessler, The Washington Post; Matthew Cooper, John Dickerson, Massimo Calabresi, Michael Duffy and James Carney, Time magazine; Evan Thomas, Newsweek; Andrea Mitchell, "Meet the Press," NBC; Chris Matthews, "Hardball," MSNBC; Tim Russert, Campbell Brown, NBC; Nicholas D. Kristof, David E. Sanger and Judith Miller, The New York Times; Greg Hitt and Paul Gigot, The Wall Street Journal; John Solomon, The Associated Press; and Jeff Gannon, Talon News.

    Maybe more than just the four already mentioned are either getting subpoenas or have already gotten them?

    The ...Bushies... don't make policies to deal with problems. ...It's all about how can we spin what's happening out there to do what we want to do. Krugman

    by mikepridmore on Sat May 22, 2004 at 08:01:34 PM PDT

  •  Will Plame and Chalabi affairs intersect? (none / 0)

    Farther out on a speculative limb than I like to go, and there are some contraindications, but ...

    Plame's focus was nuclear proliferation. Somebody fooled us into going hard after a non-existent nuke program in Iraq, while a real serious nuke program went undetected next door in Iran. Then a leak neutalized Plame (and presumably a network of related sources) ... which could be very much in Iran's interest.

    If Chalabi was Iran's man, and Chalabi knew more than he should have known by virture of scuttling up and down the stovepipe, could he have played a role (such as instigator or deniable intermediary) in Plame's outing?

    The Great Obama might saw the lady in half, but he won't make the elephant disappear. The Confluence

    by RonK Seattle on Sat May 22, 2004 at 08:35:40 PM PDT

    •  Will Plame and Chalabi affairs intersect (none / 0)

      Interesting to note that Judith Miller was on the subpoena list. She had relatively little to do with the Plame affair, but as it turns out Chalabi was one of her principal sources.

      by ldm on Sat May 22, 2004 at 08:43:52 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  No, But (none / 0)

      They will indict (hopefully the same people). If I'm not mistaken, Libby should be on both lists. Does he get an exponential term then?  (10 years for Plame times another 10 for the whole Chalabi disaster?)

      This is the way democracy ends Not with a bomb But with a gavel -Max Baucus

      by emptywheel on Sat May 22, 2004 at 09:14:02 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  quite possibly (none / 0)

      From the same link as the subpoena list:

      Also sought in the wide-ranging document requests contained in three grand jury subpoenas to the Executive Office of President George W. Bush are records created in July by the White House Iraq Group, a little-known internal task force established in August 2002 to create a strategy to publicize the threat posed by Saddam Hussein.

      I can see how that might include those working with Chalabi.

      The ...Bushies... don't make policies to deal with problems. ...It's all about how can we spin what's happening out there to do what we want to do. Krugman

      by mikepridmore on Sat May 22, 2004 at 09:26:11 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  U.S. attorney running this investigation (4.00 / 2)

    is Patrick Fitzgerald, who's the U.S. attorney for Northern Illinois, i.e., Chicago. He's basically Elliot Ness -- tough, smart, honest. He scared the living daylights out of a lot of people (and I use the term loosely) who needed the living daylights scared out of them around here.

    I'm guessing he knows what he's doing, subpoenaing reporters, and I'm also guessing that it's deeper than it appears on the surface. Go get 'em, Pat.

    The Springfield IL paper said back in March:

    "There's been some talk that if Democrat JOHN KERRY wins the presidency, that could mean that PATRICK FITZGERALD, the Chicago-based U.S. attorney who is prosecuting former Gov. GEORGE RYAN on corruption charges, could be out of a job.
       But not if U.S. Sen. DICK DURBIN has a say in the matter. And Democratic U.S. Senate candidate BARACK OBAMA agrees.
       Durbin, who as the senior senator from Illinois would have the ear of a Democratic president on such appointments, would support having Fitzgerald stay on, said Durbin spokeswoman CHRISTINA ANGAROLA.
      In fact, Durbin also hopes that Fitzgerald is assigned to investigate how Republicans got hold of Democratic computer memos in Washington.
       Obama, in Springfield last week after his sweeping win in the primary, said he, too, would recommend that Fitzgerald be retained."

    by strawhat on Sat May 22, 2004 at 11:10:45 PM PDT

Permalink | 48 comments